An Analysis of Expectations for University Faculty
I have taught at the university level for over 40 years. During that time, I served as a tenured faculty member, a department chair, and dean of a business school in the California State University System (CSUS). The thorniest issue that I faced was what should be the workload for faculty. This may sound like a no-brainer, but it’s really more complicated.
The purpose of this blog is to address the teaching load issue including fairness of a teaching load, responsibilities of faculty, responsibilities to students, and state budgeting issues. All of these factors play into the often-mentioned complaint that the cost of higher education to students is way out of line. I also review an excellent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education on these issues.
The Mission of a University
The first thing readers need to understand is whether a given university is part of the higher education model in a given state or a private institution. For purposes of this blog, I am only addressing state universities where changes in the teaching load can impact the amount of money spent on supporting these institutions. The monetary effect of increasing the teaching load has budget implications for state-run institutions.
Next, we have to consider what is the mission of institutions of higher learning. In California, the top-level of university education is the various campuses of The University of California (i.e., UC, Berkeley, UCLA). The second tier are the state universities (i.e., San Diego State University, California Polytechnic state universities). The UC system is designated as having the most stringent research requirements for faculty. The expression, “Publish or Perish,” fits nicely into describing these faculty requirements.
Are Research Requirements Too Stringent?
The State Universities also have research requirements, but the level and extent of publication is lower than for UC faculty, or at least lower in importance—at least to the institution. This is important because typically it takes more time to produce a high-level research paper than one in a ‘lesser’ journal. There are, of course, exceptions. The point is that faculty teaching in the UC system are given a lighter teaching load because of the greater demands on their time spent on research.
My experience is that those who teach at research-designated institutions teach as little as one course per term, and some may not teach at all. At these institutions, Teaching Assistants do most of the teaching. These are, typically, PhD candidates at the institutions who earn money from teaching and gain practical experience.
At state institutions, some faculty might be expected to publish more than others, for example, a PhD faculty member falls in the former category and might teach only one or two courses per term. However, the faculty without a doctoral degree, many of whom might be so-called “clinical” faculty, may have a much higher teaching load, and much lighter research requirement. These faculty often have a master’s degree in their field (i.e., master’s in accountancy) and, perhaps, a certification in their field (i.e., CPA).
Included in the forementioned group are so-called “lecturers” and “instructors.” Their teaching load could be as high as four courses per term. Increasingly, universities have been hiring more in this category so that the institution can lower the teaching load of PhD’s so they can research more, and the cost of hiring a non-PhD’s is lower. Their salaries are much lower, teaching loads higher, and they may not be given health benefit coverage. This has major implications for the state budget.
Is Research by PhD-Level Faculty Useful?
Now that you have the lay of the land, let me address what I consider to be the oft-excluded variable in determining what should be a fair teaching load that recognizes the needs of the students, professionals and other communities, which is does published research have a value to students and these communities.
I’ve been around the block a few times and have observed that the highest-level research journals often have a myriad amount of research statistics that, in my view, most faculty (especially non-PhD) do not understand. One reason is that while statistical research is generally required in PhD programs, it is not in master’s programs. I believe very few students understand such published work, unless they are enrolled in a doctoral program. Also, it’s debatable whether those in the professions and other communities would understand statistically-based research papers or derive any value from them. This is, of course, a subjective consideration and, there is no doubt, that some of such research is useful to professionals and even government agencies, especially if they are linked to research grant funding. The issue is quite different for non-PhD faculty who typically publish practical research that has an applied element to it and may even affect the activities for these professionals.
Chronicle of Higher Education
“The Faculty Workload Myth” published article in The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that: “Last July the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a higher-education funding bill that mandated higher teaching loads for most public universities in the state. In October, the Utah State Board of Education increased teaching loads for instructional faculty. And in January, the Kansas Board of Regents passed a policy dictating faculty teaching loads along with a stricter workload and tenure policy.” The message from these states is clear: Faculty don’t teach enough.
The Chronicle article covers a lot of ground, and I recommend that interested readers check it out. It looks at a few questions, much of which is addressed in my blog:
Are faculty salaries at the root of rising costs at colleges and could colleges save significant sums by making faculty teach more?
How do faculty spend their time, and what activities would a mandated increase in teaching crowd out?
And finally, what are the unintended consequences of these mandates on teaching itself?
As pointed out in the Chronicle article, “administrative responsibilities are embedded within a balanced framework. Faculty members undertaking significant administrative roles are typically granted course releases or reduced research expectations to ensure effectiveness and sustainability.” So, this is another variable to consider in determining a fair teaching load.
Summary
I strongly support the conclusion in theChronicle article, which says that the teaching model creates an expectation that whether “faculty members should simultaneously carry heavy teaching loads (three to four courses), publish in high-impact journals, perform extensive administrative duties, build industry linkages, and ensure student placements reflects a compressed and structurally inconsistent model. This is not the global standard. It’s rather, a hybrid overload model, one that emerges when multiple institutional expectations are combined without corresponding structural support or workload recalibration. The question, therefore, is not whether faculty are working 40 hours, but whether institutions are aligning expectations with realistic, evidence-based academic models practiced across the world.”
I believe there needs to be a discussion about the value of published research by faculty for the benefit of students, university faculty, and other stakeholders. What role does this have, or should have, in setting student tuition and other fee requirements? Student tuition and other fees have gotten out of hand. Does it matter that high-level research has a small audience? Should it matter in determining teaching loads?
I recognize these issues are complicated and that I have only touched the surface. I do hope, however, that I have sensitized those who read my blogs to the various dimensions of the teaching load problem. Moreover, I hope university administrators and advisory boards, as well as state legislators, will conduct a cost-benefit analysis of what is the “right” teaching load, expectations for faculty, and responsibilities to students and other communities.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly State University, posted on July 13, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.
Transforming your life by Changing Behavior
The other day I was thinking about how difficult it can be to change bad habits and behaviors. I reflected on my own experience. Earlier in life, I had problems controlling my temper. It took many years of therapy to make the very difficult change so that I no longer get upset when things go wrong, which happens all the time in life. For me, I learned to control my temper when I became the Dean of a Business College and had to deal with entitled faculty. I quickly learned that trying to debate faculty and/or call them out for selfish behavior was a losing battle. I opened my mind, listened to their issues, showed empathy, did what I could to make a positive difference in their lives, and became successful at what I did.
I recall during my therapy something my therapist said: “Nothing changes if nothing changes.” This seems overly simplistic but is easier said than done. Changing one’s behavior may be the most difficult thing to do in life.
Mindfulness for Wellbeing
Writing for Psychology Today, Itai-Ivtzan discusses “Mindfulness for Wellbeing:” He says: “We frequently feel compelled to shake things up—to transform everything so that life feels exciting and fresh again. But transformation is not that easy. It requires an active approach. You need to change things for your life to change.” The key points are:
Research shows that people who actively engage in new activities can have a significant well-being increase.
Different things inspire change in our lives; you have to play with the different options to find yours.
Change requires an active approach.
He talks about his approach to changing behavior as follows: “I cultivate a trusting relationship with my inner voice. It took years. Now I listen—and act upon it. It’s the engine of my personal transformation.”
Intentional Steps to Change Habits and Behaviors
I read about the steps to take to change behavior and want to share them with you. It’s from a post of “Success Minded.”
Disrupting our status quo takes some concerted effort – our brains inherently crave the comfort of familiarity. However, with a strategic plan, you can introduce lasting positive changes. Here are some tips:
Identify 1-2 specific areas you want to improve. Maybe it’s finally losing those last 10 pounds, finding a new job, cultivating healthier relationships, or shifting from a scarcity to an abundance mindset. Get very clear on your goals for change and how you’ll measure progress.
Reflect on what current behaviors and thought patterns are contributing to the status quo you want to change. Radical self-awareness is key! For example, are you constantly on social media making you feel bad about yourself? Are you staying later at the office out of obligation vs. necessity?
Break bigger goals down into smaller action steps you can tackle one by one. For example, if your goal is establishing a consistent gym routine, start by just going once a week. Build up from there.
Enlist friends to support you and hold you accountable. Maybe you check in weekly on your progress. Accountability partners help motivate us when we slack off.
When you inevitably slip up, get back on track the very next day vs. abandoning your goal altogether. Persistence and immediate course correction get results.
Pay attention to cues and triggers threatening your new positive habits. If afternoon fatigue derails your gym plans, schedule workouts for mornings. Adapt your plan accordingly.
Use tools like phone reminders and calendar appointments to help build new routines. The more it becomes an engrained habit, the less you’ll rely on prompts.
Monitor your progress week by week. Are you noticing small wins? Celebrate when you achieve milestones! Marking progress keeps you motivated.
Change takes time and consistent effort before it becomes natural. Be patient with yourself. Even small progress is still progress.
One thing I learned is we need a committed partner to make real change, someone who supports our choices. If our partner blames us for bad behavior or is confrontational, making real change may not be possible in that relationship. While it’s easier said than done, you may have to separate from that relationship that could become toxic if you stay engaged.
Good luck and let me know what you think by contacting me at: profdocsteve@gmail.com.
Blog posted on July 6, 2026 by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit Steve’s website and check out his activities.
The Values Gap
I can remember, growing up, and hearing my dad say that my generation does not have the work ethic to succeed. I suppose every generation says something like this directed towards the next generation of workers. I know he used it as a motivational tool, promising me a successful career in professional accounting and university teaching, which has, in fact, occurred. I have always looked for a meaningful experience from work that allowed me to grow and develop both as an individual and as part of a work group. I also sought to change my little space in the world and believe I have through hard work and a commitment to do the right thing. This made me wonder what Gen Z are looking for from life and their workplace experience.
I have blogged before about the work ethic of Gen Z. Like the generations before it, Gen Z is being criticized for not working hard enough, not caring enough, and seeking their own values rather than those of their employer.
There have been many studies on Gen Z—what makes them tick; what they expect from the workplace; what are their values, and so on. I was surprised to learn about the results of a study by NYU professor Suzy Welch on Gen Z and businesses. Welch teaches M.B.A. students and attempts to prepare them for a life of purpose and leadership. There’s just one problem: their values.
Welch’s groundbreaking 2024 study, based on over 45,000 participants—including 7,500 Gen Zer’s—reveals a distinctive values gap between hiring managers and the youngest working generation. Welch’s analysis produced an outcome that startled her and her team: A mere 2% of Gen Z members hold the values that companies want most in new hires, which are achievement, learning, and an unbridled desire to work. Gen Z respondents’ top three values are:
The desire for self-care and personal pleasure; to be happy.
The desire to express authentic individuality; to have a voice.
The desire to help people; to make a difference in others’ lives.
Jamie Catalano writes for Forbes online that as “Gen Z enters the workforce in growing numbers, they are bringing fresh perspectives and expectations that are reshaping the traditional workplace. This digital-native generation, born between 1997 and 2012, is driving significant changes in management styles, work environments, and organizational values. Their influence is prompting companies to adapt, evolve and innovate, creating a new paradigm for the future of work.”
Purpose Driven at WorkCatalano states that “One of the most striking characteristics of Gen Z is their strong desire for purpose-driven work. A staggering 86% of Gen Zer’s see purpose as pivotal to their overall well-being and job satisfaction. This generation scrutinizes potential employers’ societal impact before applying for jobs, with 75% considering this a key factor in their decision-making process.”
Writing for The Workforce Lens’s Substack, Domonika Borna says that “Gen Z refuses to pour effort into work that gives nothing back. They seek growth, respect, and purpose—and step back when these are missing.” She observes that “Gen Z wants something older generations also wanted but rarely said out loud: work that feels worth the hours it takes from their lives. They want growth, space to breathe, people who treat them decently, and a role that gives them more than a paycheck at the end of the month, not because they are fragile or demanding, but because they saw what burnout did to the generation before them and decided they would rather not repeat the pattern.” Her conclusion is that “Gen Z is not primarily driven by salary. They are driven by career progression, development, relationships, and workplace flexibility.”
As I have blogged about before, I believe that Gen Z is changing the culture of workplaces. Their workplace skills are wanting in some cases, and their work ethic does not meet expectations. The question is why this is the case, assuming it’s true. One possible answer is their desire for a work/life balance. They are willing to work hard so long as their work experience conforms to their values.
Engaging with Gen Z
Vanessa B. Hu, a student at Harvard University, wrote an opinion piece in the Harvard Crimsonstating that Gen Z “care a lot about job security.” Gen Zer’s (along with younger millennials) report higher rates of stress and work-related burnout than older generations.” [They] were born and raised in the tides of economic crises, from the 2008 recession to Covid-19, and are no strangers to financial instability.” They care about career advancement, pointing to “a 2022 study that found 74 percent of Gen Z and millennial workers were likely to quit within the next year due to a lack of skills development opportunities at their current workplaces – which may appear as a lack of commitment, but actually signals our desire to invest in worthwhile career trajectories.
Hu points to three issues that Gen Z care about as follows.
Gen Z prioritize diverse, inclusive companies with ethical leadership, and have in the wake of social justice reckonings. They challenge the status quo, not because they don’t care, but they may see ways to make their workplaces better and more equitable.
Gen Z want to feel passionate about their work, uphold their values, and reject what they see as the toxic work mentality.
Leadership and Management StyleCatalano states that “Gen Z is driving a shift in leadership styles, favoring more collaborative and empathetic approaches over traditional hierarchical models. They respond best to leaders who demonstrate emotional intelligence and genuinely care about their well-being. Over the past five years, organizations have “adapted their leadership style to be more inclusive and transparent.”
Gen Z employees expect to be informed of decision-making processes and seek and expect regular feedback on their performance. This shift is leading to flatter organizational structures, more frequent check-ins between managers and employees, and a greater emphasis on mentorship and professional development.
I have examined what Gen Z want from their work experience in this blog. Many have said that their workplace experiences do not match their desires and goals, as I have discussed. The disconnect may not be due to Gen Z’s readiness but a broken system that’s failing to prepare and guide them. Employers need to rethink how they onboard, train, and communicate with new hires. Otherwise, high turnover rates among young workers are likely to continue. Gen Z are deeply involved in purpose-driven causes. Employers should do what they can to engage them on these issues.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on June 23, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to find out more about their activities.
The ‘Emperor Has No Clothes’
The phrase to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and its variants, mean: to win a battle, contest, etc., when defeat seemed inevitable. Conversely, the humorous phrase to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and its variants, mean: to be defeated in a battle, contest, etc., when victory seemed inevitable. Clearly, the second best describes what Trump has done during the war with Iran. The MOU described below is an example of poor leadership and the failure to consider stakeholder needs before deciding on actions.
Many people see flaws in Trump’s policies or behavior but remain silent due to fear of backlash. The phrase ‘the emperor has no clothes’ recognizes the challenge of addressing uncomfortable truths in political discussions about Trump. It emphasizes the need for accountability, as some may avoid confronting issues for fear of disrupting the status quo. In its extreme, actions are not taken by those in Congress because they fear being bullied by Trump and incurring his wrath,
What Did the JCPOA Do?
President Obama entered into an agreement with Iran on July 14, 2015, the goal of which was to make it hard for Iran develop nuclear bombs. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program.
To limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities and enhance global security, the JCPOA achieved the following:
Reduced Iran’s uranium enrichment levels to below weapons-grade.
Limited the number of centrifuges Iran could operate.
Increased transparency through regular inspections by the IAEA.
Extended the timeline before Iran could develop a nuclear weapon.
Provided sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for compliance.
Established a framework for future negotiations on regional security issues.
President Trump scrapped the JCPOA in his first term in office for these key reasons:
Belief that the agreement was too lenient on Iran regarding nuclear development.
Concerns over Iran’s regional activities and support for terrorism.
Desire to negotiate a more comprehensive deal that addresses missile programs and regional influence.
Pressure from allies and domestic political groups opposing the deal.
Aiming to reassert U.S. dominance in foreign policy and strengthen sanctions against Iran.
Criticism that the JCPOA did not effectively prevent Iran from eventually acquiring nuclear weapons.
Summarizing the 14-point “peace” plan.
You can find a fuller discussion of the 14-point plan here. The following is a summary of the key points.
The MOU calls for a complete ceasefire in the war.
Both parties pledge to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
Both parties agree to reach a final agreement in a maximum of 60 days, ending on August, 16, although the deadline could be extended with mutual consent.
Immediately upon signing the MOU, the U.S. will begin the removal of its 60 naval blockade and complete it within 30 days.
Upon signing the MOU, Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.
The U.S. undertakes with its regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran. The plan will be finalized within 60 days.
The U.S. undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The two parties have agreed to discuss the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with other provisions in the agreement and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Pending the final deal, both parties agree to maintain the status quo, meaning Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the U.S. will not impose new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
The U.S. undertakes upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, that the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
The U.S. undertakes to make fully available for use of the frozen or restricted funds and assets of Iran upon implementation of the MOU. Both parties will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiation.
The U. S. and Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.
After signing the MOU, and subject to the implementation of items # 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this MOU, and continuing implementation of these measures, the U.S. and Iran will begin negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other items.
The final deal will be endorsed by a binding the UN Security Council.
