Blogs – Ethics Sage

Has Social Engineering Gone Too Far?

Let me answer my own question at the start. America is not an inherently racist country, but it has followed racist policies in the past. America is not a racist country, in part because it would be wrong to label all of society in that way. Most Americans are good people, not racist.  It is the few who are not, and the racist policies that still exist in some ways (i.e., social injustice; police overreach in the treatment of Black Americans; unequal rates of incarceration…), that taint the notion of whether the U.S. is a racist country. However, there is a sense of intolerance towards others who are different from oneself from time to time.

A variety of policies have been pursued by those who seek to re-engineer American society. Some would say it is part and parcel of moving the U.S. to be a more socialist society. All we need to do is examine the reasons for the victory of Zora Mandani in the NY mayoral race. He is an avowed democratic socialist, a term that is not well defined. His influence comes on the heels of Senator Bernie Sanders who spread the gospel of socialism many years ago. In between, we have the so-called “Squad.”

The Squad is an informal progressive and left-wing faction of the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. Members of the Squad are all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. They speak out about discriminatory practices that harm one group or another–Groups that have been historically discriminated against in American society. The Squad was initially composed of four members elected in the 2018 U.S. House of Representatives elections: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (MN), Ayanna Pressley (MA), and Rashida Tlaib (MI).   

Dissecting Critical Race Theory (CRT)

Critical Race Theory (CRT) essentially holds that America’s legal and social institutions are inherently racist because they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites. What does this mean? Here are just a few examples of those historically racist tendencies.

·         Unequal treatment under the law (e.g., penalties for crimes) of Blacks and Whites.

·         Discrimination in housing policies (e.g., blocking Blacks from certain communities).

·         Unequal access to education (e.g., schools in Black and other minority neighborhoods are inferior and underfunded).

·         Paucity of opportunities to move into top positions in companies (i.e., women shut out of C-suite, representation on boards of directors).

·         Police overreach in dealing with Black Americans versus Whites (i.e., higher percentage of Blacks incarcerated.).

·         Underrepresentation of Blacks in state legislatures and Congress.  

Civil Rights                                                                                                    

I could go on, but I believe the case has been made that America has followed racist policies in the past. Are things changing? Yes, but not quickly enough.

It’s been more than 60 years since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. In 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation has been prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 since 2020, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In a landmark 2020 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that Title VII of the act, which bans employment discrimination based on “sex,” extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Gallup conducted a poll about racism against black people in the U.S. between June 2-26, 2025. One highlight of the study is that 83% of Black adults and 61% of White adults say racism is widespread.

Most of the people who believe racism is increasing blame it on the lack of fair treatment of Blacks. Biased treatment can show up by excessive stops of Black Americans in their vehicles. Another example is when Blacks are blamed first for something that goes wrong in society such as a theft or other wrongdoing. Otherwise, discrimination shows up in subtle ways, such as walking on the opposite side of a street when a group of Blacks are headed in the same direction.

Even though a majority of Americans believe racism against Black people is widespread in the U.S., most still think that civil rights have improved. The first poll back in 1995, shows that 83% of Americans believed the civil rights of Black people have improved. This rose to a high of 89% in 2011, during President Obama’s tenure, before declining to its lowest point, 59% in 2020, after George Floyd’s death focused national attention on race and policing practices. However, by 2021 U.S. adults were more positive about the civil rights of Blacks, although it hasn’t recovered to the 1995 level.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Significant numbers of Americans also think DEI initiatives are backfiring against the groups they’re intended to help, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including many people who belong to those groups.

The findings suggest Americans’ views on racial discrimination have shifted substantially during the past four years, when many companies launched efforts to promote diversity within their workforces and the products they sold. Since then, many of those companies have reversed themselves and retreated from their diversity practices, a trend that’s accelerated this year under pressure from President Trump, who has sought to withhold federal money from schools and companies that promote DEI.

White Supremacy—White Privilege

We hear a lot about “white privilege” today. But what is it? White Privilege is the notion that there are inherent advantages possessed by a white person based on their race in a society characterized by racial inequality and injustice. This is a concept easier for me to accept than CRT. I believe white Americans have, historically, been the beneficiaries of favorable treatment in many areas of society. I have witnessed it first-hand in the hiring of coworkers by organizations that I have worked for.                       

Some go further and criticize America for structural racism: the historical and contemporary policies, practices, and norms that create and maintain white supremacy. They claim structural racism continues to disproportionately segregate communities of color from access to opportunity and upward mobility by making it more difficult for people of color to secure quality education, jobs, housing, healthcare, and equal treatment in the criminal justice system.

The concept of White Supremacy is anathema to me. It is the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular Blacks and Hispanics. This is the kind of thinking that led to the insurrection on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. It is wrong and should be denounced by all people of conscience.

Summing it Up

President Trump and his administration seek to ban DEI teaching in schools primarily because they argue these programs are a form of illegal discrimination and promote what they consider to be “divisive” ideologies that undermine core American values of meritocracy and national unity. 

At least 20 states have passed legislation restricting or banning DEI in various government settings, including higher education institutions. While a definitive number is hard to pinpoint due to the varying scope of laws (some target only higher education, others include K-12 or state agencies) and ongoing legislative changes, recent sources cite figures ranging from 15 to 22 states with enacted restrictions since 2023. At least 18 states have passed legislation restricting DEI in public colleges and universities.

Critics of the policies that I have addressed in this blog claim they create reverse discrimination whereby there is an emphasis on race in hiring and promotion decisions. There is a focus on group identity rather than individual qualifications and merit-based systems.

It seems the tide may be turning because of the influence of the Trump administration on national policies. Trump has pursued a broad campaign to end DEI programs, which includes terminating specific grants and threatening to withhold all federal funding from non-compliant colleges and K-12 schools. These actions are currently the subject of ongoing litigation and have faced mixed results in court.  

We need to have Congressional hearings on the benefits (and harms) of these programs before we deem them to be unwanted in their entirety. Let’s invite college presidents and government officials for hearings—those who have had experiences implementing the programs into their core objectives. I worry, however, that if these programs are ended without serious discussions about their benefits, and there are many, we may be “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, Professor Emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo on November 18, 2025. Learn more about Steve’s activities by visiting his website: www.stevenmintzethics.com.

Ghosting and Civility

The psychology of ghosting involves a fear of confrontation, poor communication skills, and avoidance of emotional discomfort. It is a self-preservation tactic used to escape awkward or difficult situations without having to directly communicate feelings.

I have previously blogged about the ethics of ghosting with respect to the dating scene. Research from the online dating site Plenty of Fish found that of 800 millennial daters between the ages of 18-33, almost 80% of singles have been ghosted. Why does it happen so often? One reason is communicating on social media sites is impersonal and a form of communication that makes it easier to ignore the other person and be oblivious to their feelings. Discussing why you dumped someone in person is fraught with stress and possibly embarrassment. Social media serves as a protector of the dumper’s feelings but potentially harms the dumpee’s feelings of self-esteem.

I wanted to broaden my perspective on the harm of ghosting, so I read different viewpoints online. One was provided by Nick Kossovanabout, a frequent author of online ‘thought’ pieces. He points out that “At its root, ghosting is about control. By vanishing, people remove the other person’s chance to influence their decision.”

Ghosting in the Workplace

If ghosting occurs in the workplace, it could be because you have decided to accept employment from one employer so, you decide, there is no need to have additional communication with those employers with whom you interviewed. Perhaps you say: “These employers will figure out after a while that I am not interested in working for them.” Kossovanabout suggests that “ghosting stands out as the most upsetting form of social regression, especially in the workplace.

I’ve argued before that ghosting is endemic to today’s society that is driven by incivility. On a basic level, it’s unusual when someone says “please” or thank you.” That requires acknowledgement. However, the party doing the ghosting wants to cut off all communication whereas these niceties could lead to further discussion.

Ghosting can leave emotional scars and do damage to the recipient’s self-esteem, especially if they have a fragile ego. Should you care about how your avoidance affects others? Yes, if you want to be a good person; someone who is caring, considerate, and empathetic. After all, as The Golden Rule commands: Treat others the way you wish to be treated. There are other versions of the Rule. The one most appropriate for ghosting is: “Don’t do something to someone else that you would not want done to you.” I like this version because it denotes a positive obligation to treat others ethically.

Ghost Jobs

A survey of workers from a leader in hiring software found “Ghost Jobs” – positions advertised with no intent to hire – and “Ghosting” – when employers abruptly stop communicating with candidates without any explanation – are two common concerns for current job seekers.

The survey of 2,500 workers across the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany found that nearly two-thirds (60%) of U.S. job seekers have applied to suspected “Ghost Jobs” – positions advertised with no intent to hire – which along with “Ghosting” are two common concerns for current job seekers, according to the Greenhouse 2024 State of Job Hunting Report.

The report found that posting “Ghost Jobs” is becoming more prevalent in the job market and harder for candidates to avoid. Greenhouse data shows this phenomenon of ghost jobs is not just in the heads of job candidates. In any given quarter, 18–22% of the jobs posted on the Greenhouse platform are classified as ghost jobs, according to a blog about the report.

The Greenhouse report revealed most “Gen Z” candidates in the U.S. (71%) suspect they have encountered a “Ghost Job.” Out of the candidates who suspect they have applied to a ghost job, 29% applied anyway and 31% decided not to apply. One-quarter (25%) of U.S. candidates want to see fewer instances of ghost job postings or postings never meant to be filled. The report found 61% of U.S. job seekers were ghosted after a job interview, a nine percentage point increase since April 2024.

Employers use ghost jobs to build a talent pipeline for future needs, create the illusion of company growth to investors or employees, and gather data on potential applicants, says Triad Goodwill, Staffing by Starboard, and Harvard Resource Solutions. They may also use them to gauge market demand, comply with legal requirements to post positions publicly, or for staffing agencies to show they can recruit talent. 

It’s very discouraging to me that a potential employee or employer can’t simply send an email informing the other party that they no longer seek a job with the organization or have filled the position with someone else. It takes one minute or two.

We live in a society where the pursuit of self-interest drives behavior. From the employee’s perspective, it can create feelings of guilt if direct communication is needed, or desired, to inform the employer of their lack of interest in pursuing a job offer. Moreover, it’s easy to rationalize that the employer wouldn’t contact them if the shoes were on the other foot. However, we should not act based on what others may do. We should act the way we would want them to act. Certainly, if an employer has found the candidate for a job position, most of us would wish they would inform us so we can move on and possibly accept a job offer with another employer.

Blog posted on November 11, 2025, by Steven Mintz, PhD. Steve is a Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. You can learn more about his activities at: www.stevenmintzethics.com.

Characteristics of Civility

I have blogged before about the decline of civility in society. I always begin those blogs with the following statement:

By age sixteen, George Washington had copied out by hand 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. They are based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595. Rules of Civility was a list of 110 rules for people to follow. These rules dealt with different situations, such as how to be respectful to people, how to be polite when dining with others, and how to behave. Here is the first rule: Every Action done in Company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present. Respect is an integral part of civility.

What is Civility?

Civility represents the quality of our behavior and how we interact with others whether in personal or professional relationships. This is important because how we treat other people signals who we are and what we value. Moreover, since the essence of ethics lies in how we are with others, civility and ethics are intricately linked. Incivility in society and in the workplace is on the rise. Virtually all people believe this is so. Every day we witness inconsiderate behavior, ‘in your face’ interaction in communications with others, and other forms of rudeness. There are many causes of incivility, not the least of which is the explosion of social media as a way to communicate, including rants on Twitter X, and other platforms. The anonymous nature of postings on the Internet feeds into such disrespectful behavior.

Civility in society has been in decline for a long time. I will discuss the reasons why in this blog. Civility in the workplace is also in decline, and I will discuss it in my “Workplace Ethics Advice” blog on Wednesday.

Incivility in Society

Let us clear up some misconceptions. Civility is not peripheral to ethics, dealing merely with manners. True civility does manifest itself in good manners, proper etiquette and politeness. But it also runs deeper and is more profound. Simply put, civility requires restraint, respect and responsibility in everyday life. Without these, we can never act ethically.

Civility cultivates a civic code of decency. It requires us to discipline our impulses for the sake of others. It demands we free ourselves from self-absorption. By putting ethics into practice in our day-to-day encounters, civility is that moral glue without which our society would come apart.”

The bottom line is ethics and civility are inextricably linked; you can’t have one without the other. This means ethics training must include discussions of civil behavior and ethical values.

Civility is more than just politeness. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences, listening past one’s preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same.

Indeed, civility represents a long tradition of moral virtues essential to democracy. Virtues like empathy, humility, integrity, honesty, and respect for others are ideals of democratic engagement. Without civility a society can morph into verbal, accusatory, offensive verbal attacks on one another which is the way things have been headed in the U.S. for many years.

Civility represents the quality of our behavior with others in our communities. This is important because how we treat others’ signals who we are and what we value. Moreover, since the essence of ethics lies in how we are with others, civility and ethics are intricately linked.

Moral civility demands two things: (1) that we respect other people’s fundamental rights, liberties, and equal civic standing, for example by avoiding racist and discriminatory speech and behavior and (2) Justificatory civility that requires that we refrain from justifying political rules based on self-interested or sectarian reasons.

Cancel Culture

One result of a lack of civility in society is that one person or group of people is disrespectful to another group that does not agree with their point of view. As a result, that person/group may fall victim to the “cancel culture,” whereby they are shunned or made to feel guilty for their position. If a person in the offended group does not support the cancel culture view, then they, too, may be cancelled.

Increasingly, we see speakers canceled because some group on a college campus disagrees with their message. This is anathema to a free and open society and violates freedom of speech–a Constitutional right.

Civility Survey Results

Most Americans believe society is less civil now than it was a decade ago, and they blame social media and public officials for that decline, according to a new poll by the American Bar Association.

Fully 85% of the 1,000 respondents of the ABA’s annual Survey of Civic Literacy said civility in today’s society is worse than 10 years ago, while 8% said it was better. When asked to cite the primary factor in declining civility, 29% said social media, 24% said media, 19% said public officials, and 8% said the educational system. Just 2% of respondents chose courts. “Our country is experiencing a period of divisiveness,” said ABA President Deborah Enix-Ross.

More than a third of those polled, 34%, said family and friends should hold the primary responsibility for improving civility in society, while 27% said that responsibility should fall to public officials. And 90% of respondents said parents and families are most responsible for instilling civility in children, followed by schools at 6%. Here are additional results.

• 79% want compromise from political leaders.
• 29% point to social media as cause of diminishing civility.

A 2023 survey from the nonprofit Heterodox Academy found nearly 59% of college students were reluctant to discuss controversial topics in the classroom, where debate and disagreement should flourish as part of the educational process. Their leading concern was criticism and backlash from peers.

Woke Culture

Some in society fear upsetting one group or another with divergent views on social and political issues. In addition to the cancel culture, we now have a “woke culture” that has divided the country in ways from which we may never recover.

Woke nowadays refers to being aware or well informed in a political or cultural sense, especially regarding issues surrounding marginalized communities – it describes someone who has “woken up” to issues of social injustice. The right often criticizes the left for “wokeness.” This is counterproductive. It only stokes the flame of fire. Let us debate differences and not label others with such a broad stroke.

What Does the Future Hold?

I wish I could say the future is positive and we can reverse the trend of declining civility. However, I’d have to be a “cockeyed optimist,” to do so. Call me a cynic if you like but I expect things to get worse before they get better.

Most people in Congress do not have the stomach to deal with these issues. They would rather insult each other and blame them for whatever comes to mind, especially those in one party calling out those in the other for a point of view different from their own.

I don’t disagree with expressing another point of view in public or on social media but like so many things in life, it is the way you do or say things, rather than the actions themselves, that shows your true character. We need to learn to say and take actions that do not provoke another person or group of people with an opposing point of view but, instead, seeks to engage them in constructive dialogue.

One reason civility is in decline is the lack of education in our schools. Students get their manners from parents who are all too often disengaged and not setting an ethical example. They get it from listening to disrespectful dialogue on television, in the movies, and elsewhere, or on social media. The schools need to counter those effects. If we don’t educate students to be civil to one another, how will we ever proclaim the moral high ground?

Absent the existence of a messiah who can redirect the country to its roots of kindness, empathy, and civility, and following The Golden Rule, I doubt that things will get better before they get worse.

Blog posted on November 3, 2025, by Dr. Steven Mintz, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. You can find out more about Steve’s activities by visiting his website at: (www.stevenmintzethics.com/).

Words of Wisdom from the Ethics Sage

Do you care about others, or are you a selfish individual? Do you accept responsibility for your actions or blame others for bad things that happen to you? Do you love others unconditionally or expect something in return? These are some of the questions to ask yourself to gauge whether you are an ethical person.

Ethical people follow basic principles of right and wrong.

The Golden Rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. This time-honored principle applies today even more than in the past because, as a society, we have lost our moral compass. It is up to each one of us to treat others fairly, with compassion and empathy, and respectfully.

The Rights of Others. Ethical people consider whether their actions may affect the rights of others. In today’s society, especially on college campuses, we increasingly see students trying to stifle free speech when a speaker puts forth a point of view that offends them, which happens frequently today in part because of our entitlement society.

The Consequences of Our Actions. Our actions have consequences. People who use social media to vent against others rarely first consider how their actions and words may affect others before posting a comment on Facebook or Tweeting. Those who do consider the consequences do so to upset others rather than state one’s objective point of view or start a productive dialogue.

Be Accountable for Your Actions. When we make a mistake in life, we should accept responsibility for our actions, promise to never do it again, make amends to the people we have harmed, and carry through our ethical intent to do better by being a better person. We learn from our mistakes and move forward in a productive manner.  

Truthfulness is a virtue and, along with integrity (i.e., being a principled person; having the courage of your convictions), makes up the most fundamental standard of ethical behavior. I’m always amazed by how little people understand what truthfulness is and what it requires to be an ethical person.

Many people do not realize that dishonesty is not only telling an untruth – a lie by commission – but it also entails a positive obligation to disclose all the information another party has a right to know, not committing a lie by omission. Consider, for example, that the FBI comes to your house one day and asks about Nikolas Cruz, the shooter at Parkland High School in Florida. You know a lot of bad stuff about the kid, but don’t share it with the FBI because the questions they asked were unrelated to what you know about him and his propensity for violence. This is a good example of why being truthful is an affirmative behavioral trait.

I use three guiding principles in teaching ethics to help my students quickly focus on what is most important in being an ethical person.

1. Not harm. Do and say nothing that may bring harm to another person, shame them for any reason, and avoid bullying behavior.
2. Contribute to the betterment of others. Do something every day to show kindness to others. It can be something as simple as saying “thank you” or complimenting someone. Paying it forward is sound advice in today’s impersonal world, where people communicate, often anonymously, on the Internet rather than on the phone or in person. We seem to have lost the ability to interact with others on a deep personal, ethical level.
3. Consider how you want to be remembered at the end of your life. Think of what you want written on your tombstone. Is it that you became rich, famous, or powerful during your life, or that you were a good person, cared about others, and left this world a better place than you found it?
4. Think about the newspaper headline. Before acting, when faced with an ethical dilemma, think about how you might feel if your intended action made the front pages of the local newspaper. Would you be proud to defend it? Proud if your child reads about it?

I leave you with a quote from W. Clement Stone: Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 20, 2018. Dr. Mintz is a Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit his website and sign up for the newsletter.

Ethical Relativism: A Cautionary Tale

I have blogged before about the importance of teaching ethics to youngsters and college students. There are so many activities that occur in our lives that challenge us to distinguish between ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ We need a framework to deal with such situations.

Someone I interact with online and an internet buddy, Archie Carroll, who is world renowned for his work in ethics, CSR, and more, once responded to a blog I wrote years ago that addressed the question, “Can Ethics Be Taught,” with what I think is as astute an observation as I have ever found. It’s direct and to the point”: “If ethics can be learned it can be taught.” He ‘hit the nail on the head.’

In other words, while we can teach ethics, and I have done so for the 40 years, that doesn’t mean students will learn the lesson. First of all, they have to be open to new ideas—and ideas that deal with ‘right’ versus ‘wrong.’ I have found over the years that many students believe that their ethics are their ethics and no one can tell them what’s right or wrong.’ This is an approach to teaching ethics based on relativism. It means that we define right and wrong for ourselves in each particular situation.

Ethical Relativism

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University has put together a good description of ethical relativism. Here is what they say:

“Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards — standards that can be universally applied to all people at all times. The only moral standards against which a society’s practices can be judged are their own. If ethical relativism is correct, there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.”

I don’t disagree with this description although I wonder whether bribery would be ethical in a culture that not only accepts it but promotes it–at least in some situations. I’m thinking about a country like India where bribery is illegal, no doubt, but may be an accepted practice, nonetheless. For example, this can occur in international business. There may be a situation where bribing an official gets you favored treatment. For example, you may have to bribe a customs official to offload products that have been purchased from another country. This gets back to the culture dimension of bribery. In other words, bribery is wrong, but it is tolerated in part because it’s seen as a cost of doing business.

Returning to the excellent piece written by Santa Clara University, “perhaps the strongest argument against ethical relativism comes from those who assert that universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still hold that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. society or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those societies. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi society is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.”

Teaching Values to Students

We should begin teaching ethics by inculcating values in students. This is extremely important because our society has morphed into one that is based on self-interest, not the interests of the broader community. Just think about how divided the U.S, citizenry is today. Members of political parties do what they think, or what they are told to do in the best interests of the party, and not the country. In accounting, this is antithetical to the public interest dimension of the work of an accountant and auditor.

We need to teach values to students at the earliest age possible. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen in most schools and, if it does, ethical relativism is the teaching device.

Values are things that have an inherent worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor. Moral values are the standards of behavior determined through principles of right and wrong with regards to proper conduct. It is related to a virtuous, ethically upright, principled way of doing things.

