The Ethics Sage Addresses Cyberbullying

 

The Ethics Sage Addresses Cyberbullying

The Ethics Sage has a new blog post on the issue of Cyberbullying. I would appreciate it if you would go to his blog and read the entire entry. The two paragraphs below do not do full justice to the depth of his thought.

James Pilant

The Ethics Sage
The Ethics Sage

Are our Schools a Safe Place for Students to Grow and Learn?

Cyberbullying and Random Acts of Violence Threaten American Exceptionalism

http://www.ethicssage.com/2013/10/are-our-schools-a-safe-place-for-students-to-grow-and-learn.html

Cyberbullying in our schools threatens the safety of our students both in and out of school. It creates an environment where learning is negatively affected and potentially devastates the bullied individual. The result may be embarrassment, withdrawal from social and educational activities, attempted suicide and worse. I am tired of hearing schools defend their inaction when cyberbullying attacks occur after school hours and on weekends by claiming they are not responsible because the attacks did not occur on school grounds or during school time. If one student shot another outside of school would they look the other way? I don’t think so (or at least I hope not).

The extent of the phenomenon is hard to quantify. But one 2010 study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, an organization founded by two criminologists who defined bullying as “willful and repeated harm” inflicted through phones and computers, said one in five middle-school students had been affected. The purpose of this blog is to address what can be done about it. I have blogged before on the behavioral impact of being bullied through the use of social media. Attacks using Facebook, and Instagram, an online photo- and video-sharing service, and other social media threaten to stifle emotional development and growth, two factors so important to becoming a productive member of society.

From around the web.

From the web site, Stop Cyberbullying.

http://stopcyberbullyingsite.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/cyberbullying-research-paper/

People should never feel like they are useless or lonely or like they don’t matter. However, when people cyberbully other people, that is exactly how the victims feel. No one should feel that way. Cyberbullying is bullying that happens in cyberspace, hence the name. People can get bullied over text, on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Cyberbullying is becoming a bigger situation as time passes and the internet comes into play more and more, and people need to notice and do something about it.

    There are many statistics on cyberbullying. 43 percent have been cyberbullied, 70 percent have reported that they have seen it happen, 68 percent of teens agree that is a problem (Eleven).  When pictures or posts get put on the internet is impossible to delete it, even if you do delete it it will still be up there (Cyber-bullying). The most common way to be cyberbullied is instant messaging. Most cyberbullies are girls, it is twice as likely for them to be girls. One third of people have been threatened online (Cyberbullying). Most people who have been cyberbullied will not tell anyone about, only one tenth of victims will tell someone. Victims who have been bullied can be two to nine times more likely to commit suicide (Eleven). Many people ask why they do it, but also people ask how it happens.

Slate Hates Us

Slate Hates Us

Slate, the online magazine, has a new web site. Actually, “new web site” might not be an accurate description. I might prefer “attack on the public” or “insult to the intelligence” or “rain dance of hatred upon the consumer.”

It’s a Rohrschach of a web site. You don’t have any idea what it’s supposed to mean and after a time, you no longer believe anyone else knows either. Someone just threw colors and titles on the page like an electronic Jackson Pollack. The web site re-lists the same articles repeatedly apparently with the idea that maybe if you the title in a different font with a different background, you’ll like it better. If you want to find anything, you’re on the scavenger hunt from hell. I just want to read Doonsebury and I’m never sure where it is in there.

Some days, it’s just not worth hacking through the electronic jungle of obstruction and there are easier sights beckoning.

I know where they got the designer – same guys did the ACA site except better.

