Author: southwerk

I am a 53 year old teacher. I have double major in Speech and Criminal Justice resulting in a Bachelor's degree from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma and a law degree.

Chris MacDonald Discusses Loophole Flouting

On By southwerkIn business ethics

 Chris MacDonald Discusses Loophole Flouting

Chris MacDonald writing from The Business Ethics Blog is discussing Japanese whaling practices as these actions connect to the larger moral and ethical framework of the nation at large. It’s a good read. I recommend it. If you have time, go to his web site and read the full post (and then sign yourself up as a follower!).

James Pilant

Chris MacDonaldJapan’s loophole flouting is bad for business | The Business Ethics Blog

Japan has flouted the 1986 moratorium on whaling, making use of a loophole that allows whaling for scientific purposes. In effect, the country’s fleet kills whales for what it claims are “scientific” purposes, and sells the meat for human consumption. You don’t have to be an ardent defender of the world’s whales to see the problems inherent in an having a key player in the world’s economy flouting an international standard.

And just think for a minute about that approach to compliance. It effectively means adopting the credo, do what you want, spirit of the law be damned, as long as you can find even the narrowest of loopholes. What example does has the country’s leadership been setting for the business community? How can government ministers look business leaders in the eye and encourage them to cleave to the meaning and intent of regulations? How can the government ask business, without risking hypocrisy, not to make cynical, self-serving use of loopholes?

Naturally, the government of Japan is not alone in this dilemma. The demands of political expediency often mean that political leaders get caught in a do-as-I say, not-as-I-do self-contradiction. But Japan’s stance on whaling seems a particularly blatant example. And the future of the issue still remains unclear. Japan has only committed to cancelling its whale hunt for this year. Time will tell whether the Japanese government, on this issue at least, demonstrates character worthy of emulation, or instead goes back to an approach aimed merely at securing short-term gains.

via Japan’s loophole flouting is bad for business | The Business Ethics Blog.

From around the web.

From the web site, Ethics and the Environment.

http://ethicsandtheenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/the-purpose-of-this-blog/

The Australian government has taken legal action against Japan over concerns Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean was not done for scientific purposes.

According to BBC news, the case is been held in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, with Australia arguing that Japan’s scientific whaling program (under which it kills whales) is commercial whaling in disguise. A moratorium which bans commercial whaling was put in place in 1986 by the International whaling commission.

According to The Age, a Melbourne based newspaper, Australia Government counsel Bill Campbell told the court, “Japan seeks to cloak its ongoing commercial whaling in the lab coat of science.”

Mike Double from the Australia Antarctic division told AlJazeera Japan’s scientific whaling was not scientific because whales do not have to be killed to be study.

“We simply do not need to kill whales for the science,” he said. “We can collect all the information we need to conserve and manage these whales through non-lethal methods.”

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, who is representing Australia in court, said that more than 10,000 whales had been killed by Japanese whalers since the moratorium was introduced.

He said Australia wanted to see whaling practices halted “once and for all.”

SEC Member Doesn’t Like Shareholder Democracy

On By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

108-1SEC Member Doesn’t Like Shareholder Democracy

Some things are the way they are supposed to be. Some things are not. An excellent example is shareholders and corporations. The perspective that most people have in a capitalist, private property system is that if you own a company, your decisions should determine what the company does. And this does happen when the stockholders control very large amounts of stock, for instance, in close corporations. But the influential and powerful corporations often have thousands of stockholders. When the stockholder base is diffused among so many players, it is very difficult for the stockholders to exert effective control.

As a result of this very large corporations tend to operate under CEO leadership with little input from shareholders.

In very large corporations, control by management (a combination of the directors and officers) is maintained with a very small percentage of stock ownership through the use of corporate records and funds to solicit proxies. (Reed, 2010)

Now let’s take a look at the Reuters article.

Any investor who owns at least $2,000 or 1 percent of a company’s stock for a year or more can bring a shareholder proposal, so long as it meets certain requirements. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved Fredrich’s pitch because it was designed to financially benefit all GE owners and not just him.