It’s not just any values we should teach. To do so just adds strength to the notion that it is alright to promote any values—the moral relativists’ view. Just imagine if the pursuit of self-interest is an acceptable standard of behavior. Can there be any doubt that wrongful behavior will occur—at least sometimes–and be sanctioned as acceptable? It is moral values that are important including honesty, integrity, respect, responsibility and so on.

Here are some tips for teaching ethics. They are drawn from a writing by the group, Capsim, that addresses a variety of teaching methods.

1. Focus on relevant situations: place your students in specific ethical dilemmas they may encounter in their personal lives and in the workplace.
2. Identify the stakeholders in each dilemma; those potentially affected by the decision or action being contemplated.
3. Highlight reasons and impacts to expand ethical conversations beyond right or wrong and delve deeper into how specific ethical decisions or actions impact all the stakeholders involved.
4. Expose students to a variety of ethical reasoning methods, not just one. This provides them with the tools to handle a variety of situations.
5. Challenge your students by adding complexity by introducing them to situational pressure such as unethical coworkers and managers.
6. Give students the confidence that they can resolve ethical dilemmas they might face.
7. Teach students critical thinking skills so they can analyze ethical dilemmas and decide on a course of action.
8. Create an environment to teach ethics in more than one single class. Ethics should be integrated throughout the curriculum to make it clear ethical dilemmas are in many areas of life and many academic disciplines.
9. Ethics is about more than teaching students ethical reasoning skills. It is to develop future leaders in society. We need it more now than ever before.
10. Model ethical behavior!

There is a lot more to say about teaching ethics that I will address going forward. Feel free to contact me if you want to ask a question or get guidance on teaching ethics.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on October 27, 2025. To learn more about Steve’s activities visit his website at: www.stevenmintzethics.com.

Core Principles of Ethical Capitalism

To understand the concept of Ethical Capitalism, we have to first consider concepts such as Conscious or Responsible Capitalism. Conscious or Responsible Capitalism is a philosophy that integrates social and environmental well-being with traditional profit-driven business models. It proposes that companies can and should function as forces for good by being accountable to all stakeholders—including employees, customers, suppliers, and the environment—not just shareholders. Key components include creating a positive company culture, using conscious leadership, and making choices that benefit all involved, such as paying fair wages and sourcing sustainably. AI points out that a stakeholder orientation promotes the idea that businesses focus on creating value for all stakeholders, not just maximizing profit for shareholders. 

What is Conscious Capitalism

I spend a lot of time reading research by colleagues on matters related to corporate social responsibility (CSR). I recently read a piece on the website of Grand Canyon University (CGU) that captures the essence of what ethical capitalism is. Here is a brief summary.

As a starting point, it’s important to understand the role of ethics in conscious capitalism. According to CGU, Conscious Capitalism is a collection of principles intended to guide corporate decision-making at all levels — from establishing the company’s official mission, to hiring members of the board, to establishing labor practices for workers.” They define the principles as follows.

• A higher purpose: “Conscious capitalism states that all businesses should have a higher purpose beyond the generation of profits.” For example, an assisted living facility would have a higher purpose of providing those services that create a facility to enhance the well-being of its clients.
• Stakeholder orientation: “Conscious capitalism requires companies to orient their mission and business practices toward meeting the best interests of all of their stakeholders. A company’s stakeholders can include its employees, shareholders, suppliers, vendors, customers, clients and labor unions. The community near the company is also a stakeholder in the company’s success, as businesses have direct impacts on their surrounding communities.”
• Conscious leadership: The person at the head of an organization must be accountable for fostering ethical behavior and exude ethical leadership, which means to “take ownership in their work, drive innovation, work toward positive change and inspire others. In conscious capitalism, conscious leadership also applies to every team member — not just the CEO.”
• Conscious culture: “A company’s culture can be described as either toxic or uplifting. It’s the responsibility of every leader in the organization to nurture a positive company culture that benefits all stakeholders and drives the company forward.”

Ethical Considerations

Some critics argue that the inherent drive for profit in capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with true ethical behavior, and that concepts like “ethical capitalism” can be a misleading form of “greenwashing” or “social washing”. 

Greenwashing is when a company or product makes false or exaggerated claims about being environmentally friendly to mislead consumers. It’s a misleading marketing tool where organizations spend more on advertising their “green” initiatives than on actually implementing sustainable practices. This practice allows companies to capitalize on the growing demand for sustainable products while avoiding the costs and efforts of being truly eco-friendly. Some maintain that it is possible to build a more ethical system by incorporating principles of social responsibility into the capitalist framework, with others tracing these ideas back to the philosophy of Adam Smith. 

Virtually all businesses have ethical codes of conduct. For these purposes, we can use one definition that “ethics” refers to a collection of moral principles that guide the behaviors, conduct and decision-making of individuals and groups. Through ethical codes, humans grapple with some of the most complicated questions in life, such as:

• What is right and wrong? Here, morality comes into play.
• What are humanity’s rights and responsibilities? Here, the rights theory guides ethical decisions by acting in the best interests of humanity and making decisions that are motivated by right, not wrong; good, not bad.
• How can one live a good life? Here, a virtue approach to decision-making guide decisions and actions by seeking out happiness through ethical decision-making.
• How can decision-makers balance the good and bad? Here, utilitarian ethics guides decision-making is useful. The decision-maker would have to evaluate the harms and benefits of alternative actions a select the one that maximizes net benefits.

Ethical Companies

Patagonia is a good example of a socially responsible company that acts in accordance with ethical principles. This outdoor clothing company is committed to maintaining an environmentally friendly supply chain, having switched from pesticide-heavy crops to organic cotton. Furthermore, the company pays its workers fair wages.

Whole Foods is another ethical company. The co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, is also the co-founder of the conscious capitalism movement. As such, it makes sense that the company would adhere to ethical principles that nurture all of its stakeholders and promote healthy living. For example, the company builds stores that use alternative energy, recycles rainwater and uses food scraps for energy. It also pays its workers fairly while capping salaries for executives.

Another ethically conscious company is Bombas. To date, Bombas has donated more than 75 million clothing items to homeless shelters and has partnered with more than 3,500 community organizations across the nation. This company is a force for good.

As you can see, there are a number of ways that companies can adhere to the ethical principles of conscious capitalism. Ideally, a company will adopt comprehensive policies and practices designed to nurture ethical decision-making in all of its spheres of influence — from environmental impacts to social well-being.

Core Principles of Ethical Capitalism

Ethical Capitalism, in its simplest form, is about doing good while doing business. At its heart, Ethical Capitalism operates on a fundamental principle → that businesses can be both profitable and ethical. This isn’t a utopian dream, but a practical approach to commerce that acknowledges the interconnectedness of economic, social, and ecological systems.

The key ideas behind Ethical Capitalism is to incorporate it into straightforward concepts that resonate with everyday life. The Sustainability Directory outlines the principles of ethical capitalism as follows.

• Stakeholder Consideration → Moving beyond just shareholders, businesses consider all stakeholders – employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and the environment – in their decisions. It’s like planning a family gathering, ensuring everyone’s needs are considered, not just your own.
• Transparency and Accountability → Openness about business practices and taking responsibility for actions. Imagine a clothing brand openly sharing where their materials come from and how their garments are made, good or bad, and working to improve any shortcomings.
• Fairness and Equity → Striving for just and equitable treatment in all business dealings. This means paying fair wages, providing safe working conditions, and ensuring equal opportunities. It’s like ensuring everyone at the playground gets a fair turn on the swings.
• Sustainability → Operating in a way that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This involves minimizing environmental impact and conserving resources. Think of it as leaving the campsite cleaner than you found it, ensuring others can enjoy it too.

These principles aren’t just abstract ideals; they are practical guidelines that shape how businesses operate daily. From sourcing materials to managing employees and engaging with communities, Ethical Capitalism offers a framework for building a more just and sustainable economic system. It recognizes that long-term success isn’t solely measured in financial terms but also in the positive impact a business has on the world around it. It is a move toward businesses becoming forces for good, actively contributing to a better future for all.

There is a lot more to Ethical Capitalism. One issue I will look at in a future blog is the role of Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) in carrying out ethical investing decisions that benefit the stakeholders.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit Steve’s website (www.stevenmintzethics.com) to find out more about his activities.

The Security Executive Council’s Analysis

Recently, I read a study by The Security Executive Council that identifies increasing incidence of incivility and related negative behaviors, including rule breaking, disorder, and violence, that is costing U.S. businesses billions of dollars in lost productivity and absenteeism attributable to incivility. The report identifies environments such as retail floors, call centers, offices, and public spaces. While some companies have enhanced their security measures and operational changes, others remain unprepared for the scope and pace of these developments.

Addressing Uncivil Behavior

According to the study, managers are often unsuccessful at addressing rude behavior, which may contribute to employee disengagement and cynicism. The public is deeply concerned about rising local crime, with retailers reporting an increase in violence risk during theft incidents.

We are all-too familiar with smash and grab incidents where youthful offenders break through the outer glass of a storefront and grab whatever they can. These offenders have gotten so bold that they now do so during daylight, work hours. In California, new laws strengthen felony sentences for large-scale theft crimes and allow prosecutors to combine the value of stolen goods from multiple incidents to meet the felony threshold of $950 or more for reporting. In other words, if an offender steals $950 on one break-in, they will be prosecuted. If they do not, they won’t be prosecuted. However, if they are multiple offenders, the value of each theft is combined to see if the $950 threshold for reporting has been met.

Making the Right Choice

Civility requires that we make the right choices when dealing with others–how we treat them, respect, responsibility and ethical behavior. By doing so, we reduce or eliminate the desire to act selfishly and ignore the needs of others. The following are descriptions of bad behavior that need to be addressed by society to ensure we make right choices, not wrong ones.

Incivility and Disrespect as Emerging Workplace Norms

Incidents of customer aggression have also grown; the National Customer Rage Study reports more yelling and hostility toward frontline staff, with nearly one in five Americans admitting to uncivil behavior toward businesses. Online harassment and cyberbullying have escalated as well. The impact on businesses includes reduced engagement and collaboration, increased absenteeism, reputational harm in customer-facing roles, and higher turnover rates among employees exposed to uncivil environments.

Defiance of Rules and Law

According to the Security Executive Council report, since 2019, increases have been reported in shoplifting, organized retail crime, non-residential burglary, cargo theft, porch piracy, and fraud, including those enabled by deepfake technology. Internal policy violations linked to substance use affect productivity and safety; there has been a rise in workplace overdose deaths and lost workdays due to untreated substance use disorders. Businesses have responded by investing in loss prevention, insurance, audits, internal controls, and employee support, with sectors such as retail and hospitality experiencing pronounced effects due to tighter profit margin.

Rising Threats and Violence

Revised federal data indicates violent crime rates remain high compared to pre-pandemic levels and hate crime incidents have increased. Workplace violence persists as a concern, particularly for public-facing positions, and there has been a growth in threats against executives, including cases involving weapons, leading to increased spending on executive protection and facility hardening. Even without specific incidents, perceived threats can affect psychological safety, recruitment, retention, and insurance or liability costs.

Conclusions

The report concludes: (1) costs associated with incivility are extensive and the public is becoming more aware of them and the costs of performance. Needless to say, there is a downward effect on profitability. Also, (2) leadership gaps may cause additional workplace stress and dysfunction.

I asked AI about what businesses do about these problems and here is what it said:

” Businesses protect against theft by implementing a combination of physical and procedural security measures, including installing surveillance systems and alarms, securing physical access with strong locks and access controls, and training employees on security protocols and theft prevention. They also reduce risk through regular audits, inventory checks, and good customer service, and by maintaining well-lit and visible premises.”

Many of us have gone into stores like Target in the SF Bay Area, only to find a lot of the products we want are locked up and we have to find someone to unlock where they are to buy the product. This says it all about how we have morphed into a selfish, uncaring society. Obviously, not all people engage in these acts. In fact, it’s a large minority. However, as in many things these days that affect our lives and enjoyment, it’s the acts of the few that mess things up to the many who play by the rules, rather than make up our own rules.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Professor Emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. To learn more about Steve’s activities, visit his website at: www.stevenmintzethics.com.

A Narcissistic Personality Disorder

I’m back online now and reflecting on the events of the past two weeks during which time I didn’t blog because of the migration of “Ethics Sage” and “Workplace Ethics Advice.” So much is happening, in part because President Trump seems to need to be in the news every day. It’s almost like he doesn’t care what the issue is or his opinion, he’ll go on “Truth Social” and blog away.

Here is a recent post that deals with the Israel-Hamas matter. It’s hard to believe even Trump believes it:

President @realDonaldTrump: “Generations from now, this will be remembered as the moment that everything began to change… Like the USA right now, it will be the GOLDEN AGE of Israel and the Golden Age of the Middle East.”

Does he realize that the current clash follows those of 2008–2009, 2012, 2014, and the 2021? In my opinion, the end result of the War, whenever it officially ends, is that Trump’s actions have created a whole new generation of Palestinian’s who hate Jews and will continue the skirmishes. It may take time because of the total devastation of Gaza, but it will come eventually. It’s a matter of history repeating itself.

He seems to be saying the USA is headed into some kind of Golden Age. Has he been reading the newspapers? Does he stay current with events such as the shutdown of the government, firing of government workers deemed unneeded, ill-thought-out tariffs placed on foreign goods, nationalization of the National Guard, and more.

What bothers me the most is the War between Ukraine and Russia. There is no explanation for why Trump has essentially ignored Russian aggression. There is some movement in his position but nothing like his involvement in the Israel-Hamas clash where he has been able to seemingly bring an end to the conflict. Moreover, he seems to say things that are wholly unlikely, such as his statement at the UN that follows.

President Trump shifted his position on whether Ukraine should hold out for all the territory seized by Russia, saying on social media that he thinks Ukraine is in a position to win it all back. It’s a reversal from his long-held position that Kyiv would need to give up some of its territory to Moscow to end the war – such as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.

But now, “after getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation,” Trump said he believes Ukraine – backed by the European Union and NATO – can win back all its territory.

“Why not?” he said in a post after he met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, even suggesting that Ukraine could “maybe even go further than that!”

Why doesn’t Trump threaten Putin like he has Zelenskyy, Hamas, India and Pakistan and more? I believe the explanation is Putin has some damaging information, as yet unearthed, about Trump and it could include Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election. In other words, Putin threatens Trump about what might happen if he goes all out to support Ukraine. I could be wrong. It’s just my opinion and I have no facts to back it up. It’s the only explanation I have for his weakness in relations with Russia and not calling out its horrible actions in Ukraine.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Professor Emeritus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on October 13, 2025. To learn more about Steve’s activities, please visit his website at: www.stevenmintzethics.com.

I have been away from blogging for a couple of weeks because my host–Typepad–shut down. I have been busy migrating to WordPress. I am developing new blogs that will be posted shortly. In the meantime, there is much to discuss including Trump not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, the first stages of releasing hostages and ending the Israel-Hamas war, the seemingly never-ending war between Ukraine and Russia, the shutdown of the U.S. government, violence in our streets, the use of the National Guard to keep the peace, and the way our country is divided on political and social issues. An interesting question that I will discuss in my blogs is: Are there any common denominators that cause this strife and make life so much harder for the average citizen? I believe there are a few common factors. First, we have morphed into an egotistical society. We no longer act in the best interests of others. It’s a “What’s in it for me society.” We have also become a rude society, and civility is the exception, rather than the rule. So many of our younger adults have little or no impulse control, which is why we see things like mass killings. Rather than civilly discussing differences, we shout at each other and even turn to violent behavior. In short, we have lost our moral compass. We no longer have a core set of moral values that guides our behavior. Perhaps that’s why some people say: “I am telling you my truth.” This implies there is more than one truth in a situation. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me, and we wind up with dozens of truths and no way to resolve differences.

My final words for today are we must learn how to disagree with each other without being disagreeable towards each other.

Please continue to read my blogs on the ethics sage website or workplace ethics advice. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Blog posted on October 10, 2025. Learn more about Steve’s activities on his website: www.stevenmintzethics.com.

Leadership is the Key

I’ve often wondered whether employees leave a job because of the way they are treated. After all, it is a matter of ethics in the way superiors interact with their employees. While factors such as good pay, generous vacation time, and other perks are important, it seems as though employees quit jobs not because of them but because of the way they are treated by their bosses.

Thomas Griffin writes about leadership skills in an interesting and informative way. Griffin points to a study published in DDI’s Frontline Leader Project that addresses the emotions and relationships of frontline managers. The survey collected data from more than 1,000 managers, senior leaders, and individual contributors. The published findings reveal the anxieties, frustrations, and rewarding moments experienced by frontline managers, as well as the reflections of their senior leaders and direct reports.

Leadership Skills

Key findings in the research include:

• 57 percent of employees have left a job because of their manager. Furthermore, 14 percent have left multiple jobs because of their managers. An additional 32 percent have seriously considered leaving because of their manager. 
• Bad leaders create unhealthy work environments rife with ineffective communication, lack of recognition, micromanagement and poor productivity.
• A significant change in leadership strategy and execution is necessary to retain key employees.

Why People Leave Bad Leaders

Griffin identifies five dangerous practices and habits of bad leaders that create toxic workplace cultures.

1. Refusing to Lead by Example
2. Not Offering Support and Recognition
3. Communicating Ineffectively
4. Micromanaging and Withholding Control
5. Fostering an Unhealthy Work Environment

Each of these activities creates workplace cultures that can lead the best of employees to quit, leaving only those who don’t care about getting results for the organization.

8 Principles to Become a Better Leader

Griffin discusses “8 Principles to Help You Become a Better Leader.”

1. Lead by Example
2. Listen to Understand, Not Respond
3. Creating a Clear Strategy Centered Around Vision, Mission and Values
4. Be Proactive, Not Reactive
5. Communicating More Effectively
6. Audit Existing Systems, Processes and Practices
7. Invest in Your Employees
8. Commitment to the Plan

These are right on point but could be strengthened by adding something about reporting wrongdoing. For example, if an employee believes the organization has committed fraud or other wrongdoing, it should provide an outlet to report it without fear of retribution. This has become increasingly important in an environment where organizations do not ‘walk the talk’ of ethics. A positive step is having a C-Suite position for the VP Ethics or Ethics Compliance Officer.

Recently, I blogged about “Quiet Quitting.” If employees become resentful of the way a manager treats them or their work conditions, they may ‘check out,’ that is, underperform on the job. The reason is they no longer are getting the return of their investment in the job, perhaps because of the way they are treated.

Quiet Quitting

Employers need to be sensitive to the activities and relationships within the organization that might motivate quiet quitting. According to a study by Gallup, quiet quitters make up at least 50% of the U.S. workforce. Many quiet quitters fit the definition of being “not engaged” at work — people who do the minimum required and are psychologically detached from their job. Gallup found a decline in engagement and employee satisfaction among remote Gen Z and younger millennials – those below age 35. This is important because they will be the primary workplace group going forward and need to align themselves with organizational values to promote ethical behavior within the organization.

According to research by LLC, when quiet quitters decide to do the bare minimum in their roles, they’re often pushing some of their responsibilities off on others, whether they realize it or not. Naturally, that isn’t going to go over well with some of the quiet quitter’s colleagues. In the LLC report, 62% of employees surveyed said they are annoyed by the trend of quiet quitting, with 57% stating that they had to take on extra work because a colleague had quietly quit.

The following signs of quiet quitting illustrate why this trend could be dangerous for employers. Taken to an extreme, it could bring into question one’s work/life balance and wellness, with a negative effect on workplace culture.

• Disengagement on a chronic basis.
• Performance only to the minimum set of performance standards.
• Isolation from other members of the team.
• Withdrawal from any non-necessary conversations, activities or tasks.

To fend off quiet quitting, employers should create a culture that encourages employees to stay with the organization—such as loyalty, responsibility by top management, respect by management for employees, valuing others’ contributions in the workplace, and creating a workplace culture that promotes alignment with organizational values, strategies, and objectives.

When I teach ethics to college students, I like to end each session with famous quotes. I have found it helps them to recall the material discussed in class. Here are a few of my favorites.

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things” (Peter Drucker, Management and leadership guru).

“A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way.” (John Maxwell, author, who wrote: The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader.

 “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.”(Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights activist and political philosopher).

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on August 26, 2025. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter.

Cultivating Moral Values to Enhance Ethical Behavior

If you are like me, there are times when you can only shake your head in disbelief when learning about someone you always felt was a good person who had done bad things in their past. Names such as Bill Cosby come to mind who, allegedly, sexually abused or harassed more than 60 women.

Then, there are those who were pillars of the community but also got caught with past indiscretions. Bernie Madoff engaged in a Ponzi scheme defrauding investors of approximately $65 billion, according to court records.

Doing Good by Being Good

In my last blog I explored, “What Does “Doing good by being good” mean? Simply stated, it highlights the idea that when one acts with kindness and compassion (being good) it will lead to positive actions and outcomes (doing good). It suggests that a person’s inherent goodness, their moral character, is the foundation for their helpful and ethical behavior. This concept can be explored in various contexts, from personal relationships, such as Cosby, community involvement, and/or business practices, such as Madoff.

As moral individuals, we should commit to following ethical values to be a good person. Ethical values such as honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility, and integrity come to mind. Good people strive to do the right thing. They recognize that their actions have consequences. They are aware of the rights of others and act in a way they hope others would act if faced with similar situations.

Good people think with their head and act in concert with their heart, and they apply the knowledge and wisdom gained through a lifetime of experiences. Good people are honest, trustworthy, fair-minded, and empathetic towards others. Good people accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions and strive to learn from their mistakes; improve their behavior throughout their lifetime.

Motivation for Unethical Actions

As I have written before, while good people sometimes do bad things it doesn’t mean they are bad people. Instead, circumstances may arise where they feel pressured by peers to deviate from ethical behavior. This happens in business all the time.