Criticizing the PlanAndrew Miller writes for the Center for American Progress that Trump’s war is a war of choice and a war of failure. He suggests it is unconstitutional and unjustified and has not achieved the objectives that the Trump administration set out for the “ill -conceived military intervention.” He claims none of the goals of the war have been achieved in full, providing an analysis of why this is so in this article.
Total elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.
Destruction and dismantlement of Iran’s ballistic missile program.
Eliminating Iran’s navy.
Rounding up Iran’s regional proxy network (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah).
Overthrow the brutal Islamic Republic that has terrorized and bedeviled the U.S. and its partners for nearly 50 years.
Only the third objective has shown some progress in eliminating Iran’s navy, but much less than stated by Trump. In the early days of the war, the U.S. struck over 13,000 targets during the war. Still, leaked U.S. Intelligence Community assessments estimate that Iran retains 70% of its ballistic missile stockpile and 70% of its mobile launchers.
Summing it Up
There is no way to rationalize the war with Iran is a victory. My discussion in this blog provides ample evidence that it was an ill-conceived incursion. It was poorly thought-out, which, I believe, is due to the fact that Congress wasn’t involved in the decision making. Moreover, Trump received ill-advised actions to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
One thing I’ve noticed about Trump is he makes a decision and then deals with the consequences later. The Iran war is just one example. He failed to consider the following before going to war and in the resulting MOU
What the war would mean for the American public. Obviously, gas prices have gone sky high despite Trump’s statements. He has cited $1.85 gas during his State of the Union address, but averages remain near $3 nationally,
The MOU calls for the permanent termination of military operations, including in Lebanon. Trump has been saying that the agreement implies that Israel will end its war with Lebanon. The war is with Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government. The failure to include that Iran will stop its supplying of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas is a grave oversight.
Iran only commits to a 60-day period of not charging ships for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Can you guess what will happen after the 60 days expire?
The agreement leaves the Strait of Hormuz solely in the hands of the Iranians. This means the U.S. got nothing in return for ending its naval blockade.
The MOU does not provide any details about who will contribute to the $300 billion reconstruction and development of Iran. It mentions the U.S. regional partners. What does he mean? Did he actually discuss this with the likes of Oman, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait.
By agreeing to terminate all sanctions, Trump did what President Obama had done as well. The figure is under dispute, with some saying that we returned as much as $150 billion in a cash payment under Obama while others claim it was much less. Nevertheless, while Trump blames Obama for his deal with Iran, the JCPOA was stronger and better in terms of U.S. interests.
The U.S. agreed to terminate all sanctions against Iran, including the UN Security Council resolutions. In other words, Trump abandoned the leverage that could make Iran more willing to sign the agreement, and with provisions more favorable to the U.S. The U.S. has imposed sanctions since the 1979 Revolution. Is this indicative of “The Art of the Deal?”
The agreement to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions is nothing more than an agreement to reach an agreement within 60 days. Trump’s failure to have this included more definitively in the MOU is, arguably, the most glaring shortcoming of the deal.
What Can Be Done Right Now?
It seems like some Republicans in Congress have started to recognize their responsibilities to their constituents and not place party loyalty over the public good. It’s about time. It’s time to recognize that the idiom, The Emperor Has No Clothes, is appropriate for Trump. Regardless of what he believes, Trump is not as powerful or impressive as he claims to be. He often claims something is true when it is not. He governs by using his “bully pulpit” to lie and deceive the public about what is really going on, and the war with Iran is one such example. Hopefully, Congress will start hearings on the war using the MOU as a trigger point. Congress has 60 days to bring some sanity back to a poorly thought-out agreement.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo on June 22, 2026. Visit Steve’s website and learn more about his activities.
Why Students and Workers Fear the AI-Centered World
Well, the commencement season has come and gone. What have we learned? It seems clear that there is some trepidation on the part of students who fear that AI-generated information will lead to a reduction in available jobs as machines do the work of student/workers.
Commencement speakers at the University of Arizona and elsewhere were met with boos when they mentioned AI. As reported in a posting on the Inside Higher Education, “students have balked as commencement speakers have either told them to embrace AI, or have otherwise mentioned the ever-expanding role of the technology in a speech.”
It seems clear that a lot of students in the graduating classes of 2026 don’t want to hear about AI given that the job market for new grads is tough and many likely believe that AI is at least one factor. Still, it is a technology that affects workplace decision-making—and growing by leaps and bounds—and there’s nothing to do but learn to work with. Students need to learn how to embrace the benefits of using AI and deal with possible negative consequences of its application in the workplace.
Student Concerns
New data from Inside Higher Ed’s ongoing “Student Voice” helps map students’ complex feelings about AI and how their colleges are responding to its rise. Some 1,038 students from 203 institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to a flash survey on AI taken in May, 2026. The upshot of this flash survey of four-year students is that most are neither AI evangelists nor outright opponents, and they’re actively using AI for coursework. At the same time, they wrestle with concerns about agency, a changing career landscape and more. Some four in 10 are explicitly concerned about dependence on AI tools, even as six in 10 see AI’s primary value to them in college as learning support.
Some 55 percent of students also expect AI to negatively impact their career prospects. Have colleges been successful in helping students navigate AI and what it means for their futures? Not really, as far as respondents are concerned: The plurality, 34 percent, are neutral on their institution’s efforts, describing them as inconsistent, while an additional 21 percent describe them as at least somewhat poor.
Student Perspectives
“Student Voice” is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college. The six takeaways from the survey regarding AI are:
Takeaway 1: More students are using AI than ever for coursework, while a significant share—20 percent—remain resisters. Takeaway 2: “Worried about dependence” is the most common student stance on AI. Takeaway 3: A majority of all students expect AI to somewhat (39 percent) or very (16 percent) negatively impact their career prospects.Takeaway 4: Just one in 10 students says that their institution is handling AI’s rise very well, in a thoughtful and proactive way. Takeaway 5: Asked how AI can be most useful in their college experience, students are most enthusiastic about AI as learning support. Takeaway 6: Students are somewhat split on their priorities for AI leadership at their institution. Gen Z Say AI is Making Them Dumber
Gen Z’s distaste for AI can be seen in new research from “GoTo”, which specializes in cloud-based business communication, IT management, and remote support software. The results of the survey of 2,500 global employees conducted in partnership with Workplace Intelligence, tell a story about a workforce caught between the tools that help them and the habits those tools are forming as indicated in the study.
50% of employees say they rely on AI too much.
30% say they can no longer function without it.
39% believe their overreliance on AI is actively eroding their skills and making them less intelligent, a number that climbs to 46% among Gen Z workers.
Gen Z workers, more than other generations, largely feel that AI is making them dumber. Close to half (46 percent) of Gen Zeers felt this way, compared with 39 percent of workers overall. This seems unsupportable, and it’s worth mentioning that students still need critical thinking skills to apply AI when ethical dilemmas exist.
Colleen Flaherty hits the nail on the head when she says: “This commencement season saw denunciations of multiple campus speakers telling graduates about their artificial intelligence–mediated futures. To some observers, the boos didn’t make sense: How could college students—many of whom are AI power users themselves—not want to hear about the technology reshaping the world?
Dan Schawbel points out that “AI is saving workers more than two hours a day, but while employees are getting faster, some are also getting less confident, less skilled, and less certain they can do their jobs without a machine doing much of the thinking for them. That tension is the defining workforce challenge of 2026, and most companies aren’t prepared to address it.”
Working in the AI Environment
One of the clearest findings of the “Go To” research is how much external pressure is shaping AI behavior at work. Sixty percent of employees say they feel pressured to use AI tools to boost productivity regardless of whether the task calls for it. That pressure, absent the right training and policies, is a setup for misuse.
The numbers bear this out. Seventy percent of employees (up from 54% just a year ago) admit they’ve used AI for sensitive or high-stakes tasks, including legal or compliance work, decisions requiring emotional intelligence, and actions involving confidential information. These are exactly the domains where human judgment is most irreplaceable, and where AI errors carry the highest cost. The fact that this number jumped 16 percentage points in a single year suggests the problem isn’t slowing down on its own.
Compounding this is an “AI workslop” problem that’s starting to tax the entire workforce. Forty-three percent of employees say they’ve submitted AI-generated content despite suspecting it was low quality or contained errors. With that in mind, it’s unsurprising that 77% percent say reviewing AI-generated work takes more time than reviewing human work. And 66%-percent say wading through other people’s AI output creates extra work for them. The efficiency gains from AI are real, but they’re being partially offset by a flood of under-reviewed, unreliable output that everyone else must spend time, energy, and resources to clean up.
Conclusion
The employees who will create the most value aren’t those who use AI the most, but the ones who know how to work alongside it. Workers should focus on contributing the judgment, context, and creativity that AI cannot supply, while letting AI handle the volume, speed, and synthesis it does well. Companies that train employees to operate in that partnership model, rather than simply handing them tools and expecting results, will be better positioned when the next wave of AI capabilities arrives.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and June 16, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
I have previously blogged about the difference between morals and ethics. In this blog, I distinguished between how each achieves its purpose of guiding right behavior. While morals are concerned with principles of right and wrong in general, ethics are related to right and wrong conduct of an individual in a particular situation. Whereas morals are customs established by a group of individuals, ethics defines the character of the individual. While morals represent what a person, group, or society believes people should do, ethics are guiding principles that help the individual or group decide what is good or bad. Morals are expressed in the form of general rules and statements. Ethics are abstract. They need context to decide what is right or wrong.
In this blog, I discuss the journey one takes to achieve rightful behavior and the obstacles that make it more challenging to do. To start, we should remember that what we do matters. We can make changes in our own behavior and contribute to the betterment of society. It’s not easy. The destination has to justify the struggle to improve humankind.
Returning to a Moment of Time Once it Has Passed
One can never return to a moment of time once it has passed. Each passing moment represents a lost opportunity that can never be replaced. Don’t relive past problems. Don’t carry baggage. What’s done is done. This means if you have made a decision or chosen an action that you regret later on, don’t obsess about it. Move on and commit to changing your behavior. It can be done.
Sometimes we think that life is circular. We choose a goal; move towards it; a decision is made; and then we repeat the process again. Instead, think of life as linear. You choose a purpose; direct your behavior towards achieving it; and then, with laser focus, concentrate intensely on the specific task or goal you have chosen. The future is not locked into actions of the past. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all teach that individuals can change their behavior over time to achieve moral decisions and actions. We can advance ethically.
Changing Behavior
Most people want to improve; become a better person. This is why so many self-help books are sold. Many of us promise to do better but fall back into the same pattern over time. It is a circular pattern of behavior that frustrates us over time. Why is it so difficult to change a pattern of behavior? It’s because we have made such behavior a habit and habits are hard to change.
I searched for a way to characterize the struggle to change behavior and lo and behold found it in AI. Ancient Greeks emphasized the importance of habits in shaping character and behavior. They believed that habits are crucial for developing virtues and achieving moral excellence. Aristotle, in particular, argued that virtues are essentially habits formed through practice, suggesting that a good life is achieved by cultivating positive routines. The role of habits in ethics then could be characterized as follows.
Aristotle posited that ethical virtues, such as courage and temperance, are complex skills developed through habitual practice.
The formation of good habits is seen as essential for living a fulfilling life.
Ancient Greek philosophers also linked habits to health, advocating for balanced diets and mindful routines as pathways to longevity.
They believed that maintaining a harmonious lifestyle contributes to both physical and moral well-being.
The Role of Mindfulness
Some people believe that meditation, particularly mindfulness-based practices, contributes to habit change through mechanisms grounded in behavioral science. I have found in my own experience that this can be true. It sounds simple but is not. We become creatures of habit and even dedicating ourselves to about one hour per day is difficult, but necessary, to change behavior. We need to figure out how to make the change. It sounds easy but many mindfulness-based interventions, such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), typically suggest practicing for about 40 to 45 minutes daily, and even suggest that less time might work as well. Each of us should decide how and when to carry out mindfulness. For me, the best way to do it is the first thing in the morning. I can wake up earlier than usual and practice mindfulness.
Kabat-Zinn argues in “Wherever You Go, There You Are,” that many of us exist in a constant state of distraction, either preoccupied with the past or worried about the future. Mindfulness, he explains, is a tool that will allow you to stay fully present and recognize the extraordinary gift of each moment.
How Our Morals Might Get in the Way of Behavior Change
Writing for Psychology Today, Ariella Kristal makes the following points in, “How Our Morals Might Get in the Way of Behavior Change”
People resist behavior tools that clash with beliefs about willpower and personal responsibility.
We value internal willpower over external strategies — even when the latter are more effective.
Designing effective interventions requires understanding the values people feel are being violated.
In 1936, the psychologist Kurt Lewin proposed a deceptively simple idea: Behavior is a function of the person and their environment.
Conclusion
“Where no man has gone before ” is a phrase made popular through its use in the title sequence of the original 1966–1969 Star Trek. We could say the same about changing behavior.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on June 2, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to find out more about his activities.
Public Interest, Ethics, and Sustainability Section of the American Accounting Association Sunday, August 2 in Las Vegas, NVSpeakersKathleen M. Hamm
Kathleen M. Hamm was appointed a Board Member of the PCAOB by the SEC December 2017, sworn in on January 2018, and served until November 2019. Since September 2018, Board Member Hamm served as Vice Chair of the IFIAR Global Audit Quality Working Group. Hamm served at the U.S. Treasury Department from 2014 to early 2017, as counselor to the deputy secretary on cybersecurity and related governance, regulatory, compliance, and risk management issues facing the financial services sector. She also assisted the deputy secretary in coordinating Treasury’s strategic policy initiatives, domestically and internationally, through a cybersecurity expert group impaneled by the G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors.
Joe Howie
Former EY Partner | 30+ Years in Audit | Fraud Risk Identification & Response | Whistleblower & Internal Investigation Consulting | Commentary on Audit Culture, Fraud Detection, and Investor Protection. Joe spent more than three decades inside the global audit profession, including as a partner at EY. During that time, I worked on complex multinational audits and served in the firm’s U.S. and Global Professional Practice groups, advising engagement teams on difficult accounting, reporting, and audit matters. Over time Joe became increasingly concerned about structural incentives within large accounting firms that can undermine the profession’s core responsibility: protecting investors and supporting the integrity of capital markets and has spoken out about these issues.
Rick Kravitz
Rick Kravitz is an award-winning author and publisher, a member of the American Bar Association and American Institute of CPAs. He is former President and Group Publisher of Panel Publishers/Wolters Kluwer [WK]. Later in his career, residing in the Hague, Netherlands, he served as International Legal/tax Publisher at Wolters Kluwer where his team covered the criminal law proceedings of the United Nations International Court of Justice. Rick is a former Editor in Chief of The CPA Journal including Managing Director of Content and Publishing with the New York Society of CPAs. Most recently he published The Crisis in Public Accounting. The book explores the many failures of the accounting profession to detect, deter and prevent fraud.
Moderator: Steven Mintz, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Posted by Steven Mintz, aka “Ethics Sage” on June 3, 2026
U.S. Kids Are Falling Behind Their Global Counterparts
I have previously blogged about the failures of K-12 education in the U.S. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as The Nation’s Report Card, found that barely a quarter or less of students are proficient in reading, and even less are proficient in math, geography, and U.S. history. U.S. 4th and 8th graders are performing worse not only compared to East Asian countries, but also to such places as Poland, the U.K., South Africa, Turkey, and Sweden, all of which have boosted their scores.
Math and English Skills Are Getting WorseJoel Kotkin writes for amaericanmind.org that “America’s universities may be a disgrace, but the deeper problems with our education system lie with grades K-12. Higher education still ranks as a U.S. strength that other countries might admire—but our grade schools might even be inadequate for poor, developing countries. Overall, some 40% of all U.S. public school students fail to meet standards in either Math or English, up 8% from pre-pandemic levels.
A recent federal survey suggests that 28% of Americans now occupy the lowest level of literacy, up from 19% in 2017. Schools have abandoned phonics and other effective approaches for “whole language” and other trendy theories, producing a population where 60% of 4th graders are poor readers.
Bring Back the SAT or ACT
Recently, more than 600 University of California faculty members, led by mathematicians at UC Berkeley, have called on the system to reinstate standardized testing requirements for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) applicants, saying that six years of test-free admissions has not reliably assessed readiness and professors are often teaching middle school math to incoming students. UC faculty have observed there has been a 30x spike in students below high school math.
Without standardized testing in admissions, professors say they don’t know whether incoming students can handle college-level math. An open letter, addressed to top UC leaders, asks for SAT or ACT exams to be required beginning in fall 2027 and for STEM faculty to be given formal oversight of readiness standards in their majors.
“We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics, and other quantitatively demanding fields,” they warned.
UC gained national attention in May 2020 when regents unanimously voted to suspend SAT and ACT testing requirements and eliminate them entirely by 2025. Board members cited concerns the tests were biased against students of color and those from lower-income families — including students who did not have access to prep courses. At the time, some hailed the vote as a bold and visionary move to expand access and equity.
The real reason to bring back the SAT or ACT standardized testing is that these scores are a better predictor of college performance than high school grades. There are so many K-12 programs throughout the country that there is no way to know whether each of them is doing a good job in teaching basic Math and English skills, or whether student grades are comparable. Standardized testing evens things out. The idea that certain minority groups may be at a disadvantage, and their scores don’t accurately measure acquired skills, is just an excuse to rationalize poor education in K-12.