That, at least, distinguishes it from resolutions involving environmental, political or social issues that may not serve the interests of shareholders generally. SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher, speaking to the annual confab of M&A practitioners last week at Tulane University in New Orleans, argues that “it’s time we asked whether the shareholder proposal system as currently designed is a net negative for the average investor.”

Gallagher, one of two Republicans on the five-member SEC, claims it’s too easy for investors to get resolutions on company ballots. As a result, activists and corporate gadflies “hijack” elections, he says. The commissioner cited statistics showing that a third of proposals come from organized labor and a quarter from social or policy investors and religious institutions.

The upshot is a system that encourages “taking money out of the pocket of someone investing for retirement or their child’s education and using it instead to subsidize activist agendas,” according to Gallagher. The SEC’s rules, he says, should ensure that these activists do not “crowd out every-day and long-term investors” or advance causes “inconsistent with the promotion of shareholder value.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2014/04/01/rob-cox-ge-should-put-itself-up-for-sale/

Cox, R. (2014, April 1). Rob cox: Ge should put itself up for sale. Reuters, U.S. Edition, Retrieved from http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2014/04/01/rob-cox-ge-should-put-itself-up-for-sale/

Daniel Gallagher doesn’t like the current system because it’s too easy to get resolutions on company ballots. That is a fascinating conclusion to reach considering the facts.  There 10,033,130,000 shares of GE stock and this year there will be six resolutions for the stockholders to vote on. That number (6) would seem to imply that it is not that easy to get a resolution approved for a shareholder vote. Now, it is not publicly disclosed by the company how many actual shareholders exist but since the number of the shares exceeds the population of this planet by a comfortable margin, there are probably a lot of them. So, a disinterested observer might well think the system wasn’t broke at least in the direction of too many resolutions.

But the best part is the quote from above: “taking money out of the pocket of someone investing  for retirement or their child’s education and using it instead to subsidize activist agendas.” So, when shareholders vote to use their control of their investment, their money, to do something they want rather than maximize profit they’re stealing from children and retirees. It makes one weep that people should vote to decide what to do with their investments.

Gallagher understands that the only reason a corporation exists is to enhance shareholder value, and when some vile activist or corporate gadfly persuades gullible shareholders to do things like invest in America, the natural order of things has been violated and shareholder control must be reined in.

But shareholders have rights in the control of the company because they own it. And democracy is messy. Some people will make illogical or unrealistic proposals. Some will  and have made proposals that Gallagher will not approve of. But investors should be able to make decisions about their company and voting – democracy is the best way to do that. There is no rule from on-high or anywhere else that shareholder value is the only or even the most important goal of a corporation. Stockholders can decide to do something else.

We have reached a point at which stockholders appear to gaining a little more control over the companies they own. There are people, as there always are, who think they know best what should be done with these companies even though they don’t own so much as a single share, because, well, they like Mr. Gallagher, just know.

James Pilant

*Reed, O. (2010). The legal and regulatory environment of business. (15th Edition ed., p. 420). Boston: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Analysis & Opinion | Reuters (There is some content also used above but if that content was removed, the section below wouldn’t make sense. jp)

Gallagher, one of two Republicans on the five-member SEC, claims it’s too easy for investors to get resolutions on company ballots. As a result, activists and corporate gadflies “hijack” elections, he says. The commissioner cited statistics showing that a third of proposals come from organized labor and a quarter from social or policy investors and religious institutions.

The upshot is a system that encourages “taking money out of the pocket of someone investing for retirement or their child’s education and using it instead to subsidize activist agendas,” according to Gallagher. The SEC’s rules, he says, should ensure that these activists do not “crowd out every-day and long-term investors” or advance causes “inconsistent with the promotion of shareholder value.”

He’s right, to a point. It is a waste of time for investors to vet proposals that have nothing to do with the stewardship of their capital. But stifling shareholder speech has consequences. Stricter limits may allow, say, GE to keep a silly measure calling for its sale off the ballot, but they could also prevent owners from voting on more intelligent notions, like splitting the chairman and chief executive roles.

The Supreme Court ruled four years ago that free speech rights apply to corporations under the Constitution, including the right to make campaign contributions to politicians that favor profit-making causes. Shareholders also deserve protection under the First Amendment – no matter how wacky they may sometimes sound.

via Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.