James Pilant

Thomas Friedman Gets Entitlements Wrong

English: In the United States, Social Security...
English: In the United States, Social Security benefits for married workers with stay-at-home spouses. According to author Joseph Fried, this graphic uses information from: C. Eugene Steuerle and Adam Carasso, “The USA Today Lifetime Social Security and Medicare Benefits Calculator,” (Urban Institute, October 1, 2004), from: http://www.urban.org/publications/900746.html. Note: The calculator does not include the value or cost of the Social Security disability program. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Thomas Friedman Gets Entitlements Wrong

 

Sorry Kids, Thomas Friedman Is Not Very Good at Economics

 

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/sorry-kids-thomas-friedman-is-not-very-good-at-economics

 

Many young people may have been mislead by Thomas Friedman’s column, titled “Sorry Kids: We Ate It All,” which implied that our children might somehow suffer because we are paying so much to seniors for Social Security and Medicare. The reality of course is that if our children and grandchildren do not enjoy much higher standards of living than do current workers and retirees then it will be because the rich have rigged the deck so that they can accrue most of the gains from economic growth.

 

This is easy to show. For example, if we look at the Social Security trustees report we see that average annual wages are projected to grow at more than a 1.3 percent annual rate between now and 2050. As a result, the average before tax wage will be more than 60 percent higher in 2060 than it is today. If our children and grandchildren get to share equally in these gains then they will be far richer than we are today.

 

It’s true that we will have a higher ratio of retirees to workers in 2050, just as we have a higher ratio of retirees to workers than we did in 1970. Just as the increase in the ratio of retirees to workers over the last 4 decades did not prevent an increase in average living standards over this period, there is no reason to think it will prevent an increase in average living standards over the next four decades.

 

I heartily agree with Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The generational theft storyline has been running around for a while and it is both wrong and unconvincing. Let’s take me for instance, I have my form in the mail from the Social Security Administration telling me what to expect. If I wait all the way until I’m 70, I will receive, $1,440 a month. I’m a little curious? When did that become a princely sum? Is this the kind of money that will enable me to go the sand and surf of Hawaii or does it more look like I’m going to have trouble paying for a place to live and basic groceries. I’m leaning toward the latter conclusion. Even in Arkansas, 1,440 dollars a month is not going to pay for a mansion. I might add that I have been paying in on that all of my working life, so it’s not free as far as I am concerned.

 

Well, what about Medicare? Well, it’s obvious to me although not to Friedman, that medical patents are being abused, that not allowing prescription drugs to either be bargained for by the federal government or purchased overseas is creating dramatically high medical costs and there are a bundles of other good choices we have to reduce out medical costs instead of telling seniors, “It’s just too bad, you got old while Thomas Friedman was considered an expert.”

 

Where do these people get the gall to tell the great middle class to go without pensions and health care when they have expressed no willingness to fix the nation’s problems? Why do we have a system where capital gains is taxed at less than wages? Why do we have no financial transaction tax to discourage the speculation which has wrought havoc all over this nation and the world?

 

 

 

James Pilant

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Okieprogressive.

 

http://okieblog.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/social-security-and-medicare/

 

Social Security and Medicare are programs that are needed relevant and necessary!

 

The economy is slowing repairing itself but we still have those on the right who want to deep-six any social safety net that would protect our seniors, the poor and disadvantaged, the sick, the halt and the lame. These are very people whom even Jesus Christ said should always be protected and aided. People like Tom Coburn don’t agree with Jesus on that, even though Coburn professes to be a follower of that Jewish Rabbi from Nazareth he had publicly stated that Social Security and Medicare are programs that we really don’t need to continue. Tom must have read a different Bible from all the ones I have read.

 

But, that is the current mantra for a lot of neo-cons and they are influencing a lot of neo-newbies who are coming and have come into the workforce over the past decade. These are people most of whom have never known any toil or strife in their lives because of safety nets like Social Security and Medicare were there for their parents and grandparents. They are the very ones buying to the neo-cons who claim most of the people who are poor don’t try hard enough or don’t or are lazy and shiftless and don’t really want to work. It’s a completely asinine idea, but they are buying hook line and sinker. When you have never known what is to be hungry or out of work I guess it is difficult to understand that, that is something that doesn’t necessarily mean you caused it.

 

 

Internet Explorer Assassin!

Internet Explorer, one of the most widely used...
Internet Explorer, one of the most widely used web browsers “Browser Market Share”. Net Applications . . Retrieved 29 July 2011 . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Internet Explorer Assassin!