Yale University Brings Back the SAT and ACT
It was reported on May 27, 2026, that following a recent recommendation from the Presidential Council on Yale College Admissions, the College returned to a pre-pandemic policy mandating SAT or ACT score submissions. The change will affect applicants to the class of 2031. First-year and transfer applicants will be required to submit one or the other in the Fall 2026.
Writing in yaledailynews.com, Leo Nyberg quotes Yale College Dean Pericles Lewis as saying: “SAT and ACT scores are strong predictors of a students’ future Yale academic performance, and, when considered thoughtfully as part of a whole person review, they can help identify well-prepared candidates, especially those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.”
Other ivy-league schools have followed suit. Brown, Cornell, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth and Harvard all require SAT or ACT scores for undergraduate applicants. Princeton will follow in 2028, while Columbia does not require standardized test score submission.
Harvard University’s Excessive ’A’ Grading
A lot has been written lately about Harvard’s change in its grading system. On May 20, 2026, the faculty voted 458-201 to limit the number of ‘A’ grades in undergraduate classes to 20%, in order to rein in grade inflation. The move is in response to years of data showing that A grades had become so common at elite universities that the grade was losing its ability to differentiate students. It also presents recruiters with the dilemma of how to distinguish one ‘A’ student from another.
Students’ ViewsOpponents of the grade change argue that “marginalized students face structural disadvantages before arriving at Harvard, and that limiting top grades would compound rather than correct these inequities. An accompanying open letter described the policy as “blatantly racist” and warned it could heighten competition among students. Critics within the student body frame the reform “as part of a broader pattern of institutional harm toward students with marginalized identities.”
Some students argue the ‘A’ grade limit would disproportionately harm first-generation, low-income, and minority students. Student organizers say the change mirrors racial and socioeconomic hierarchies.
On April 8, 2026, I posted a blog that students at Harvard are protesting the proposed changes because it would increase stress, fuel competition and discourage academic exploration. I wondered, “When did these become bad things?”
U.S. Ranking Globally in the PISA Scores
PISA score assessments that evaluate the educational performance of 15-year-olds globally.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) measures students’ abilities in reading, mathematics, and science, focusing on how well they can apply their knowledge to real-life situations. Conducted every three years by the OECD, PISA aims to provide insights into educational systems and identify effective teaching strategies across different countries.
The 2026 scores are bad news for U.S. educators. The U.S. kids rank 18th on an aggregate basis, combining math, science and reading skills. These scores raise a red flag concerning whether U.S. kids are adequately prepared to tackle STEM subjects.
In case you are interested, the scores for all countries in the survey can be found here. It’s not surprising to me that kids from six Asian countries do better than U.S. kids. I have taught many Asian kids during my 40+ years of college instruction. They have a work ethic that is second to none. Moreover, kids from six European countries have higher scores as well.
Career Choice of U.S. Kids versus Chinese Kids
These days, I always look to AI to highlight factors relevant to my blogs. I find them to be generally reliable. Here is some of what it says about why U.S. kids increasingly aspire to be influencers, while Chinese youth focus on technology. This trend reflects differing cultural values and societal expectations between the two countries.
Influencer Culture in the US
A significant portion of American youth, particularly Gen Z, views becoming an influencer as a desirable career. Reports indicate that about 54% of young Americans aspire to this role, seeing it as a modern embodiment of the American dream.
Influencers are often perceived as having creative freedom and financial success, appealing to the entrepreneurial spirit prevalent in the US.
Chinese Youth and Technology
In contrast, Chinese youth are more inclined towards traditional career paths in technology and engineering. This is influenced by a strong emphasis on education and stable careers within Chinese culture.
The Chinese government also promotes STEM fields, leading to a societal preference for careers that contribute to national advancement.
Common Sense Survey
According to a survey by Common Sense about media use by kids, children are acquiring screens at a younger age.
By age 2, 4 in 10 children have their own tablet (40%).
By age 4, more than half (58%) of children have their own tablet.
By age 8, nearly 1 in 4 children have their own cellphone.
Overall, 51% of children age 8 and younger have their own mobile device (such as a tablet or cellphone).
Children from lower-income households are spending nearly twice as much time with screens compared to those from higher-income households (3:48 vs. 1:52 hours daily).
Conclusions
For years, I have been writing about the decline in the work ethic in U.S. society. One reason is that U.S. kids prefer to spend time on social media and visit online sites of choice, rather than spending the same time developing reading skills by reading books. One can learn to write by reading how others do so. U.S. kids also do not have the patience to spend time and learn mathematics and science, two rigorous fields of study.
I am concerned that even though U.S. universities rank high compared to other countries, it’s just a matter of time until the inadequate education in K-12 infects universities as well, because students are not prepared for such challenges. There are, of course, many reasons for the low scores on the PISA achievement tests. In this blog I have discussed the following reasons.
A lack of standardized testing, making comparisons of students from different K-12 programs unreliable.
Grade inflation that pushes kids through the system even if they lack the necessary skills to go on to the next level of education.
Lack of a work ethic to handle the more challenging subjects such as in STEM.
Choice of career goals that navigate U.S. kids to social media—to be influencers—rather than STEM and other challenging subjects.
I should mention our skewed educational systems that focus on social justice issues disproportionately when compared to skills that develop critical thinking and ethical reasoning. I don’t mean to belittle these issues. They are important. But, so is reading, writing, math skills, knowledge of science, technology, and so on. If our kids continue to fall behind, will we ever able to keep up with their Asian counterparts? How might this affect the development of future technologies and the search for new and better ways to do things, including being prepared for an increasingly hostile world situation.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on June 2, 2026.
How to Make Ethical Decisions
Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, there are differences.
While morals are concerned with principles of right and wrong in general, ethics are related to right and wrong conduct of an individual in a particular situation. Whereas morals are customs established by a group of individuals, ethics defines the character of the individual. While morals represent what a person, group, or society believes people should do, ethics are guiding principles that help the individual or group decide what is good or bad. Morals are expressed in the form of general rules and statements. Ethics are abstract. They need context to decide what is right or wrong.
Distinguishing Between Ethics and Morals
Moral principles include, among others:
Always tell the truth.
Do not cheat.
Do not steal from others.
Treat others fairly.
Be kind to others.
Respect others.
Ethical guiding principles include the following:
Truthfulness
Honesty
Integrity
Fairness
Respect
Kindness
Empathy
Loyalty
One way to understand the difference is to think of it this way. Ethics leans toward decisions based upon individual character and the more subjective understanding of right and wrong by each individual, whereas morals emphasize the widely held communal or societal norms about right and wrong.
The Golden Rule
The Golden Rule is primarily considered an ethical principle. It embodies a moral guideline that suggests treating others as one would like to be treated oneself. This concept is often referred to as the ethics of reciprocity and is found in various religious and philosophical traditions, emphasizing fairness and empathy in interpersonal relationships.
As the California Learning Resource Network says, “The Golden Rule predates its explicit articulation in the Abrahamic religions.” Greek philosophical thought, particularly through figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, emerged around the 6th century BCE and laid the groundwork for ethical considerations in society. “Traces can be found in ancient Egyptian texts, Confucianism, and Greek philosophy. Aristotle, for instance, emphasized virtue ethics, advocating for actions that contribute to overall human flourishing (eudaimonia). Although he didn’t explicitly state the Golden Rule, his emphasis on reciprocal relationships and justice aligns with its core principles.”
Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It requires knowledge, skills, and habits.
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT. According to the Santa Clara Markkula Center for Applied Ethics,
Ethics is not the same as feelings.
Ethics is not the same as religion.
Ethics is not the same thing as following the law.
Ethics is not the same as following culturally accepted norms.
Ethics is not science.
What to Do if Faced with Conflicting Values Rushworth Kidder was an influential American author and ethicist. Kidder founded the Institute for Global Ethics in 1990, focusing on moral courage and ethical decision-making. He identifies four primary types of ethical dilemmas that individuals often face. These dilemmas arise from conflicting values and can be categorized as follows:
Truth vs. Loyalty
This dilemma involves choosing between honesty and maintaining loyalty to a person or organization. For example, an employee may discover unethical practices and must decide whether to report them or remain loyal to their employer.
Individual vs. Community
This type focuses on the conflict between personal rights and the welfare of the community. An example is when an individual’s actions may benefit themselves but harm the larger community.
Short-Term vs. Long-Term
Here, the challenge is to balance immediate benefits against future consequences. For instance, a company might choose to cut costs now at the expense of long-term sustainability.
Justice vs. Mercy
This dilemma pits fairness against compassion. A classic scenario is when a judge must decide between enforcing the law strictly or showing leniency based on personal circumstances.
As Kidder says, “these frameworks help individuals navigate complex moral decisions by clarifying the competing values at play.”
Applying Ethics and Morals in Practice
One question that I always get from my students is whether it is ever acceptable to violate ethical standards. There are such examples from literature. Take the Anne Frank situation. She hid out in the attic of a non-Jewish family to escape the Nazis. If you were living in that household, and a Nazi came knocking on the door asking whether you know where is Anne Frank, would you tell them the truth? The challenge here is that two ethical principles conflict. We are told to always tell the truth but we are also expected to be kind to others. In such cases, the Golden Rule is instructive.
I always tell my students to think of ethics in a more simplistic way, unless we are discussing the great philosophers. One good perspective is to ask: ‘How would you act if your behavior was being observed?’
A Moment of Silence
Currently, 12 states mandate a moment of silence in public schools. Additionally, 25 other states encourage it. For example, the Kentucky Senate considered the following in adopting its law:
“After the Pledge of Allegiance each day, students [will] be pausing for a moment of silence,” said Sara Crum, superintendent of Jessamine County Schools. “During that time, students can choose to pray; they can choose to meditate, reflect on the day before or even just mentally prepare for the day ahead.” The law aims to provide a peaceful and focused start to the school day while respecting students’ individual beliefs.
The sponsor of the legislation, Senator Rick Girdler says: “I acknowledge that there are differing opinions on this issue, but the core goal of this law is to promote a peaceful, respectful and focused start to the day,” It is my belief that this small act of quiet reflection can help students grow emotionally, mentally and spiritually while enhancing their ability to succeed in the classroom. We all want the best for our children, and this law is a step toward ensuring they have the tools they need to thrive both in and outside the classroom.”
We live in a society today where ethics and morals take a back seat to doing what one wants to do; doing what’s best for the individual; and a loss of community and considering the wellbeing of others. I believe we have morphed into a narcissist culture where everyone pursues their self-interest above all else, rather than what could advance society into one that values ethical behavior, compassion, and love for each other.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on May 26, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to find out more about his activities.
Reasons for the Disconnect Between Gen Z and Employers on Workplace Values
There are many surveys done about Gen Z’s beliefs and values that I decided to discuss some of them and share my thoughts. Like the Millennials before them, Gen Z have been criticized for the lack of a work ethic. In the case of Millennials, it was a sense of entitlement that prioritized their needs above those of the employer. In this blog I discuss whether parents are to blame, a failure of education to teach and train students for success in the workplace, employers, or themselves.
A survey by Resume Builder reports that that Gen Z workers are blaming their parents, not employers, the economy, or AI, for being underpaid, passed over, and disciplined at work. This got me thinking, whether Gen Z takes accountability for their actions, or always seek to blame others for what goes wrong in the workplace.
Resume Builder’s Findings
It’s remarkable to me that the blame could be shifted to one’s parents rather than taking personal responsibility. While the failure of parents to instill a work ethic may be true, there are so many other causes that to blame parent’s alone is misplaced. I have two questions: What do Gen Z learn during their education that could have better prepared them to succeed in the workplace? Should colleges and universities instill a work ethic? I believe they should by assigning work that requires the application of critical thinking skills.
The Resume Builder survey of 1,000 U.S. Gen Z workers (ages 18–29) documents what those workers themselves now say about their lack of a work ethic.
2 in 3 (67%) Gen Z workers say they’ve been disciplined, underpaid, or passed over because of skills they were never taught at home.
6 in 10 (60%) admit their parents coddled them more than prepared them for the workplace.
2 in 5 (40%) say they earned less than they should have because they were never taught to negotiate.
4 in 5 (80%) are turning to AI and social media to learn basic workplace etiquette, including professional email writing.
These findings continue to raise concerns about workplace readiness, financial preparedness, and the long-term cost of a generation arriving at work without basic professional skills.
Research Prospect
The online website, Research Prospect, provides an inside view of what makes students ready for their future careers. “Many people see education as the first step toward building knowledge, confidence, and useful skills for life. From school classrooms to college campuses, education helps students learn new ideas, understand how things work, and build abilities that help them grow in their careers. Teachers, books, projects, and practical learning all work together to support students as they prepare for different professional paths. Education does more than teach academic subjects. It also helps students develop communication skills, teamwork, creativity, and problem-solving abilities. These qualities support students as they move into different industries and professional roles.
When students gain the right knowledge and practical experience, they feel more confident about their future plans. In many places, schools and universities continue to introduce learning methods that connect education with career readiness. This approach helps students understand how their studies relate to real work situations. As a result, students leave educational institutions with valuable knowledge and a clear sense of direction.
Examining Gen Z’s Workplace Values
I was surprised to read that a study by NYU professor Suzy Welch of over 45,000 participants, including 7,500 Gen Zer’s, reveals a distinctive values gap between hiring managers and the youngest working generation. Welch’s analysis produced an outcome that startled her and her team: A mere 2% of Gen Z members hold the values that companies want most in new hires, which are achievement, learning, and an unbridled desire to work. Gen Z respondents’ top three values are:
The desire for self-care and personal pleasure; to be happy.
The desire to express authentic individuality; to have a voice.
The desire to help people; to make a difference in others’ lives.
The first two address one’s internal values, which some might say are selfish, while the third is external oriented–the desire to help others. However, they fail to cover values such as responsibility, accountability, and integrity.
Workplace Motivation
Gary Drevitch writes in Psychology Today that “none of these top Gen Z values are bad, but values are choices, and right now, Gen Zer’s have chosen to push back on the traditional ‘work ethic’ and instead prefer a more ‘look out for number one’ mindset.”
Writing for The Workforce Lens’s Substack, Domonika Borna says that “Gen Z refuses to pour effort into work that gives nothing back. They seek growth, respect, and purpose—and step back when these are missing.” She observes that “Gen Z wants something older generations also wanted but rarely said out loud: work that feels worth the hours it takes from their lives. They want growth, space to breathe, people who treat them decently, and a role that gives them more than a paycheck at the end of the month. This is not because they are fragile or demanding, but because they saw what burnout did to Millennials, the generation before them, and decided they would rather not repeat the pattern.” Her conclusion is that “Gen Z is not primarily driven by salary. They are driven by career progression, development, relationships, and workplace flexibility.”
Employers need to rethink how they onboard, train, and communicate with new hires. Otherwise, high turnover rates among young workers are likely to continue. Gen Z are deeply involved in purpose-driven causes. Employers should do what they can to engage them in these issues.
Purpose-Driven Cultures
Psychological scientists He Lu Calvin Ong (Nanyang Technological University) and Senthu Jeyaraj examined the effects of work-life balance and work-life harmony styles on worker productivity. The researchers used measures of creativity as indicators of employee productivity and cognitive dissonance as a measure that employees were suffering from work-life stress. In other words, employees experience a mental discomfort when their beliefs, opinion or values are inconsistent with their actual behavior.
Hu points to three issues that Gen Z care about as follows.
Companies that seek inclusivity and ethical leadership, and have in the wake of social justice reckonings. They challenge the status quo, not because they don’t care, but they may see ways to make their workplaces better and more equitable.
Gen Z want to feel passionate about their work, uphold their values, and reject what they see as the toxic work mentality.
It’s up to employers to better conform organizational culture to the values that drive Gen Z behavior, but Gen Z need to meet their employers where they are. This means acting intentionally to contribute to a purpose driven culture.
Concluding Thoughts
It’s no easy task to draw conclusions from these different surveys. However, I list below some conclusions about the values of Gen Z and how it translates into workplace behavior. Gen Z,
Respond better when they are involved in setting the strategy for achieving organizational goals.
Seek involvement in the decision-making process and valued for their ideas.
Desire to work for managers sensitive to their needs (i.e., work/life balance).
Want to receive periodic reviews and learn what shortcomings they may have.
Want to be paid fairly and been given an equal opportunity for advancement.
Seek to work for a purpose-driven company that shares their views on the environment and sustainability.
Care for things outside of work that affect their well-being and want these things built into the ethos of an organization.
Virtually all of the articles that I have read point to Gen Z being unprofessional, unorganized, and having poor communication skills as their top reasons for having to fire grads. Leaders say they have struggled with Gen Z’s tangible challenges, including being late to work and meetings often, not wearing office-appropriate clothing, and using language not appropriate for the workplace. These are unacceptable and Gen Zer’s should change their workplace habits and not expect the organization to conform their behavior to their own.
I strongly believe the disconnect between the values of Gen Z and those of employers is due to the amount of time Gen Zer’s spend on social media. It’s not surprising that Millennials and Gen Zer’s have been criticized for similar behavior because they spend so much time online.