From around the web.

From the web site, Global Corporate Law.

http://globalcorporatelaw.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/shareholder-democracy-and-future-reform/

Writing on the corporate governance blog earlier this month, Bob Tricker observed that “serious”  interest in corporate governance is a recent phenomenon which only came to the fore following Sir Alan Cadbury’s 1992 Report. The dichotomy is that despite the existence of regulatory bodies such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission since the mid-1930s, it was not until problems such as the Enron scandal, the sub-prime crisis and more recent Libor scandal – that “corporate governance” became a buzzword in the business sphere, company law and regulation.

For Tricker, corporate governance  – to which constructs such as marketing, production, finance, operations research, and management information systems have only recently ceded ground – is quickly becoming the focus of a company’s organisational chart. Themes such as the board of directors, executive directors’ remuneration and their relationship with management are all now very much at the apex of the debate about issues such as shareholder democracy, accountability and transparency in the corporate sphere. It is often said that good corporate governance is about promises kept: Macey, Corporate Governance: Promises Kept, Promises Broken (2010). Conversely, bad corporate governance is considered “promise breaking behaviour”.

The UK – which is seen as a “laboratory” for shareholder activism – has high rates of executive remuneration and on average bosses earn seventy five times more than workers.

Ethical Reasoning

On By southwerkIn business ethics

I enjoyed this writing and can’t help but believe that there business ethics implications here as well.

bzaharatos's avatarWhat is Called Thinking?

Experimental philosophers and sociologists have become interested in the way in which people attempt to reason about ethical choices. Some of their studies have found that people, and especially Americans, think about ethical choices from a relativistic framework. Such people are called ethical relativists. In short, ethical relativists believe that ethical standards are a matter of personal opinion or taste. So, for example, when one says that it is wrong to cheat or lie, one is simply expressing their opinion with respect to cheating or lying in a particular context.

But ethical relativism is a problematic position. For one, if ethical relativism is true, we are in no position to say that an action performed by others is wrong; after all, if ethical standards are a matter of personal opinion, then it is only one’s opinion that some action is wrong. This has far reaching consequences. It follows that…

View original post 409 more words

The Ethics Sage Calls for Ethical Reasoning Skills

On By southwerkIn Editorial

The Ethics Sage Calls for Ethical Reasoning Skills

Steven Mintz, the Ethics Sage is calling for ethical reasoning skills to be added to teaching in the United States. It is an idea that carries real merit and deserves your consideration. Please read.

James Pilant

The Ethics Sage
The Ethics Sage

 Developing the Reasoning Skills through Education to Create a More Ethical Society – Ethics Sage

Late in life Adam Smith observed that government institutions can never tame and regulate a society whose citizens are not schooled in a common set of virtues. “What institutions of government could tend so much to promote the happiness of mankind as the general prevalence of wisdom and virtue? All government is but an imperfect remedy for the deficiency of these.” In other words, Smith knew that virtue, or traits of character as espoused by the ancient Greeks, are essential to making our free market economy work and deliver prosperity under our capitalistic system.

Now we learn that the College Board will overhaul the SAT in 2016. Saying its college admission exams do not focus on the important academic skills, there will be fundamental changes in the exam including ending the longstanding penalty for guessing wrong, cutting obscure vocabulary words and making the essay optional. The latter is disturbing at a time when both college professors and recruiters are criticizing the lack of writing skills of today’s college graduates.

I’m disappointed that the College Board chose not to use the opportunity to introduce ethical reasoning skills. It is the one way we have a chance, as a society, to reverse the declining work ethic that threatens our economic leadership position in the world.

via Developing the Reasoning Skills through Education to Create a More Ethical Society – Ethics Sage.

From around the web.

From the web site, Prime Network.

http://primenetwork.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/academic-dishonesty-and-ethical-reasoning/

Honesty and integrity are vital attributes of any physician or health-care worker, since our work involves dealing with vulnerable people who have to put their trust in us and our judgements.