Before I name the culprit, let me explain the crime. Every morning barring the most unusual circumstances, I read through business, business ethics, economics, and justice related web sites. It takes about an hour. It happens every day. Usually, I set a few aside for later use as blog posts.

A few weeks ago, Internet Explorer would crash while I was reading. I thought nothing about it. Browsers do crash on occasion. I have six different browsers on my computer just in case.

But after a while, a pattern emerged and Internet Explorer began dying every morning about the same time.

It was Salon killing my browser, actually it just locks it up so it’s frozen and useless.

The internet site, Salon.com has been crashing Internet Explorer. It usually does it after I have put up several tabs of articles to read. It seems to coincide with one of their new advertisement pop-ups.

I haven’t solved the problem but I use a separate browser to view Salon, so when the browser crashes, I don’t lose much but it is inconvenient.

I guess the business ethics problem here is having a product which doesn’t work all the time. And before I learned to use a separate browser, it regularly ate my research for blogging.

So, maybe in the future, they might temper the clutter so that access to their site would be better. I’d like that and I’m sure there are others who would appreciate it.

James Pilant

From around the web.

From the web site, Kenny1948’s Soapbox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kenny1948/2012/04/29/goodbye_salon

Well, today was the last straw.  I unsubscribed from the Salon main
page.  It is totally impossible to read anything on Salon, or to even
try and contact them!  Every time I go there, my browser crashes and I
have to restart my computer.  Don’t they understand about advertising,
and how it slows down things?  What idiots constructed this website?
Well they lost one reader, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

From the web site,

 

Hannity Obamacare Attack Non-factual

Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005
Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Hannity Obamacare Attack Non-factual

 

Lies, Damned Lies, and Fox News – NYTimes.com

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/lies-damned-lies-and-fox-news/?_r=0

 

The other day Sean Hannity featured some Real Americans telling tales of how they have been hurt by Obamacare. So Eric Stern, who used to work for Brian Schweitzer, had a bright idea: he actually called Hannity’s guests, to get the details.

 

Sure enough, the businessman who claimed that Obamacare was driving up his costs, forcing him to lay off workers, only has four employees — meaning that Obamacare has no effect whatsoever on his business. The two families complaining about soaring premiums haven’t actually checked out what’s on offer, and Stern estimates that they would in fact see major savings.

 

You have to wonder about the mindset of people who go on national TV to complain about how they’re suffering from a program based on nothing but what they think they heard somewhere. You might also wonder about what kind of alleged news show features such people without any check on their bona fides. But then again, consider the network.

 

via Lies, Damned Lies, and Fox News – NYTimes.com.

 

I’m kinda’ in the same boat here with Paul Krugman. A major television network does three interviews with couples explaining that Obamacare costs more than what they had before without any actual knowledge of what their costs would be. An analysis of what they said and later interviews convincingly suggests that all of them would save money under the program. Someone is falling down on the job here.

 

Doesn’t the concept of a “news” imply knowledge? .. at least a little knowledge?

 

As a matter of business ethics, it’s very similar to skipping interviewing actual participants in an event because you don’t want to drive that far. Why do your job when it’s hard? Why work up intelligent news coverage when half-done and half-baked with do?

 

In short, this is a spectacular ethics failure. Interviewing people who don’t know anything about an important subject and acting as if what they are saying is factual is unethical unless your intent is to purely mislead.

 

James Pilant

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, The Secular Jurist.

 

http://thesecularjurist.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/fox-news-obamacare-victims-werent-at-all-victimized-by-obamacare/

 

A recent Obamacare special on Fox News’ Hannity illuminated the
network’s political bias, pattern of misinformation, and questionable
use of anecdotal evidence, brought to light when a former adviser to
Montana’s governor fact-checked the special and found that not one of
the show’s guests–who lamented the horrors of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) on air–had directly suffered from the law or even visited the
insurance exchange. Hannity’s reliance on guests who condemned Obamacare
due to existing political bias demonstrates Fox News’ habit of
misinforming on the ACA and raises serious questions about the
credibility of other guests that have recounted the “consequences” of
the law.