According to a survey by CivicScience, Gen Z adults are heavier users: 24% of Gen Z say they use it for 2-4 hours per day, and another 24% do so for 4+ hours per day (compared to 22% and 20% of Millennials). Conversely, Millennials are more likely to say they spend less than one hour (25%) and 1-2 hours (33%) on social media per day than Gen Z (22% and 29%).
Even though Gen Z and Millennials report differences in how much time they spend on social media per day, data suggest that how they perceive their social media consumption is the same. When asked if they consider themselves addicted to their digital devices, 61% of both Gen Z and Millennial social media users said they are addicted to their devices overall, and 39% said they are not.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on May 19, 2026. Learn more about Steve’s activities on his website.
The Human Element of Betting on Prediction Markets
Prediction markets are booming in popularity and facing scrutiny amid reports of market manipulation and insider trading. In the U.S., most betting, be it on prediction markets or on sports apps, is on the outcomes of sporting events. Indeed, betting on sports accounts for between 85% and 90% of the total betting volume on U.S. prediction markets.
Prediction markets are open exchanges online where people wager on future events, from election dates to economic outcomes. Participants can bet on anything from the price of an asset to how many times a public figure will tweet in a day, to the start or end of a war. Each bet shifts the market odds, which in turn reflect what participants collectively believe is most likely to happen.
How the Markets Work
Each Polymarket is a yes/no question, like “Will Putin meet with Zelenskyy by June 30, 2026?”. You buy shares in “yes” or “no” outcomes. Prices reflect crowd-sourced odds and probabilities. For example, if yes is at 30 cents, that’s a 30% chance. Markets resolve based on official results. For multi-outcome events, like “Nobel Peace Prize Winner 2026,” you simply trade on the specific outcome you think will win.
Prediction markets make it easy for people to bet on all kinds of events pertaining to finance, politics, pop culture, and sports. These markets are booming. The Wall Street Journal reported that the total trading volume on the two major prediction market platforms, Polymarket and Kalshi, has soared to $24.2 billion in April 2026, compared to $1.8 billion a year before.
Recently, there have been any number of stories about prediction markets that address the ease of using it, dangers of using it, and whether markets themselves are ethical. One way to make that determination is by applying virtues to the behavior.
Virtue ethics refers to a trait of moral excellence or goodness. It encompasses behaviors and attitudes that reflect high moral standards, such as honesty, integrity, and kindness. Virtues are often seen as essential qualities that contribute to an individual’s character and are valued in various ethical frameworks as foundational principles of a good life. The problem with betting on prediction markets is it challenges virtuous behavior.
How is all of this affecting young people, especially young men, who are the most impacted by the surge in sports betting? Some have become addicted to the activity and are being harmed by turning away from their studies, losing social connectedness, and losing money, in some cases a lot of money. Others participate occasionally, as entertainment or out of a need to feel part of social group. Still others do not know what to think but do have questions.
The Weirdest Bets on Prediction Markets
A story in the Wall Street Journal by Alex Goldenberg describes what could be the most egregious example of betting on prediction markets. Last month, federal prosecutors in New York indicted Master Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a special forces soldier at Fort Bragg, N.C., for using his role in the planning of the January raid that captured Nicolás Maduro to win about $410,000 on Polymarket. The Justice Department called it the first criminal case in the U.S. arising from prediction-market wagers. Van Dyke used information about the strike to bet on the event. This misuse of nonpublic information is an example of insider trading.
To show you how crazy these bets can get, last month a Polymarket trader walked away with $21,398 on a $119 bet that the temperature in Paris would exceed a given threshold on a particular day. The bet depended on a single Météo-France weather sensor sitting near the perimeter of Charles de Gaulle Airport on a publicly accessible road. The sensor recorded a spike of 6 degrees Celsius (about 11 degrees Fahrenheit) in 12 minutes before dropping back, and no other station registered the same. A criminal complaint was filed leading to the theory that someone walked up to the sensor with a battery-powered hair dryer.
Here are other bizarre examples that make me shake my head and wonder why we are allowing such betting to be virtually unregulated.
A user bet $100,000 on Donald Trump acquiring Greenland in 2026.
Users bet nearly $200,000 in total trading volume on whether Trump would smoke marijuana with Joe Rogan on his podcast, after billionaire and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk did so in 2018. Trump appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” on October 26, 2025 — without consuming cannabis.
In October 2025, the Nobel Committee announced that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Hours before that announcement, Polymarket bets on Machado surged dramatically.
Beware of Danger Ahead
Betting on prediction markets can become obsessive behavior, as could any gambling activity. According to an article by Ronald Yaros in Psychology Today, sports betting has not only grown in scale but in intensity. Scholars note that it has shifted from a discontinuous to a continuous form of gambling, characterized by increased availability, higher betting frequency, and more dynamic wagering options such as in-play or micro-bets (Lopez-Gonzalez and Griffiths, 2018). This transformation raises new psychosocial concerns. Research shows that sports betting, especially among younger adults and students, can detract from academic performance, strain social relationships, and contribute to anxiety, depression, and financial instability (Avenyo et al., 2024; Shipurut and Dauda, 2024).
Take the case of John Pederson. The Wall Street Journal reported that Pederson, who was covering from a car crash and low on money, took out a variable-interest loan and started betting on Kalshi, the prediction market that promised a quick way to fix that. At first, it worked. Pederson turned about $2,000 into about $8,000, betting on daily snowfall totals in Detroit. He parlayed that into $41,000 by trading on sports, using strategy he has developed with the help of AI. Then he decided to bet it all and lost.
Some young adults have become addicted to the prediction markets wagering and are being harmed by turning away from their studies, losing social connectedness, and losing money, in some cases a lot of money. Persistent betting could cause depression that affects the lives of these adults for years to come.
It’s important that we don’t dismiss the human element when analyzing whether betting on prediction markets is ethical. A virtue that is relevant here is self-control. Self-control is a fundamental virtue that involves mastering one’s desires and impulses. It is often associated with temperance and is considered essential for personal discipline and moral integrity. Betting in any form can become contagious and have serious consequences for the bettors.
What Can Be Done?
Goldenberg identifies three steps that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) should take to regulate the bets on prediction markets.
Require prediction markets to monitor on-platform activity and the resolution sources their contracts depend on.
Federal authorities should develop investigative protocols for manipulation campaigns linked to market positions.
Congress should clarify how existing fraud and market-manipulation statutes apply to conduct designed to move prediction-market prices.
The Wall Street Journal investigated a variety of activities on the prediction markets to see how they are affecting society. On Polymarket, the Journal found that 67% of profits go to just 0.1% of accounts. This means that less than 2,000 accounts netted a total of nearly half a billion dollars. The Journal analyzed 1.6 million Polymarket accounts that have traded since November 2022, which has at least 2.3 million on the site. On Kalshi, there are 2.9 unprofitable users for each profitable one based on data from April 2026. Total trading volume on both platforms have grown to $24.2 billion, up from $1.8 billion just a year ago.
Should Wagering on Prediction Markets Be Regulated?
Some believe that, from a user perspective, prediction markets are similar to placing a wager on an outcome such as in a sporting event. Prediction Market operators argue, however, that prediction markets and sports wagering are completely different, namely that with prediction markets, the “betting” is peer to peer where users take yes/no contractual positions against other users in the market. Whereas with sports wagering, users place bets directly with a house or operator that sets the terms of the wager and assumes the opposing risk. By taking this position, the prediction market folks are trying to avoid as much regulation as possible.
Prediction market operators have increasingly framed their products as event-based commodities derivatives. That framing is intended to place the product within the jurisdiction of the CFTC rather than state gaming regulators. The CFTC, however, is now taking additional regulatory steps with a different administration as the market for event-based contracts continues to develop.
What’s needed now is for the government to figure out the rules of the road and any guardrails to control betting. There needs to be some sort of oversight. It’s time to create a new regulatory agency that adopts rules, oversees activity, and investigates abuses in all forms of betting, including sports betting and betting on prediction markets. As occurs in many situations, the rules have failed to keep up with the expansion of activity on prediction markets.
Blog posted on May 11, 2026, by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.
Reflecting on My Career as an Accounting Professor, Educator and Researcher
I have been reflecting on my past accomplishments and current views of the state of the accounting profession for a while now, a function of getting older I suppose. In this blog, I will share some of my experiences and thoughts during my lifetime and observations that come with it. I hope it will provide guidance for young accountants entering academia and the accounting profession.
My Interest in Accounting Ethics
My interest in ethics first started about 40 years ago when I took a sabbatical leave from teaching at San Francisco State University. I decided to use my sabbatical to interview some accounting professionals about their most difficult situations and how they were resolved. I was fortunate to find many such professionals with the help of the California Society of CPAs, that facilitated these discussions. The end product of my sabbatical was to develop cases in accounting ethics that could be used to teach ethics to accounting students. My favorite case (“Giles and Regas”) was a story of a young female staff member of a firm who engaged in a dating relationship with someone of higher rank at that firm–the partner-in-charge of the engagement.
I presented my work at the Western Regional Meeting of the American Accounting Association in 1986. As luck would have it, an associate editor from Random House was in the audience and approached me at the conclusion of the program to see if I’d be interested in turning my cases into an accounting ethics casebook, and I jumped at the opportunity. About 40 years ago, my first accounting ethics textbook was published. I revised the book twice and started to become noticed by the academy.
Ethical Obligations and Decision Making: Text and Cases
Shortly thereafter, Random House was acquired by McGraw Hill, my current publisher. The first edition of my textbook with this publisher was in 1996. It was significantly expanded to include text material as well as cases. The issues addressed include both internal reporting, including culture, corporate governance, and whistleblowing, as well as external financial reporting including ethics standards, fraud in financial statements, whistleblowing, earnings management and more. Ethical Obligations and Decision Making: Text and Cases has become the leader in the field of accounting ethics textbooks. More than 100 colleges and universities use it in whole or in part. In the early 2000s, universities expanded accounting ethics education largely because of accounting frauds at Enron, WorldCom and dozens of other companies. Colleges and universities were looking for such a textbook to teach accounting ethics, a subject matter that had been expanding because of the 150-hour educational requirement to be a CPA.
The book has been quite successful and is in its 7th edition, now referred to as 2025 Release because of the advent of the digital product. Over 75% of book sales come from digital adoptions.
150-Hour Requirement
The event that will likely lead to a reduction in standalone accounting ethics courses, unfortunately, is that virtually all states have now created or will create an alternative to the 150-hour requirement to be a CPA, typically by gaining an extra year of practice. The need for the alternative option to become certified has been driven by pipeline limitations in students entering the accounting profession. We learned that students do not want to pay for the extra 30 units, and CPA firms really weren’t requiring the extra education for entry-level positions.
Looking back, virtually all states had required 150-units to be certified; however, business students started navigating to fields such as information technology, information systems and financial management. The reason for the shift has been the added cost of paying for 30-units above the traditional 120 units to earn a bachelor’s degree. Only time will tell whether student interest in accounting as a concentration regains its prominence as the leader in majors for all business programs. I think it will so long as accounting departments develop courses to meet the changing needs of clients and firms develop training programs to meet that need.
Service to Academe
I love writing papers about ethical issues facing business and accounting. My first publication, which carved out a reputation for me as an ethics expert, was “Virtue Ethics and Accounting Education” published in Issues in Accounting Education in 1995. That paper led to a stream of published papers by academics on the intersection between character, virtue ethics, accounting education, and accounting practice.
Upon becoming a senior at 65-years-of age, I started to think of retirement. I have accomplished a great deal during my academic career and really do not have a lot to prove. Still, the challenge of writing and publishing papers keeps me going. I have published over 40 papers in the field of ethics. I have been fortunate to have been interviewed and quoted in many stories about accounting ethics, business ethics, and even political ethics. I have developed a successful blog under the name “Ethics Sage.” My blog has been well received and is a joy to write.
I was fortunate to teach at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo from 2006-2016. Cal Poly is an exceptional university, known for its education in engineering and architecture. Based on my experiences, I would add business and accounting to the areas where a stand-out education can inform professional practice. I love their motto “Learn by Doing.” By the way, Victor Glover is the Cal Poly graduate who became a NASA astronaut. He graduated in 1999 with a degree in General Engineering and has made significant contributions to space exploration, including piloting the recent Artemis II mission to the moon.
Post retirement, I have turned my attention to service. The field of accounting education has been good to me. I decided to give back to accounting education and increase my activities with the Public Interest, Ethics and Sustainability (PIES) Section of the American Accounting Association (AAA). The Section has supported my work over the years, and I am deeply in debt to the AAA for that. To show my thankfulness in a tangible way, I have funded the “Excellence in Accounting Ethics Education” Award that is given out annually by the PIES.
The PIES has also recognized my work. I received the “Accounting Exemplar” award in 2015 and the “Distinguished Service” Award in 2024.
Reflections on the Accounting Profession
Accounting is an honorable profession, being relied upon by clients for a myriad of professional services and for being trustworthy. However, it’s become somewhat fashionable to criticize the profession for a lack of independence and allowing clients to call the shots rather than the accounting professional. This occurs, in part, because of the competition for professional services.
A Gallup Poll released on May 3, 2026, shows that accountants rank seventh out of 21 professions in honesty and ethics, trailing all healthcare professions and teachers, and clustering near other mid-tier trust occupations.
There has been a decrease in the ranking and overall percentage rating on ethics and honesty recently. I attribute this to the fact that professional services are expanding more rapidly than accounting education and training. It can’t keep up. Mistakes are made. Add to that the pressure imposed by CFOs and CEOs who seek maximum profits, and you have the perfect storm leading to the decline. One example is that unique entities have been established during the past dozen years, such as special purpose acquisitions (SPAs). These are companies created specifically to raise capital through an IPO for the purpose of acquiring an existing company. The transactions can be complex, and it could be that firms have not adequately trained their staff to handle the technical needs, judgment calls, and making sure the independence standard is met. Then there are the challenges that result from expansions in state-of-the-art fields which interact with providing professional services, such as technology and crypto currency transactions. These changes have, in part, created a talent gap between the knowledge and training needed to handle emerging clients’ needs and the abilities of accounting graduates and professionals, especially in their early years. In short, accounting education and practice has not caught up with the knowledge and training needed to handle such transactions.
Conclusions
I believe that accounting firms will close the gap between learning and practice over time. They have too much to lose by not doing so. This requires, among other things, for academe to update their curricula to meet the demands of a changing workplace. As I have observed before in my blogs, change in the academy occurs slowly.
I am concerned about the decline in ethics in all fields of practice, whether business ethics, accounting ethics, government ethics, political ethics and the like. This decline in ethics has infected all segments of society, and accounting is no different.
Finally, accounting students need to commit themselves to ethical behavior so that they can help to change the culture of those firms that all-too-often give in to client pressure. Accounting professionals must act in the public interest, and that means to be ethical and honest in everything they do so that clients can continue to call on them for current and future service needs.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, on May 4, 2026. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.
Dignity vs Civility: Is there a Difference?
The Dignity Index® is a tool designed to score how political and public language promotes dignity or expresses contempt. It was created to address the growing problem of divisive speech in politics and public discourse, aiming to make “dignity” a measurable standard in communication.
Purpose and Philosophy
The following discussion is taken from the Dignity Index website.
The Dignity Index is based on the belief that words have political power — language rooted in contempt divides, while language rooted in dignity can unite. It was developed in partnership with behavioral scientists, political leaders, and communication experts, and tested by researchers at the University of Utah, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, and the Hinckley Institute of Politics. Here is the way it works.
How It Works
Scale: 1 to 8 points.
Lower scores (1–4): Contempt, mockery, dismissiveness, stereotyping — language that dehumanizes or divides.
Mid-range (5–6): Disagreement with respect, recognition of others’ humanity.
Higher scores (7–8): Curiosity, respect — treating others with full dignity even when disagreeing.
By scoring and highlighting dignified speech, the Index aims to:
Hold leaders accountable for how they speak.
Improve public discourse in politics, business, and everyday life.
Foster respectful, solutions-focused dialogue.
The Dignity Index website summarizes its value as “providing a structured, evidence-based approach to evaluating and improving communication, emphasizing respect, empathy, and constructive engagement across political, social, and personal interactions.”
Is the Dignity Index the Same as Civility?
Now that I have explained what the Dignity Index is, its purpose and application, and why it matters, it’s time for me to express my own views. I’ve blogged many times before about the lost art of civility in America. One reason is we tend not to think about it as a moral core value; instead, a behavioral characteristic such as kindness, empathy and compassion, which may differ for each individual. I’m not sure we need another tool to evaluate what should be common sense—to act with dignity in communication with others; to treat others respectfully.
I may be wrong—at least in view of the way AI explains the difference.
AI says that the “Dignity Index and civility are related concepts but differ in focus and application.”
Scope and Purpose
Dignity Index: This is a specific tool that measures political speech on an eight-point scale, assessing how language promotes dignity or expresses contempt. It categorizes speech from level 1 (most contemptuous) to level 8 (most dignified).
Civility: Generally, refers to polite and respectful behavior in discourse. It encompasses a broader range of interactions beyond political speech, focusing on maintaining decorum and respect in various contexts. There is no measurement system.