They are also necessary integral parts of the academic basis for our professional practice – our science must be correct, and we must know what we are doing and be competent at it. Sadly however there is ample evidence to suggest that academic dishonesty remains an area of concern for academic and professional bodies. There is also burgeoning research in the area of moral reasoning and its relevance to the teaching of pharmacy and medicine, including how it is linked to academic honesty.

A just-published paper from the University of Auckland in New Zealand explored academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning in 433 pharmacy and medicine students.1 A questionnaire eliciting responses about academic dishonesty (copying, cheating, and collusion) and their decisions regarding an ethical dilemma was distributed. Multivariate analysis procedures were conducted. The findings suggested that copying and collusion may be linked to the way students make ethical decisions. Students more likely to suggest unlawful and inappropriate solutions to the ethical dilemma were also more likely to disclose engagement in copying information and colluding with other students.

Perhaps somewhat charitably, the authors say, ‘These findings imply that students engaging in academic dishonesty may be using different ethical frameworks’, and that ‘employing ethical dilemmas would likely create a useful learning framework for identifying students employing dishonest strategies when coping with their studies. Increasing understanding through dialogue about engagement in academic honesty will likely construct positive learning outcomes in the university with implications for future practice.’

Let Him Rot in Prison.

On By southwerkIn Editorial1 Comment

strangecourt1000103140Let Him Rot in Prison.

Robert H. Richards IV has been convicted of fourth degree rape of his daughter. The judge has concluded that he should not serve time in prison because he would not “fare well” in prison. That is surprising. Prison is not generally considered to be a positive experience. Retribution is one of the key goals of prison. Punishing people for the crimes they commit is a tenet of the American justice system. Yet, Mr. Richards will not suffer retribution or punishment. Because he would not “fare well” in prison, he will be sent to treatment instead.

Is there anything that sets him apart from other child molesters? He is immensely wealthy and related to one of the most powerful families in American History, the Du Pont dynasty. Cynicism might indicate that there was a direct relationship between Richard’s social status and his sentence to non-imprisonment. But that would be difficult to accept because of the awful implications.

If you were to accept that wealth distorted the court result that would evidence two sets of justice – one for people in the exceptionally wealthy situation of Mr. Richards, and another for the rest of us. That would mean if you or someone you know stands before a court he is likely to do hard time while a wealthy person committing the same crime will get treatment.

If punishment deters from committing crimes then you and others in your social class will be deterred but if you are wealthy, you will not be deterred. One group, yours, gets “justice.” The other group gets treatment. If you commit a crime, you are considered a criminal that makes bad decisions and does terrible things. If they commit a crime they are diagnosed with psychological problems beyond their control that require treatment – so they can get better.

Does that strike you as unfair? Do you think that what’s happening here sounds like money distorting our system of justice? Do you get an impression of judges being less beholden to duty and more beholden to social class and influence?

Two systems of justice are not fair. It’s not fair to send poor and middle class citizens to prison while giving the wealthy treatment as an alternative.

Robert H. Richards IV committed a terrible crime. He should be punished for it. That he will not fare well in prison is not an argument. It’s a pathetic justification for a bad judge making a bad decision. It deserves derision.

Richards should do hard time. It’s what they call justice.

James Pilant

Did wealth keep a child molester out of jail? – Salon.com

Six years ago, Robert H. Richards IV pleaded guilty to fourth-degree rape of his daughter. Though the offense carried a potential sentence of up to 15 years, he has not served time in prison for his actions. In sentencing him, Judge Jan Jurden instead ordered him to participate in a treatment program for sex offenders but reasoned that the “defendant will not fare well in Level 5 [prison] setting.” The judge’s order also included the urging that “Treatment needs exceed need for punishment.” The child, by the way, was 3 years old at the time of the offense.

If “probably not going to do well in there” is the benchmark for getting out of prison sentences, I wonder who then ought to be left to dwell within our nation’s overflowing penal facilities. But to be fair, Robert H. Richards IV is a pretty special guy. In addition to being a convicted child rapist, the Delaware man is the great grandson of Du Pont family patriarch Irénée du Pont. He is listed as the owner of a 5,800-square-foot, $1.8 million home near the Du Pont family’s Winterthur Museum, and another near Rehoboth Beach. He lives on his trust fund. So, yeah, you can see how a man like that couldn’t possibly have been subjected to the rigors of a correctional center.