Take the case of Betty Vinson. Asked by her bosses at WorldCom ($11 billion fraud) to make false accounting entries, Vinson questioned the entries and knew they were wrong. Still, she recorded the improper amounts out of fear of losing her job and not being able to support her family. She knew the manipulation of accounting records was wrong but did so because of being pressured by the CFO.

In other situations, good people may do bad things because they want to be seen as a “team player.” So, they decide to go with the flow regardless of the ethicality of behavior of their peers. Oftentimes, a cover-up ensues if the offending party is questioned why they acted in a particular way.

Sometimes, good people take actions they believe are for the ‘greater good’, not understanding the harmful consequences. “The end justifies the means” is a saying derived from the literary works of Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli. It implies that a positive result merits any negative action necessary to achieve it. This sense of control is another reason why good people do bad things. An example would be going to extreme lengths of civil disobedience, like damaging property, to draw attention to urgent societal issues.

Although people may feel uncomfortable with what is happening as they move down the “ethical slippery slope,” they convince themselves that “so long as it is legal, it is ethical” or that they are doing what is expected of them. Rationalization — the ability to justify our behavior — is one of our greatest moral failings. Behavior that would clearly be considered unethical by an outsider becomes acceptable to those involved because “this is the way things get done by others in my peer group or work team”, or “it doesn’t really hurt anyone”.

Clarifying Your Moral Values

Good people can largely avoid doing bad things by clarifying their own values and acting on them whenever possible. We become ethical people by making ethical decisions regardless of the pressure to do otherwise. We become kind people by practicing kindness. We become compassionate by having compassion for others. This is an important tenet of virtue ethics.

 Being a good person also involves being fair-minded by seeing all sides of a conflict and then acting in accordance with our values. We think first and then act rather than acting without exploring what might happen if we take one action or another. This is the message of utilitarianism, which holds that the consequences of our actions should precede action and, indeed, influence it.

If a good person does bad things, even if it is an isolated incident, all trust may be lost if the community no longer trusts the offender. The saga of Lance Armstrong is a case in point. He cheated to win multiple Tour de France races, which are multiple-stage bicycle race primarily held in France.

I have found that those who lie or deceive others do so by omitting truthful information that another party has a (Kantian) right to know to carry out their obligations and duties. Trustworthy people always strive to tell the truth by keeping their word; and honest people do so by not exaggerating the truth for their own benefit.

You Are a Human Being; Forgive Yourself for Past Discretions

Displaying behaviors viewed as uncharacteristically “bad” may stem from many reasons, including a lack of self-awareness. But this doesn’t always define who we are. Being unaware of our emotions and values at the moment can lead to unintentional actions that go against our guiding principles, especially under stress.

Think about this: “The human condition is one of imperfections.” Everyone faces their own challenges, makes mistakes, has an error in judgment, or says something they regret after the fact. These moments don’t make you a “bad” person, they simply make you human. What can you do to counteract wrongful behavior? First, omit your mistake. Then, promise not to do it again and third restore trust by making amends.

Being labeled as “good” or “bad” often comes from how others view your long-standing patterns of behavior and personality. If you typically act with kindness, compassion, and fair judgment, you may be perceived as “good.”

Being “good,” however, doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t do bad things. By understanding why good people sometimes do bad things, you’re cultivating your own traits of goodness, like empathy and compassion.

Finally, good people do not need laws to tell them to act truthfully and responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. These are the challenges to ethical behavior in our personal lives and in the workplace.

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on August 20, 2025. Steve is the author of Beyond Happiness and Meaning: Transforming Your Life Through Ethical Behavior, which is available on Amazon. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter.

Striving to Be a Better Person

What Does “Doing good by being good” mean? Simply stated, it highlights the idea that when one acts with kindness and compassion (being good) it will lead to positive actions and outcomes (doing good). It suggests that a person’s inherent goodness, their moral character, is the foundation for their helpful and ethical behavior. This concept can be explored in various contexts, from personal relationships and community involvement to business practices and even the motivations behind charitable acts. 

Motivation for Action

While both “doing good” and “being good” are important, the phrase “doing good by being good” highlights the significance of motivation. True goodness, according to this perspective, stems from an internal commitment to ethical principles. It means that a person wants to do the right thing, not because it will keep them out of trouble but because they treat all rational beings, including oneself, as ends in themselves, possessing inherent dignity and intrinsic value, rather than treating them merely as means to achieve their goals. This is known as the “Categorical Imperative” as expressed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. 

Kant believed that humanity should always be treated as an end in itself and never merely as a means to an end, a principle called the Humanity Formulation of the Categorical Imperative. This means that people should respect the inherent rational nature and autonomous choice of every individual, recognizing their intrinsic worth beyond any utility they might offer. Actions like lying, cheating, or violence are unethical because they fail to respect a person’s rational autonomy, either by deceiving them or by failing to consider their own goals and needs.  

Interconnectedness of Moral Character and Ethical Actions

“Being good” suggests a consistent pattern of ethical behavior, while “doing good” can sometimes be a one-time action or a series of isolated acts. In essence, the idea of “doing good by being good” emphasizes the interconnectedness of moral character and ethical actions, suggesting that a genuine commitment to goodness is the most sustainable and impactful way to create positive change in the world. 

“Doing good by being good” means acting ethically and morally not just through specific actions, but also through one’s inherent character and disposition. It’s about cultivating a virtuous character that naturally leads to beneficial actions, rather than simply performing good deeds for external reasons. In other words, 

• “Doing good”: refers to specific actions that are considered beneficial or helpful to others or society. 
• “Being good”: refers to one’s character, values, and moral disposition. 
• “Doing good by being good”: implies that one’s actions reflect their inner moral compass and that they are motivated by genuine virtue rather than external factors or self-interest.

Developing a Moral Character

The ancient Greeks, Aristotle and Socrates, believed that ethical actions stem from a foundation of strong moral character and core values. It means that individuals who cultivate virtues like honesty, kindness, empathy, and responsibility are more likely to make ethical choices and contribute positively to society, regardless of specific rules or external pressures. 

The Greek word arete translates to excellence, virtue, or the state of fulfilling one’s potential. It encompasses not just moral virtue, but also the idea of excelling in any field, whether it be one’s profession or activities such as athletics. Essentially, arete signifies the highest form of a person or thing’s inherent capabilities. 

Here’s a breakdown of the meaning of moral character as the ancient Greeks conceived of it:

• Focus on Inner Character: Ethical behavior isn’t just about following rules or avoiding bad actions, but about developing a virtuous character from within.
• The Golden Rule as a Foundation: The concept highlights the importance of the Golden Rule – “treating others as you would wish to be treated” – as a guiding principle for cultivating ethical traits.
• Virtues as Building Blocks: Practicing virtues like honesty, kindness, empathy, and personal responsibility cultivates an “honorable and moral character.”
• Beyond Rules: Individuals with strong moral characters do not need external laws to guide them, as their ingrained values drive them to act responsibly.
• Developing Habits: Ethical character is developed through conscious effort and practice, making ethical responses habitual over time.
• Action Guiding (Indirectly): While it doesn’t provide specific rules for every situation, virtue ethics suggests that by cultivating a virtuous character, individuals can develop what the ancient Greeks thought of as phronesis or wisdom to navigate moral dilemmas effectively. 

By doing good and being good one can gain eudaimonia, which means happiness to the Greeks, a concept often translated as human flourishing or a life well-lived. The pursuit of happiness is a goal in itself and can be achieved by acting with virtue. This suggests that living a virtuous life contributes to a sense of fulfillment and well-being. 

The link between doing good and being good can be viewed through the lens of ethics. Ethics concerns an individual’s moral judgments about right and wrong. These judgments reflect our character and thought process – the way we reason through difficult decisions in life and choose between alternative courses of action. It is sometimes said that ethics is all about what we do when no one is looking. Ethical decisions are driven by a desire to do the right thing, not because it brings notoriety, monetary rewards, power, or prestige. Instead, being an ethical person is a goal in itself: I want to be a better person, so I choose to act in accordance with moral values, meaning ethically.

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on August 18, 2025. Steve is the author of Beyond Happiness and Meaning: Transforming Your Life Through Ethical Behavior, which is available on Amazon. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter.

ACCOUNTING FIRMS’ ETHICS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED

Having taught both millennials and Gen Z, I’ve always wondered the extent to which values and ethics are considered in the job search decision. Even if they want to consider it in their decision-making process, the question is how to do so. Candidates for positions can’t ask straight out about these things. They could do an Internet search to see if there are any bad marks against the firm. Today, it’s quite common for candidates to ask Artificial Intelligence (AI) a question about the ethics of firms.

I decided to ask AI the question: Is “X” an ethical firm. I only asked about the Big 4, believing the responses would give me a clear view of ethical decision-making that could be applied to all firms. The responses appear at the end of this blog.

One of the reasons for this post is to provide a prelude to my next post about millennials and Gen Z, and the extent to which they consider values and ethics in the job search decision.

OVERVIEW: ETHICS OF ACCOUNTING/AUDITING FIRMS

Looking at some of the most important data, we can see some interesting results as follows:

Deloitte: The China division was charged with operational and ethical malpractice. This could be worrisome if a candidate wants to work overseas. Are the ethical controls lighter than in the U.S.?

EY: Recent ethical lapses: cheating on internal exams and very low PCAOB inspection scores may indicate a troublesome trend for the ethics of EY.

KPMG: Recent ethical lapses: cheating on internal training exams and hiring former PCAOB staffers to provide confidential information on PCAOB audit inspection targets.

PwC: PwC Australia engaged in a scandal involving the misuse of confidential government tax information to help clients avoid taxes. This is a gross violation of confidentiality and integrity and could be indicative of a lower ethics standard for work overseas.

The discussion below tends to focus on violations of ethics in independence, objectivity and integrity.

FIRM ETHICAL LAPSES

Deloitte

Deloitte generally portrays itself as an ethical firm, emphasizing integrity, values-based decision-making, and a strong Code of Ethics. However, it has also faced accusations of ethical lapses and malpractice, particularly in its auditing division in China. Deloitte’s own documentation highlights its commitment to ethics and information security through various certifications and policies. 

Deloitte’s Stance on Ethics:

• Core Values:

Deloitte explicitly lists integrity as one of its four core values, emphasizing its role as a guiding principle for decisions and actions. 

• Code of Ethics

The firm has a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct that outlines the standards expected of its professionals worldwide. 

• Ethics Training:

Deloitte requires ethics training for all employees, including independent contractors, and provides additional training to leadership. 

• Reporting Channels:

Deloitte offers various channels for reporting ethical concerns, emphasizing confidentiality and non-retaliation. 

Allegations and Concerns:

China Auditing Division:

.In 2021, Deloitte was accused of operational and ethical malpractice in its China auditing division. 

Deloitte’s Response:

• Investigation:

Deloitte launched an investigation into the allegations regarding its China auditing division.

• Commitment to Ethics:

Deloitte maintains that its ethics program is robust and that it takes these issues seriously. 

• Transparency:

Deloitte states it has taken steps to address concerns and reinforce its commitment to ethical conduct. 

Conclusion:

While Deloitte actively promotes itself as an ethical firm and has systems in place to uphold ethical standards, it has faced criticism and allegations of unethical practices in certain areas. The company’s response to these challenges will be crucial in shaping its future reputation. 

Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young (EY) has faced significant ethical challenges and scrutiny in recent years, despite having a Global Code of Conduct. While EY maintains a commitment to ethical conduct and has taken steps to address past issues, instances of cheating on professional exams and withholding information from regulators have led to substantial fines and reputational damage. 

Arguments suggesting EY is not consistently ethical:

• Cheating on exams

In 2022, the SEC fined EY $100 million for employees cheating on ethics exams required for CPA licenses and for withholding evidence of this misconduct. This suggests a culture where ethical standards were not universally upheld. 

• Audit deficiencies

One of LinkedIn posts reviews the PCAOB audit inspection report showed EY had a 37% audit deficiency rate in 2023, which, while an improvement from 46% in 2022, still indicates a significant rate of audits with flaws. 

• Ethics training

Despite repeated warnings, cheating continued, indicating a failure in ethics and integrity training. 

• Withholding evidence

EY was found to have withheld evidence of misconduct from regulators during an investigation, which is a serious breach of trust and ethical standards. 

• Tax scheme

EY devised a tax scheme for Perrigo that was later questioned by the IRS, highlighting potential conflicts of interest and unethical tax avoidance strategies. 

Arguments suggesting EY is committed to ethical conduct:

• Global Code of Conduct:

EY has a Global Code of Conduct that outlines ethical standards and principles for its employees. 

• Total Rewards program:

EY offers a comprehensive Total Rewards program, which includes benefits and support for employee well-being. 

• Constructive collaborations:

EY partners with organizations like Teach For All to develop future leaders, demonstrating a commitment to social responsibility. 

Conclusion:

While EY has a Global Code of Conduct and has taken steps to address ethical lapses, the repeated instances of cheating, audit deficiencies, and other issues demonstrate that the firm has not consistently maintained the highest ethical standards. The firm’s actions, including the $100 million fine from the SEC, underscore the seriousness of these ethical breaches.

KPMG

KPMG has faced significant ethical concerns and penalties in recent years, including accusations of cheating on internal exams, sharing confidential information with regulators, and misleading investigators. While KPMG emphasizes its commitment to ethics and integrity through its Global Code of Conduct and various compliance programs, these incidents raise questions about the firm’s ethical culture and the effectiveness of its internal controls. 

Evidence of Ethical Lapses:

• PCAOB Scandal:

KPMG was fined by the PCAOB for cheating on internal training exams and submitting inaccurate information to regulators during investigations. 

• Misleading Regulators:

KPMG personnel were found to have shared confidential information about upcoming PCAOB inspections and used this information to improve audit results. 

• Cheating on Exams:

KPMG admitted that some of its employees cheated on mandatory continuing education exams. 

• SEC Fine:

The SEC fined KPMG $50 million to settle charges related to the scandals. 

• California Board of Accountancy:

KPMG was also fined by the California Board of Accountancy for violations of the Accountancy Act. 

KPMG’s Response and Commitments:

• Global Code of Conduct:

KPMG has a Global Code of Conduct that outlines expected standards of behavior and emphasizes integrity. 

• Ethics and Compliance Program:

.KPMG has an ethics and compliance program designed to support a culture of ethical behavior and provide resources for employees.

• Increased accountability

KPMG has stated that it is increasing partner accountability and taking steps to transform its governance. 

• Culture of Reporting:

KPMG encourages employees to raise concerns and has policies in place to protect those who report misconduct.

Overall Assessment:

While KPMG has made efforts to address ethical concerns and improve its culture, the repeated incidents of misconduct raise questions about the effectiveness of its measures and the depth of its commitment to ethical practices. The firm’s actions have resulted in significant fines and reputational damage, highlighting the importance of maintaining a strong ethical culture and robust compliance program.

PwC

While PwC, one of the “Big Four” accounting firms, has a stated commitment to ethical business practices and a code of conduct, it has also faced significant ethical scandals, particularly involving tax avoidance and conflicts of interest. These incidents raise questions about the firm’s actual ethical culture and whether its actions align with its stated values. 

PwC’s Stated Commitment to Ethics:

• Code of conduct

PwC has a code of conduct that outlines the firm’s values and principles, emphasizing ethical behavior. 

• Ethics and Compliance Program:

They have a program dedicated to ethics and compliance, with leaders committed to upholding these principles. 

• Human Rights Policy:

PwC has a global human rights policy that sets a baseline for ethical conduct and respect for human rights according to PwC. 

• Sustainability Focus:

PwC also highlights its commitment to sustainability, with a Platinum rating from EcoVadis recognizing its work in environmental, labor, ethics, and sustainable procurement. 

Ethical Concerns and Scandals:

• Tax Avoidance Scandal:

PwC Australia was embroiled in a major scandal involving the misuse of confidential government tax information to help clients avoid taxes. 

• Conflicts of Interest:

The firm has been criticized for advising governments on tax laws while simultaneously helping multinational corporations establish tax avoidance schemes according to the NY Times.

• Lack of Accountability:

Investigations into PwC Australia revealed a culture where senior leaders were not held accountable for unethical behavior. 

• Lack of Diversity and Inclusion:

There have been allegations of discriminatory practices within the firm, particularly affecting Black, female, and non-native born employees according to Reddit.  

Conclusion:

While PwC publicly emphasizes its commitment to ethics and has implemented measures to promote ethical behavior, the firm has also been involved in significant ethical breaches. This raises questions about whether its stated values are consistently reflected in its actions. The extent to which PwC is truly an “ethical firm” is a matter of ongoing debate and scrutiny, particularly in light of the recent scandals and the need for cultural change.

SUMMING IT ALL UP

It can’t be denied that the firms have been embroiled in serious ethical lapses, especially in the past few years. Cheating on internal training and CPE exams is shocking, especially when the tests were administered for ethics courses. Each of the Big 4 firms, except Deloitte, seem to have gotten caught up in the cheating scandals. KPMG’s hiring of former PCAOB inspectors to gain inside information brings into question the overall ethics of the firm, especially integrity, and the firm has received high scores on deficiencies in audits by the PCAOB. PwC’s tax problems in its Australia firm which shows the misuse of confidential government tax information raises a red flag whether the firms are paying sufficient attention to ethics in their overseas operations. The same could be said about Deloitte’s China auditing division. Finally, EY has experienced a variety of violations including cheating on training exams, tax schemes, and a high level of audit deficiencies. Moreover, an ethical problem in soliciting new audit business for a potential client of EY, Sealed Air, raises questions about the firm’s independence. I have addressed these issues before in a LinkedIn post.

Revisiting AI

AI provides reasons why a candidate should find out about the ethics of firms with which they intend to interview.

• Professional Integrity: Accountants are bound by strict professional codes of ethics, emphasizing integrity, objectivity, and confidentiality. Working for an unethical employer can create serious conflicts with these professional obligations and potentially damage their reputation or career.
• Avoiding Legal and Reputational Risk: Unethical practices within a company, like fraudulent reporting, can lead to legal penalties, financial losses, and reputational damage for everyone involved, including the accountants.
• Work Environment and Job Satisfaction: A strong ethical culture contributes to a more positive and secure work environment, which can lead to higher job satisfaction.

The bottom line is whether candidates for positions should investigate these matters and use the information gathered in job selection situations. My next blog will address this issue.

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 29, 2025. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter. 

Who Do You Trust…Or Mistrust?

According to a Gallup poll during December 2-18, 2024, three in four Americans consider nurses highly honest and ethical, making them the most trusted of 23 professions rated in Gallup’s annual measurement. Grade-school teachers rank second, with 61% viewing them highly, while military officers, pharmacists and medical doctors also earn high trust from majorities of Americans.

The least trusted professions, with more than half of U.S. adults saying their ethics are low or very low, are lobbyists, members of Congress and TV reporters.

Of the remaining occupations measured in the Dec. 2-18, 2024, poll, six (including police officers, clergy and judges) are viewed more positively than negatively by Americans, although with positive ratings not reaching the majority level. The other nine, notably including bankers, lawyers and business executives, are seen more negatively than positively, with no more than 50% rating their ethics low.

The 76% of U.S. adults who now say nurses have “very high” or “high” honesty and ethical standards is far more than any of the other professions rated. Still, the current rating is 10 percentage points lower than the highest rating for nurses, recorded in 2020, when they were on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic and their ethics ratings soared.

Grade schoolteachers have a 61% high/very high rating while military officers have a 59% rating. The following are pharmacists with 57% and medical doctors with 53%. All of the remaining professions have a lower score for very high ethics than average plus low/very low. One conclusion is those in the “helping professions” rate highest in honesty and ethics.

Perhaps not surprising to most Americans, members of Congress have a rating of only 8% very high and lobbyists even worse. This doesn’t surprise me as our government has been dysfunctional for a long time. We tend to “kick the can down the road” on many issues (i.e., immigration). Moreover, most of us do not trust our representatives in Congress. They tend to look out for what is in their best interests, not the public interest.

Bankers, lawyers and business executives are near the bottom, right by car salespeople. What should we make of their low rating on honesty and ethics? One conclusion is the professions involved in our capitalistic economic system are not working. Capitalism is being attacked by many sides, including those who prefer a more socialistic system. Just consider the 33-year-old democratic socialist Assembly member named Zohran Mamdani now running for mayor of NYC. Bernie Sanders is a long-standing socialist and then we have the so-called “squad.”

Honesty and ethics are two values that provide the ethical foundation for an economic system and system of government that builds trust in the minds of the public. The Gallup results make it clear that trust has taken a hit over the past few years. 

Do We Trust the Federal Government?

A Pew Research Center survey in spring 2024, shows that only 22% of U.S. adults said they trust the federal government to do the right thing just about always or most of the time. Perhaps surprisingly, this was up 6 percentage points from the year before, but it’s too early to tell if that’s a one-off or a trend. The 2023 measure of 16% was among the lowest in more than six decades of polling.

Congress has faced a growing decline in confidence. Around 7 in 10 Americans have an unfavorable view of Congress, an institution that has run in the red on this front for well over a decade. And a whopping 85% of Americans say they don’t think elected officials care what people like them think.

Political parties hardly fare better. Aside from the obvious point that each side has dim views of the other, a record 28% of Americans have unfavorable views of both the Democratic and Republican parties, up from 7% about two decades ago.

Overall, the title of a comprehensive Pew Center report on this topic last year—“Americans’ Dismal View of the Nation’s Politics”—captures the sentiment best.

I’d like to say I am hopeful that things will turn around and the public will start to trust our leaders and institutions again, but there is no reason to believe it especially with the current administration in power.

What can we do as Americans to make things better? We need to learn compassion and empathy for others. If we lived in a society that valued these characteristic traits of behavior, our economic and political systems would become functional again. In my view, the last time a majority of us believed in those economic and government systems and respected them is probably in the 1960s-1970s when JFK was the President.  