Dignity Index: Aims to foster civil discourse by providing a framework for evaluating and improving political communication.
Civility: Seeks to promote respectful interactions in all areas of life, not just politics, and can sometimes prioritize politeness over truth.
Summing Up My View
I was surprised to learn that the state of Utah has become the testing ground for the Dignity Index. The University of Utah will host the initiative at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $400,000 a year, plus $120,000 in contracts for its co-creator, Tim Shriver. I have to wonder whether developing the index, and the costs involved in terms of academic time and resources, is a justified way to use taxpayer dollars in the state.
In a post on “X” about core values in the military, Jammies points out that “West Point already teaches ‘dignity and respect.’ That’s been part of its core training for generations. So why bring in an outside nonprofit with a branded Index and start testing it inside one of the most elite military academies in the country? ‘Dignity sounds harmless until you realize it’s being turned into a scoring system. Once you can measure speech, someone decides what counts and what doesn’t.” Very well said! I also worry that by having such an index, those who have “failing scores” will be cancelled. Perhaps it’s a way for the cancel culture to ostracize those whose speech is offensive. At a minimum, the possibility exists.
As noted in an opinion blog by Jamie Renda and Corinne Johnson, “the Dignity Index attempts to quantify virtue by rating speech itself. But rating speech isn’t neutral. Once a score exists, the power lies with those who define the standards. The danger is institutional: universities and bureaucracies inevitably turn scoring systems into tools of pressure and conformity. The Index is sold as a mirror, but in practice, it risks becoming a muzzle.” My view is that we don’t need a subjective index to assess whether speech and interactions are respectful. Quite Frankly, it’s common sense.
What we need to do is start teaching civility in elementary school and build on it in middle school and high school. It is one of the foundations of ethical behavior. We need our leaders to become role models for youngers and be respectful in word and deed. Civility can be taught and, if embraced by society, it could improve the level of discourse not only in politics but in all walks of life.
We also need to do something on social media, which is a greater challenge because the communication is not face-to-face, which would make incivility less likely.
Do you believe that the ever-growing number of serial killings in society–in schools, businesses, government facilities and the like–would persist if civility was embedded in everything we do and speak? I certainly do not!
Finally, the whole discussion about dignity got me thinking about its message. For me, it’s like saying we need to teach people how to act like human beings.
Blog posted on April 28, 2026 by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.
Outstanding Educators Are Recipients of the Excellence in Accounting Ethics Education Award
The Public Interest, Ethics and Sustainability Section of the American Accounting Association has selected three academics for its 2026 Award, “Excellence in Accounting Ethics Education” including Scott C. Jackson from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Paul E. Ordyna, from the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Srinivasan C. Ragothaman from the University of South Dakota. They published a paper in the November 2025 Issues in Accounting Education titled “A COVID-19-Related Fraud at Applied BioSciences Corp. What Are the Lessons?” The case presents a real-world Covid-19 fraud scheme that enables students to apply ethical reasoning, analyze fraud risks, and critically assess corporate governance failures. The case develops a useful approach to ethics education for other potential public health outbreaks like the COVID Variant Called ‘Cicada’ or the measles. Moreover, all of us, including our students, have lived through Covid and should find the case a good platform to evaluate social responsibility and what is in the public interest.
Find out more about the award by contacting Steven Mintz at smintz@calpoly.edu.
Posted April 21, 2026, by Steven Mintz, PhD, Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Find out more about Steve’s activities by visiting his website.
Fordham Professor Explores Whether Companies Are Allowed to Put Ethics First
I was fortunate to have taught an online Accounting Ethics class for Fordham University a few years ago. Since then, I’ve kept up with what’s happening on campus and in the community. Last week I received the Fordham Now newsletter online. The topic discussed is of great interest to me as an ethicist. It is: “Are Companies Allowed to Put Ethics First?” When I read the title, it made me think that ethics should always go first.
The article interviews Santiago Mejia, PhD, a professor of law and ethics in the Gabelli School of Business at Fordham, who wrote a paper that was published in the Business Ethics Quarterly. He prefaces his remarks by saying that companies may be foregoing profits to do the right thing, which could bring lawsuits from shareholders who expect the companies they invest in to put profits above all else. Professor Mejia raises an interesting question that addresses the tradeoff between ethics and profits, which is should a legal rule be adopted to protect executives who cite ethics when doing things that could hurt profits.
What is the Business Judgment Rule?
The Business Judgment Rule is a legal doctrine that helps to guard a corporation’s board of directors against frivolous legal allegations about the way it conducts business. A legal staple in common law countries, the rule states that boards are presumed to act in “good faith”—that is, within the fiduciary standards of loyalty, prudence, and care directors owe to stakeholders. Absent evidence that the board has blatantly violated some rule of conduct, the courts will not review or question its decisions.
Fiduciary standards include the “duty of care” and the “duty of loyalty.” The first is an obligation to act on an informed basis. The second requires directors to put the interests of the corporation over their own self-interest or the interests of others. That’s the problem with the Business Judgment Rule as it now stands. The problem with loyalty is it could be used to justify actions that might harm others, such as not disclosing a negative event that occurred in a company because the CEO said so.
What Should the Business Judgment Rule Look like?
I wondered, what should the business judgment rule look like? According to Mejia, there would be an ethics judgment rule. This got my attention. For years, I have been teaching the standard philosophical reasoning methods, including utilitarianism, rights, and justice as guides to ethical decision making. I was interested to learn that his research led him to believe that pursuing ethical initiatives under the guise of profit was a way to justify the decisions. In other words, it could be used as a rationalization for an ethical action. Ethics is much more.
I’ve always told my students that they should make ethical decisions, be a good person, and treat others the way they wish to be treated, not because it could lead to profit but because it is the right way to behave. The next question is what I mean by “right way.” This gets us back to the philosophical reasoning methods. However, the reason for being ethical is simpler than that. The answer lies in virtuous behavior.
Virtue is not always viewed by philosophers as a specific method of ethical reasoning, but it does have an innate value in contemplating the right thing to do. I like it as a method of reasoning because it is “character based.” If a person can lead their life in accordance with characteristic traits of behavior such as honesty, integrity, empathy, compassion and the like, it will give them a good feeling and maximize happiness. What could be a better motivator than happiness—which could be linked to gaining meaning in life or self-actualization.
So, my idea is to make “moral fortitude” the business judgment rule.
The Importance of Moral Fortitude
One reason I like moral fortitude as the ethics judgment rule is to speaks directly to the idea of whistleblowing and it can be applied to all endeavors—both personal and professional. We need more whistleblowers in society, especially in business and government. A good example is what happened to Congressman Eric Swalwell last week. Swalwell has now been accused by multiple women of sexual assault; at least two others claim he harassed them with unwanted come-ons and explicit photos. The women were reluctant to blow the whistle at first but ultimately did so. In other words, they had the courage of their convictions and acted with fortitude, informed by integrity, to call out Swalwell.
Aristotle emphasized fortitude as a virtue that helps individuals to confront challenges and difficulties with courage. It is part of his broader ethical framework, which emphasizes the importance of moral character and virtues in achieving a well-lived life. Saint Thomas Aquinas included fortitude among the four cardinal virtues in his works, discussing its importance in moral decision-making.
The bottom line is I agree with Professor Melia that: “Sometimes what ethics requires is not doing well but doing right.” My only concern is there appears to be a qualification in saying “sometimes.” It could be taken to mean that each individual might use their individual perspectives to decide what is ethical on a case-by-case basis. I agree with him if each individual comes by their decisions in an ethical manner—and with fortitude as explained above. Nevertheless, kudos go to Professor Mejia and Fordham for such a thoughtful piece.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on April 20, 2026. Learn more about Steve’s activities by visiting his website.
Should We Cancel the Cancel Culture?
I have previously blogged about the cancel culture including its good and bad points. We haven’t heard a lot about it for quite a while, so I have decided to discuss it once again in the context of what just happened to Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-California). In case you haven’t heard, Swalwell withdrew from the nomination for governor of California yesterday after a growing chorus from others in Congress to do just that. The allegations of sexual abuse from at least four women were more than his candidacy could tolerate. By withdrawing, he may create a boost for another Democrat to come in first or second in the California gubernatorial race. In California, the top two finishes from the primary have a runoff to see who will serve as the next governor of California. It doesn’t matter if the top two are from the same party, which is quite unusual as these runoffs go.
Two women who allege they were preyed on by the disgraced Swalwell say they decided to break their silence in a bid to prevent him from spending the next few decades harming “future victims.” The accusers, Ally Sammarco and Annika Albrecht, told CBS News they felt partly vindicated after Swalwell abruptly resigned from Congress on Monday and dropped out of California’s gubernatorial race following the wave of sexual assault and rape claims leveled against him. “He thought he was untouchable. He acted with total impunity. He never thought that the consequences of his actions would follow him,” Sammarco said.
As I wrote in my blog, cancelling someone is a manifestation of holding others accountable for their behaviors. Assuming the allegations are true, it is appropriate that Swalwell was forced to pull out of the race. The fact that there were multiple allegations against him, gives credence to the point of view that he is guilty as charged.
What is the Cancel Culture
The cancel culture is used to call out behaviors and actions of individuals and corporations that convey opinions or feelings which are objectionable to the perceived public good. The cancel culture is when someone or some organization is ostracized by another individual or group/community for something they said or done. It has become a social issue because some people allow it to affect what they say or do…which may not (or should not) be cancelable. A good example, worthy of consideration is that of Adam Smith.
Back in 2012, Chick-fil-A’s president at the time, Dan Cathy, spoke out against gay marriage and a fierce backlash ensued. The then Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, called for a Chick fil A Appreciation Day because he was “incensed at the vitriolic assaults” against the fast-food chain after Cathy’s remarks. Supporters of the fast-food company lined up to order from Chick-fil-A in a show of solidarity with Cathy, protesters decided to do the opposite — order nothing but free cups of water and voice their disagreement to the employees.
In Tucson, Arizona, Adam Smith decided to order a free cup of water himself. Smith, a successful young business executive, had recently witnessed the struggle his brother-in-law experienced coming out. He felt righteous joining in on the protest, and he decided to film the whole exchange and post it to YouTube. In the video, Smith is seen telling the drive-thru attendant, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”
I can understand what protesters did and why. We have freedom of speech after all. However, I think Smith crossed the line when he admonished the drive-thru attendant. There is no way to justify such behavior.
The underlying cause of such behavior is the lack of tolerance for points of view different from our own. In today’s society, if you don’t agree with the particular point of view, you risk being cancelled. In other words, it’s “my way or the highway,” which signifies an ultimatum. It implies that we must follow a speaker’s preferences. It’s a non-negotiable point of view, often used by someone in an authority position. Their view is the only one acceptable.
Promoting Accountability
Cancelling someone can promote accountability for one’s actions. When people are accountable, and answer for their actions, it builds trust.
Accountability isn’t about being harsh. It’s about being fair. When celebrities break the law and face no or minimal consequences, it:
Sends the wrong message to society
Encourages a sense of immunity for the rich and famous
Weakens the public’s faith in justice.
No one should be above the law, regardless of their status. Some crimes are often public and should be addressed with transparency. When someone gets away with illegal behavior, it creates double standards.
Accountability is an ethical value because it implies that the individual is responsible for their actions. If they come out and accept those consequences, without having to be prodded to do so, such as Eric Swalwell, then society may be quick to forgive them especially if they promise not to do it again.
Freedom of Speech
The justification for not cancelling someone that is often given is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, freedom of speech is not an absolute. One person’s “cancellation” is another person’s use of their own First Amendment-protected free speech right to criticize. We can yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and that is OK if done to warn patrons. But it is not OK if the motivation is to start a riot.
Brendan Fraser’s cancellation is one of the most heartbreaking Hollywood stories. He came forward about being sexually assaulted by a powerful industry executive, and instead of getting support, he was basically blacklisted from the business for over a decade. Fraser had been a huge star in the late 90s and early 2000s, but after speaking his truth about the abuse he suffered, roles just dried up. He disappeared from Hollywood while dealing with the trauma and fallout from going public. It wasn’t until recently that people started recognizing how badly he’d been treated and he finally got his comeback with The Whale, even winning an Oscar. His story shows how speaking up can cost you everything, even when you’re the victim.
We all witnessed a period of time recently where the emerging social movements, such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, used their influence to take down racist statues, rename buildings named after white supremacists, call out celebrities and prominent figures in society, and address “racist, sexist, or homophobic views or ideologies.”
Going back in time, Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. He rose to fame as a U.S. Army general and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. His political philosophy, which dominated his presidency, became the basis for the rise of Jacksonian democracy. His legacy is controversial: he has been praised as an advocate for white working Americans and preserving the union of states, and criticized for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans. In Washington, DC on June 22, 2020, protesters in Lafayette Square right by the White House tried to take down a statue of Jackson. Jackson was a slave owner. His policies were also deadly for thousands of Native Americans. Police stopped these protesters, but statues are coming down around the U.S., yanked down or removed by local governments. So what should be the standard for taking down a statue? Manisha Sinha, a Civil War historian at the University of Connecticut, says when it comes to, say, Robert E. Lee, take it down.
Social MediaAn Dinh , a student at Cal State Long Beach, wrote for her honors program requirement that “the phenomenon of cancel culture has become a significant aspect of modern society, particularly within the online environment of Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. She studied “the key factors contributing to the nature of cancel culture over the past 5-10 years on these platforms, along with exploring the consequential impact on individuals subjected to cancelation. According to An, “The evolution of cancel culture can be traced back to being an original form of collective accountability for celebrities on social media. Quick judgments and public opinions significantly contribute to the societal pressure to take stances, fueling the rapid escalation of cancel culture. Cultural and societal factors, such as shifting norms through social justice movements, also play crucial roles. The viral spread of information on social media intensifies cancel culture, thus emphasizing the important role of one’s digital footprint, cultural norms, and intent behind actions or words.” The point is there are so many places to make statements or do questionable things online that the avenues for cancelling have exploded.
Conclusion
We see the cancel culture in play in almost every field, whether its entertainment or politics. I think it’s a good thing if it makes us stop and think before we say something or engage in some action that might be viewed as objectionable. The problem is today too many people act first and then think about the consequences of their actions or words later. I believe it is the result of instant posting online where we want to post a thought or reaction to someone right away. Somehow, we believe our words will have a greater effect if we do just that. But the opposite is true as well.
An alternative to the cancel culture is the “call-out culture,” which emphasizes dialogue and accountability rather than exclusion. Call-out culture is about calling attention to someone’s wrongdoing and giving them a chance to learn from and correct the issue. This is exactly what we want if freedom of speech is to live up to its promise in a Democratic society.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on April 14, 2026. Visit Steve’s website and learn more about his activities.
Measuring Academic Achievement May Be Easier Said Than Done
I’ve been reading a lot about Harvard controlling the number of students who are awarded an ‘A’ grade. It seems too many are receiving that grade. A proposed cap on grading has students up in arms. Harvard’s faculty will vote next week on a proposal to cap the number of A’s per course, which now make up more than half of undergraduate grades. The plan also suggests getting rid of GPA as an internal metric, instead using percentile rank to calculate honors like cum laude recognition.
I read in the Wall Street Journal that students are protesting the proposed changes because it would increase stress, fuel competition and discourage academic exploration. I’ve got to ask: When did these become bad things?
An editorial in the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper, referred to the cap as a “crude” quota. A survey conducted by Harvard’s undergrad student government found that about 94% of students oppose the policy.
The proposal would cap the number of A’s per course at 20%, plus an additional four A’s to account for smaller courses with more variability. The cap would reset ‘A’ grading at Harvard to 2011 levels, says the proposal which applies to the undergrad college.
It seems that the catalyst for the change is a report that about 60% of the grades were A’s in the 2024-2025 school year, up from about 25% in 2005-06.
Arguments for Capping ‘A’ Grades
Harvard administrators and some faculty suggest that the goal is to fix the culture and challenge students to work harder in their coursework. The belief in some quarters is that Harvard’s reputation may be suffering because of grade inflation. After all, how is an employer to know whether the ‘A’ grades are truly earned, which could be indicative of a strong work ethic, or assigned by professors who want students to pump up their evaluations of instructors or avoid the inevitable stress students feel when not assigned an ‘A’ grade.
Arguments for Not Capping ‘A’ Grades
It could be that Harvard students are so smart that they earn the ‘A’ grade. There really is no way to know for sure. Perhaps the old adage applies here: “The Proof in the Pudding is in the Eating.” In other words, Harvard students will graduate, get good jobs, and then we’ll see whether they truly earned the ‘A’ grade, although it’s not an exact science. Personally, I don’t go along with this line of thinking. The reason is there are a lot of factors that go into whether a graduate will be successful in the workplace and grade performance is only one.
Joshua Greene, a Harvard psychology professor and member of the committee behind the proposal believes the current system discourages students from exploring unfamiliar subjects [where it may be more difficult to earn an ‘A’ grade]. Moreover, at Harvard, where A’s are so common, anything less is stigmatizing. It could affect students’ mental health.
I suppose another factor could be the psychological effect of earning a grade less than ‘A.’ How will it affect the psyche of such a student?