The case has only come to public attention this week because Richards’ ex-wife, Tracy Richards, has come forward with a Superior Court lawsuit “seeking compensatory and punitive damages for assault, negligence, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on his two children.” Mrs. Richards says that her daughter, now aged 11, was assaulted several times by her father when she was a preschooler. Horrifyingly, the lawsuit, which includes information from the original criminal case, says the he “entered her bedroom at night while she slept and penetrated her with his fingers while masturbating.” The incidents came to light when, her grandmother says, she told the woman she didn’t want “daddy touching me anymore.” The suit also alleges that Mr. Richards hinted in 2010 that “he sexually abused his son. Those assaults began around December 2005, when the boy was 19 months old, and continued for about two years.” A probation officer’s progress report notes “the possibility of sexual contact” with the son, though police who investigated the case said at the time they didn’t have sufficient evidence to charge him of any wrongdoing toward the baby.

via Did wealth keep a child molester out of jail? – Salon.com.

From around the web.

From the web site, Sheeple.

http://helpthesheeple.com/2014/03/31/one-percenter-convicted-of-raping-infant-child-dodges-jail-because-he-will-not-fare-well/

One Percenter Convicted Of Raping Infant Child Dodges Jail Because He ‘Will Not Fare Well’

This man should not get prison time, he should be brought out back and shot like an animal.

A Delaware man convicted of raping his three-year-old daughter only faced probation after a state Superior Court judge ruled he “will not fare well” in prison.

In her decision, Judge Jan Jurden suggested Robert H. Richards IV would benefit more from treatment. Richards, who was charged with fourth-degree rape in 2009, is an unemployed heir living off his trust fund. The light sentence has only became public as the result of a subsequent lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, which charges that he penetrated his daughter with his fingers while masturbating, and subsequently assaulted his son as well.

Richards is the great grandson of du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, a chemical baron.

According to the lawsuit filed by Richards’ ex-wife, he admitted to assaulting his infant son in addition to his daughter between 2005 and 2007. Richards was initially indicted on two counts of second-degree child rape, felonies that translate to a 10-year mandatory jail sentence per count. He was released on $60,000 bail while awaiting his charges.

Richards hired one of the state’s top law firms and was offered a plea deal of one count of fourth-degree rape charges — which carries no mandatory minimum prison sentencing. He accepted, and admitted to the assault.

In her sentence, Jurden said he would benefit from participating in a sex offenders rehabilitation program rather than serving prison time.

Steven Mintz Has Written a Textbook

On By southwerkIn business ethics
The Ethics Sage
The Ethics Sage

Steven Mintz Has Written a Textbook

My friend, Steven Mintz, has a new textbook. Below is a segment of the review. Please share my pleasure at the accomplishments of a colleague.

James Pilant

Steve Mintz Accounting Ethics Textbook Reviewed – Ethics Sage

From a review by W. Steve Albrecht in the Journal of Business Ethics, March 2014

One of the book’s great strengths is its excellent cases. The first seven chapters include 10 cases each, many of them famous ethical cases where accountants, executives, and corporate directors have been sued or held liable for their decisions and actions. I have personally been an expert witness in several of the cases covered in the book and so I studied the authors’ treatment of these cases in detail. Their write-ups were always accurate, presented in an interesting manner and provided great references for further study by students. The accuracy of the cases led me to follow up on several of the references cited in the chapters which I also found helpful. My conclusion after reading the book, examining in detail some of the cases and reading the 20 discussion questions per chapter was that this book would work equally well as a stand-alone ethics text or as an excellent supplement in auditing, corporate governance, financial reporting, or other business and accounting classes.

via Steve Mintz Accounting Ethics Textbook Reviewed – Ethics Sage.

From around the web.

From the web site, Cal Poly.

http://www.cob.calpoly.edu/faculty/steven-mintz/

Dr. Mintz enjoys an international reputation for research and teaching ethics in business and accounting. He has published two textbooks the most recent publication is Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in Accounting: Text and Cases. Dr. Mintz has published dozens of research papers in the areas of business ethics, accounting ethics, corporate governance and international accounting. Dr. Mintz teaches courses on accounting ethics and international accounting.