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 23, 2025. Steve is the author of Beyond Happiness and Meaning: Transforming Your Life Through Ethical Behavior, which is available on Amazon. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter. 

The Ethics of Using ChatGPT

A recent survey by Pew Research shows a rapid increase in the number of teens who use ChatGPT to complete assignments. While two times the number of students use it now compared with 2023, it’s likely that the usage rate is higher. It’s logical to assume that a student-user of ChatGPT may be reluctant to admit it regardless of it being an anonymous survey. Moreover, the new models that have come out since the original study using ChatGPT 3.0–ChatGPT 3.5, 4.0 and 4o–, have made it appealing for students to use it because it’s accuracy has been increasing with more sophisticated AI.

What to Do About Cheating?

ChatGPT is trained on a large data set, which may include biased or outdated information. This can result in the generation of biased data or incorrect text, particularly in sensitive or controversial topics. Educators should carefully evaluate whether this is the case in analyzing responses from ChatGPT.

ChatGPT’s usefulness is based on its ability to provide information that accurately explains key concepts, reliably analyzes data, and clearly reports the results of processing information that it is fed. Several studies have shown that ChatGPT lacks a deep understanding of the meaning of the text it generates. This can lead to errors and inconsistencies in the output, particularly when generating text for more complex or nuanced topics such as provided in case studies.

Educators are cautioned that ChatGPT is dependent on the data it is fed to make inferences and return accurate information. According to Pavlik, given its ability to produce massive amounts of data instantly, students may use it for cheating on examinations, homework, and assignments. Cotton suggests that this can lead to discrepancies in learning results that harm the quality of teaching and learning.

Educators should also weigh the potential harmful effects of allowing students to use ChatGPT with benefits such as it can facilitate using advanced teaching methodologies, promote interactive learning, and develop students’ critical thinking skills. ChatGPT can be used to solve complex problems, generate summaries and reports, make recommendations, and conduct data analysis.

I have blogged about the problem previously and said there is a need  to develop a counteracting response program to ChatGPT cheating. A good place to start is to discuss the ethics of using ChatGPT with students. Ethical values such as honesty, integrity and responsibility should be discussed. For example, who is responsible for a students’ work? Obviously, it’s the student. Why? In addition to these values, the ethical issue of fairness should be discussed. If students are allowed to cheat unabated, then those students who don’t cheat are at a distinct disadvantage. Beyond that, a harsh penalty should be meted out to students who have used ChatGPT in their assignments, assuming this can be proven and that the instructor made it clear this wasn’t acceptable behavior.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills

The Pew survey results show that students are more likely  to use ChatGPT to help with research papers and less likely to use it to solve math problems and write essays. A common criticism of ChatGPT is that it may prevent students from developing their critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is an issue given that ChatGPT is used to analyze, evaluate, and form judgments, processes that may not be fully evolved.

Burney and co-authors believe it has the potential to revolutionize the learning for educators and students including to foster students’ critical thinking skills. Bai and his co-authors, contend that, ChatGPT can be used to develop various skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving and communication by generating scenarios, providing feedback, and offering suggestions through assignments requiring students to critically evaluate responses generated by ChatGPT. They also point out that the model can serve as an initial reference point for research projects, encouraging students to verify, elaborate upon, or even challenge the information provided. They suggest that educators should incorporate activities that promote the cultivation of critical thinking.

Abramson, however, contends that rather than weaken student effort, AI can help prepare students for the real world by encouraging critical thinking about class concepts. Critical thinking skills enable students to analyze a set of facts and decide what is relevant to the solution of a problem and what is not. These skills can be used to resolve ethical conflicts that are presented in case studies, such as the ones used as the basis for this paper. One problem is if the answers provided by ChatGPT are not reliable then students would be using erroneous results as the basis for judgments that apply critical thinking skills to a dataset.

Conclusion

The purpose of using ChatGPT in the classroom is to enhance student learning. ChatGPT can be used as a tool to provide an initial reference point that is built on through the analysis of information to a problem at hand. ChatGPT and artificial intelligence are here to stay. We need to inform our students about the potentially powerful technical capabilities that artificial intelligence offers so they can contribute effectively to tomorrow’s workforce and society at large. Educators should learn how to use it as one tool in their toolbox and not dismiss it out of hand because of plagiarism concerns.

It is easy enough to obtain software to check student answers against ChatGPT, such as Turnitin, and assess whether students are using ChatGPT the way it was meant to be used and not as a replacement for essays, research papers, or answers to discussion questions. Turnitin can analyze text and provide a probability score indicating the likelihood of AI-generated content. However, instructors need to be aware that products like Turnitin are not considered to be 100 percent accurate in identifying the use of AI.

In conclusion, while there are potential benefits to the use of ChatGPT, it is important for educators to address the ethical concerns raised by its use before deciding to allow it for their students. This includes developing ethical guidelines and standards, involving all stakeholders in the conversation, and being proactive in addressing the potential impact of AI on the educational process. By doing so, educators can take the steps necessary to ensure that the use of ChatGPT does not have any negative effects such as biased results that could be harmful to the user.  

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 15, 2025. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter. 

Does ChatGPT Provide Helpful Advice?

If you haven’t heard about ChatGPT, where have you been this past few years? It seems that virtually everyone is talking about it.

ChatGPT, is an example of an artificial intelligence system in the form of a language model that can produce humanlike text. It allows users to ask questions and receive immediate responses. It is perfect for higher education, although educators should become aware of its limitations discussed below and, in particular, the trustworthiness of its responses, before deciding to use it. ChatGPT is now used in many arenas as discussed below.

I have previously blogged about ChatGPT as an artificial language model that is dependent on the data it is fed to make inferences and return accurate information. Using a wide range of internet data, ChatGPT can help users answer questions, write articles, program code, and engage in in-depth conversations on a substantial range of topics. One area of concern is in the ethics of usage as discussed below.

GPT 3.0 was launched in 2020. In November 2022, Open AI introduced a chat interface to the model, GPT 3.5, and according to research the public response was staggering: 90 days later the chatbot had registered over 100 million users. In early March 2023, OpenAI replaced GPT 3.5 with GPT 3.5 Turbo and two weeks later, it launched an advanced version.

ChatGPT 4.0 is now available. The main distinction between GPT-3.5 and 4.0 resides in their scale and capabilities. While GPT-3.5 was trained on 175 billion parameters, GPT-4.0 likely surpasses 100 trillion parameters, indicating a substantial increase in size and sophistication. This improvement enables GPT-4 to provide more nuanced and contextually relevant responses, pushing the limits of natural language processing and establishing new benchmarks for conversational AI systems.

Perceptions About the Benefits of Using ChatGPT

To better understand how people perceive the benefits, it is worth examining its broad-based use. Express Legal Funding conducted a nationwide survey of 100 U.S.-based adults in March 2025. The results offer valuable insight into how Americans are using ChatGPT, what types of advice they trust it to give, and whether they believe it’s a force for good or something more concerning.

Top Insights: How People Use and Trust ChatGPT in 2025

• 60% of U.S. adults say they’ve used ChatGPT for advice or information
• 70% of users found the advice helpful
• Most trusted topics: Career, Education, Product Recommendations
• Least trusted: Legal and Medical Advice
• 34% report they would trust ChatGPT more than an actual human expert
• Only 11.1% believe ChatGPT will improve their finances
• Younger users and iPhone users trust ChatGPT more
• High-income earners and older adults are more skeptical of ChatGPT
• Only 14.1% strongly agree ChatGPT will benefit humanity

It’s not surprising that there is a gap in age disparity with respect to usage. The survey reports that:

• 84% of adults aged 18–29 said they’ve used ChatGPT for advice or information.
• In contrast, only 22.7% of those aged 60 and above have used it.

The survey concludes that these numbers suggest that younger adults — who are often more tech-savvy and open to digital experimentation — are driving the adoption of AI chatbots. Older adults may still be skeptical, unfamiliar with the technology, or concerned about its accuracy and safety.

Most Common ChatGPT Advice Categories

This dataset from the study highlights the types of advice U.S. adults sought from ChatGPT, including educational, financial, and medical topics, based on 2025 survey results.

As the table shows:

• Educational help (50%) was the top use case — highlighting how AI is being used as a learning tool.
• Financial advice (33.3%) and product recommendations (30%) were also popular, reflecting the growing role of AI in daily decision-making.
• More sensitive topics — like medical (23.3%) and legal advice (13.3%) — were used less often, likely due to lower levels of trust.

It is noteworthy that 70 percent of users felt that ChatGPT was useful–it  led to a good result–while 10% found it to be harmful, leading to a bad result. 

One takeaway is that this data reveals a clear trend: Americans are willing to consult AI for important life choices, but they’re still cautious in areas where incorrect advice could have serious consequences. The results also show that ChatGPT is not just being used for trivia or writing help — users are turning to it for real advice on real-life matters.

Ethical Risks

Ethical risks include a lack of transparency, erosion of privacy, poor accountability and workforce displacement and transitions. The existence of such risks affects whether AI systems should be trusted. To build trust through transparency, organizations should clearly explain what data they collect, how it is used and how the results affect customers.

Data security and privacy are important issues to consider in deciding whether to use ChatGPT, especially in the workplace. As an AI system, ChatGPT has access to vast amounts of data, including sensitive financial information. There is a risk that this data could be compromised. It is important that essential security measures are in place to protect this data from unauthorized access.

Pittelkow points out that:

“While ChatGPT can provide helpful suggestions, it is not as good at decision-making or personalizing scripts based on personality or organizational culture. An effective way to use ChatGPT and similar AI programs is to ensure a human or group of humans is reviewing the data, testing it, and implementing the results in a way that makes sense for the organization using it. For example, with job descriptions written by an AI program, at least one human should ensure the details make sense with what the organization does and does not do.”

One way that ChatGPT is working on preventing the release of inappropriate content is by asking humans to flag content for it to ban. Of course, this method brings up a number of ethical considerations. Utilitarians would argue that this method is ethical because the ends justify the means—the masses are not subject to bad content because only a few people are. The value of processing large amounts of data and responding with answers can simplify workplace processes, but the possible displacement of workers needs to be considered.

In terms of preventing unethical behaviors, such as users asking the program to write their papers to pass off as their own, some technology developers are creating AI to specifically combat nefarious usage with AI. One such technology is ZeroGPT, which can help people determine if content is generated from a human or from AI.

Conclusions

The ethical use of AI should be addressed by all organizations to build trust in the system and satisfy the needs of stakeholders for accurate and reliable information. A better understanding of machine learning would go a long way to achieve this result.

Professional judgment is still necessary in AI to decide on the value of the information produced by the system. Unless the data is reliably provided and processed, AI will produce results that are inaccurate, incomplete or incoherent, and machine learning would be compromised with respect.

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 7, 2025. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter. 

Can We Find Ways to Come Together as a Society?

I have previously blogged about civility. It’s obviously a problem today in government and politics. Some blame it on the style of communication of President Donald Trump. I understand why these critics believe this to be the case. I think it’s fair to say it’s not so much what Trump says, although it could be said that some of his positions (i.e. executive orders) lack civility. I’ve observed that the lack of civility (e.g. treatment of undocumented immigrants) can be harsh. However, the problem, from my point of view, is how he says it: his delivery and choice of words to describe his position on such matters. Trump can be insulting and derisive, and that creates incivility in society.

Dealing with Opposing Points of View with Civility

Today, we experience rudeness more than ever before. My pet peeve is when speakers are shouted down and/or forced to end their presentation before it is complete. After all, those of us who have made formal presentations know how disruptive it can be when those in the audience engage in behaviors that interrupt our thought processes or make it impossible to go on.

Why does this happen? People whom we deal with may have opposite views. They fail to be open-minded. They even disrespect our right to freedom of speech. If we don’t agree with their position, we may become victims of the cancel culture.

In today’s world, there may not be a ‘safe place’ to go to feel secure and where we can discuss controversial issues with civility. The frequent protests on college campuses over the Israeli-Gaza war is a good example. At least early on, Jewish students felt insecure on campus because of protesters who attacked them verbally and even physically. Some didn’t attend classes because of these concerns on campuses like Harvard and Columbia.  

What’s missing, and causing incivility, is empathy. Detractors fail to understand, or don’t even care, to listen attentively to opposing points of view. They believe that it’s only their position that merits consideration. They lack the capacity and desire to understand alternative points of view. It’s ‘their way or the highway.’ In extreme cases, the lack of civility turns into violence. For example, there have been two occasions when President Trump was the target of a sniper.

The past few days have been eye-opening on how some of our citizens have gone to the dark side. The suspect in the killing of conservative speaker, Charlie Kirk, was identified as Tyler Robinson. He is being held without bail in a Utah jail on several charges. The police found anti-fascist messages engraved on bullet casings in a rifle found near the scene as potential evidence of a political motive. This is an example where someone with hatred in their heart lashes out as someone with whom they disagree rather than engage in a productive dialogue about their differences. It’s incivility at its very core and indicative of what might be labeled a sick society. It seems that some people can’t disagree with other opinions without resorting to violence. We could dismiss this incident as an outlier. However, it’s not an isolated opinion and seems to be broadening in its societal impact to our schools, workplace, and in crowds where many people are found.

Seeking Common Ground

By age sixteen, George Washington had copied out by hand 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior In Company and Conversation.  They are based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595.  The first rule is: “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.” Increasingly, writers and bloggers such as me lament the lost art of civility as evidenced by rude behavior, disrespectful comments about others, and personal attacks. The key to coming together as a civil society is, to quote Aretha Franklin, R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

It used to be that we respected police, teachers, legislators and our parents. We respected people in authority positions because they had just that – authority to keep our streets safe, show us the way to a better life – a moral life; pass laws that improve our lot in society and give us the chance to better ourselves; and teach us right from wrong.

Looking at other cultures, in Japan, respect is earned. Honor is owed. Respect is based on how a person performs. Honor is based on a person’s position. I go along with that because it emphasizes the moral dimension of honor. After all, if we honor another person, we can say that we respect that person as well.

I don’t typically quote the Bible in my blogs but in this case it is instructive. The Bible tells us to honor our father and mother – not because we think they deserve respect or honor – but because of their position. The Bible tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated and treating them with respect should be a given.

We should give respect to others and honor them because it is the right thing to do. We want to be respected and honored so we should treat others this way. Unfortunately, all too often in society respect and honor fall by the waist side.

One important element to create common ground is to develop a code of conduct in specific areas of life, such as the workplace and classroom. Most businesses have them, which create the basis for moral behavior in the organization. A code of conduct, or at least a set of ethical values, is needed for society as well.

The Role of Moral Behavior

The ever-increasing violence in society is a by-product of the breakdown of respect, civility, and moral behavior. We can blame social media, but we also need to look at the way we, as a society, are serving as that proverbial village to raise our children. We need to look deep inside ourselves and ask whether we are doing all that we can to better our society – make it more civil and promote respect for others.

The quote “Whether or not I respect a person says something about their life, values and character. Whether or not I honor a person says something about my life, values and character,” is not attributed to a single, widely known figure. It reflects a common ethical principle that our treatment of others reflects our own values and character. This idea is closely related to the concept of treating others with respect and dignity, which is a central theme in various ethical and philosophical systems. 

While no specific individual is credited with this exact wording, the sentiment aligns with the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, particularly his concept of treating humanity, whether in one’s own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, and never merely as a means. This idea emphasizes the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, suggesting that our actions towards others reflect our own moral framework.

Kant was right. The ends do matter, and it is the means chosen to accomplish the goal that warrants ethical analysis.

Civility Surveys

Civility surveys clearly indicate that incivility is a growing problem. In a survey by KRC Research for Weber Shandwick, two in three Americans believe civility is a major problem. Three in four believe the problem has gotten worse over the past few years. Baby boomers are most likely to think civility is a problem (74%) and has gotten worse (80%). This survey was taken in 2010, so just imagine what it would look like today.

An American Bar Association Survey released on April 27, 2023, finds that Americans aren’t very nice to each other anymore and they blame social media and the media generally. The 2023 ABA Survey of Civic Literacy asked who is to blame for the nation’s growing incivility, what issues they’d be willing to compromise on and how much they know about how American government works.

The results: A majority agreed that civility is worse, that political compromise is good, but many are not willing to compromise on specific issues. Also, most U.S. residents think Americans don’t know much about how government works.

Here are the results of some individual questions regarding civility:

• A big majority, 85%, said civility in today’s society is worse than it was 10 years ago.
• 29% said social media is primarily responsible for eroding civility. Another 24% blamed the media generally and 19% blamed public officials.
• 34% said family and friends are primarily responsible for improving civility in our society. Another 27% said it’s primarily the responsibility of public officials and 11% said community leaders. Only 7% said it’s primarily the responsibility of teachers.
• An overwhelming majority (90%) said parents and family are most responsible for instilling civility in children.

A more recent survey released on March 5, 2025 by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s (RRPFI) Center on Civility and Democracy, reveals the majority of Americans believe civility is struggling, but are interested in finding common ground. More than seven in 10 Americans want to play a part in restoring civility in America. That’s great news, but the key is to determine how best to do it considering there is incivility in society wherever we look. In other words, ‘the devil is in the details.’

Major survey findings include:

• Three-quarters (73%) of Americans believe that we “tolerate outrageous and uncivilized behavior by elected officials” more today than in the past. 
• Yet more than eight out of 10 Americans (83%) expect government leaders to find common ground across political lines. These expectations are not just generalized but extend to their own elected officials.
• Americans are divided in their expectations and outlook for the country.

–        When asked about the country’s ability to focus on what unites us, about half of respondents (47%) said they were optimistic and a similar amount (45%) expressed pessimism.

–        Republicans (72%) are most likely to be optimistic about the country’s ability to focus on what unites us. Only 30% of Democrats and 36% of Independents are optimistic.

–        Older Americans express less optimism: those ages 65 and over (32%) are significantly more likely to be very pessimistic about our country’s ability to focus on what unites compared with those who are ages 18-29 (24%) or 30-41 (20%). 

• 72% of Americans are interested in being a part of the solution to restore civility and find common ground and wish their elected officials will be too.

–        Despite today’s divide, 71% of respondents believe it’s possible to find common ground on most issues. The survey revealed that most people (69%) affirm the values set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

–        Additionally, most people agree that we can settle differences without personal attack and 80% of respondents want and expect government leaders to find common ground. 

My Viewpoint

My personal view is that the results of the Reagan Foundation are too optimistic. I may be too cynical, but I see society getting less civil, not more. We are a divided country and politics today make it even more so. It’s based on an “I gotcha’ mentality.

My advice is we must begin to learn how to disagree with each other without being disagreeable. I hope you agree.

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 24, 2025. Steve is the author of Beyond Happiness and Meaning: Transforming Your Life Through Ethical Behavior, which is available on Amazon. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter. 

How Do the Scams Work?

Last night I watched a segment of American Greed from years ago that explored the role of predatory money managers in professional sports. The segment presented the story of a money manager, Peggy Ann Fulford, who duped athletes including NBA Hall of Famer Dennis Rodman, former NFL player Ricky Williams and other athletes out of millions of dollars. In 2018, Fulford pleaded guilty to one count of interstate transportation of stolen property and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay $5.8 million in restitution to her victims. She was released early in 2023. 

Here is how the scams worked.

• Fulford posed as a wealthy financial advisor and money manager, falsely claiming to have Harvard degrees and a successful Wall Street career.
• She convinced the athletes, including Rodman, Williams, Travis Best, and Lex Hilliard, to let her manage their finances.
• Instead of using their money to pay bills, file taxes, or make investments, she used it to fund her own luxurious lifestyle.

Predatory practices of money managers have been around for some time. Here are some of them discussed by Fordham University’s publication, The Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal.

• Mike Tyson, the former heavyweight boxing champion, sued his financial advisor for allegedly embezzling over $300,000 and giving him bad financial advice, ultimately contributing to Tyson’s bankruptcy in 2003.
• Tim Duncan, the retired NBA star, sued his former financial advisor for over $20 million, alleging that the advisor had defrauded him through a series of investments and misrepresentations.  Duncan agreed to accept $7.5 million to settle his lawsuit.
• Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the NBA legend, sued his financial advisor for $55 million, claiming that the advisor had mishandled his finances and led him to lose millions of dollars in investments.

Experience of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Abdul-Jabbar’s story is a cautionary tale for professional athletes, and possibly collegiate athletes who can now receive financial support from outsiders and monies from their use of name, image and licensing (NIL).

Abdul-Jabbar put his trust in a business manager that ultimately did not have his best interest at heart. According to a Sports Illustrated report, Abdul-Jabbar was the victim of mismanagement by his business manager, Tom Collins. As a result, Abdul-Jabbar filed a lawsuit for about $59 million.

Between 1984 and 1985, Collins arranged several partnerships among all his clients. Based on court documents from the original suit, one of the investments was in Heavyrope, a weighted jump rope produced in Michigan. For this, Collins put $230,000 of Abdul-Jabbar’s money into the brand, leading the NBA legend to believe he would have ownership rights in the company.

Although the business relationship started well, Collins began to ghost Abdul-Jabbar about his finances and investment deals after some time together.

Due to this lack of communication, Abdul-Jabbar ordered an independent audit and found that he was responsible for a $9 million debt from a bad real estate deal in 1984. Sports Illustrated reported that he was also liable for about $1.6 million from other investments. Abdul-Jabbar contended that Collins made these financial decisions without fully engaging him on the associated risks.

There were additional financial scams which led to the $59 million bilking of Abdul-Jabbar. He tried to recover the monies, and probably did to some extent, but the agreement is sealed.

Additional Scams

There were other athletes who were the victims of scammers. According to ESPN, Former San Francisco Giants pitcher Jake Peavy, former NFL quarterback Mark Sanchez and other athletes were cheated out of more than $30 million by Ash Narayan, an investment adviser who “secretly [siphoned]” money from their accounts using forged or unauthorized signatures, federal authorities said in 2016.