Student Views
One student leader says student opposition to the cap isn’t just about undergrads complaining about grades getting harder. He says students are more interested in addressing course engagement and rigor, especially in so-called “gems.” Gems are slang for classes that offer a light workload and lenient grading. We used to call them a “gut” or “fluff” course.
Administrators have responded to the backlash by tweaking the plan. Earlier this week, Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh announced a one-year delay, moving the earliest possible rollout to fall 2027, and introduced a new “SAT+” grade option designed to give instructors additional flexibility.
Turning to A- Grades
The proposal would not limit A-minuses; only A’s. Of course, this will make A minuses more common and, perhaps, less subject to ridicule by ‘A’ students. Greene is quoted as saying in defense of the A-: “We want to liberate students from the tyranny of the 4.0 and make them free to explore. We want to put the ‘us’ back in A minus.
Harvard may be making some progress already. The number of A’s last fall were 53.4% down from 60.2% in the prior academic year.
Trump is Everywhere
Harvard’s academic programs are under additional scrutiny because of the Trump administration’s investigations into the university and broader efforts to remake higher education in the U.S. Federal officials have asked universities to sign a “compact” that includes commitments to “grade integrity” and the use of “defensible standards” when evaluating students. No one knows where this is going, which is true of most things that Trump gets involved in.
My View
The talk about capping any grade is anathema to me. I taught at the university level for over 40 years. In some years, the students in my classes earned A’s at a higher rate than in other years. I graded them based on performance, not some contrived grading standards.
I can’t close this blog without addressing ethics. You probably remember Operation Varsity Blues where parents of rich kids made payoffs to get their kids into certain prestigious college. Back in 2019, five Harvard alumni were arrested and charged for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in a nationwide scheme to fraudulently secure admission for their children to top universities through millions of dollars in bribes and falsified standardized test answers. Another alumnus, who allegedly took standardized tests like the SAT and ACT in place of college applicants, was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. It would be interesting to know how many A’s they received from Harvard.
I think we have to remember that one indicator of a potentially valuable students ready to graduate and go into the working world is work ethic. By giving out so many A’s, Harvard is stifling that measurement indicator.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph. D, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on April 9, 2026. Find out more about Steve’s activities on his website:
Feedspot Selects “Ethics Sage” as one of the Top 90 Blogs in 2026.
I am delighted to report that my “Ethics Sage” blog was selected as the 41st best of 90-named blogs on philosophy. I have been fortunate to be so named for many years and am grateful to Feedspot for the recognition. My blogs span ethics in society, whether political ethics, business ethics, ethics at universities, sports ethics, and so much more. If you are not a current reader, please consider checking them out. Also, you can find out more about my activities on my website.
I try to develop social media friendships through my work and that of my readers. Feel free to contact me on matters of concern.
Steve Mintz is a Ph.D. and professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Posted on April 2, 2026.
Richard M. Bowen’s Experience
The following is from Richard Bowen’s LinkedIn page.
“As a Business Chief Underwriter for Citigroup during the housing bubble financial crisis meltdown, Richard saw fraud firsthand inside the organization. He saw the company certify poor mortgages as quality mortgages and sell them to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other investors.
For two years, Richard repeatedly warned executive management and the board of directors and was ignored. Eventually he was stripped of all responsibilities, placed on administrative leave and told his presence was no longer required.
Richard has testified before the Securities and Exchange Commission and the nationally televised Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He has been interviewed by major venues from 60 Minutes to the New York Times and widely quoted in numerous articles and pieces of legislation related to the mortgage meltdown.
He is concerned that we have not learned from the 2008 financial meltdown and are again headed in the same direction, with Citi writing directives that Congress is accepting that will loosen credit standards once again.
He is a frequent speaker about the harrowing story behind Citi and what led to his whistleblowing with lessons taken from his 35 years of businesses experience to give insights into how to prevent fraud and another financial crisis of even bigger dimensions.” Richard epitomizes what it means to be an ethical leader.
The Ethics of 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.
There is no doubt that Richard satisfies the criteria for a genuine whistleblower.
Reflections on a Whistleblowing Culture
A culture that is people centered. Openness is valued. Cultures of trust are created. The best doesn’t need D.O.J. incentives or whistleblowing guides read under the table. Are companies today too naïve or too arrogant to even think their employees don’t see what is going on when there is a blatant bending of the rules? Are we so wound up in profits at all costs and quarterly reviews that we have lost sight of the purpose of business? Yes, it is to make a profit and to benefit consumer’s. But a profit at all costs? Is that what capitalism truly is?
Bowen asks: “Are companies today too naïve or arrogant to even think their employees don’t see what’s going on?
Bowen reflects on his experiences as follows. These are teachable moments. “Let me ask you- at the end of the day how do you feel about the work you’ve done, about the purpose and mission of your accomplishments? About the company’s mission and the contribution you’ve made to it? If you’re proud of your company and its purpose and the contribution you make, chances are your company is one of the many, and yes there are many that are doing it right- not fraudulently.”
But- hey- if your company is not doing it right- get up, stand up- take the right steps- read the books.
I’m for T-shirts, which say stamp out whistleblowing- because we’ve made the need to do so obsolete.
Closing with My Thoughts
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. But it was too late for Richard Bowen. However, I know him well enough to say that he felt good about what he did even though the consequences for him were not what had hoped for.
Blog posted on March 24, 2026, by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Steve is a professor emeritus who wrote an accounting textbook along with Bill Miller from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.
If so, What Should be the Goals of Teaching Ethics?
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. In that way, students can better learn about ethics—what it is and isn’t.
Can Ethics be Learned?
In other words, if ethics can be learned, it can be taught, which is something the world renown ethicist, Archie Carroll, believes as do I. To “learn the lesson,” so to speak, students must 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. The problem here is we lack commonality so that agreement on what is ethical and what is not is hard to come by.
I am concerned about the increasingly 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, students can train themselves to become more goal-oriented and create a clear vision of right versus wrong.
Consequentialism
If you believe in the utilitarian method of ethical decision making, then you support thinking about the consequences first and then deciding on the most ethical course of as action. This method of ethical reasoning is also referred to as consequentialism. I could provide many examples of when a decision maker decided on a course of action first and then, later, considered the consequences.
Perhaps the best example is that of President Trump. Just think about what he has done in his second term in office. Right out of the gate he imposed ridiculous tariffs on lots of countries only to back off later because of its negative effects on the world economy. What a mess. Most recently, he attacked Iran ostensibly because they were marching towards having nuclear weapons that would be headed for Israel and, perhaps, other places. Of course, the underlying action was taken to execute regime change, regardless of what Trump and his cohorts say now.
Ethical Relativism
Another driver of unethical behavior, I believe, is “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:
“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.”
Ethics. Moral hand drawn doodles and lettering. Education vector illustration.Teaching Values to Students
We should begin our search for how best to teach 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. I believe such behavior exists in everyday behavior of all too many in society.
We need to teach values to students at the earliest age possible. I mean in K-8 classes. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen in most schools and, if it does, ethical relativism is the teaching device. Without agreement on the underlying core values of ethical behavior, it is difficult to create that commonality that I discussed previously.
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’s moral values that are important including honesty, integrity, empathy, respect, responsibility, accountability, and civility and so on.
Tips for Teaching Ethics
Here are some tips for teaching ethics. They are drawn from a writing by the group, Capsim, that addresses a variety of teaching methods.
Focus on relevant situations: place your students in specific ethical dilemmas they may encounter in their personal lives and in the workplace.
Identify the stakeholders in each dilemma; those potentially affected by the decision or action being contemplated.
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.
Expose students to a variety of ethical reasoning methods, not just one. This provides them with the tools to handle a variety of situations.
Challenge your students by discussing with them situational pressures such as unethical coworkers, manager, and virtually all politicians.
Give students the confidence that they can resolve ethical dilemmas they might face.
Teach students critical thinking skills so they can analyze ethical dilemmas and decide on a course of action.
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.
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.
Model ethical behavior!
There is more to say about teaching ethics that I will address in the coming weeks. Let me know what you think and when my thoughts have provided guidance to you in your journey of making ethical decisions and being a moral person.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on March 17, 2026. To learn more about Steve’s activities visit his website at: www.stevenmintzethics.com.
The Lost Art of Civility and Decency
The other day, I had a discussion with a colleague of mine about “The Lost Art of Civility,” something I have blogged about before. He seemed to believe that we are just now losing civility in American society. He pointed to the war in Iran, the takeover of Venezuela, the apprehension and deportation of thousands of immigrants, and so on. For him, it was a Donald Trump problem. While I don’t disagree, the loss of civility as a society goes much further back in time. I believe it started with the assassination of JFK. We lost our innocence as a nation on that awful day. Quickly thereafter, there was the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, MLK, and Malcolm X. This was followed by a war in Vietnam that no one seemed to want—especially my age group. Perhaps because we were drafted to fight in some far away place for no earthly reason. More recently, we’ve seen the cancel culture pop up from time to time and other events that pit one person, or one side, against the other.
I am writing this blog today because I fear for our country. ‘When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within.’ The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.
In online discussions, somecommentators have acknowledged (as Prager University) that the statement is not a direct quotation from Abraham Lincoln, as some have said, but rather an interpretation or distillation of remarks he made in January 1838, during a speech at the Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum. However, others have mistakenly claimed that Lincoln uttered those exact words during his Lyceum speech.
It doesn’t matter who said it. The reason is it’s happening now, and we see it every day: Democrats blame Republicans for all the ills in society. Republicans blame Democrats.
Center on Civility & Democracy
I recently read about a survey that was discussed online on March 5, 2025. More than seven in 10 Americans want to play a part in restoring civility in America, new data from Reagan Foundation Center on Civility & Democracy finds.
The survey reveals the majority of Americans believe civility is struggling but are interested in finding common ground. This won’t happen unless our leaders find their way out of a morass of lies and explanations. I am not hopeful. 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.
“Our goal at the Center on Civility and Democracy is to reinstall the norms of respect and good citizenship in American public life, drawing from the example President Reagan set forth during his presidency,” said Fred Ryan, Director of the Center on Civility and Democracy. “This survey helps us to better understand the current state of the country and to identify ways to foster civility going forward – knowing that it does not mean agreement or compromise but rather finding areas of common ground and allowing space for disagreements.”
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%).
Most Americans (52%) believe our democracy is weaker today than in the past.
– By contrast, only a quarter (25%) of Americans say our democracy is stronger. Independents (59%) and Democrats (61%) are more likely than Republicans (40%) to consider U.S. democracy weaker today. Additionally, half of Americans (51%) cite a decline in elected officials’ character and values.
– 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.
Furthermore, a significant number of respondents believe that our democracy will be stronger in the next ten years. While not a majority, and split by party lines, 44% of Americans believe our democracy will be stronger in the next 10 years compared to 29% who think it will be weaker.
Causes of the Decline of Civility in America
Some people blame incivility on the behavior of millennials and/or Gen Z. Perhaps there is some truth to it. However, from where do they get their bad behavior? I would say from previous generations. Most important, they tend to be self-centered a lot more than previous generations, and that can stoke the fires of incivility. However, you are kidding yourself if you blame it all on them. Republicans and Democrats are not, by and large, millennials and Gen Z, and they set a negative example of behavior all the time–and it’s fueled by selfishness.
I have blogged about the ills of incivility before. One example is from a personal perspective. It is the nasty comments I sometimes get on one of my blogs. It goes beyond and we’ve all personally experienced it – rudeness and discourteous behavior of others. It might be uncivil behavior in everyday life, such as using crude language, cutting in line, and road rage on the highway. Maybe it relates to a workplace situation: other people not listening to what we say, interrupting us, or having side conversations during our presentation. In some cases, it is personal, such as insults, personal attacks, and emotional put-downs. It may even be taken to an extreme with harmful consequences to one’s personal self-esteem. This includes ranting against us on social media and cyberbullying.
The breakdown in civility can be attributed to the fact that basic manners and graciousness are no longer taught at schools or in the home. Society only exacerbates the problem. All too many television shows depict folks acting badly, saying bad things — a basic immaturity in relationships with others. Some movies make it worse because they are moronic, yet that appeals to a segment of society. Of course, social media gets most of the blame where so many look for their “fifteen minutes of fame” through offensive posts on their Facebook page, distasteful tweeting, poorly thought-out Instagram photos, and silly YouTube postings.
I asked AI about Tik Tok and received this replay:
“TikTok has become a significant cultural force, shaping trends and influencing various aspects of daily life. It serves as a platform for creativity, allowing users to express themselves through short videos, which can foster community and connection. The platform has also emerged as a space for social justice activism, amplifying marginalized voices and mobilizing movements. However, there are concerns regarding its impact on mental health, particularly among younger users. Issues such as addiction to content and the pressure to conform to trends can lead to anxiety and low self-esteem. I agree that Tik Tok can be a force for good but the harms to youngsters outweigh any benefits it brings to the table.
It seems to me that incivility is becoming the new normal in our society. Unethical behavior underlies the incivility. Basic ethical values such as respect, fairness, honesty, graciousness, empathy, responsibility, and accountability have given way to hedonistic behavior that sometimes borders on narcissism.
The Good Folks
There are many good people out there who genuinely care about others and think about the consequences of their actions before making a final decision on how to act. At the other extreme, there are all too many who are driven by self-gratification and seem oblivious to the interests of others in decision-making.
Whether it’s random and senseless violence against another, road rage, cyber-bullying, or other offensive acts that are occurring with increased frequency in our society, the U.S., as a country, has lost its moral compass. I do not think it will be regained any time soon because we have fallen too far down the proverbial “ethical slippery slope,” and the issues of ethical behavior in society, workplace ethics, and a strong work ethic are nowhere on the radar. All too many are willing to “toot the horn” of American Exceptionalism without thinking about what makes for an exceptional person, society, or country.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., professor emeritus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Find out more about Steve’s activities on his website.
Has Trump Crossed a “Bridge Too Far?”
It should come as no surprise that I label President Trump as a disruptor. His presidency got started when he decided to mix things up, tear things down, make bold moves that could be called reckless. In other words, he was like a “bull in a china shop.” Fourteen plus month since his presidency began, and what are we left with? We have a royal mess with tariffs, a novel idea that seems to have died a natural death. Then there’s DOGE and its promoter, Elon Musk, in case you have forgotten. What’s happened here? We also have two government shutdowns and other disruptions.
Rebalancing the Burdens and Benefits
We are experiencing the rebalancing of the benefits and burdens in alliances around the world. Trump wants the NATO countries to pay their fair share. There’s nothing wrong here. They should pay more for their common, regional defense. He’s “reimagined” our relationship with Canada, even suggesting it become part of the U.S. He struck out trying to buy Greenland, a move that had me shaking my head. However, I think Trump crossed “a bridge too far.” Why should we do this and upset most of Europe when the goal of greater influence and a military presence—to help defend the country and enhancing regional power– can be accomplished with separate deals to increase a U.S. presence and “materiel” in the region.
Immigration Floodgate
Trump has made it a goal to stop the immigration floodgate into the U.S. from Mexico and central America. This has been the best decision of his Presidency. What a mess Biden left us with. The Democrats saw immigrants as future voters, so the floodgates opened without regard to whether they were criminals or other bad guys (or girls).
The most alarming example is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) killings of people in broad daylight—incidents that have shocked the nation and highlighted how these agencies are operating without adequate safeguards and are eroding public safety. According to the admittedly biased American Immigration Lawyers Association, public support for the Administration’s immigration agenda has shifted dramatically. Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose ICE’s enforcement strategy, and 60% of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s immigration agenda. This signals the rising concerns about policies that create instability without improving security or restoring order.
Venezuelan President Maduro
On January 3, 2026, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a raid in Caracas to face federal indictments in New York on charges of narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapon offenses. The operation, which followed months of U.S. strikes on Venezuelan vessels and a $50 million bounty, aimed to oust a leader accused of directing a criminal network, with President Trump stating the U.S. would manage Venezuela’s oil industry during a transition. I understand what Trump has done here and why but think the U.S. managing the country’s oil industry is another bridge too far.
Iran
The U.S. and Israel launched a major attack on Iran last Saturday, which President Trump portrayed as an “opportunity for a change of government in Tehran.” Does he know how scary this statement sounds? Are we headed to War in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world? Should we be concerned that the attack on Iran comes just a few weeks after the January 3, 2026, U.S. special operation (“Operation Absolute Resolve”) that resulted in the capture and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Caracas. The operation involved large-scale strikes on military targets in Venezuela by U.S. special forces (Delta Force) and CIA operatives. What was the goal? Trump is now saying to eliminate Iran’s capability to launch nuclear bombs and long-range missiles. He’s backed off from saying it is to hasten regime change. Who is he kidding?
The attack follows weeks of repeated threats from Trump that the U.S. would strike Iran unless the country’s leadership agrees to U.S. demands, especially over Tehran’s nuclear program. Last Thursday, American and Iranian officials held a last-ditch round of mediated talks that ended without a breakthrough. Last Saturday, Trump announced that “major combat operations” were underway in Iran. The DoD has called the strikes “Operation Epic Fury.”