 

Emily Yoffe Needs Advice

Rape
Rape (Photo credit: Valeri Pizhanski)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emily Yoffe Needs Advice

I believe you can write a column and strongly recommend that women be careful about drinking too much while still holding men accountable for their behavior. Ms. Yoffe wrote a column discouraging women from over indulging but did not hold men accountable. That’s not acceptable. She said she did hold them accountable but I did not get that from her writing, if you did please comment. 

Is this a business ethics problem. Yes.

Giving people advice is a serious business. Implying that female drinking puts too much temptation out there is different than saying taking precautions is wise. The difference is where you place the responsibility. The responsibility is always on the perpetrator not the victim.

 

James Pilant

 

Emily Yoffe, advice columnist, blames college women for Rape Culture

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/18/emily-yoffe-college-drinking-rape/

 

Okay, Emily Yoffe–obviously alcohol makes you randy and more aggressive, no matter your gender. And obviously college-aged women invariably act like Lindsey Lohan when they consume too much of it, and, worse yet, can be unwittingly drinking a mixed drink full of date rape drugs. However, to somehow suggest that their consumption of alcohol creates a more rape permissive environment and only seeks to embolden potential rapists is, well, like saying women should be raped for wearing provocative clothing. Furthermore, a woman can be discussing her menstrual cycle while drinking O Doul’s in a beekeepers uniform, and college dudes will still try to rape her. As we all know, rape is purely about dominance. The introduction of alcohol, although certainly offering rapists a golden ticket, is by no means the fault of the woman or somehow the only invitation to rape. And this is coming from a guy, Emily Yoffe.

 

via Emily Yoffe, advice columnist, blames college women for Rape Culture.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Yes Means Yes.

 

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/emily-yoffe-a-further-catalog-of-ways-she-is-wrong/

Yoffe is wrong, as her Slate colleague Amanda Hess, tells us, because you don’t solve a structural problem with a personal self-help solution. We didn’t deal with drunk driving in this country by telling people, “hey, you can’t control drunk drivers, so minimize driving when the bars are closing!” We dealt with it by a combination of a massive public awareness campaign, and imposing real accountability- not just jail sentences, but more prosaically, license suspensions. Drunk driving costs the drunk drivers something now, and it didn’t three decades ago. We didn’t end drunk driving deaths, but we knocked them down a lot.

 Yoffe is wrong because rapists are not weather systems. I mentioned this earlier today, and I’ve written about it before. The implicit model of rapists in her piece is one of an unthinking phenomena, one that does not respond to stimulus, that therefore we can’t do anything about but get out of the way. There’s a pernicious undercurrent to this thinking in many areas, from forest fires to global climate change – but for a moment, let’s just accept that there are some things we can’t prevent or deter. All we can do it look out for them, avoid encountering them, and minimize the damage when they occur. Yoffe, and many others, treat rape like this. That’s wrong. Often, they start from the proposition that rapists are bad people who don’t misunderstand, but rather rape because they want to. That’s true. But they take the wrong lesson from the research that shows us that. They infer that the rapists are irrational and can’t be influenced, when the Predator Theory research indicates just the opposite: that they do, in fact, respond to stimulus, by choosing the tactics that are least likely to get them caught. I’ve seen it in small, tightly-knit communities, too. When they have enough victims report and can no longer convince people of narratives about crazy victims, misunderstandings or one-time poor judgment, they move on to new communities where they can get a fresh shot at bullshitting their way through their victims’ reports. Since we know that they use the tactics that work and respond rationally to stimulus, we know that they are not like weather systems and we should discard that model.

 

 

 

It’s Called Justice!

Penn State College of Engineering
Penn State College of Engineering (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

It’s Called Justice!

 

This is what happens when a university covers up crime. It’s what’s supposed to happen. It’s not an anomaly except in the sense that so often it does not.

 

Should they have had to pay this money and fire those people?

 

Yes.