Federal authorities charged a former Morgan Stanley adviser, Darryl Cohen, with three different counts of fraud in 2023 after he allegedly defrauded NBA players Jrue Holiday, Chandler Parsons and Courtney Lee out of $5 million. In a statement to ESPN, an attorney representing Cohen said, “Mr. Cohen has pleaded not guilty and continues to vigorously fight these allegations.

Ernst & Young Report

Ernst & Young recently released a report titled Athletes Targeted by Fraud which stated pro athletes lost $334 million to fraud from 2014 – 2017 and another $160 million in fraud-related losses the prior eleven years. Missing are the countless frauds against athletes that have not been identified or publicly reported, making the true cost of fraud hard to figure, particularly because the four major sports (NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB) pay out approximately $13 billion in salaries per year.

Ernst & Young also detailed some of the most common types of fraud against athletes:

• The athletes’ advisors used their access to make unauthorized and overly risky investments on the athletes’ behalf, while also enriching themselves.
• The athletes’ advisors or family members used their access to the athletes’ bank accounts or power of attorney to make unauthorized withdrawals.
• Misappropriated earnings. Designees did not properly distribute the athletes’ earnings and instead kept and used them for themselves.
• Advisors misled athletes with false or misleading financial information, such as inaccurate historical investment returns and fake statements.
• Trusted advisors make recommendations to athletes based on an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as ventures in which the advisor has an investment or receives a kickback for investment.

The majority of professional athletes put 100% blind faith in their financial advisors and business managers with no oversight despite the fact that 89% of fraudsters are first-time offenders and 97% attempt to cover the fraud.

Suggestions for Better Monitoring of Athlete Finances and Avoiding Fraudulent Advisors

David Byrne, who has 14 years in financial crimes & Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Director, posted the following suggestions for better monitoring of athletes’ finances and avoiding fraudulent financial advisors on LinkedIn on May 30, 2019.

To protect themselves from financial fraud, professional athletes should consider the following measures:

• Thoroughly vet financial advisors: Athletes should conduct comprehensive background checks on potential financial advisors, including verifying their certifications, checking for any past disciplinary actions, and seeking references from other clients.
• Maintain active involvement in financial decisions and establish consistent audits: Athletes should not blindly trust their financial advisors but should stay informed about their investments and financial decisions, regularly reviewing account statements and asking questions to ensure they understand their financial situation. They should also leverage the resources of their players’ unions to conduct regular audits on their accounts.
• Establish a team of trusted professionals: Athletes should consider assembling a team of financial professionals, such as accountants, attorneys, and investment advisors, who can provide a system of checks and balances and help prevent fraudulent activity.
• Utilize financial education resources: Athletes should take advantage of financial education resources and workshops designed for professional athletes to help them better understand financial management and identify potential red flags.

The Importance of Vigilance as Professional Athlete Salaries Increase

As professional athletes’ salaries continue to rise, the potential for financial fraud also increases. Moreover, college athletes can now make deals with the funds they receive. The likelihood is the unscrupulous money managers will come out of the woodwork and develop game plans to target athletes for financial gain, such as those discussed in this blog. Vulnerable athletes should review their relationship with, and monies spent by, their money managers to ensure they are all legitimate

With more money at stake, unscrupulous individuals may be more motivated to target athletes for financial gain. As a result, it is more important than ever for athletes to take a proactive approach to monitoring their finances and protecting themselves from potential fraud.

The increasing number of indictments of individuals charged with defrauding professional athletes serves as a reminder of the need for increased vigilance in managing athlete finances. By thoroughly vetting financial advisors and being involved in financial decisions, athletes can better protect themselves from potential fraud.

Professional athletes have worked hard for many years to accomplish their goals. They are increasingly approached by scrupulous money managers at an early and earlier age. This is why they need financial and business advice sooner, rather than later, to ward off the fraudsters.

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 16, 2025. Learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for the newsletter. 

The Case of Harvard University and Chinese Students

By now, most Americans have probably heard that President Trump wants to set limits and even deny the admission of foreign students to U.S. colleges and universities. The concern seems to be that Chinese students who pursue STEM degrees will gain access to U.S. technology and other sensitive research and development and return home after their studies and use their knowledge gained to transfer the technology to the Chinese government.

The U.S. hosted more than 1.1 million international college students in the 2023-2024 academic year, according to the Institute of International Education. In fiscal 2024, the government approved 263,000 applications by foreign graduates for temporary employment under the Optional Practical Training program (OPT), and 52,000 one-time students or dependents rotated into H1-B work visas, which can lead to citizenship.

Writing in the New York Times on May 30, 2025 about her experiences, Li Yuan questions the appropriateness of restricting, or outright banning, Chinese students from U.S. colleges and universities. She recognizes the need to protect the borders, but states that “it’s another matter to deny students because they are Chinese and hope to pursue a STEM degree in the U.S.” Basically, she says “it’s unwarranted and may cut off the flow of future technologists, engineers and scientists.” I agree with her. My view is that the proposed action is “a bridge too far.”

When Did it All Get Started?

Yuan points out that one night in 1978, President Jimmy Carter got a phone call at 3 a.m. from a top adviser who was visiting China.

“Deng Xiaoping insisted I call you now, to see if you would permit 5,000 Chinese students to come to American universities,” said the official, Frank Press.

“Tell him to send 100,000,” Mr. Carter replied.

By Christmastime that year, the first group of 52 Chinese students had arrived in the U.S., just ahead of the formal establishment of U.S.-Chinese diplomatic relations on New Year’s Day. A month later, Deng, China’s top leader, made a historic visit to America during which he watched John Denver sing “Take Me Home, Country Roads” and was photographed wearing a cowboy hat.

By all accounts, President Carter and the U.S. Congress were welcoming to the Chinese students. It was at a time when China was shifting to a less authoritarian economy and more like capitalism albeit using state-owned enterprises. U.S. lawmakers saw it as an opportunity to gain influence with the emerging Chinese economy.  

Everything went well until we realized the Chinese economy was on a trajectory that would place it as the largest economy in the world, perhaps in ten years or less. There is no doubt that China “stole” technology from the U.S., and it might have been facilitated by Chinese students studying in the U.S. This matter has to be dealt with. One way to deal with it is to develop controls to properly vet Chinese students who choose to study in the U.S. One step is to do a comprehensive search of their social media activity.

Revoking Visas

The Trump administration announced last week that it would begin “aggressively” revoking visas for some Chinese students. For the millions of Chinese who have studied in the U.S., Yuan points out that “it is a sobering and disheartening development. It marks a turning point that America, long a beacon of openness and opportunity, would start shutting its doors to Chinese who aspire to a good education and a future in a society that values freedom and human dignity.”

The reaction to the new policy inside China, reflected in the U.S. Embassy’s social media accounts, was mixed. Some commenters thanked the U.S. for “sending China’s brightest minds back.” Others drew historical parallels, comparing the Trump administration’s isolationist turn to China’s Ming and Qing dynasties — once global powers that declined after turning inward and were ultimately defeated in foreign invasions. One commenter remarked that the policy’s narrow-mindedness would ‘make America small again.’”

The shift also comes when many young Chinese, disillusioned by political repression and economic stagnation under Xi Jinping’s leadership, are trying to flee the country to seek freedom and opportunities.

“Xi is pushing many of the best and the brightest to leave China,” said Thomas E. Kellogg, executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Asian Law and a leading scholar of legal reform in China. “The U.S. should be taking advantage of this historic brain drain, not shutting the door to many talented Chinese young people.”

Will Innovation Be Stifled?

A 2022 Harvard University study shows that immigrants represent 16 percent of all U.S. inventors, but produced 23 percent of total innovation output, as measured by number of patents, patent citations, and the economic value of these patents. Immigrant inventors are more likely to rely on foreign technologies, to collaborate with foreign inventors, and to be cited in foreign markets, thus contributing to the importation and diffusion of ideas across borders.

Another study from the National Foundation for American Policy finds that immigrant inventors founded or co-founded more than half of the U.S.’s billion-dollar startups. These companies employ a lot of people. Among privately held billion-dollar startup companies, those with immigrant founders have created an average of more than 1,200 jobs per company, the vast majority in the U.S.

The collective value of the 50 immigrant-founded companies is $248 billon according to the National Foundation study, which is more than the value of all the companies listed on the stock market of several countries, including Argentina, Columbia and Ireland.

Stifling Entrepreneurship

America’s ability to attract international students fosters entrepreneurship. According to the National Foundation study, about 22% (20 of 91) of the billion-dollar startup companies had a founder who first came to America as an international student.

The research also found that “6 of the billion-dollar companies were started by immigrants who came to America as children – Affirm, Avant, CrowdStrike, Discord, JetSmarter and Warby Parker. A seventh company started by an immigrant who entered as a child, GreenSky, recently went public and has a market capitalization of $2.9 billion. The success of these immigrant children who grew up to start billion-dollar companies shows the American Dream is alive and well.”

“Immigrants are ‘almost twice as likely’ as native-born Americans to become entrepreneurs, according to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The research is clear: The fewer immigrants allowed in the country, the fewer startup companies in America, including the type of cutting-edge companies that transform industries, employ many U.S. workers and make Americans proud.”

Immigrants are valuable as employees, whether or not they started the company, according to the study. The research found 75 of the 91 companies, or 82%, had at least one immigrant helping the company grow and innovate by filling a key management or product development position. CEO, chief technology officer and vice president of engineering are among the most common positions held by immigrants in billion-dollar startup companies.

Trump and Harvard University

Is Trump is blocking Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students. Initially, President Trump said Harvard should cap the amount of foreign students it admits at 15%, and ensure that those it does accept “are people that can love our country.” How in the world is this to be determined?

Perhaps Trump realized the dilemma and subsequently suspended Harvard from participating in the student-visa program, effectively prohibiting foreign nationals from attending the nation’s most prominent university.

The move comes on top of a push to bar Harvard University from enrolling international students as part of the president’s battle with the school. The Trump administration has also paused new student-visa interviews while it prepares new measures to vet applicants’ social-media

The Trump administration isn’t scheduling any new student-visa interviews while it prepares new measures to vet applicants’ social-media accounts, according to a State Department cable dated June 3.

The move comes during the busy season for international students looking to come to the U.S., who have generally received acceptances from American universities in the spring and must obtain visas before the new school year begins in the autumn.

Are We Treating Foreign Students Appropriately?

Yuan considers her own situation, reflecting on the new, more stringent, U.S. immigration policy. She says,

“For the millions of Chinese who have studied in the United States, myself included, it is a sobering and disheartening development. It marks a turning point that America, long a beacon of openness and opportunity, would start shutting its doors to Chinese who aspire to a good education and a future in a society that values freedom and human dignity.  Yuan suggests that “by curbing people-to-people exchanges, President Trump is taking a decisive step toward decoupling from China. To treat Chinese students and professionals in science and technology broadly not as contributors, but as potential security risks, reflects a foreign policy driven more by insecurity and retreat than by the self-assurance of a global leader.”

Are Trump’s Concerns Legitimate?

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has made it more difficult to gain approvals to hire or retain high-skilled foreign nationals, including international students in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. The Trump administration also has dramatically reduced refugee admissions and proposed a “public charge” regulation that aims to make it much harder for family-based and other immigrants to qualify for green cards.

To treat Chinese students and professionals in science and technology broadly not as contributors, but as potential security risks, reflects a foreign policy driven more by insecurity and retreat than by the self-assurance of a global leader.”

We should worry about national security risks from China, including espionage and intellectual property theft. Yuan points out that “The Federal Bureau of Investigation calls the Chinese government the most prolific sponsor of talent recruitment programs that aim to transfer scientific and technological breakthroughs to China.”

There can be no doubt that admission standards for foreign students have to be tightened. It’s true we welcomed them in 1978, but that was almost 50 years ago. A lot has changed. China is threatening to replace the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. It has been establishing relationships with developing countries, such as those in Africa, that threaten U.S. market-expansion. The porous borders that have existed for so long have been taken advantage of. We need to get better control of who we let in. However, let’s not “throw out the baby with the bath water.”

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 9, 2025. You can learn more about Steve’s activities by checking out his website at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for his newsletter.  

If Ethics Can Be Learned, it Can Be Taught

Someone I interact with online and an internet buddy, Archie Carroll, who is world renowned for his work in ethics, CSR, and more, once responded to a blog I wrote years ago that addressed the question, “Can Ethics Be Taught,” with what I think is as astute an observation as I have ever found. It’s direct and to the point”: “If ethics can be learned it can be taught.” He ‘hit the nail on the head.’

Can we teach students to be ethical? This is something I’ve thought and blogged about a lot during my 40+ years teaching ethics at the university level. On the one hand, I know that I can teach it. I do it all the time. Whether students learn the lesson is another matter. Perhaps Archie’s comment should read: If Ethics Can Be Taught Effectively, it Can Be Learned. Of course, the problem here is how do we define effectively. Is getting an ‘A’ in an ethics course indicative of effective learning? Perhaps this issue is best side aside for now and addressed in a future blog.

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Still, I find myself going back to the question of teaching students to be ethical frequently these days as I observe widespread unethical behavior in society–i.e., government, politicians, business, entertainment, sports, and on social media. In many situations, decision-makers first decide what to do when a conflict exists, or competing interests are present, and then worry about the outcome later. The problem is they have it backwards.

To “begin with the end in mind” is the second of the seven habits that New York Times bestselling author Dr. Stephen R. Covey addresses in his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. By beginning with the end in mind, you can train yourself to become more goal-oriented and create a clear vision for yourself or your students/work-team.

Intentionality in Ethics

I have previously blogged about the concept of intentionality. We need to act with intentionality when teaching ethics to students. Being intentional about everything in life means focusing your attention on building an environment that enables you to reach a goal through your behavior including how you treat others—with respect, kindness, empathy and compassion.

Being intentional means to talk/act in a way where the end goal is known, and actions are taken to pursue the goal with clear-mindedness and dedication to the task. Being intentional about teaching ethics means to actively and deliberately incorporate ethical considerations in deciding what to teach and how to do it. It means to create a classroom environment that encourages critical thinking about moral dilemmas, discussing real-life scenarios, and actively modeling ethical behavior, with the goal of developing students’ ethical decision-making skills and moral awareness.

Using Decision Making Models

I like to use decision-making models to teach ethics. It provides a framework students can relate to. Like many of you, I’m always curious about what AI would say in response to a question. I went online to see what would come up by asking: What is an ethical decision-making model according to the “Ethics Sage.” I actually got two different responses from Google/AI.

—–“:According to Ethics Sage, a robust ethical decision-making model involves identifying the ethical issues, understanding the stakeholders and their interests, considering the potential benefits and harms of each course of action, evaluating the situation through different ethical frameworks like utilitarianism, rights-based ethics, and justice, and ultimately choosing the option that aligns best with ethical principles and minimizes negative consequences for all involved parties.” 

——“According to the Ethics Sage, an ethical decision-making model is a structured process that involves identifying an ethical dilemma, gathering relevant information, considering different alternatives, evaluating the potential consequences of each option, and ultimately choosing the most ethical course of action, all while adhering to ethical principles and considering the impact on stakeholders.”

Each description has value and mostly represents my thoughts. Kudos to AI.

Virtue Ethics

In teaching ethics to college students, I like to start with the concept of ‘virtue.’ I use it in accounting ethics courses mostly because accounting students need to internalize certain traits of character (i.e., objectivity, honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, and so on) that enable accounting professionals to act in ways that protect the public interest and provide the moral courage to ward off pressures to do otherwise. It is the ethical value of integrity that underlies ethical behavior for accounting professionals and creates a pathway for ethical behavior. Integrity means having the courage of your convictions, an essential value for accounting professionals to ward off potentially unethical behavior by superiors and/or clients.

One challenge I have encountered in the classroom is that many students have a relativistic view of right and wrong. This means what’s right for one person may not be right for another. Ethics become situational. The problem is we sacrifice consistent (ethical) behavior for one’s own feelings at a given time, and for one’s own unique reasons. The result is the teaching of ethics becomes muddled. It can be massaged to accommodate the thought process in particular circumstances rather than using a consistent process of reasoning to resolve relevant ethical dilemmas.

Choosing the “Right Method” of Ethical Reasoning 

It’s not that one method of ethical reasoning is better than any other. I ask my students to support their action with solid reasoning of why the method they have chosen in an assignment is better than the methods they dismissed. I find this kind of learning enhances critical thinking skills. It’s how they reached a conclusion that is most important.

Ethics education often ends with developing moral thinking. We need to go beyond teaching students the “why” of ethical decision making and focus on how to get it done. We need to give them the tools to act ethically, especially when pressures exist to do otherwise. In other words, there is a difference between knowing what the right thing to do is and having the moral courage to do it.

Giving Voice to Values

I also use the “Giving Voice to Values” methodology of decision-making, which can provide the confidence in students to act ethically. GVV was developed by Mary Gentile and its curriculum is now housed at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia. GVV is a values-driven leadership methodology built around preparing for and practicing values-based action, and answers the following questions:

• How do I learn to act on my values?
• What would I say and do?
• How can I be the most effective in acting on my values?

Mary Gentile puts it this way: “Giving Voice to Values (GVV) is not about persuading people to be more ethical. Instead, GVV starts from the premise that most of us already want to act on our values but also want to feel we have a reasonable chance of doing so successfully. It raises the odds for success, by drawing on the actual experiences of business practitioners, as well as cutting edge social science and management research, and focusing on questions such as: “What if I were going to act on my values? What would I say and do? How could I be most effective?”

One of the most important ways to teach ethics to college students, in my experience, is through the use of actual situations to make it real. There is never a shortage of bad actors and bad actions to draw from. We can find good videos that address the key issues in a meaningful way by using You Tube videos, documentaries streaming on line, and movies.

I also like to assign students to a case study in a group setting. Active learning is a great way to be exposed to different points of view that can then help to develop one’s own thoughts and conclusions. At Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, where I used to teach, the motto is: “Learn by Doing.”

We make choices in everyday life that reflect our true character. Our choices say a lot about who we are and why we do what we do. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said: “Day by day, what you choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become.”

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 2, 2025. You can learn more about Steve’s activities by checking out his website at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for his newsletter.  

Ethics Run Amok

President Trump’s decision for the U.S. government to accept an airplane from Qatar valued at almost $400 million to serve as Air Force One raises many ethical issues. Before examining those issues, here is a summary of what led up to the decision including why Trump decided to do it, widespread criticisms of his actions, security concerns, and Constitutional Issues.

Air Force One Planes

The two planes currently used as Air Force One have been flying for nearly four decades, and Trump is eager to replace them. Boeing has been working on retrofitting 747s that were originally built for a now-defunct Russian airliner. The Boeing replacement planes aren’t due to be finished until near the end of Trump’s term, and he’s out of patience. According to PBS NewsTrump has described the situation as “a total mess,” and he has complained that Air Force One isn’t as nice as the planes flown by some Arab leaders. Trump said Qatar, which hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, offered a replacement plane that could be used while the government was waiting for Boeing to finish. “We give free things out,” Trump said. “We’ll take one, too.”

Trump dismissed suggestions that he should turn down the plane, comparing the potential gift to favors on the golf course. “When they give you a putt, you pick it up and you walk to the next hole and you say, ‘Thank you very much,’” he said. To accept this comparison requires that we suspend disbelief.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota expressed skepticism. “I understand his frustration. They’re way behind schedule on delivering the next Air Force One,” the Republican told reporters. “Whether or not this is the right solution or not, I don’t know.”

Mississippi GOP Senator Roger Wicker said that any plane “needs to be gifted to the United States of America.” He added that whether the U.S. should accept a Qatari plane warranted further inquiry. “There’ll be some questions about that, and this issue, I expect, will be vetted by the time a decision needs to be made,” he said.

Criticisms of the Plan

The obvious criticism of the plan is the potential for a conflict of interest for Trump during his presidency. What happens if Qatar decides to support Hamas’s military actions in its war with Israel. Will Trump’s position be ground down because of the gifting of the plane? Quite frankly, while Trump may not allow his decision to affect his support for Israel, that’s not the issue. The truth is the acceptance of the plane can create the impression in the minds of the public that he might be so influenced. In other words, the optics are bad!

“This is unprecedented,” said Jessica Levinson to PBS News, Levinson is a constitutional law expert at Loyola Law School. “We just haven’t tested these boundaries before.”

Trump tried to quell some of the opposition by saying he wouldn’t fly around in the gifted Qatari Boeing 747 when his term ends. According to PBS News, “It would go directly to the future presidential library after I leave office,” Trump said. “I wouldn’t be using it.”

Some say this is similar to what happened to the $400 million Air Force One plane that was donated to President Reagan Presidential Library. That plane was decommissioned and put on display as a museum piece. However, this plane entered service during the Nixon administration in 1972. It served all US presidents until George W. Bush and was retired in 2001. It is now on display at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. The plan was accepted by the Secretary of the Air Force James G. Roche.

Democrats are united in outrage, and even some of the Republican president’s allies are worried. Laura Loomer an outspoken conspiracy theorist who has tried to purge disloyal officials from the administration, wrote on social media that she would “take a bullet for Trump” but said she’s “so disappointed.” Congressional Republicans have also expressed some doubts about the plan.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul flatly said he was a “No” on whether Trump should accept the plane. When asked to elaborate on his reasoning, Paul replied: “I don’t think it looks good or smells good.” The Republican shrugged when asked by a reporter if there were “constitutional questions.” Mississippi GOP Sen. Roger Wicker said that any plane “needs to be gifted to the United States of America.”

Common Cause

According to the organization, Common Cause the relationship between the Trump administration and the Qatari government, which have called this exchange a transaction between the Qatari ministry of defense and the United States Department of Defense, is a stretch. Many questions need to be addressed to ensure everything is totally above board, as stated by both Trump and the Qatari government,

Common Cause hit the nail on the head when it said the arrangement “doesn’t pass the laugh test. It has said that the plan seems to be:

1. Accept a luxury plane from Qatar using the power of the presidency.
2. Use it as Air Force One for a little while and retrofit it at taxpayer expense.
3. Keep it for Trump’s foundation after leaving office.”