It looks like this will be a long war, perhaps longer than the 4-6 week period Trump said it would take to accomplish the goals. The reason is it’s been widening in part because Iran decided to bomb U.S. facilities in other Arab countries and Israel expanded the war into Lebanon. Much has changed in just one day’s time. Here are the lowlights for today:
Sequencing
Washington Post columnist Wes Mitchell said, in an interview with Institut Montaigne, that the notion of “sequencing” may be at play in Trump’s actions. This means a reorienting of power in parts of the world. For example, the attack on Iran may facilitate a sequencing strategy, according to Mitchell. In just a few days, “a country that had previously been thought capable of dominating the Middle East lost the flower of its military capabilities.” Iran is still dangerous but will take time to rebuild.
Russia
The anomaly in all of this is Russia. Trump has delayed timetables for their drawing-down of troops. He has recognized Russia’s “right” to hold on to the land it won in Ukraine. He’s done nothing to control Putin’s strategy of re-organization of the Soviet Union—making it the power broker that it used to be. He seems oblivious to the real possibility that after Ukraine will come other eastern European nations. I have said all along that the reason for hesitancy is that Putin has the dirt on him from the 2016 election, which he will release if Trump crosses a line in their relationship.
Crazy Like a FoxPat Hickey, a columnist who write “Memo from the Middle East” has suggested that Trump is “crazy like a fox.” What he means is Trump has been both equally brilliant and equally foolish, and does things his predecessors wouldn’t or couldn’t do. He does provide some good examples, although Trump’s tactics are questionable. It is possible for someone like Trump, the President of the U.S., could do more harm than good by using the disruptor approach to remake the world in his image.
I’ve devoted this blog mainly with the burdens. What about the benefits? In the interest of brevity, here they are:
Controlled the border,
Lowered drug deaths and international crime.
Stymied Iran in its nuclear tracks.
Got NATO to pay more of its fair share.
Gave the Middle East an opportunity to remake Gaza for both Arabs and the Jewish people living in Israel.
Landed a Venezuelan dictator and drug cartel supporter in prison with a chance for that country (and possibly Cuba) to one day be free and even prosperous again.
El Mench
Of course, now we can add to the list Mexican security forces that have killed a drug lord, “El Mench” who led one of the most powerful criminal organizations in the country. Mexican President, Claudia Sheinbaum, took this bold action, I believe, to show Trump she is serious about helping the U.S. stop the wave of crime and drug trafficking into the U.S. from Mexico.
I sense this blog may be going too long. So late me sum it up by saying that Hickey labels Trump as the new global sheriff. The question is at what price? That is a million-dollar question. Trump’s approval ratings have gone down, even among his base, most notably Hispanics, many of whom have reservations about how he has dealt with the immigration problem. Have his intimidation tactics crossed the line? Can his bullying approach to dealing with others cause more harm than good? When will he stop and let us catch our breath?
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D. on March 4, 2026. Steve is an emeritus professor from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Check out his website to learn more about his activities.
Why Now? What’s Next?
I should have known something was up when U.S. President Donald Trump changed the name of the Department of Defense to the “Department of War.” President Trump erroneously thinks that a name change will make the country’s war-like attacks on other countries acceptable. The only way to accomplish that is with Congressional approval and that of the American public.
President Trump’s objective in renaming the Department of Defense (DoD) to the Department of War via executive order is to project American military strength, foster a “warrior ethos” and prioritize decisive victory over “endless” defensive conflicts. By restoring the historic name used until 1947, he aims to signal a “peace through strength” approach to adversaries.
Trump, the self-declared peace president, seems willing to assert American power overseas. However, I have to ask whether he has considered the ramifications of his actions? At the time of writing this blog, four American troops were killed. Also, three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets were shot down Sunday by Kuwaiti air defenses “due to an apparent friendly fire incident,” U.S. Central Command announced. Are we willing to pay the price for the military actions described below? The first step should be to answer the dual questions: Why are we attacking Iran now? and What do we expect from our military incursion? In other words, what is the objective?
Opportunity for Regime Change
The U.S. and Israel launched a major attack on Iran last Saturday, which President Trump portrayed as an “opportunity for a change of government in Tehran.” Does he know how scary this statement sounds? Are we headed to War in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world? Should we be concerned that the attack on Iran comes just a few weeks after the January 3, 2026, U.S. special operation (“Operation Absolute Resolve”) that resulted in the capture and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Caracas. The operation involved large-scale strikes on military targets in Venezuela by U.S. special forces (Delta Force) and CIA operatives. What was the goal? It is regime change in Venezuela–as well as Iran.
The attack follows weeks of repeated threats from Trump that the U.S. would strike Iran unless the country’s leadership agrees to U.S. demands, especially over Tehran’s nuclear program. Last Thursday, American and Iranian officials held a last-ditch round of mediated talks that ended without a breakthrough. Last Saturday, Trump announced that “major combat operations” were underway in Iran. The DoD has called the strikes “Operation Epic Fury.”
Literally, as I was writing this blog, the following came up: “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said today that the war in Iran will not be ‘endless,’ and that the U.S. goal was not regime change.” This is laughable [read my comment below]. Regime change is a given. Who does he think he is kidding? Regime change has been the U.S. and Israel’s goal for a long time.
I’m concerned! Will these manufactured conflicts eventually strike home? No, not in the U.S. directly, but directed towards our security forces/government embassies and military sites around the world as we have already seen in Iran’s response.
Board of Peace
The Board of Peace is a 2026-established international body chaired by President Trump, designed to oversee the enforcement of a Gaza ceasefire, manage regional reconstruction, and potentially address global conflicts. It acts outside the UN system with a chairman-centered structure, raising concerns about undermining the UN. Trump is the chairman, with significant authority, including veto power and the ability to name his successor. The executive board includes figures like son-in-law Jared Kushner. Perhaps he should add Barron Trump.
A website calling for President Donald Trump’s youngest son, Barron Trump, who is 19, to be drafted into the U.S. military was created, as the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran. The website “DraftBarronTrump.com” was created on February 28, the same day that the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran, according to domain records. The language on the website employs a largely satirical tone, with false quotes attributed to members of the Trump family.
Why has Trump decided to attack Iran now? Probably because the “peace” talks with Iran bore no fruit. Then there is the long-term goal, which is for Trump to win the long-coveted 2026 Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. How ironic is that!
While originally focused on post-war Gaza, the Board of Peace’s charter now reflects a goal to “secure enduring peace” in other global conflict zones. Based on the information regarding the BoP, a fact sheet was developed explaining the changes highlighting the transition from a limited Gaza-focused initiative to a broader, more centralized, and “nimble” international organization led by the U.S. The name ‘Department of War’ conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve compared to ‘Department of Defense,’ which emphasizes only defensive capabilities. “Restoring the name ‘Department of War’ will sharpen the focus of this department on our national interests and signal to adversaries America’s readiness to wage war to secure its interests,” the fact sheet continues.
Prior to signing the executive order establishing the BoP, Trump said, “This is something [we’ve] thought long and hard about; we’ve been talking about it for months.”
It doesn’t make me feel better now that all these months have gone by and Trump doesn’t share the proposal with the American people. Won’t it take funds from our budget to support BoP’s activities? Was Congress informed? The “power of the purse” is the constitutional authority granted to the legislative branch (Congress in the U.S.) to control government spending.
Trump added at the signing that under the original War Department, the U.S. achieved military victories in both world wars; however, victories turned into more prolonged conflicts that often resulted in a “sort of tie” once the War Department rebranded as the Defense Department.
Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War
Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, concurred with Trump’s contention. The secretary went on to say that the War Department would fight decisively to win and not get mired down in endless conflicts. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality; violent effect, not politically correct.”
The preamble to the BoP agreement declares that durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed. It recognizes that lasting peace takes root when people are empowered to take ownership and responsibility over their future. It’s clear that the document has been crafted to provide a rationale for this action and justification if challenged by those that chose not to be on the BoP–or weren’t selected for it.
Membership in the BoP is limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman (guess who this is) and commences upon notification that the State has consented to be bound by this Charter, in accordance with Chapter XI. That’s all we need to know about the likelihood that the BoP will do any good. President Trump is the CEO and chairman of the BoP. The charter names him as the inaugural and lifetime chairman with extensive executive powers, including veto authority and the ability to select his successor. There is no meaningful oversight of the BoP, and Trump himself.
This morning, President Donald Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper the “big wave” is yet to come in the war with Iran. Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called on Iranians to “take advantage” of the opportunity for regime change, even as he said the war was not about ousting the government in Tehran. I guess he forgot his earlier comment on this issue as stated above. No one ever said Hegseth is the “brightest bulb in the room.”
What Should Be Next?
President Trump needs to include Congress and the American public so that the rest of the world knows that we are behind him–if we are. Only time will tell as it is most likely that as the war drags on, the American people will grow tired of it, especially if stock market prices continue to decline and the price of oil continues to go up.
I’m not saying the military incursion into Iran is a bad thing. I’m just saying the case for it hasn’t been made and, more importantly, there is no indication of the end game.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., on March 2, 2026. Professor Mintz is an emeritus professor from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. His “Ethics Sage” blog is included in the top 90 blogs on philosophy as ranked by Feedspot. Check out Steve’s activities on his website.
Why Bosses Are Unimpressed with Gen Z College Graduates
I have previously blogged about why Gen Z employees are being fired early in their tenure. It can be summed up in two words: “work ethic.” The younger generation seems to have less of a motivation to be the best they can be.
According to a report in August 2024, Intelligent.com surveyed 966 business leaders involved in hiring decisions at their company to explore attitudes toward hiring recent Gen Z college graduates.
Here’s what they found:
75% of companies report that some or all of the recent college graduates they hired this year were unsatisfactory.
6 in 10 companies fired a recent college graduate they hired this year.
1 in 6 hiring managers say they are hesitant to hire from this cohort.
Hiring managers say recent college grads are unprepared for the workforce, can’t handle the workload, and are unprofessional.
1 in 7 companies may refrain from hiring recent college graduates next year.
9 in 10 hiring managers say recent college graduates should undergo etiquette training.
In 2024, 94% of companies reported hiring recent college graduates. Among these companies, only 25% state that all recent college graduate hires worked out well, while 62% mention that only some were successful. Further, 14% report that only a few or none of the hires were successful.
In another survey, the issue is: Why are bosses so unimpressed with the latest generation to join the workforce? Some employers found that they aren’t prioritizing work. A lack of motivation or initiative was referenced as a problem by 50 percent of the employers surveyed.
Here is the list of reasons for employers being skeptical about the workplace habits of Gen Z.
Poor organizational skills.
Poor communication skills.
Lack of professionalism.
Poor problem-solving skills.
Challenges with feedback.
Lack of relevant work experience.
They have insufficient technical skills.
They’re a bad culture fit.
They’re entitled.
They’re often late to work.
They dress unprofessionally.
They can’t manage the workload.
Roughly 45 percent of bosses say organization is a problem for Gen Z hires, likely because so much of their time is spent on phones—7.2 hours per day.
Even Gen Z workers admit they have a hard time drumming up conversation with coworkers. A full 65 percent of them admit they aren’t great at communication according to a Harris poll.
It’s alarming to me that Gen Z employees are being fired shortly after they start their jobs. I was curious about the reasons, so I dug some more and found the following.
Employer Complaints
Employers complain that young people today lack motivation or initiative—50 percent of the leaders in another survey cited that as the reason why things didn’t work out with their new hire. However, the complaints go much deeper and include the following.
Difficult to manage
Unprofessional
Unorganized
Poor communication skills
Unprepared for the level of work
Lack of networking skills.
Poor time management
Wearing inappropriate clothing to the office
Using inappropriate language in the workplace.
What Can Be Done by Employers
My previous blog covered a lot of ground on this issue. Here are some of the most salient points.
Because Gen Z is set to become the future leaders, firing them is not the answer. It could even set them up as competition. Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of michaelryanmoney.com, called the decision to fire Gen Z-ers a “critical strategic error.”
“The perceived challenges with Gen Z workers, such as communication style differences or misaligned expectations, are not generational flaws,” Ryan told Newsweek. “But rather symptoms of a larger failure in talent management and organizational adaptability. Forward-thinking companies need to view these as opportunities for organizational evolution, rather than grounds for termination.”
To cultivate Gen Z employees, Ryan said companies should invest in their onboarding and mentorship programs and tailor them to Gen Z’s perspective and skills. “Leverage Gen Z’s digital status to drive innovation from the bottom up. Implement reverse mentoring programs and create cross-generational teams to foster knowledge transfer and spark creative problem-solving,” Ryan said.
There is more that employers can do to help employees to respond to the expectations in the workplace, including the following.
Develop a new style of leadership that incorporates the skills employees bring to the workplace.
Adjust employers’ approach to act more as coaches rather than traditional supervisors.
Develop a mentorship program.
Create outreach programs to better support and guide younger workers.
Since Gen Zers now outnumber Baby Boomers in the workplace and are expected to comprise 30 percent of U.S. workers by 2030, employers will need to adapt to them, not the other way around, according to Joy Taylor, the managing director at consulting firm, Alliant. Taylor said, “…this is a huge mistake…mastering intergenerational workflows will be crucial to tackling the most anticipated business challenges in 2025, from succession planning to culture realignment.”
Work-Life Balance vs. Work-Life Harmony
Taylor went on to say, “By resisting this workforce change, too many Gen X or Baby Boomer leaders are failing to set their organizations up for long-term success and resiliency, as well as missing out on the opportunity to harness this new generation’s potential. We know Gen Z workers in general have a unique perspective on life and often view their personal activities and goals above those of their employers. While this certainly isn’t a bad thing, if it bleeds too much into your workspace, it can dramatically affect performance and lead to those employees being shown the door.”
Research has consistently shown that a healthy “work-life balance” is vital for maintaining job satisfaction and avoiding burnout. However, a new study suggests that the idea of “work-life balance” itself may be a problem. The standard concept of work-life balance is often seen as a zero-sum game, where work and life are completely separate domains that are constantly competing for time, motivation and energy.
In contrast, the concept of “work-life harmony” visualizes work and life roles as being interconnected and dependent on each other, rather than separate and in competition.
Conclusion
The real issue may not be Gen Z’s readiness but a broken system that’s failing to prepare and guide them. However, until employers rethink how they onboard, train, and communicate with new hires, high turnover rates among young workers are likely to continue.
“It’s easy to fall into the trap of stereotyping or writing off younger workers too quickly,” says Huy Nguyen. Structured onboarding, clear communication about workplace expectations, and mentorship can make a dramatic difference in setting Gen Z up for success — not just survival — in their first jobs.”
Finally, Gen Z are deeply involved in purpose-driven causes. Employers should do what they can to engage them in these issues. It will increase the likelihood that they start to shine in other areas of workplace performance.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on February 26, 2065. Find out more about Steve’s activities at: www.stevenmintzethics.com.
Self-Promotion is “Not a Good Look”
President Trump seems to be bound and determined to make America in his image. He is trying to name as many things as possible after himself that it sometimes looks like his real goal is to change the name of the country. Listed below are those things that have already been renamed and others that are pending.
Dulles Airport and Penn Station
Currently pending is the renaming of Washington Dulles Airport and New York Penn Station. According to a story on Axios, House Democrats reacted with swift fury last Thursday over reports that President Trump floated renaming Dulles Airport and Penn Station after himself in exchange for unfreezing $16 billion in funds for the Gateway Development Project.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), whose New York City district would also be affected by the project, said in a statement to Axios, “Trump is pathologically petty and cannot be trusted to keep his word. “There is no point in yielding to his ever-changing ransom demands,” he added.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), who partially represents Dulles, said in a statement to Axios: “Instead of lowering costs, President Trump is holding critical infrastructure funding hostage for more vanity projects.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents Penn Station and the New York side of the Gateway project, said in a post on X that Trump is “once again attempting to extend his extortion racket.”
Peace Through Bullying?
In addition to renaming the Kennedy Center, which requires an act of Congress, the U.S. Institute of Peace was rebranded as the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. Ironically, the statement from the White House accompanying the change in name of the Institute is that the renaming is meant to honor the president’s work during his second term. Does Trump realized he bombed Iran, absconded with the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro (talk about regime change), and bombed or seized ships on the open water?
Recently, the US military boarded an oil tanker after tracking it for thousands of miles from the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean, according to the Department of Defense. US officials said the ship -named Aquila II – was operating in defiance of a US “quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean”. “It ran, and we followed”, the department said on social media, adding that “by land, air, or sea, our Armed Forces will find you and deliver justice”.
Forces boarded and inspected the ship, officials said. At least seven oil tankers have been seized by the US since last year, as the Trump administration moves to control the supply of Venezuelan oil, the country’s main economic resource.
National Park Passes
The Interior Department last November unveiled the 2026 America the Beautiful National Park passes, which features side-by-side images of George Washington and Trump to commemorate America’s 250th anniversary. The use of an image of Trump on the 2026 pass — rather than the usual picture of nature — has sparked a backlash, sticker protests, and a lawsuit from a conservation group. The $80 annual America the Beautiful pass gives visitors access to more than 2,000 federal recreation sites. Since 2004, the pass has typically showcased sweeping landscapes or iconic wildlife, selected through a public photo contest. Past winners have featured places like Arches National Park in Utah and images of bison roaming the plains.