Dr. Mintz develops ethics training programs for organizations. He also develops and teaches continuing education courses in ethics for CPAs. His courses are used in twenty-states to meet their continuing education requirements for re-licensing.

Dr. Mintz is a widely sought out speaker at ethics and academic conferences. He has presented at: The Board of Director and Corporate Governance Research Conference in Henley, England; Global Finance & Research Conference in London; The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Trinidad & Tobago; Association of Asian-Pacific Accountants in Bangkok, Thailand; and the Asian International Business Association in Shanghai, China.

Dr. Mintz writes two popular blogs on ethics issues in business and society (ethicssage.com) and workplace ethics (workplaceethicsadvice). He has been interviewed by the NY Times for his expertise on workplace ethics.

The Gilded Age in Higher Education

On By southwerkIn business ethics1 Comment

007The Gilded Age in Higher Education

David Yamada is here discussing an important topic, that is, the “McDonaldization” of American businesses and institutions, in this case, colleges and universities. I share his concerns. Please visit his site and read not just this article but appreciate the depth of his knowledge in workplace issues.

James Pilant

As U.S. universities embrace the New Gilded Age, what institutions will help us to grow a better society? « Minding the Workplace

Of course, the fate of the public intellectual in higher education has been a subject of debate for some time now, especially since the 1987 appearance of Russell Jacoby’s important book, The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe. Among other things, Jacoby posited that sharp trends toward narrow specialization in academic scholarship were creating a professoriate that is less relevant to the major public issues of the day.

Yup, one could argue that part-time college teaching jobs, unpaid internships, “non-stipendiary” fellowships, and assorted volunteer gigs offer outlets for expression and creativity. And between individual blogs, sites like The Huffington Post, and free websites, there’s no shortage of online venues for publishing or sharing one’s work.

The problem is that most people have this weird need for food, shelter, and clothing. “Exposure” and “contacts” don’t pay for those basic necessities. A little bit of job security wouldn’t hurt either.

During the coming months, I will devote some space to exploring this and related questions, incorporating a variety of new and emerging voices on public intellectual life in this plutocratic, New Gilded Age. In doing so, I’ll be talking about educators, researchers, activists, practitioners, writers, artists, and others who share a common, understandable concern that our society has no place for them.

As a central part of this inquiry, we need to consider strategies for change. Is it possible to reverse the bad course taken by so many standard-brand universities? Or do we have to think about creating new, sustainable entities that embrace a different, better set of values? If so, how do we go about this?

via As U.S. universities embrace the New Gilded Age, what institutions will help us to grow a better society? « Minding the Workplace.

From around the web.

From the web site, The Homeless Adjunct.

http://junctrebellion.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/inequality-moocs-and-the-predator-elite/

It’s been too long since I’ve written here on The Homeless Adjunct blog, but I am back and ready to move forward.  The silence was caused by a particularly hard year of never-ending job searching.  Two of my three adjunct teaching jobs disappeared, leaving me with barely 30% of what was already a poverty level income.  I suspect that this has had something to do with my outspokenness on the issue of adjunct labor abuse, but as those of you working on contingency contracts all know far too well — there is simply no way to definitively prove such retaliation.  And after a year of falling victim to the severe trauma that we adjuncts are always facing, I have gotten myself back up, and have determined that I won’t let myself be silenced by poverty, or fear.  While it has certainly proven to be an effective tactic, it can only be effective if we allow it to take our spirit along with our income.  It’s pretty clear that this is a Braveheart moment, where I either continue to fight against tyranny — and the corporatized university is a tyrannical institution — or I let them win.

And thanks to the Scottish warrior blood in my veins, I choose to fight.

A Womb with a View?

On By southwerkIn Economic Justice

i_192A Womb with a View?

In Kansas, legislation is under consideration that will require doctors to report all miscarriages to the state health department.

One would think a womb would be more private.

This information could be used as an investigative tool for prosecution of the mother for harming or killing the fetus as in the Mississippi case of Rennie Gibbs. This could mark a new approach to diminishing women’s reproductive rights. Medical problems like miscarriage can be converted from personal medical problems to law enforcement issues. And, of course, once an investigator begins looking at a possible prosecution all the other medical records have to be examined as well.