 

How do you get justice without penalty? How do you get people to not aid and abet in the crimes of others if there are not penalties? How do you get people from sweeping criminal conduct under the rug if it threatens the institutions reputation if the penalties for not sweeping don’t do as much damage?

 

What’s scary is how seldom justice happens. This time, people got fired. This time, there were criminal prosecutions and  monetary penalties.

 

Compare this to our standard international or investment bank narrative. 1. Bank does something terrible and utterly illegal. 2. Against all odds bank gets caught. 3. Bank says, “What wrongdoing?” against a background of overwhelming evidence. 4. Bank pleads guilty only after prosecution has been taken off the table. 5. Bank pays roughly 10%  of what it made by outright criminality. 6. Roughly two years pass, and the bank once again gets caught doing the same old thing or something brand new. 7. The cycle goes on.

 

It’s a pity that child abuse brings out societal anger but not house stealing or international money laundering.

 

We can bet Penn State will be keeping a careful eye on its policies in the future.

 

Can we say the same for our investment banks?

 

James Pilant

 

Sandusky fallout costs Penn State more than $50 million | News | CentreDaily.com

 

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/10/14/3837882/sandusky-fallout-costs-penn-state.html

 

The money Penn State has spent in legal and consulting fees for the Jerry Sandusky scandal has topped $50 million. Penn State’s latest update shows the university has spent $50,459,828 through July 31 for work done by more than three-dozen firms. That’s up $1,025,962 from what the university spent through June 30, according to monthly updates provided by Penn State. The potential total cost of the scandal skyrockets to more than $158 million when factoring in the dollar value of the total settlement offers with Sandusky claimants and the full NCAA fine, which the university is paying in yearly installments.

 

via Sandusky fallout costs Penn State more than $50 million | News | CentreDaily.com.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, BHA Journalism – (Their new web site).

 

http://bhsjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/penn-state-scandal-follow-up/

 

Arguably the single greatest controversy ever to mar the reputation
of a nationally recognized university, and certainly the incidence of
greatest infamy ever to involve a university’s athletic
department, the Pennsylvania State sex scandal was one which, at its
height, captivated the nation, prompting a variety of emotional
responses amongst members of the general public, the most profound of
which occurred amongst those with personal connections to the Penn State
football program. While the event is one which may have faded from the
forefront of public attention, the emotional trauma inflicted by the
scandal upon those personally involved is likely to be of a far more
enduring nature.

 

At the onset of the scandal, allegations of sexual
misconduct against assistant coach Jerry Sandusky prompted widespread
outrage, which became exponentially more vitriolic when it was
discovered that many of Sandusky’s alleged misdeeds were said to
have involved minors. The subsequent controversy which developed in the
wake of these allegations would be of a severity so great as to nearly
completely divert public attention from other major events affecting the
campus in subsequent months, most notably the removal of longtime head
coach Joe Paterno from his position within the program, just months
before his death due to a long-gestating lung cancer. Even in light of
these developments, those convinced of Sandusky’s guilt would continue
to demand that justice be served, and would see their desires
fulfilled on Tuesday, October 9, when Sandusky would plead guilty to ten
separate instances of sexual abuse involving minors, which were
conducted over a fifteen-year period.

 

Self Regulation and Chicken!

Can't claim credit for this cooking, my friend...
Can’t claim credit for this cooking, my friend Paul was responsible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Self Regulation and Chicken!

 

Here Milton Friedman explains that business will self regulate without government regulation.

 

How do you feel about that? Ever had food poisoning? Fun?

 

I don’t get the impression that businesses aren’t willing to lose a few customers (and I mean permanent losses) if it means more profits.

 

Maybe I’m cynical or maybe I just read the news?

 

Or how about this?

 

How many people have to be killed or injured by supposedly self regulating businesses before you realize that Milton Friedman was a much better television celebrity than an economist?

 

James Pilant

 

Is our chicken safe to eat? | Business Watch | McClatchy DC

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/17/205695/us-urged-to-do-more-to-protect.html

 

After 317 people in 20 states got sick from eating contaminated chicken, consumer groups today urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do a better job of inspecting poultry.