They conclude, “that’s a pretty good deal – for Trump. But it’s a terrible one for the American people and our democracy.”

Will the new plane be secure?

The Qatari plane has been described as a “palace in the sky,” complete with luxurious accommodations and top-of-the-line finishes. However, there are many security issues raised about the arrangement with President Trump.

According to PBS News, the security of Presidential travel is the primary concern. The current Air Force One planes “are hardened against the effects of a nuclear blast and include a range of security features, such as anti-missile countermeasures and an onboard operating room. They are also equipped with air-to-air refueling capabilities for contingencies, though it has never been utilized with a president on board.”

Converting a Qatar-donated Boeing 747 into a new Air Force One for President Trump could require vast sums of money, take years to complete and may introduce alarming capability shortcomings and security vulnerabilities into the chief executive’s aircraft, aviation experts said.

Upgrading a 747 from scratch with those capabilities could take into the 2030s, according to Richard Aboulafia an expert in military aircraft and managing director of AeroDynamic Advisory. Moreover, it would cost “billions and billions” of dollars and take years to complete.

“Even the ability to manage and communicate with military forces all over the globe with encrypted comms — that’s a tremendously expensive undertaking,” Aboulafia said. “It is underway in the other 747-8s [slated for the VC-25B program]. Starting over again with the same plane would take a lot longer.”

Constitutional Issues

Here’s what the law says about expensive foreign gifts, and why it matters according to Common Cause:

“According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress must approve any gift from a foreign country to a U.S. official. One of the most famous times Congress followed this rule was in 1877, when it approved France’s gift of the Statue of Liberty.

There’s a reason Congress is supposed to approve gifts from foreign governments: it’s to stop bribery and foreign influence. Think about it: if foreign countries can hand out million-dollar presents to U.S. presidents, who will the president feel more loyal to, his constituents, or another government?

In this case, the gift might have something to do with the Trump Organization’s business dealings in Qatar, which now include investing $5.5 billion in a golf resort. By accepting this gift, Critics claim that Trump has shown once again that he sought the presidency to put money in his own pockets, not to look out for what’s best for America.

Congress hasn’t approved this gift, and even some Republicans in Congress have called it out saying the lavish plane goes too far and raises serious national security risks.

But instead of turning down the gift, Trump’s team is trying to find a way around the law. Attorney General Pam Bondihas been attempting to argue that this transfer is legal. But it’s important to note that Bondi was a lobbyist for Qatar from 2019 to 2020. Her former lobbying firm was making $115,000 per month lobbying for the Qatari government. 

This means that the person leading the charge in support of this gift was being paid by Qatar not long ago. 

Common Cause concludes that when Trump’s presidency ends, the aircraft will be handed over to his presidential library foundation, which means that Trump would get a private, $400 million plane courtesy of a foreign government. “It’s not normal for a U.S. president to accept a luxury jet from a foreign country. This isn’t how democracy is supposed to work. The president isn’t supposed to be for sale to the highest bidder.”

Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution

The Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts, titles, or other benefits from foreign governments or foreign rulers without the consent of Congress. This clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, aims to prevent undue foreign influence and corruption of American officials. 

It seems clear to me that Trump’s actions regarding the acceptance of a future Air Force One from Qatar is chock full of ethical holes. As I blogged about before, the handwriting was on the ethical wall when Trump fired 18 inspector generals (IGs) across some of the most vital Cabinet agencies, along with the heads of the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. These two IGs and the two independent offices were created to investigate complaints from whistleblowers and employees and to oversee ethics rules for the White House as well as to provide an independent check on executive power at the agency level.

It’s clear to me that Trump’s first action as President—dismantling the structure that oversees ethical behavior in the executive branch—set the stage for the kinds of actions we are witnessing. It’s not just the arrangement with Qatar. Just last week Trump hosted an event with the biggest investors in the President Trump memecoin.  He promised that he would promote the crypto industry. Protesters outside condemned the event as a historic corruption of the presidency.

Let me conclude by quoting Mary Jean “Lily” Tomlin who is an American actress, comedian, producer, singer, and writer.

“No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.”

Posted by Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 27, 2025. You can learn more about Steve’s activities by checking out his website at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/ and signing up for his newsletter.  

Can Civility Be Measured in a Non-Academic Sense?

I recently read a piece by Sarah D. Sparks, Colleges Will Give a Leg Up to Students Who Demonstrate Civility,  posted on Education Week, that some colleges are going to give a “leg up” to certain applicants, based on civility determinations, which will provide a preferential advantage in the admissions process. This leg up will mean a higher probability of admission compared to other equally qualified applicants. I took notice of the discussion because I have written and blogged extensively on the importance of civility in society and the fact that it has become a “lost art.”

According to the article, eight selective colleges, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, and Vanderbilt University announced they will accept these “civility transcripts” among the factors they weigh in college-admissions decisions. “I don’t want brittle students,” said Jim Nondorf, the vice president for enrollment and student advancement and the dean of college admissions and financial aid for the University of Chicago, one of the colleges that plans to use civility as a consideration during admission decisions. “I want students who can come here and add to the conversation on campus but do it in the right way.”

What is “Civility?”

What is the right way? To really tackle the meaning of civility, a variety of issues should be addressed. One is the “cancel culture,” which is responsible for a lack of civility in society today. It has redefined how people act towards each other. In the cancel culture, those offended by the comments of another party speak out against that person whether in person, in the media or on the Internet. They seek to cancel that person, which means to cause harm in some way. From the perspective of civility, we might ask: Is it right to target a person with whom you disagree and use the Internet to express your outrage, get people fired, or pushed out of certain circles?

Cancelling someone is a form of social and cultural boycott driven by ‘groupthink’ meaning the intolerance of others with a point of view that diverges from group norms. Taken to an extreme, it’s like excommunicating someone from the community. They become denounced online by those who object to their behavior.

Studies have found that young people do need guidance and opportunities to practice difficult conversations and respond to criticism without falling into “outrage cycles.” In particular, students may have more difficulty picking up social cues and understanding nuance in virtual arguments compared to in-person disagreements.

Salman Khan, the founder of the virtual education platform Khan Academy and co-founder of Schoolhouse.world, is quoted in the article as saying: “It’s very easy in anonymous or asynchronous forums to just completely ‘other’ the other party—to think they’re idiots, think they’re evil, whatever,” “That’s very hard to do in this [face-to-face] setting.”

Many educational programs focus on argument and discourse, but it can be difficult to measure nonacademic aspects of these skills. There are no standard assessments of students’ civility, but a few other projects are trying to look at some of the necessary components—such as listening and considering feedback from partners.

Restoring Civility to Society

The vast majority of Americans (72%) desire to be a part of the solution in restoring civility to society, according to a study released by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute’s (RRPFI) Center on Civility and Democracy. The findings from this survey on the state of democracy and civility acknowledge the divide in the U.S. but reveal ways for Americans to find a way forward and foster civility. 

A new pilot program shows that it might be possible to instill an ability to disagree productively in adolescents—and some of the nation’s top universities want to consider proof of that skill in admissions. However, we must ask: What does it mean to “disagree productively?” Simply stated, it is to develop the skill of being able to disagree with another party without being disagreeable. This should be the skill developed in colleges and universities. Indeed, education in this area should start much earlier. One way is to incorporate more communication into education at all levels. We need to have students debate issues face-to-face with the guidance of teachers to make sure civility is maintained. Nondorf said students need more practice with managing conflicts both in class and out of school.

An overwhelming majority of K-12 educators told the EdWeek Research Center in 2024 that schools should teach students how to have respectful disagreements, about a third of teachers said they have changed or avoided lessons on challenging topics out of concern about backlash from students, parents, or the public. This is unfortunate but highlights one of the challenges of bringing civility into the classroom.

What Is and What Can Be Done?

This year five states–Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin—partnered with the nonprofit Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which created the time-based Carnegie units for secondary credits, and the assessment group ETS for the Skills for the Future project, which is testing 15 different tools to measure underlying skills such as collaboration, communication, and critical thinking.

“These types of skills are predictive of the success that we want to see for young adults, both with high school and college attainment, but also other dimensions of thriving that broaden the definition of commencement-level success,” said Brooke Stafford-Brizard, Carnegie’s vice president for innovation and impact.

For example, the partnership is testing one “test-less assessment” task in which a student coordinates with two artificial intelligence-run avatars to tell a story, according to Laura Slover, who leads the Skills for the Future project.

“They each build on each other’s ideas,” she said. “They have to listen so that they’re picking up the ideas and creating linkages to build the next part of the story [and] giving each other feedback in real time.”

Students would be evaluated based on things like how well they accepted and used the AI characters’ ideas and feedback. Slover points out that it’s not clear how well simulation tasks of this sort can measure students’ ability to work with other people, particularly in problem-solving and healthy disagreements.

The Dialogues program takes a different approach. It built off Schoolhouse.world, the peer-tutoring platform, in which secondary students develop a portfolio of tutoring subject “certifications” by passing online assessments and providing and reviewing video explanations of concepts. Then, as students begin to tutor, their tutees also review their support and effectiveness.

Dialogues participants, ages 14 to 18, volunteer to have conversations on any of about two dozen controversial topics, including AI, income inequality, immigration, mental health, and gun control. Each student reviewed guidelines for civil disagreements and discussion guides for particular topics, and was matched to peers with a different viewpoint on the assigned topics. The students had and recorded virtual conversations with their partners, then reflected on their own experience and provided written feedback for their partner.

The students participated independently of their schools and were not graded on their performance in these dialogues, but they received a portfolio transcript detailing the number of hours and topics of discussion in which they participated and feedback from their partners on skills like active listening and how well they challenged their own views. Students could submit these portfolios to colleges as part of admissions decisions.

During the year-and-a-half pilot, more than 600 students logged about 2,000 hours of discussion. Schoolhouse is expanding the pilot to more school districts. These structured peer reviews and self-reflections work in lieu of formal assessments, Khan said. “I don’t think you can truly fake respect,” he said. “You have to have real respect; otherwise, the other party can tell.”

While an overwhelming majority of K-12 educators told the EdWeek Research Center in 2024 that schools have a responsibility to teach students how to have respectful disagreements, about a third of teachers said they have changed or avoided lessons on challenging topics out of concern about backlash from students, parents, or the public. Nondorf, the University of Chicago administrator, said students need more practice with managing conflicts both in class and out of school.

Modeling Civility in and Outside the Classroom

It has been said, “Students don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Teachers have to model civil behavior both in and outside the classroom. This hasn’t always been the case. Teachers need training on how to build civility into classroom discussions, assignments, and projects.

There is a related education quote that goes something like, “Students don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” Teachers have to model civil behavior both inside and outside the classroom. That hasn’t always been the case.

Robert Hill writes in The Teaching Professor:

“Each college has its own policies for both student and faculty conduct, as college professors ‘the buck stops’ with us when it comes to controlling the climate and establishing the expectations for civil discourse in our classrooms. Professors need to model civility, and by this I mean much more than proper manners and etiquette, such as regularly saying “please” and “thank you.” I mean feeling actual empathy toward students. A syllabus, even if it’s posted online, says a lot about us before the course even begins. The same could be said about an introductory welcome letter for an online course. First impressions are important. That very first class should clearly set the expectations. Too often faculty miss this opportunity and just dive into their academic content without any attention paid to the culture that needs to be established in that course. We should all be good stewards, heed our grandparents’ advice, and foster a caring learning community imbued with mutual respect. If we don’t practice civility, empathy, and respect, how can we expect meaningful conversations to occur in our courses?”

Final Thoughts

I have read widely that because of increasingly divisive public discourse, civility has become a sought-after skill for colleges and universities struggling to maintain a rich set of viewpoints on campus, and for employers trying to build diverse workplaces. I think it’s great that more attention is being given to civil discourse and behavior. It’s about time. However, let’s not delude ourselves. It’s going to take a lot more than assignments which may, or may not, illustrate and promote civility. True civility is borne out of respect for others and tolerance for divergent viewpoints. It also requires treating each other equally. We shouldn’t discriminate against someone because we don’t agree with their opinion. We should respect these differences and learn from others points of view. That is true learning.

It’s critical that educators who want to jump on the leg up bandwagon examine their own behavior. Do they act civilly towards each other? How do they resolve differences with colleagues and others? Do they possess the skills necessary to ensure that civility becomes intertwined with education? Are they really committed to making a difference?

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 20, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

A Bridge Too Far

President Donald Trump has issued 147 Executive Orders (EO) as of last week. Most Presidents would have issued much less at this point in their Presidency. An EO is a declaration by the president which has the force of law, usually based on existing statutory powers, and requiring no action by the Congress.

In my previous two blogs, I have tried to inform readers of some of the actions Trump had taken in his first 100 days and a cautionary tale about his ‘battle’ with Harvard University over federal funding.  Today I examine the EOs he has issued and warn that he is going too far to control the actions of what should be independent organizations and the free expression of religion.

Some EOs are clearly useful. For example, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure. The EO requires agency heads to be held accountable by the President for implementing risk management measures commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm that would result from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of IT and data. They will also be held accountable by the president for ensuring that cybersecurity risk management processes are aligned with strategic, operational, and budgetary planning processes.

Other EOs seem to be motivated by political ends. An example is the recent EO issued to stop funding for NPR and PBS. Still others seem difficult to enact, such as the recently announced EO to institute “most favored nation” policy on drug pricing that, allegedly, would reduce prescription drug and pharmaceutical prices “almost immediately by 30% to 80%.”

Federal Funding for NPR and PBS

President Trump issued an executive order on May 1, 2025, directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s (CPB) board of directors to “cease federal funding for NPR and PBS,” the nation’s primary public broadcasters, claiming ideological bias. “Neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,” the order says. “The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding.”

It is not clear that the president has the authority to make such orders to CPB under the law. PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger called it a “blatantly unlawful Executive Order, issued in the middle of the night.”

CPB is already suing the Trump administration over his executive order seeking to fire three of its five board members; it dismissed the validity of the president’s new order.

According to NPR, “CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.” The CPB noted that the statute Congress passed to create it “expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors.” Congress said that such funds “may be used at the discretion of the recipient” for producing or acquiring programs to put on the air.

Trump’s Motivation in Defunding NPR and PBS

It seems that Trump is motivated by stopping what he calls “biased and partisan news coverage.” That Trump is trying to stifle dissent is not surprising. He tends to go after those who don’t agree with him or say critical things about him. Trump put NPR and PBS in this category rather than promoting free speech and thoughtful reflection in society. The White House said that both organizations had received “tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds each year to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’

“Unlike in 1967, when the CPB was established, today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options,” the executive order reads. “Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.” Trump said in the order that the CPB failed to follow the principles of fairness and impartiality that underpin its public role. “Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens,” Trump said.

The White House statement also provides an extensive list of what it said were “trash that passes for ‘news'” at PBS and NPR. These alleged infringements included reporting on transgender issues and NPR’s apology for characterizing people as “illegal.”

CPB Response

Paula Kerger, CEO and president of PBS, said in response: “The President’s blatantly unlawful Executive Order, issued in the middle of the night, threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming, as we have for the past 50-plus years. We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue to serve our member stations and all Americans.”

Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the CPB, issued a statement stressing that the White House did not control the organization. “CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority. Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.” She went on: “Congress created the CPB, it forbade any government agency or official from directing, supervising, or controlling it.

To date, NPR and PBS receive roughly half a billion dollars in public money and earn money from sponsorship. NPR says less than 1% of its funding comes from public sources.

Trump and his supporters have long complained that NPR and PBS are biased and promote left-wing causes, an allegation vehemently denied by executives at both organizations. Last month, Trump called for their defunding on Truth Social, calling them “RADICAL LEFT ‘MONSTERS’ THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!”

Attack on Religious Liberty

President Trump also signed an EO establishing a presidential commission on religious liberty. Critics contend that the motivation is to openly question the separation of church and state. The Constitution’s prohibition of a national religion has long been interpreted as a mandatory separation of church and state.

Trump has established a White House Faith Office in the West Wing, inviting pastors to pray in the Oval Office and during Cabinet meetings, and taking executive actions to root out “anti-Christian bias” in the government.

The commission will be chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Ben Carson, Trump’s term-one Housing and Urban Development secretary, will serve as vice chair. “There’s never been a president who invoked the name of Jesus more than you,” Patrick told the president. The commission’s full membership and mandate were not immediately clear. Trump said it would meet in the White House.

“Prayer is not a religious act, it’s a national necessity,” said Paula White, Trump’s senior adviser who oversees the Faith Office. In a prayer, she asked God to grant Trump “wisdom beyond human understanding and capability, and … divine dreams.”

“We call for a spiritual reset in our nation, a return to what is right, a reverence for what is sacred, a real alignment with your divine purpose,” she said. “We’re bringing religion back to our country, and it’s a big deal,” the President said, in announcing the EO.

Conclusions

Doing what is right is critical to the ethical actions we all take. However, no religion has a monopoly on how that can and should be done. Moreover, you can’t foster a return to religion through EOs. It comes from one’s heart, teachings as youngsters, influence of parents, educational experiences and having ethical leaders to look up to. Trump needs to check himself in these areas given his constant battles in the court. Should he be the ‘poster child’ for religiosity?

This is scary stuff. If Trump is allowed to end federal funding of any organization that he disagrees with, whether they receive federal funds or not, we will have morphed into a society where the leader can choose which organizations to support and which should be shut down. Even more concerning is the apparent promotion of religious bias in the White House.

The actions discussed in this blog should raise the proverbial ‘red flag’ for all Americans. We don’t want to be told which newscast to listen to or which opinions we should embrace. We certainly don’t want one religion to be promoted more so than others by the President. This is not consistent with a democratic form of government. It is governing by fiat!Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 12, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/

Federal Funding of Universities and DEI Programs Under Attack

Last week I blogged about the accomplishments and questionable actions by President Donald Trump during his first 100 days in office. I did not tackle the question of the fairness of cutting federal funding to the elite and other universities because of the way they oversaw student behavior on campus towards Jewish and Muslim students in light of the war between Israel and Hamas. I did not look at threats to cut funding for these institutions because Trump doesn’t like what they are doing. In this blog, I will address these issues as well as threats against campus programs in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Harvard University

First, let me say that it is troubling that Harvard University has to examine its handling of antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias that colors the university’s political and academic climate. This is arguably the most elite university in the U.S., yet their students, and even some faculty, have not learned to be tolerant and, indeed, accepting of differences in nationalities and religions. Perhaps the climate on campus is an expression of free speech. It’s true that free speech should tolerate differences in opinions on social and political issues. However, when it turns to violence against one group of students or another, such speech crosses the line between free speech and threatening behavior.

President Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to quite a few universities because of the way they oversaw discrimination against Jews on campus during the recent protests against Israel in its war with Hamas. Many Jewish students reported not feeling safe on campus and even being blocked from going to classes. There is no justification for such behavior and those universities that acted slowly, or not at all, to rein in discrimination on campus and threatening behavior violated their own  ‘safe space’ on campus. Safe spaces on college campuses create an environment where students feel secure and supported, especially for those who identify as marginalized, face discrimination, or are otherwise harassed on campus.  

As the legal battle over critical federal money plays out in court, two Harvard University task forces released a pair of long-awaited internal reports last week: one on how antisemitism and anti-Israel bias are handled on campus, and another on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias.  These reports are critical of the university’s political and academic climate. The fact that some faculty sided with one group or the other is troubling on a campus that should promote the fair treatment of all students, civility, and respect for differences in religions and nationalities. The place to address these issues is in the classroom or special seminars and with an open-mind and tolerance for divergent views.

The reports included accounts of both Jewish and Muslim students juggling profound grief over the deaths of loved ones in Gaza and Israel, coupled with fear for their safety and deep feelings of alienation and academic censorship on campus. They include several broad recommendations and policy changes for Harvard’s programs, admissions and academic programs. Alan Garber, President of the University, wrote in his letter that accompanies the report: “Some students reported being pushed by their peers to the periphery of campus life because of who they are or what they believe, eroding our shared sense of community in the process.” Time will tell whether these initiatives take hold and become part of the culture on campus.

The reports indicate that 92% of Muslims surveyed at the university said they believed they were likely to face academic or professional repercussions for expressing their opinions on anti-Muslim bias. Meanwhile, 61% of Jewish respondents felt they would face academic or professional repercussions for expressing their opinions. The report recommends an overhaul of how students report antisemitic behavior on campus, faculty training on the issue and curriculum changes. More classes on the Israel-Palestinian conflict should be included in the school’s curriculum, the task force noted, suggesting that all introductory courses on the topic should be co-taught from a Palestinian or Israeli “perspective.” It’s a sad state of affairs that a prestigious university such as Harvard has to be told to do these things. One would think an effective reporting system exists, and having faculty training on these issues and curriculum coverage is a given. Shame on you, Harvard University!

The Trump administration froze over $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard University. This includes existing grants and a portion of multi-year contract values. The administration had previously threatened to review an additional $9 billion in funding, but the initial move was to freeze the $2.2 billion.

Harvard President Garber has said the withdrawal of funding and removal of tax exempt status would be illegal “unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move.” He went on to attack what could be an existential threat to Harvard and other universities similarly affected. Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing the government has violated the university’s constitutional rights by freezing billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.

Comprehensive Admissions Reform

The Trump administration also wants “comprehensive admissions reform” at colleges. It’s unclear what that means or how it would be enforced, but pressure to avoid scrutiny could affect admissions practices, writes Liam Knox for Inside Higher Ed.