The marginalization of women has been principally embodied in culture and custom. But now through the magic of legislation, it’s one woman at a time, one reproductive system at a time. In 2013, the idea of invasive ultrasounds ran its course but like all its ilk is only awaiting the right moment to return.

In the past, a woman’s reproductive system was considered a matter of some privacy. Now, it is an arena for manipulating, prosecuting and even mythologizing women. Manipulating by putting women in fear of their conduct during pregnancy, prosecuting by actively seeking charges against women for reproductive “felonies” and mythologizing by making women sacred hosts, carriers of genetic treasure; who must be treated with the utmost respect – and regulated.

It’s second class citizenship writ large. Right now, it’s a slow laborious chipping away at the base of women’s equality. The intent is clear – control. Once patriarchy is the rule, women and their issues will no longer be problems. Equal pay, child care, family leave, voting, reproductive rights, all will disappear into those subjects not covered by the media, not discussed in the restaurants and private clubs of the beltway, and not manipulated for political contributions in the halls of power.

Women’s rights are a continuing struggle. Women will not gain equality in our lifetimes and just holding on to the rights possessed now will be difficult. The current tool to put women in their “place” is fetal personhood. What the next one will be is germinating in the minds of those to whom women’s natural functions are paramount over their status as human beings.

James Pilant

From around the web.

Walsh, S. (2014, March 26). If stillbirth is murder, does miscarriage make pregnant women into criminals?. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/26/stillbirth-murder-miscarriage-pregnant-women-criminals
Seven and a half years ago, a Mississippi teenager named Rennie Gibbs went into premature labor and delivered a stillborn baby girl named Samiya. Initially, experts attributed the baby’s death to the umbilical cord wrapped around her neck. But when traces of a cocaine byproduct showed up on the autopsy report, a medical examiner declared the stillbirth a homicide and cited cocaine toxicity as the cause. Shortly afterward, the 16-year-old Gibbs was charged with murder, specifically “depraved heart murder”, a charge that can carry a sentence of up to 20 years to life in prison.

Since her grand-jury indictment in 2007, Gibbs’s team of attorneys has been fighting for the charges to be dropped on both technical and legal grounds. The defense argues that there’s no scientific proof that cocaine use can cause a stillbirth – and that the “depraved heart murder” statute did not apply to unborn children at the time of Samiya’s death. A decision is expected any day now as to whether the Gibbs case will finally proceed to trial or get dismissed. If it does go to trial, and Gibbs is convicted of murder for being 16 and pregnant, then a dangerous precedent may be established that should make anyone with a uterus feel very afraid.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/26/stillbirth-murder-miscarriage-pregnant-women-criminals

From around the web.

Marcotte, A. (2014, March 26). Kansas moves to defund planned parenthood and force doctors to report every miscarriage. Slate, Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/26/kansas_moves_to_defund_planned_parenthood_and_force_doctors_to_report_every.html

It’s not just women who are trying to avoid pregnancy who are under attack in Kansas. A bill winding its way through the state’s legislature would require doctors to report all miscarriages to the state health department, no matter how early they occur in a pregnancy. The requirement was tacked on to a bill that was supposed to be about reporting stillbirths, and it is so extreme that even some anti-choice Republicans have balked. It’s clear that this amendment is about conflating early pregnancy loss with post-20 week fetal demise and stillbirth. “The whole point is to further the idea of the fetus as a person. It’s a way of establishing the groundwork for making abortion harder to get, and eventually illegal,” Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute told ThinkProgress. Currently, no state requires doctors to report miscarriages early in pregnancy, because they are a common and usually minor medical issue.