 

via Is our chicken safe to eat? | Business Watch | McClatchy DC.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Eslkevin’s Blog.

 

http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/government-washes-its-hands-of-meat-and-poultry-safety-inspections/

 

In 1998, USDA rolled out its pilot HACCP system. The acronym stood

 

for “Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points” but federal meat

 

inspectors, industry watchers and food advocates quickly dubbed it “Have

 

a Cup of Coffee and Pray” because it transferred oversight from the

 

government to the plant, in shocking, industry-friendly de-regulation.

 

HACCP was supposed to replace meat inspectors’ old-fashioned “poke and

 

sniff” method of visually examining carcasses by instituting advanced

 

microbiology techniques. But it is also an “honors system” in which

 

federal inspectors simply ratify that companies arefollowing their own

 

self-created system. As in “Trust us.”

 

Last week,   a coalition of food and worker safety advocates and

 

allies gathered outside the White House to protest USDA’s imminent plan

 

to implement HACCP system-wide now that it has been used at pilot

 

locations. “Instead of trained USDA inspectors, companies will police

 

themselves,” says the site of the group that organized the protest, sumofus.org.

 

“Plants will be allowed to speed up production dramatically. Chickens

 

will spend more time soaking in contaminants (including pus and feces!),

 

and poultry plants are compensating by washing them in with chlorine.”

 

International Implications of Shutdown

United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., east ...
United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., east front elevation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

International Implications of Shutdown

 

Did you notice how odd it was that during the shutdown and the subsequent debt ceiling game of chicken that there was precious little discussion of the international implications? I did. It worries me.

 

Thinking that the United States is invulnerable like Superman might make you confident but it can also make you dead.

 

What other nations think and do matters? How much was put at risk overseas by actions here? Did we put our allies at risk and give our enemies an advantage?

 

A few brains in Washington would be good, some working ones anyway.

 

James Pilant

 

BERLIN: Europeans agog at Americans’ inability to compromise, aghast at likely long-term impact | Politics | McClatchy DC

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205712/europeans-agog-at-americans-inability.html

 

No one was amused, however. The United States, after all, is not a bit player on the international stage like Greece. It is the unquestioned global leader. And while after a decade of controversial war it’s not so unusual for Europeans to express hostility toward the United States, many were shocked to see how hostile Americans seem to be to one another – and disinterested in how their internal fight might affect the rest of the world.“This is pure domestic politics,” said Xenia Dormandy, an expert on the United States and its place in the world at the London think tank Chatham House. “Nobody cares about any of the international implications. There’s a lack of desire to even think about the repercussions.”The discord will have long-term consequences, even if the United States is able to see its way through this crisis to yet another battle over spending and the debt ceiling that will come early next year, some predict.

 

via BERLIN: Europeans agog at Americans’ inability to compromise, aghast at likely long-term impact | Politics | McClatchy DC.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Phoebe Rees, JN 325.

 

http://phoebereesjn325.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/7-british-misconceptions-about-the-us-government-shutdown/

 

On Tuesday, the US government shut down. If you’re a fellow Brit like

me, you might be thinking, “how can this happen – can Democrats and

Republicans not even be charged with the simplest task of keeping the

government open?” undoubtably leading to “the system has collapsed, the

apocalypse is now!” Alas no, this isn’t some sort of Anarchist utopia,

it happens reasonable frequently and can be explained a lot more simply

than you think. Here are the most common misconceptions about the US

government shutdown answered.

 

1. The government has shut down. Does this mean that the system has collapsed? 

 

No. Constitutionally, congress must pass laws to spend money. If they

can’t agree on a spending bill, they don’t have the authority to spend

money. Most of the ‘system’ is still in place, but non-essential

services such as gun licensing, zoos and national parks will close for

the duration of the shutdown. So basically, no guns and no zoos for the

foreseeable future. …

 

China Attacks Academic Freedom

English: China, Peking
English: China, Peking (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

China Attacks Academic Freedom

Shouldn’t this case cast a little doubt on so many American Universities’ desire to build branches in China? Won’t they insist on running schools in their country they way they run the current ones?