Last month the government cut US$400 million in federal funding for Columbia University and sent a list of demands the university would have to meet to get it back. Among them: “deliver a plan for comprehensive admission reform.” The administration sent a similar letter last month to Harvard University after freezing US$9 billion in funding, demanding that the university “adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies” and “cease all preferences based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin in admissions”.

And in March the Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at Stanford University and three University of California campuses, accusing them of defying the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action in June 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Education Department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed, including a request to clarify what “comprehensive admission reform” means and what evidence the administration has that admissions decisions at Columbia and Harvard are not merit-based, or that they continue to consider race even after the SFFA ruling.

Columbia acquiesced to many of the Trump administration’s demands, but it’s not clear if admissions reform is one of those concessions. When asked, a Columbia spokesperson said that “at this moment” the university had nothing to add beyond the university’s March 21 letter to the administration. In that letter, Columbia officials wrote that they would “review our admissions procedures to ensure they reflect best practices,” adding that they’d “established an advisory group to analyze recent trends in enrollment and report to the President on concerns over discrimination against a particular group. Here again it boggles the mind that Columbia hasn’t been doing this all along.

Targeting Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Last week, President Trump ramped up his threats to scrutinize the tax-exempt status of groups and colleges he disagrees with, calling out a prominent organization that’s fighting some of his actions in court. Trump told reporters “We’re looking at” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit watchdog group that has launched litigation against his executive actions and conducted investigations into what it alleges are his conflicts of interest.

CREW, in a statement, said: “For more than 20 years, CREW has exposed government corruption from politicians of both parties who violate the public trust and has worked to promote an ethical, transparent government. Good governance groups are the heart of a healthy democracy. We will continue to do our work to ensure Americans have an ethical and accountable government.”

This is an example of Trump’s overreach in going after an organization that has frequently spoken out about the improper actions he has taken as President. It’s troubling that he uses his office as a tool for retribution.

Tax-Exempt Status

Trump’s comments came amid reports that administration officials have asked the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, which, if carried out, could hit the school with huge tax bills.

“I think Harvard’s a disgrace. I think what they did is a disgrace. They’re obviously antisemitic, and all of a sudden they’re starting to behave,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “But tax-exempt status, I mean, it’s a privilege. It’s really a privilege. And it’s been abused by a lot more than Harvard,” he said, mentioning Columbia and Princeton universities.

According to the Washington Post, officials at the Treasury Department sent the request targeting Harvard to the IRS’s top lawyer Andrew De Mello. The move followed the university’s refusal to comply with wide-ranging demands by the administration to change its admissions and hiring policies. The government has already frozen more than $2.2 billion in federal funds to the institution. Jason Newton, a spokesperson for Harvard, said in an email that “there is no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.”

“Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission,” Newton said. “The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”

Trump appears unmoved (and uncaring) about laws that expressly prohibit the executive branch from asking the IRS to intercede in the audits of specific taxpayers. This is an ideal issue for which CREW should speak out against.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Programs

The Trump administration is also attacking DEI programs on campus. Universities are suspending research projects, canceling conferences and closing offices in response to Trump’s executive orders banning DEI across the U.S. government. Arizona State University told researchers to immediately stop working on federally funded DEI-related projects and avoid using unspent funds. Michigan State University canceled a DEI webinar and began a review of campus programs to understand how they could be affected by the executive orders. North Carolina State University directed the faculty to stop working on any projects that include the terms DEI in the program’s proposal. Whether you agree or not with Trump’s actions against these and other universities, the very act of a President attacking programs on college campuses is scary, to say the least. Where does it all end? Does Trump want to set the curriculum for any university receiving federal funds?

Governing by Fiat Using Executive Orders

The scope of executive orders has stunned universities. While Trump pledged during his campaign to end DEI, it seems that few, if any, universities thought it would affect research grants and other funding, expecting the orders to deal mainly with discriminatory actions against students on campus. Many universities have spent years incorporating DEI practices, values and personnel into curriculum, hiring and research. Among the executive orders recently issued, one directs federal agencies to end “equity-related” grants. Another would require universities to certify that they don’t run “programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws” when they get grants. I will address the issue of executive orders in my next blog.

Like most things President Trump has done for the past 100+ days, he acts first and then considers the consequences later. He believes the ends justify the means. Nothing could be further from the truth. The way he should decide on what actions to take, including executive orders, is to have an open dialogue with stakeholders, and that should include Congress whenever possible. The way in which Trump accomplishes his goals is just as important, maybe more so, than the outcome itself. An ethical path must be followed in that regard, something that Trump fails to understand.

By issuing so many executive orders, Trump short-circuits the ability of the American public to evaluate his intended actions before it is too late. He doesn’t allow Congress to weigh in on issues that affect their constituencies back home. He can’t (shouldn’t) run the government by fiat.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 6, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

How to Lose Friends and Influence Over Others

There are many ways to characterize President Trump’s first 100 days in office. Words such as chaos are the overarching description. More specifically, we can label Trump a disrupter, unpredictable, unreliable, punitive, closed-minded, egotistical, and, perhaps, most apropos—a bully.

Unethical Actions

The handwriting was on the wall when Trump fired 18 inspector generals (IGs) across some of the most vital Cabinet agencies, along with the heads of the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. These two IGs and the two independent offices were created to investigate complaints from whistleblowers and employees and to oversee ethics rules for the White House as well as to provide an independent check on executive power at the agency level. It’s ironic to say that Trump’s first action was unethical because he dismantled the structure that oversees ethical behavior in the executive branch.

Trump likes to engage in transactional relationships that are based solely on reciprocity. No consideration is given to morals, ethics, or any principle. There is no emotional component or personal investment to a transactional relationship. The parties do not have to like or respect one another. We could say that Trump’s relationship with Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, is a transactional one. When either or both parties no longer” feel it is worthwhile,” the relationship is dissolved, and no further interactions is desired nor expected.

Trump tends to make decisions first and then consider the consequences, as with the tariffs. From an ethical perspective, the President has it backwards. Ethical people consider how their actions and decisions might affect others before acting. In Trump’s world, the end justifies the means. He doesn’t seem to care who he might harm along the way. CNN reports that 121,000 federal workers have been laid off or targeted for layoffs in three months since Trump’s second term began, according to their analysis of official statements, internal memos from government officials and news reports. It’s a vast amount that doesn’t count those placed on administrative leave or who took voluntary buyouts.

Economic Concerns

The fallout of the sweeping layoffs has already had a ripple effect across the U.S. and raises questions about the government’s capacity to meet public needs when it comes to education, healthcare, transportation and public safety, experts told CNN. The threats to essential services that Americans depend on have sparked concerns about the future. Concerns about the nation’s economy have grown, according to a CNN poll, with 55% saying his cuts to federal programs will do economic harm.

Americans split evenly over whether economic conditions a year from now will be good (49%) or poor (51%), but the share saying they expect the economy to be in bad shape a year from now is up 7 points since January, just before Trump took office. Jitters on Wall Street about Trump’s economic policies have sent the stock market into a decline, and Trump has given mixed messages on whether he believes it’s possible the economy is headed into a recession.

About half of the public, 51%, say they think Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions and just 28% say they have improved things. Another 21% say they’ve had no effect on the economy. Of course, the debacle with the tariffs rollout has added to these results.

Tariffs

The tariff action by Trump appears to have affected both friend and foe alike. It’s fair to say that countries which once relied on us for trade and military support are questioning whether it’s time to move on and seek new economic, political, and military partners. Here again, Trump has spent the first 100 days pissing off a lot of leaders of countries to no avail. Our relationship with our European partners has been fractured to say the least. China did not back away from leveling its own tariffs on U.S. goods. Trump has had to walk the tariff plans back in part because it was causing havoc on the stock market. Xi Jinping has gained the upper hand. Trump miscalculated his ability to bully the bully.

According to Kimberley Strassel writing for the Wall Street Journal, Trump “decided to turn the threat of tariffs (a powerful negotiating tool) into a real, live bomb and the center of his economic policy—rather than his powerful deregulatory actions, his economy-boosting tax cuts, or his promising plan to make America the world’s energy powerhouse.” The result has been extreme volatility in the stock market. He seems to blame Federal Reserve Chairperson Jerome Powell for not cutting interest rates. Here again, Trump is trying to bully a government official into capitulation. The problem is the Fed is supposed to be independent of the three branches of government and should act in accordance with sound economic policy.

End the War

Before his presidential election win last fall, Donald Trump famously boasted that he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine on “day one” of his second term in office. Reaching a ceasefire agreement during the first 100 days of the second Trump presidency, let alone a peace deal, has arguably proven much harder than he expected. Trump has turned his back on his initial comment, saying he was joking. In reality, Trump has learned it is difficult to out-bully a bully, and Putin has gained the upper-hand.

Trump has also been unsuccessful in creating a pathway for peace between Israel and Hamas. There has been no ceasefire, and none seems to be in the offering. Since the collapse of the ceasefire deal on March 18, 2025, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has restarted its offensive on Gaza, killed more than 1,000 Palestinians and imposed a blockade on humanitarian aid. Hamas, for its part, has resumed launching rockets and missiles at Israel, while the Yemen-based Houthis are once again targeting Israel and U.S. assets. No additional hostages have been released, as renewed hostilities have dramatically increased the risk to their physical security. Meanwhile, the IDF has returned to prior positions in the Gaza Strip.

Though Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government are the most responsible for the war’s resumption, U.S. President Donald Trump deserves significant blame for the renewed hostilities due to his mismanagement of negotiations to extend the ceasefire. Specifically, the Trump administration failed to make any discernible progress on the conditions for entering the second phase of the deal, at which point the cessation of hostilities would have become permanent.

Executive Orders

President Trump has issued 142 executive orders in his first 100 days. Basically, he believes a President can supersede the will of the people—as reflected in Congressional actions—and he believes he can do whatever he thinks is in the best interests of the country. The problem is the U.S. has a tripartite government, a system where political power is divided among three distinct branches: the legislative (responsible for making laws), the executive (responsible for enforcing laws), and the judicial (responsible for interpreting laws). This separation of powers is designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. There can be no doubt that Trump has turned his back on the balance of powers that has stood the test of time.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

If you are not familiar with the acronym, DOGE, where have you been for the past 100 days? Elon Musk is the leader of the DOGE, which has largely taken control of the Office of Personnel and Management. Doge has cut jobs at nearly every federal agency, canceled thousands of contracts and taken control of computer systems that run the government.

There can be no doubt that there is bloat, inefficiency and even fraud across government agencies. DOGE is trying to eliminate it, partly by cutting jobs and programs. By all accounts, DOGE has a long way to go to meet its budget-cutting goals.

Musk will be stepping aside to run more of his business interests. However, it is expected that DOGE will continue on in some form or another. According to Scott Patterson and Ken Thomas of the Wall Street Journal, a “February 19 executive order instructed agency leaders to begin rescinding ‘unlawful regulations.’” Agencies are expected to “report regulations they deem unconstitutional and that impose ‘significant costs upon private parties’ that aren’t outweighed by public benefits, among other things.” Moreover, “agencies were also told to ‘deprioritize’ enforcement of regulations based on anything other than the best reading of the statute.”

These actions to be taken by DOGE are sure to be challenged as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the President’s duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3) implies the authority to manage the executive branch, including the federal workforce. The Article vests the President with executive power, including the authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and his power is further elaborated in statutes like 5 U.S.C. Chapter 9, which allows the President to reorganize agencies and eliminate certain positions with limited legislative oversight, such as one-house Congressional veto. While the President has broad authority to manage the executive branch, Congress retains some oversight. For instance, reorganization plans are subject to a one-house Congressional veto. We should expect some actions by DOGE to be challenged by Congress and in the courts. 

Illegal Immigration

This is the big win for President Trump and an area where he kept his promise to the American public while running for office. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), during the first 100 days of Trump’s second term, ICE has arrested 66,463 undocumented immigrants and removed 65,682 aliens. Three in four arrests were criminal undocumented immigrants, putting the worst first, including 2,288 gang members from Tren de Aragua, MS-13, 18th Street and other gangs. Additionally, 1,329 were accused or convicted of sex offenses, and 498 were accused or convicted of murder.” The criminal records of those arrested include convictions or charges for 9,639 assaults, 6,398 DWIs or DUIs and 1,479 weapon offenses.

Across the U.S., local agencies have become immigration enforcers under a federal program and officials say strengthens public safety, but critics warn spreads fear, erodes trust and threatens the fabric of immigrant communities. Known as the 287(g) program, it was created under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and allows ICE to authorize state and local law enforcement officers to perform specific immigration enforcement duties under ICE’s supervision. The program is seen by some as a way to rev up President Trump’s effort on illegal immigration as the Department of Justice moves to prosecute state and local officials accused of impeding that effort.

The administration has invoked many policies that will reduce illegal immigration ranging from a proposal to restrict birthright citizenship to pausing refugee resettlement and performing greater scrutiny of green-card holders, international students, and intending immigrants. Another goal is to remove safety-net public benefits from large numbers of foreign-born and even U.S.-citizen relatives in mixed-status families.

While the results seem to be what most Americans were looking for when they supported Trump for reelection, many have doubts about the way some deportations have taken place and whether undocumented immigrants have been given due process when removal is imminent. Undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution protects all people, including those who are not citizens or legal residents, from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means they have a right to fair legal proceedings and a chance to defend themselves against government actions, such as deportation. 

A man who officials have acknowledged was wrongly deported to a prison in El Salvador “will never live” in the US again, the White House has said. Salvadoran national Kilmar Ábrego García was deported to Central America from Maryland after he was accused of being a member of the banned MS-13 gang, which his lawyer has denied. A judge has ordered President Trump’s administration to secure his return to the U.S. – but El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said earlier this week that he did not “have the power” to do so. This has been a thorn in Trump’s side as his administration acted abruptly to deport Abrego Garcia without first having a hearing or other forms of due process.

Universities

I could write a blog just on how the Trump Administration’s actions have affected universities in the U.S., including cutting off federal funds and grants to universities that allowed Palestinian protesters to take actions on campus that violated the rights of Jewish students to get to class and have the education they paid for. This is a complicated issue and one that I will address in a future blog on my site, Higher Education Ethics Watch.

Perhaps the most glaring example of the battle between the Trump administration and universities is that of Harvard University, the most famous institution of higher learning in the U.S. and with an endowment that exceeds $50 billion. Harvard relies on federal funding and its tax-exempt status like every other major research university. Harvard rejected the Trump administration’s demand for access to and review of Harvard’s employment, hiring and admissions data, as well as the discontinuation of all diversity programs. Trump said on social media that the university’s tax-exempt status should be rescinded.

Interestingly, the tax law Trump signed during his first term imposed a 1.4% excise tax on all universities with more than $500,000 per student in their endowments applied to 58 universities in 2022, according to the Tax Policy Center, and raised $244 million. The tax still exists today.

There is also the matter of teaching students about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), something I will also tackle in the “Higher Education” blog. Moreover, funds are being withheld from some organizations that have created DEI programs in the workplace and even in the military. It’s another complicated issue for sure.

A Teachable Moment

There are so many teachable moments from Trump’s first 100-days. I urge educators to design curricula to engage students in how the U.S. government should be run and whether Trump’s decisions have conformed to such expectations. Musk has said he would cut $1 trillion from the federal budget, down from the $2 billion claimed during the Presidential campaign. What he hasn’t said is it may take 10-years to achieve such savings. Nevertheless, kudos to President Trump for tackling the immigration issue other presidents did not, probably because they didn’t want to make waves. Moreover, some politicians may have been lax in the past to enforce immigration laws or legislate new ones with stricter controls because they foresee that undocumented immigrants would be future voters on the horizon.

Government Ethics is an oxymoron. Making decisions in the best interests of the American public seems to have given way to egoism in the form of the President and members of Congress serving their own political interests and those of their political party. We do need to make cuts in government, eliminate fraud and abuse. But it needs to be done the right way with input from all the stakeholders affected by any such actions.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on April 30, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

Understanding the Characteristic Traits of Behavior

Years ago, I watched a fantastic show that is streaming online called Homeland. I decided to watch it again, seeking to bett6er understand the bipolar disorder that afflicts the main character—Carrie Mathison.

The cast is terrific including the star, Claire Danes, a CIA officer from 2011 to 2020. Danes stars as Carrie Mathison in the Showtime drama series for which she won two Primetime Emmy Awards and two Golden Globe Awards for Best Actor in a Drama Series. Damian Lewis plays a U.S. Marine Sergeant, Nicholas Brody. He won a Primetime Emmy Award and a Golden Globe Award. Lewis carefully navigates his new role as a hero, having lived in captivity for 8 years and then returned home. It is not known at the time that he converted to Islam and returned in order to serve the interests of his captures, with whom he bonded. After returning home, he trades off his newfound status as a hero and becomes a US Congressperson, but really a covert operative for the ‘bad guys’. The essence of the show, at least at the beginning, is that Mathison has come to believe that Brody, who was held captive by al-Qaeda as a prisoner of war, was turned by the enemy and now threatens the U.S.  

Homeland received critical acclaim, as well as several industry awards, including winning the 2012 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama, in addition to the awards given to Danes and Lewis.

My Motivation in Writing This Blog

The reason for blogging about the show is that I found the depiction of bipolar disorder, which affects Mathison, to be quite realistic. In my experience, I have found that people who are bipolar can be very productive during ‘high’ episodes and suffer manic episodes in others. This is the case for Mathison, although when she goes off her meds a state of confusion and mood swings result.

I have previously blogged about bipolar disorder in the workplace. In today’s blog, I will discuss the characteristic traits of behavior that are used in the show to display the disorder, including mood swings, also known as mania or hypomania, and the effects of the disorder on others.

There is a lot more I want to say about bipolar disorder. In this blog, I will discuss the characteristic traits of behavior and how they affect Mathison, the protagonist, and co-workers working at the CIA. In the next blog I will tackle the issue of when people with bipolar disorder make poor judgments due to impulsivity and risk-taking. This can lead to impulsive behaviors like unsafe sexual activity, substance misuse, and excessive spending, among others.

Medical Symptoms

Let me begin with how bipolar is portrayed in the show. While it may not be 100% accurate, I do believe the characteristic traits of behavior are realistic, although they may be exaggerated at times. Mathison is a high achiever by any measure. She is very capable and devoted to her work, which is a quality that many bipolar individuals have. The key to performing this way is to keep in check the bipolar ups and downs. In other words, she needs not to get too excited but also not to get too depressed. 

According to the Mayo Clinic, “bipolar disorder, formerly called manic depression, is a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings. These include emotional high episodes also known as mania or hypomania, and lows, also known as depression. Hypomania is less extreme than mania.”

There are several types of bipolar and related disorders. For the sake of brevity, I only cover the two main forms.

• Bipolar I disorder. Having at least one manic episode that may come before or after hypomanic or major depressive episodes. In some cases, mania may cause a break from reality. This is called psychosis.
• Bipolar II disorder. Having at least one major depressive episode and at least one hypomanic episode. But you’ve never had a manic episode.

The Mayo Clinic points out that “when a person who is bipolar becomes depressed, they may feel sad or hopeless and lose interest or pleasure in most activities. When their mood shifts to mania or hypomania, they may feel overly excited and happy (euphoric), full of energy or unusually irritable. These mood swings can affect sleep, energy, activity, judgment, behavior and the ability to think clearly.’

Mathison is manic when she is off her meds. This leads to accelerated speech and action. She seems moody, especially when she doesn’t get her way. Mathison feels like she is the smartest person in the room, or so she believes. When she doesn’t get her way, she becomes quite irritable and difficult to control because of the mania.

The Mayo Clinic points out that “episodes of mood swings from depression to mania may occur rarely or multiple times a year.” Each occurrence typically lasts for days, although some people have extended periods of emotional stability. Others may frequently have mood swings from depression to mania, and even depression and mania at the same time.

Although bipolar disorder is a lifelong condition, mood swings can be managed with a healthcare plan. In most cases, healthcare professionals use medicines and talk therapy, also known as psychotherapy, to treat bipolar disorder.

What I Have Learned

One thing that I have learned is bipolar disorder can start at any age, but usually it’s diagnosed during late adolescence or early adulthood, between the ages of 15 and 25. However, it can sometimes present earlier in childhood or later in adulthood. Symptoms can differ from person to person, and symptoms may vary over time. This seems to fit the character played by Danes.

In the show, we see Mathison in a manic state several times. The telltale signs are when she writes out her thoughts on a sheet of paper whereby each thought seems to encroach on others. The whole page is full of her thoughts and strategies. To some, it looks like a series of confused collections of thoughts—only Danes can follow the logic. In other times we see dozens of pictures on a tack board pin. It’s hard to follow why they are there. Still, at other times we see papers/files all over the floor in what seems to be an unrecognizable collection of documents with no beginning and no end.

The bipolar episodes occur when she goes off her meds. Anyone who has lived with bipolar knows it can be dangerous to go off your meds, especially suddenly as does Mathison. At the extreme, it could lead to suicidal ideation. Mattison attempted suicide by overdosing on her medication.

The portrayal of bipolar in some shows seems unrealistic, even offensive. I watched a segment of Law and Order (S19, E21) which was called ‘Skate or Die’. The main character afflicted with bipolar is known as the ‘Bipolar Roller’ because he is constantly skating to get from one point or another, and for enjoyment. To say he is eccentric is an understatement. He is depicted as a schizophrenic with paranoid delusions. He believes the KGB is out to kill him. He refuses to take antipsychotic medication. One could say that he gives those with bipolar a bad name.

Look for my next blog on bipolar in a week. Feel free to send me comments on this blog. I value your opinions.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 5, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

Do Whistleblower Awards Lead to More Whistleblowing?

The ethics of whistleblowing is a tricky matter. Whistle-blowing brings two moral values, fairness and loyalty, into conflict. Doing what is fair or just (e.g., promoting an employee based on talent alone) often conflicts with showing loyalty (e.g., promoting a longstanding but unskilled employee). Taken to its extreme from a loyalty perspective, whistleblowing may involve agonizing conflicts when, for example, it involves violating the trust of co-workers who have engaged in wrongdoing or jeopardizing one’s ‘team player’ status by going against the prevailing winds in an organization that fosters unethical behavior.