What’s troubling about the bill is that it’s a needless invasion of a woman’s privacy, and it would reinforce the dangerous idea that the mere act of failing to complete a pregnancy is so serious that it requires state intervention. We’ve already seen states making moves to criminalize women for stillbirths, even when the evidence suggests that the woman’s behavior had no impact on the pregnancy’s outcome. We also know that if a woman terminates a pregnancy by taking misoprostol she bought on the Internet, that doesn’t actually look any different from a regular early term miscarriage. Cataloguing every woman who has an early term miscarriage opens the door to investigating women who officials suspect might have deliberately caused those miscarriages. There’s already been one woman prosecuted for inducing an early term miscarriage in just this way, so it’s certainly possible that such a law could result in women having to endure criminal investigations if they dare show up at a hospital miscarrying at eight weeks. Just from your life experience, you know that’s a lot of women.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/26/kansas_moves_to_defund_planned_parenthood_and_force_doctors_to_report_every.html

From around the web.

Marcotte, A. (2014, February 24). Virginia lawmaker calls pregnant women “hosts”. Slate, Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/02/24/steve_martin_of_virginia_on_abortion_state_senator_calls_pregnant_women.html
In text citation: (Marcotte, 2014)

Parents in New York Tell You Why You Should Opt Out

On By southwerkIn business ethics

I’ve been saying these same things for some time now.

dianeravitch's avatarDiane Ravitch's blog

Listen and watch as these parents in New York City tell you why your children should opt out of the state tests.

The high-stakes standardized testing is a massive waste of time. The results come in long after your child has changed teachers.

The teachers learns nothing of value from the tests: just the scores.

The tests have no diagnostic value.

It is a horse race with no point other than to steal instructional time, to rob your child of the joy of learning.

The only way to stop it is to say NO.

Don’t feed the machine.

Remember that your child’s data is being mined even as he or she takes the test.

Say NO.

View original post

The Ethics Sage Discusses the SAT Changes

On By southwerkIn Editorial
The Ethics Sage
The Ethics Sage

The Ethics Sage Discusses the SAT Changes

Steven Mintz, better known as the Ethics Sage has some criticism of the changes in the SAT’s. Please read his work and go to his web site and become a follower!

James Pilant

Do Changes to the SAT Better Reflect the Skills Needed in Today’s World? – Ethics Sage

One of my concerns is the common core standards may lead to “teaching to the test” rather than engaging students in a way that challenges their analytical reasoning skills. Also, making the essay optional sends the wrong signal at a time professors like myself and recruiters bemoan the loss of writing skills in today’s college students. Even a simple memo can be a challenge too great for some graduates.

While we can change the standardization measures of an exam such as the SAT, we must consider that comparability is at risk. How do we know that a graduate who scored 1,600 – a perfect score on the exam – has learned a comparable amount of knowledge and developed similar skills as someone who scored the same and graduated before the change? Maybe this is not a big deal but I am concerned about the statement by the Board that “its college admission exams do not focus on the important academic skills.” How do cutting obscure vocabulary words and making the essay optional promote academic skills when the result of these changes will be to dumb down reading skills? Someone should tell the Board that the best way to learn how to write effectively is to read a lot, pay attention to how the author constructs her sentences and vocabulary choice, and then demonstrate what you have learned by writing essays.

via Do Changes to the SAT Better Reflect the Skills Needed in Today’s World? – Ethics Sage.

Mintz, S. (2014, March 25). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.ethicssage.com/2014/03/do-changes-t-the-sat-better-reflect-the-skills-needed-in-todays-world.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed: EthicsSage (Ethics Sage)

From around the web.

From the web site, Gas Station Without Pumps.

http://gasstationwithoutpumps.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/sat-is-changing-in-2016/

Although the College Board says that this overhaul is not prompted by their shrinking market share (ACT now sells more tests than SAT), I’m sure that is the primary driving factor.  If the College Board behaved more like a non-profit than like a corporate monopoly (smaller executive salaries, pricing for distributing scores to college that was close to actual costs rather than the price gouging that they currently engage it), I’d be more inclined to believe that this was not just a “market share” phenomenon.  Since all the changes make them look more like the ACT, it seems to be entirely profit-driven, not based on a desire to more accurately predict the success of college applicants.

Eliminating the essay should make the SAT much cheaper to grade, but I’ve not heard any announcements about them reducing the price of the exams.

Gas Station Without Pumps. (2014, March 5). Sat is changing in 2016 . Retrieved from http://gasstationwithoutpumps.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/sat-is-changing-in-2016/