After all, they are communists who run a dictatorship.

Yes, that is not a nice thing to say, and the fact that literally thousands of American corporations are aiding and abetting this regime is regrettable but under free market fundamentalism perfectly understandable.

I mean, does it really matter if the nation is an enemy of democracy when there is money to be made?

The business ethics implications are fascinating but largely undiscussed. For all you students out there, this is primo paper territory. If you want to write something controversial, this is where to go. Think of it, business ethics and American Investment in the Chinese economy. If I were you, I would start the story by going back to China just a few years after the Great Cultural Revolution as its economy lurched from one disaster to another. Start the story there and then begin the American involvement, investment and then sharing patents and partnerships. Compare job losses in the U.S. to job gains in China. Discuss the willingness of the Chinese government to simply not bother with environmental and worker safety problems. Put in some material on a couple of the bigger coal mine disasters. Faculty love stories. Then, when you reach the end, wonder out loud if the regime could have survived with American corporate money. I bet it’s a solid A. (If you would like to see it published once it is written, send me an e-mail – we can work something out!)

James Pilant

SHANGHAI: China’s Peking University fires professor who criticized government | Asia | McClatchy DC

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205836/chinas-peking-university-fires.html

One of China’s top universities has notified an economics professor known for his outspoken criticism of the Chinese government that his colleagues have voted to expel him from the institution.The move against Xia Yeliang, who teaches at Peking University in Beijing, appears to reflect a crackdown on liberal academics that’s become more severe since President Xi Jinping came to power in March.Several well-known universities – including the London School of Economics and Yale and Cornell in the United States – have partnerships with Peking, though few have taken up Xia’s cause. Other institutions, including New York University and Duke University, have opened campuses in China recently or are about to amid worries that they’ll sacrifice academic freedom for the sometimes lucrative opportunity to partner with Chinese institutions.

via SHANGHAI: China’s Peking University fires professor who criticized government | Asia | McClatchy DC.

From around the web.

From the web site, educhina.

http://educhina.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/a-speech-under-the-national-flag/

April 9th, 2012, as usual, after raising the national flag and singing the anthem, the students in Huilong middle school stayed in square, listening to the weekly speech under the national flag by a selected outstanding student. They all knew it was a routine that every Monday, school had this assembly, so did most of the schools in other parts of China. And the speech, always presented by disciplined peers with excellent academic performance, was basically the same each week that about hard-working, obedient, respecting schools, teachers and parents etc. Thus, no one would pay attention to the speech but hoping the ceremony could end earlier. However, students, also teachers, soon realized today’s speech was different when they heard “we are not machine, even if we are, school should not treat us as tools to improve the enrollment rate of universities”. The senior two honorary student, Chenbo Jiang, was emotionally criticizing the school system and Chinese education. He continued: “what we are fighting for, under this education system, and what kind of people we will become?” He blamed the education deprived their dreams and turned them into indifferent people who only cared about the scores; he blamed parents blindly forced them to study all the time while neglected their true feeling and failed to give enough care and love; he blamed the teachers for pushing them so hard in doing endless homework in order to increase the enrollment rate of universities that few students actually loved and respected their teachers. Everyone stunned for a while and then students started to applaud. Some teachers were laughing and some were in shock. The school principal was so surprised because the draft of the speech had to be examined by the teachers every time before the students went up to the stage. This should not happen.

The news quickly spread out through internet with the titles like “high school student changes the speech under the national flag” or “high school student criticizes education system” and caused heated discussion among Chinese netizens in Sina microblog as well as in other social networking sites. Many people thought Chenbo Jiang was courageous to speak out the “truth” and they agreed that Chinese education was problematic. On April 20th, 2012, Nanfang People’s magazine, an influential weekly magazine of Southern China Press, published a commentary on this event. The report compares Chenbo Jiang to the boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes who points out the truth that no one wants to acknowledge.