From an ethical perspective, while loyalty is an ethical value it never should be placed above one’s ethical obligation to act responsibly and be accountable for one’s actions including reporting wrongdoing. Responsible people blow the whistle when they believe more harm than good will occur if the whistle-blower stays silent. A virtuous whistle-blower acts in an ethical manner when they believe a responsibility exists to protect the public interest. Such a person is willing to accept the consequences of their actions for the greater good.

An ethical person has the fortitude to be courageous because they have the integrity to do what is right even when pressure exists in an organization to do otherwise. The most important consideration in assessing whether a whistle-blower acts in an ethical manner is the intention behind one’s action. Is it designed to right a wrong as ethics requires? Alternatively, is it an action the best serves one’s personal interest thereby motivated by egoism—the pursuit of self-interests. Given the availability of whistleblower awards, a would-be-whistleblower may act to gain the award, not to serve the public interest.

Whistleblower Awards

Under the Federal False Claims Act, whistleblowers can be rewarded for confidentially disclosing fraud that results in a monetary loss to the federal government. Provided that their original information results in a successful prosecution, whistleblowers are awarded a mandatory reward of between 15% to 30% of the collected proceeds. These rewards are often substantial, since under the False Claims Act, the criminal is liable for a civil penalty as well as treble damages.

Among the most important whistleblower laws is the Dodd-Frank Act passed in 2010 following the financial crisis of 2008-09. The Act is a major Wall Street reform law covering commodities and securities actions worldwide that aims to promote financial stability by improving accountability and transparency. It created two whistleblower programs in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as enhanced whistleblower provisions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

To be eligible for a reward, whistleblowers must provide original information about a violation of securities law that leads to a successful enforcement action. This action must result in monetary penalties exceeding $1,000,000. SEC whistleblower awards range between 10 and 30 percent when the monetary sanctions collected exceed one million.

Is Whistleblowing More Common When CEOs Are Overpaid?

A read an article in the Harvard Business Review that takes the position whistleblowing will occur when CEOs executive compensation dwarfs that of employees. The authors state that in 2021, the average CEO at one of the top 350 firms in the U.S. was paid $27.8 million—a rate that skyrocketed by an astonishing 1,460% since 1978. During this same period, the average worker’s pay grew by just a meager 18.1%. When employees witness disproportionate pay for C-suite executives or unfair treatment compared to other stakeholders, they often perceive a lack of fairness within the organization. This perception can be toxic for morale, leading to disloyalty and resentment. But could it lead to increased whistleblowing?

In their research, published recently in Strategic Management Journal, the authors set out to look at why employees blow the whistle on organizational wrongdoing. They found that two factors—outsized disparities in executive compensation and treatment of external stakeholders—could make employees likelier to blow the whistle on their companies. They also identified strategies to help companies to avoid this long-term damage to their people, reputations, and financial health.

The first factor seems to imply that such employees seek a kind of ‘revenge,’ believing they are treated unfairly because their compensation is low compared to CEOs. In the second case, their motivation seems more altruistic, that is, to protect shareholders, investors, and so on.

Organizational Considerations

From an organizational perspective, it is important that even if hotlines are in place, the organization should not be complacent when it comes to its usage and communication. If a company doesn’t receive many whistle-blowing reports, it shouldn’t assume that no news is good news.

In addition, if companies don’t use the data collected from their reports in a progressive manner (analyzing trends, investigation and resolution, etc.) it negates the benefits of the service considerably. Businesses have a responsibility to the public to act on whistle-blowing intelligence or risk adverse consequences. They are additionally accountable to the governing bodies of their sector, such as the SEC, OSHA, EEOC, EPA, and other regulatory agencies.

It might seem obvious to my readers whistleblowing is an ethical practice. After all, I blog about it all the time. I am also aware that ethics is easier said than done so it is safe to say that individual ethics are born of a culture of ethics. In an organization, this means to establish an ethical tone at the top that filters throughout and sets a standard that is enforced. The worst thing that can happen in an organization is for top management to say they believe in a code of ethics and then violate that very same code when it comes to their individual behavior. And in a culture of ethics, whistle-blowers can come out of the cold.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 25, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at:

Guidance on Dealing With Bipolar Disorder

Last week I blogged about bipolar disorder and how triggering behaviors can affect relationships with others. I suggest you read that blog if you have not already done so. One reason is I discuss the symptoms and actions of Carrie Mathison, the main character in the hit streaming show, Homeland, and how her bipolar affects her actions and relationships. I recommend you watch the 8 seasons of the show, especially the first three years.

Symptoms of Bipolar Disorder

Worldwide, over 2.5% of the population will have either bipolar I or bipolar II during their lifetimes; 2.6% in the U.S. My guess is it’s a lot higher because many people may not recognize the causes of the disorder or its potential seriousness, so it doesn’t get treated.

According to the Mayo Clinic, “bipolar disorder, formerly called manic depression, is a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings. These include emotional high episodes also known as mania or hypomania, and lows, also known as depression. Hypomania is less extreme than mania.”

The Mayo Clinic points out that “episodes of mood swings from depression to mania may occur rarely or multiple times a year.” Each occurrence typically lasts for days, although some people have extended periods of emotional instability. Others may frequently have mood swings from depression to mania, and even depression and mania at the same time.

As you might expect, the actions taken when one is in a manic state can be serious and significantly affect one’s own wellbeing. For example, one’s judgment may be impaired, and decisions made impulsively, at a time when the symptoms of bipolar are not contained.

Skills Needed to Deal with Bipolar

According to Alexandra Gold, Ph.D., writing in Psychology Today, there are skills that can be helpful to resist the urge to act on impulse when you are experiencing hypomania. These are discussed below.

Some people notice that they engage in more impulsive behaviors when they are experiencing symptoms of hypomania. These impulsive behaviors are actions that might feel good or desirable at the moment but that, in the long term, may have more negative consequences.

Examples of these types of behaviors include spending sprees, excessive substance use, and risky sexual activities. Some people also find that when they are experiencing hypomania, they also feel more irritable, which can make it harder to resist the impulse to get involved in confrontations with others, such as at work, that could have undesired lasting consequences. This is remarkably well depicted in the Homeland show by the lead actor, Carrie Mathison.

Advice From Psychology Today

Psychology Today provides useful guidance in how to resist acting on impulse during periods of hypomania.

The 48-Hour Rule: The 48-Hour Rule suggests you wait a minimum of two full days and have two full nights of sleep before making any major decision when you are in a hypomania state. Decisions could relate to anything at all, including significant purchases (new car) or major life changes (quitting your job). The 48-Hour Rule creates space (i.e., two days) between the urge to act and the action itself, ensuring that you are only making and acting on decisions after getting enough sleep. Many people with bipolar disorder experience sleep problems and sleeping fewer hours than normal is a common symptom of hypomania. In other words, the lack of sleep drives hypomania.

The Two-Person Feedback Rule: The Two-Person Feedback Rule suggests you check with two trusted people (among friends, family members, or loved ones) before making any big decision when you are experiencing hypomania. The goal of the Two-Person Feedback Rule is to ensure that you are considering and weighing the long-term risks associated with a given decision before acting on it. Sometimes, during hypomania, people may believe that their decision-making and thinking is better than the decision-making of others. This is certainly the case as depicted by the star in Homeland, Carrie Mathison.

Step away from the situation—literally: If you are in a situation where there is a temptation to act on an impulsive behavior or if you think it is likely that the situation could lead to some type of confrontation, try to leave the situation if you can. If you have reason to think that a specific situation could trigger impulsive behavior, think about the value of avoiding the situation entirely.

Check in on your thoughts: Hypomania can cause people to have hyperpositive thinking. This way of thinking leads people to overlook or minimize the risks of their behaviors and to overestimate positive outcomes that could result from their behaviors. Hyperpositive thinking can drive impulsive behaviors. Check in with yourself to catch hyperpositive thinking during episodes of hypomania. If you have an urge to engage in impulsive behavior, take a step back before engaging in that behavior and take stock of your thoughts. Ask yourself: “What are some of the risks that I might be overlooking with this thought?”

Limit access to items that could make it easier to act on impulse: Try to recall past episodes of hypomania and consider whether there were any items or factors that made it easier to act on impulse (i.e., access to substances, access to credit cards). It can be helpful to restrict your access to such items during periods of hypomania. When you are experiencing hypomania, it can be helpful to ask a trusted person to hold onto your credit cards to limit the risk of any uncontrolled spending.

This advice from Psychology Today is helpful, which is why I have included it in my blog. However, based on my experience it may be too late to follow because the action has already been taken. In other words, the action is immediate it, crowding out the steps mentioned above. I also find that involving others, other than one’s spouse, may not be the best way to go because of a desire to keep the disorder on the downlow. Nevertheless, the overall advice is solid. I have especially found the 48-hour rule to be helpful, although the urge to act often overwhelms the ability to walk away from the decision for two days. For sure, I wouldn’t get a good night sleep during such occasions.

I hope my coverage of the literature on bipolar is helpful to those reading this blog and the previous one where I relate the disorder to the main character in Homeland.

Feel free to share your thoughts by emailing me at: steve@ethicssage.com.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 12, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

What Will It Take to Be More Considerate of Others?

While many people think compassion and empathy are the same, the fact is there are important differences. By discussing each as a separate ethical value, we can begin to see how each might influence ethical behavior and the response of one individual to another’s actions or words.

The feeling of empathy is more complicated than compassion because you have to put yourself in the place of the person whose actions you are trying to understand: (1) What motivates them; (2) How can I show that I care about what has happened to them; and (3) What can I do to make them feel better about their words or actions?\

I have blogged about the difference between compassion and empathy previously. Today’s blog updates that discussion and expands on the ethical value of “compassion”. I focus more on the behavioral side of expressing compassion and what such action is intended to achieve.

What is Compassion?

Compassion has been defined in many ways. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines it as “sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.” In the literature, there appears to be a broad consensus that compassion involves feeling for a person who is suffering and being motivated to act to help them. According to the Theosophical Society of America, the characteristic trait compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical, and spiritual traditions, directing us always to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves—the Golden Rule.

Compassion is sometimes differentiated from empathy and altruism, although the concepts are related. Empathy refers more generally to our ability to take the perspective of and feel the emotions of another person, and compassion is when those feelings and thoughts include the desire to help them. Altruism, in turn, is kind, selfless behavior often motivated by feelings of compassion, though one can feel compassion without acting on it, and altruism isn’t always motivated by compassion. It could simply be that a person sees helping others as a way to add meaning to their life.

The Psychology of Happiness and Meaning

Research by Martin Seligman, a pioneer of the psychology of happiness and human flourishing, suggests that connecting with others in a meaningful way helps us enjoy better mental and physical health. A compassionate lifestyle leads to greater psychological health because giving to others is a pleasurable activity, if not more so than the act of receiving. It also broadens our perspective beyond ourselves and creates a sense of connection to others that generates a positive feeling and enhances well-being.

Empathy and compassion for others may be reciprocated. For example, let’s assume your next-door neighbor’s husband just died and you decide to cook some meals and bring them over so the family can grieve without worrying about the little things. Six months later, your husband passes away and your neighbor returns the favor. One good deed deserves another. We feel good about what we did and our neighbor’s actions. It gives us a sense of satisfaction and gratitude, two elements of happiness.

Things Compassionate People Do

Writing for the personal development website, Life Hack, Kyle Hart identifies 20 things only compassionate people would do. These are quite instructive, so I decided to share my list of top ten compassionate acts.

1. Put other people’s needs above your own.
2. Listen first, speak second.
3. Never leave someone you care for and always have their back.
4. Forgive easily.
5. Find something in common with everyone.
6. Value people and experiences over money.
7. Be kind to yourselves as you are to others.
8. Be mindful of everything in your life.
9. Understand that people have differences of opinion, and they express those in different ways.
10. Bring out the best in others.

Compassion and Interpersonal Relationships

Compassion is often comprised of traits and behaviors including empathy and the following:

1. Caring about the suffering of others.
2. Understanding that suffering is a universal experience.
3. Understanding and empathizing with the emotional experiences of other people.
4. Tolerating distressing and uncomfortable emotions that may arise.
5. Feeling motivated to take action to help alleviate the suffering of others.
6. Thoughtful behavior towards others.

Examples of Compassion

A posting on the online website, ‘Very Well Mind,‘ provides examples of compassion

• Offering help to someone in need: This might include aiding someone with a task, such as carrying someone’s groceries to their car. Or it might involve offering other types of assistance, such as performing household chores for a friend who is experiencing depression.
• Volunteering for a cause: Compassion also often leads people to volunteer their time, skills, and effort for causes they care about. This might involve donating money or resources to an organization that helps people or volunteering to provide more hands-on assistance to a community organization.
• Listening and being patient with others: Compassion can also cause people to listen to the concerns or experiences of others and extend greater patience as a result. For example, you might listen to someone talk about their recent challenges or give someone more time to work on a project because of something they have been going through in their personal life.
• Forgiving others: The ability to forgive people who have wronged you is often rooted in compassion. While empathy might allow you to understand what they have experienced, compassion causes you to want to take action by extending forgiveness for the harm they have done.

Pay it Forward

I believe a lack of compassion and empathy exists in society today. Most people are concerned only about what happens to them. It is the notion of the pursuit of self-interest without regard to how our actions affect others. However, we need to stretch our concern to others in society, beyond our friends and family, to our neighbors and even strangers. Otherwise, those people will not react to our misgivings with compassion and empathy. Kindness begets kind action. Compassion begets caring and understanding.

You may have heard the expression ‘Pay it Forward.’ It is the mantra of a 2000 movie with the same name. It means to respond to a person’s kindness to oneself by being kind to someone else.

`Pay it forward” is a concept where a person who has received a kindness or favor does something good for someone else instead of repaying the original benefactor. The idea is to create a chain of goodwill, where acts of kindness are passed along, potentially benefiting many people over time.

The problem in society is we rarely see people paying it forward. The media doesn’t spend much time on it, and neither does social media. It’s time to emphasize compassion and empathy in society to build a better world!

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 25, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

Who or What Should Be Blamed

You may have read recently in The Wall Street Journal or elsewhere that the reading skills of American students are deteriorating further, according to new national test scores. Compared with 2019 results, eighth-grade reading scores are now down eight points. Reading scores are down five points in both grades. And in fourth-grade math, scores are down three points. Some point blame on the pandemic, where education was halted in many cases for a significant period of time. Yes, there may have been Zoom meetings instead, but that is no way to learn about reading and math. The best way to learn these skills is through practice, practice, and some more practice. You learn by doing!

The results discussed next come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, an exam administered by the Education Department. The test is often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card, which is given to representative sets of fourth-and eighth-graders from across the U.S. at the beginning of 2024.

The Wall Street Journal reports that 67% of affected students who scored at a basic or better reading level in 2024 was the lowest share since testing began in 1992. Only 60% of fourth-graders hit that benchmark, nearing record lows. While the lowest-achieving students fell further behind everyone else, the slides were broad, affecting students across different states, school types, races, and economic backgrounds.

There are differences of opinion about the reason for the decline and the persistent low scores. The easiest thing to do is blame the pandemic, the shuttering of schools for long periods of time, and learning online rather than in the classroom. However, this is only part of the story.

Peggy Carr, an Education Department Official, stated that “there has been a decline in students’ joy for reading; fewer teachers asking for essay responses; and a rise in reading on devices.

According to a story in Education Week, “the poor results overall obscure trends below the surface, including deepening divides between the highest-and lowest-performing students gap which has been growing since before the pandemic.

Carr said that: “We are not seeing the progress we need to regain the ground our students lost during the pandemic, and when we are seeing signs of recovery, they’re mostly in math, and largely driven by high-performing students. Low-performing students are struggling, especially in reading.”

U.S. v. International Kids

Much has been written about the low achievement scores of U.S. high-schoolers when compared to those of other countries. The chart below shows how badly U.S. students lag behind their peers in foreign countries. When comparing achievement scores in reading, math, and science, U.S. 15-year-olds rank 24^th, 36^th, and 28^th, respectively. This puts them behind students in countries such as Poland, Liechtenstein, and Estonia. I find this intolerable.

What Do U.S. Kids Want to Do When They Grow Up?

It is not surprising to me that American kids choose social-media-oriented “jobs” after they graduate, or Asian kids choose more rigorous fields. Why is this? It’s a matter of a work ethic. In my experience, having taught Asian-college-students for many years, they work much harder than American kids. It is a cultural dynamic.

What Can Be Done, if Anything?

We have to get passed the notion that throwing more money at the problem will solve it, or that better teachers are needed. While both may be true, the education has to become more, not less, rigorous in the U.S. The standards of achievement have to be strengthened. Kids shouldn’t just be pushed up from one grade to another, even if they haven’t developed the skills necessary to be successful in higher education, and when they go out in the working world. This is largely dependent on developing lifelong learning skills.

Finally, parents have to become more involved. They should demand better results on these tests by increasing the standards for performance and holding teachers accountable for the results in the classroom and on assessment tests.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 5, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

Americans Do Not Trust Established Institutions According to Gallup and Pew

Gallup published its 2023 results of a survey of honesty/ethics in the professions last year. The results speak volumes about which professions are trusted by most Americans. The most ethical profession is nurses with a 78% positive rating—high or very high in ethics. While this is a relatively strong rating, it has declined by 7% since the 2019 survey. This follows a declining trend in all professions. The ratings of all professions appear below in an Exhibit.

The professions that follow nurses with positive ratings include veterinarians (65%), engineers (60%), dentists (59%), medical doctors (56%), and pharmacists (55%). In each case, the ratings have declined since the 2019 survey. Both medical doctors and pharmacists have declined by 9% since that survey and so have police officers who went from 54% positive in 2019 to 45% in 2023. This could be due to the backlash against police around 2019-2021 and the advent of ‘Black Lives Matter’ (BLM) movement that originated in 2022.

Declining Trend

I have previously blogged about the survey results in other years and noted that it is the helping professions that score the highest, although their positive ratings have declined since 2019. In fact, the positive rating of every group has declined.

It is worth noting that the rating for U.S. Senators went from 13% to 8% and for members of Congress from 12% to 6%. These two groups have the lowest ratings of all. This is not surprising to me because a significant majority of the country hold their representatives in Congress in low esteem.

The professions that make up the core categories that have been rated for many years are nurses, pharmacists, medical doctors, police officers, clergy, bankers, lawyers, business executives, members of Congress, advertising practitioners and car salespeople. These 11 have been rated since 1999, while others have been included periodically.

The average very high/high ethics rating of the core 11 professions has decreased from routinely 40% or higher in the early 2000s to closer to 35% during most of the 2010s. It rose slightly in 2020, to a seven-year high of 38%, reflecting enhanced public trust in healthcare workers and teachers during the pandemic. Thereafter, the average declined each year through 2023, when it reached 30%, and it held there in 2024. This mirrors the long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in U.S. institutions. 

Pew Research Center Survey

According to the Pew Center Survey that shows Americans’ distrust of institutions, “trust in some historically respected institutions has taken a hit in the post-pandemic years. Pew Research Center has been asking Americans about trust in institutions and reporting on their views for more than 25 years. Over the course of that period, some institutions have seen the faith entrusted in them wane, spike, and wane again. Others have managed to keep their hard-won credibility. Yet others tell a story of changing attitudes among subgroups of Americans.”

Trust in scientists has gone down, as has the share of Americans saying that science has a positive impact on society. Trust in education is on the decline. And recent years have found a record-low share of Americans with a positive view of the Supreme Court.

According to Pew, “in most cases, these changes in opinion have a partisan cast, with supporters of one major political party shifting their views even as the other keeps faith. In this way, the long-standing narrative of institutional mistrust is increasingly intertwined with the extreme political polarization that has defined the current era.”

Trust in the federal government

Americans’ trust in the federal government has been low for decades now. After spiking in the moments of national solidarity that followed the September 11 terrorist attacks, trust began to slide back down during President George W. Bush’s time in office and hasn’t recovered since then.

In a spring 2024 Pew Center survey, only 22% of U.S. adults said they trust the federal government to do the right thing just about always or most of the time. Perhaps surprisingly, this was up 6% from the year before.

Notably, mistrust of the federal government is widespread in both parties. One key distinction: Republicans’ levels of trust tend to differ depending on whether one of their own is sitting in the Oval Office. Trust among Democrats, who lean toward wanting the federal government to play a larger role in public life, is a bit more stable across administrations. 

Another key distinction is that partisans hold different views when it comes to the career employees who staff the federal government. In the 2022 survey, 65% of Democrats—but only 38% of Republicans—said they had confidence in career government workers. This is an interesting result because of President Trump’s efforts to trim down federal workers and cut funding to federal agencies.

The ‘Lost Art of Civility’

The Gallup and Pew results are only a snapshot in time. However, we should be concerned about the declining trend of ethics in society. The reduction reflected in institutional behavior mirrors that of all segments of society. This is not a surprise to me. It has become routine to have shootings in and around schools and other places. Indeed, it seems as though we have been inoculated against the disease that is violence in our streets. I have blogged about these issues many times before and pointed out that a lack of respect exists in institutions. Perhaps some deserve it, but certainly not all.

It goes beyond violence in the streets. It has infected the workplace as well. And now, we have to worry whether our flight from one city to another will be marred by disruptive behavior of a passenger. Years ago, we would have been shocked to see one passenger restraining another on an airplane, or even getting involved in fights. Flying from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ used to be a safe trip. Yes, we all dislike the long lines, TSA check, and boarding process. Still, we expected a smooth flight with no trouble from a disruptive passenger who acts without impulse control. No doubt, civility is a ‘lost art,’ as is reflected in the decline in honesty and ethics.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 18, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.