Photos circulating online show that many national park cardholders have covered the image of Trump’s face with stickers of wildlife, landscapes, and yellow smiley faces, while some have completely blocked out the whole card. The backlash has also inspired a growing sticker campaign.
Jenny McCarty, a longtime park volunteer and graphic designer, began selling custom stickers meant to fit directly over Trump’s face — with 100% of proceeds going to conservation nonprofits. “We made our first donation of $16,000 in December,” McCarty said. “The power of community is incredible.”
McCarty says the sticker movement is less about politics and more about preserving the neutrality of public lands. “The Interior’s new guidance only shows they continue to disregard how strongly people feel about keeping politics out of national parks,” she said.
Financial Transactions
Why not sell your name, Mr. President?
The administration is starting to process applications from parents with children born between 2025 and 2028 to receive $1,000 from the Treasury Department to deposit into “Trump accounts.” The idea is to pull more Americans into the stock market and promote the idea of attainable wealth for lower-income Americans—while also allowing him to promote the initiative as a personal achievement. The administration says that the tax-advantaged savings and investment accounts are intended to create “trust funds” for every eligible American child.
This is ill-advised as best. How can Trump even consider it given that recent forecasts of US debt are that it will hit $64 trillion, with a “t”, in a decade as Trump’s policies widen the deficit.
The Treasury Department has made plans for a $1 coin bearing Trump’s likeness for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Critics have questioned whether existing laws permit currency featuring living presidents, but the U.S. Mint proceeded with the designs anyway.
Trump Military Equipment
Last December, Trump announced plans for a new class of U.S. Navy warships named “Trump-class” battleships. Described as large, heavily armed vessels, they are intended to be the “most lethal surface combatant ever constructed”. These plans, which included personal involvement in the design, have faced criticism regarding the military utility of battleships. The announcement followed the unveiling early last year of a new fighter, designated the F-47 (Trump is the 47th president).
So much for the peace president!
There is more. While there is no official name for the East Wing White House ballroom Trump is building, ABC reported in October that ingratiating staffers have taken to calling it “the President Donald J. Trump Ballroom.”
Then there’s the proposed Arc de Trump, later rebranded as the “Independence Arch,” a massive 250-foot-tall memorial that would be sandwiched in a grassy circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.
What Does AI Say?
Sometimes, AI gets it right. I Googled: What Do You Call Someone Who Wants Buildings Named After Them. Here’s what it said, and its is right on point:
“A person who desires to have tangible things, such as buildings or institutions, named after themselves is often demonstrating traits related to materialism, specifically within the concept of the material self (as defined by William James, where possessions/named objects are seen as extensions of identity). This behavior is frequently driven by a need for social status, legacy-building, or self-enhancement, often linked to narcissism or a desire to combat insecurities through external validation.
Key psychological concepts associated with this behavior include:
Material Self: The idea that a person’s identity is defined by the physical things they own or that are associated with them, including things named after them.
Narcissism/Egotism: An inflated sense of self-importance and a craving for admiration, often leading to a desire to mark the world with one’s name.
Legacy-Building/Symbolic Immortality: A desire to achieve a form of permanence or immortality by having one’s name attached to enduring physical structures.
Implicit Egotism: A tendency to gravitate toward things that resemble oneself, which can extend to wanting the environment to reflect one’s name.
In summary, this behavior is best described as a form of narcissistic material self-extension or a quest for symbolic legacy, driven by a deep-seated need to validate one’s importance.”
I couldn’t have summarized it any better. The sad part of all of this renaming is once the Democrats get back into office, most, if not all, of the renamed buildings will revert back to their original names, I believe. What a waste of time and money!
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., professor Emeritus at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Check out Steve’s activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/, Read his blogs at: https://ethicssage.com/ and https://workplaceethicsadvice.com/.
Understanding the Causes of and Treatments for Compulsive Buying Disorder
Do you find yourself battling uncontrollable urges? We tend to think of things like excessive drinking, smoking, eating, gambling, using drugs, and the like. Well, I do not suffer from urges in these habits. Instead, I’m what you would call a Shopaholic, which is usually applied with humor. It dates back to the 1940s, when it emerged as a combination of shop and -aholic. The word shop comes from the Old English term sceoppa (“stall, booth”) and is related to the Middle Dutch schoppe (“stall”). The combining form -aholic is based on alcoholic and denotes “a person who has an addiction to or obsession with some object or activity.”
Excessive buying of clothes, often referred to as compulsive buying disorder (CBD), oniomania, or shopping addiction, is characterized by a repetitive, irresistible, and uncontrollable urge to purchase garments and accessories, despite negative personal, social, or financial consequences. It is a behavioral addiction that focuses more on the act of purchasing to manage emotions rather than the utility of the clothing itself.
According to the self-help online resource, Very Well Mind, “Excessive buying of clothes, often referred to as compulsive buying disorder (CBD), oniomania, or shopping addiction, is characterized by a repetitive, irresistible, and uncontrollable urge to purchase garments and accessories, despite negative personal, social, or financial consequences. It is a behavioral addiction that focuses more on the act of purchasing to manage emotions rather than the utility of the clothing itself.”
Does Shopaholic-ism Belong in the DSM?
“The fact that compulsive shopping is not listed in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM-5), makes the condition difficult to diagnose.
Proposed diagnostic criteria for this condition include:
Intrusive thoughts and urges for shopping and buying
Loss of control over shopping/buying
Excessive purchasing without intending to use items
Buying things to regulate internal states
Negative consequences caused by excessive shopping/buying
Emotional symptoms when buying/spending is stopped
Being unable to stop buying/spending behaviors despite negative consequences
My Story
For some reason, the past year or so of my life has been filled with the buying of new clothes, regardless of whether I need it. I suppose it’s partly the thrill of clicking on an item, selecting which to choose, entering shipping and credit card information, and clicking “buy.” Perhaps it provides a sense of power. I can get whatever I want just with a click of the mouse. The happiness I feel gets stronger when I open the package and see my purchase in real time.
It really doesn’t matter that I have no need for the item I am buying. It’s the thrill of the purchase that is most important. For me, and probably a lot of folks who read my blogs, it’s these annoying pop-up ads that stoke the flames of incessant buying. I haven’t learned yet to turn my attention away from them and do something else to take my mind off what I have just seen.
I took an inventory of clothing that I have purchased in 2025. It comes to 20 pairs of jeans, 15 pullover shirs, 15 Henley shirts, 13 sweaters, 30 tee shirts…well, you get the idea. I’m always on the look out for a new style. Awhile back, I saw mock turtle-neck shirts and sweaters. I really liked the fact that it went further up my neck than a regular tee shirt, and that they are available in short sleeve and long sleeve. Now, all that has to happen is for the manufacturers to figure out how to make the collar stay up so that it doesn’t lose its form and fold over on my neck.
What Can We Do?
I was somewhat surprised that Owen Kelly, Ph.D., who wrote the “DEADS” Technique (SMART Recovery) article, says that: “to be considered compulsive buying disorder, the compulsive shopping behaviors must not be associated with another mental health condition, such as periods of hypomania or mania with bipolar disorder.” I never thought of it in that way. It seems to say that if I suffer from these mental health problems, then I can’t have hypomania, mania or bipolar disease. Otherwise, those diseases would be the underlying cause of shopaholic behavior. It’s something to think about—at least for me.
Here is some of the advice that I found online. I hope it is helpful for you.
“Many people who compulsively shop do so as a coping mechanism to mask difficult emotions like stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem. But shopping only provides temporary relief from their struggles. Their inability to control their shopping eventually commonly leaves them with an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame.”
Controlling urges is best achieved by not fighting them directly, but rather by accepting their presence while refusing to act on them, a technique known as urge surfing. Urges are often intense but temporary—rarely lasting longer than 30 minutes if not “fed” by rumination or attention.
Effective, evidence-based methods to manage and control urges include:
The “DEADS” Technique (SMART Recovery)
Delay: Put off reacting or giving in for 5-10 minutes. The intense emotion often fades.
Escape: Remove yourself from the situation, location, or environment that triggers the urge.
Avoid: Steer clear of people, places, or situations that you know trigger your urges.
Distract: Focus your attention on something else entirely—a hobby, work, or physical movement.
Substitute: Replace the unhealthy habit with a healthy, or at least neutral, action (e.g., eating a piece of fruit instead of smoking).
Mindful “Urge Surfing”
Instead of suppressing a thought, which often increases it, try to “surf” the urge.
Acknowledge and Accept: Recognize the urge as a temporary, physical sensation (e.g., chest tightness, craving) rather than a command to act.
Visualize the Wave: Picture the urge as a wave that rises, peaks, and eventually subsides. Ride the wave by focusing on your breath rather than the craving.
Grounding: Use your five senses to ground yourself in the present moment, such as describing your surroundings or playing a memory game.
Cognitive Behavioral Techniques (CBT)
Relabel: Label the urge for what it is—a “dysfunctional thought” or a “false message” from your brain, rather than an urgent, necessary need.
Reattribute: Recognize that the urge is just a result of brain conditioning, not a reflection of what you actually need.
Refocus: Actively engage in a pleasurable, healthy activity to create new, positive neural pathways.
Behavioral & Lifestyle Changes
Identify Triggers: Keep a journal to track when and why urges occur (e.g., stress, boredom, specific settings).
Reduce Vulnerability: Manage your environment to minimize temptation (e.g., not buying trigger foods) and ensure you are rested, eating well, and exercising to reduce emotional fragility.
Seek Support: Utilize accountability partners, support groups, or therapy to help maintain commitment.
When to Seek Professional Help
If urges are frequent, uncontrollable, or dangerous, they may be linked to underlying conditions like ADHD, PTSD, or Borderline Personality Disorder. Professional help, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), or medication, can provide tailored strategies.”
Conclusion
There is so much more to say about the excessive urges many of us feel. I hope this blog helps someone in some way. If you would like me to write more blogs on the topic, send me an email at: profdocsteve@gmail.com.
Blog posted on February 10, 2026 by Steven Mintz. Ph.D., professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Check out Steve’s website at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/. Read Steve’s “Ethics Sage” blog at: https://ethicssage.com/ and “Workplace Ethics Advice at: https://workplaceethicsadvice.com/.
The intent of this award is to recognize new pedagogy for teaching ethics to accounting students. A monetary award of $1,000 and a plaque will be presented at the annual Ethics Symposium to an individual (or individuals) who has developed and implemented an innovative technique/method for incorporating ethics into undergraduate or graduate accounting courses. Typically, the award would go to an ethics educator who has made significant contributions through the application of new ways to teach ethics to accounting students and is still active, or to encourage relatively new accounting educators who have done the same.
AWARD CRITERIAExamples of innovative techniques/methods include, but are not limited to:
Developing a case, video, audio, or other teaching techniques that can be used to integrate ethics into the accounting curriculum.
Developing a new course in accounting ethics including learning objectives and assessment techniques.
Application of technology to teach ethics to accounting students including digital learning tools, or
Application of E-Learning activities to enhance interaction with students in the classroom on ethics issues and the benefits therefrom.
Applicants should explain how they shared their pedagogical innovation with the public, which may include one or more of the following:
Presentation at a seminar, workshop, or other form of public appearance.
Publication (or acceptance for publication) in a refereed journal, or
Other form of communication.
Electronic submissions only should include the following items (as applicable):
Identification and description of the course, seminar, or workshop in which the innovation is (was) used.
Submission of the case, video, audio, or other innovation, along with teaching notes.
Copies of instructional materials used in E-Learning activities.
Detailed explanation of how digital learning tools support teaching and learning.
Assessment results on the new pedagogy (i.e., efficacy survey, student performance, improvement in student performance), or
Copy of the refereed journal article that was published or accepted for publication along with the official notification from the editor of the journal indicating acceptance.
In addition, all applicants should submit:
A 500-word statement describing the contribution to accounting ethics education and
Two letters of recommendation from educators in support of the nominee for the award and elaborate on the contribution of the technique to accounting ethics education.
Individuals who have applied before can reapply by updating the information for the award.
THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT MATERIALS IS MARCH 1, 2026. MATERIALS SHOULD BE SENT TO STEVE MINTZ AT: smintz@calpoly.edu.
Federal Loan Limits for Students Studying Accounting Will Be Reduced as of July 1, 2026
Perhaps you heard that the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) plans to reclassify accounting degrees as ‘non-professional.’ What’s the big deal, you might ask? Well, if you have a son or daughter who chooses to study accounting and enter what heretofore was considered a profession, your kids annual federal loan limits will be reduced. If the DOE proposal is finalized it will affect how much federal aid students are able to receive. Students in the 11-degree fields[1] designated as ‘professional’ will be able to borrow up to $50,000 a year and no more than $200,000 in total. For students in other programs, federal loans will be capped at $20,500 per year and a total of $100,000. These will be new limits for federal student loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2026. The changes are part of the new Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) within President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
Undergraduate borrowers will have the same current limit of up to $7,500 a year for dependent students, depending on their class year. Master’s and doctorates in accounting are no longer designated as “professional” degrees. Graduate PLUS loans, which previously allowed students to borrow up to their total cost of attendance, will be eliminated.
What Constitutes a Profession?
The debate about what constitutes a profession is significant because it directly affects financial aid eligibility and professional recognition for millions of workers in the U.S. The DOE justifies the reclassification as a way to simplify the complex student loan system and get a better handle on the rapidly increasing student debt.
Traditionally, a profession has been designated as such because it has rigorous educational standards, highly specialized professionals with a high level of expertise, they abide by a strict code of conduct (i.e., state board regulations; the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct); specialized standards of practice (i.e., Statements on Standards for Tax Practice); and mandatory continuing education to maintain licensure, such as the CPA. Moreover, there is a public interest dimension and public trust in the work done by licensed CPAs.
Accounting has been recognized as a profession for many years, alongside medicine and the law. The main reason is its public interest dimension and challenging licensing exam. This raises the following question: What, if anything, has happened to convince the government that the professional designation should no longer be applied? The streamlining of the government and controlling expenditures are the underlying reasons for the proposed change in student loans.
The DOE for its part rationalizes the change in designation by emphasizing that their definition of a “professional degree” is an internal classification for loan limit purposes only, not a value judgment on the importance of accounting and the inherent professionalism of the field. The DOE contends that the new loan caps are intended to curb inflated tuition amounts, arguing that the previous system, which allowed borrowing for the full cost of attendance, contributed to rising educational costs.Position of NASBA and the AICPA
Not surprising, the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) and the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) are against the new designation because it could weaken public perception of accounting as a learned profession. Writing for www.cfo.brew.com, Courney Vien points out that these organizations, along with the American Accounting Association (AAA), have all released formal statements in opposition to the decision. Both the AICPA and AAA have requested that the DOE reconsider classifying accounting degrees as professional, and NASBA recommended that it “will engage policymakers to ensure accounting is restored to the professional degree category.” In a video posted to LinkedIn, AICPA president and CEO Mark Koziel stated: “Accounting is absolutely a profession. It’s built on trust, integrity, and rigorous standards” and requires a “lifelong commitment to an ethical practice and continuing education,” concluding that “these are hallmarks of a true profession.”
Why Now?
One could say that the reason for the proposed change in designation is part of the effort to streamline government costs. This is, no doubt, part of the story. The position of accounting educators is well stated by Mark Beasley, president of the AAA, noting that the DOE’s decision could “make it more difficult financially” for students to earn advanced degrees. According to U.S. News and World Report, tuition for a master’s in accounting typically ranges from about $25,000 to $70,000. In some schools it exceeds the federal loan cap the DOE proposed.
Beasley rightly points out that the proposal could be harmful to accounting education on a broader scale. If it lowers the demand for graduate education, programs might get smaller, he said. He also points out that master’s degree completions in accounting have already dropped 38% between 2017-2018 and 2023-2024, AICPA data shows. Beasley notes that fewer students will pursue master’s degrees in the future, given that candidates no longer need to complete 150 credit hours of coursework, or 30 more hours than are necessary for a bachelor’s degree, to be a licensed CPA. He sums it up quite nicely by saying the DOE’s ruling “work[s] against the public interest and may discourage people from pursuing the kinds of training and education and knowledge development to really be good at making professional judgments that are critical for the capital market system to be reliable here in the US.”
It is ironic that some accounting educators argue against the change in ‘professional’ designation because it could reduce the educational coursework to be a successful CPA thereby negatively affecting the public trust, while, at the same time, supporting the new experience-based pathway for licensing on the other hand because it may be the answer to the pipeline problem whereby the number of students studying accounting and seeking licensure as a CPA has declined over many years presumably because of the 30-extra credit hours. In other words, the extra 30 hours that heretofore have been required for licensure is now just one of three options, or pathways, to be a CPA. In all likelihood, accounting students will choose another pathway such as an extra year of experience in lieu of the 30 hours. Perhaps this is an example of having your cake and eating it too. More will be said about this in my Workplace Ethics Advice blog on January 28, 2026.
I am left wondering whether the DOE saw the changing landscape and concluded that maybe accounting was not a profession, with the likes of medicine and the law that have rigorous educational requirements for licensing. Perhaps they are right. It seems that increasingly accounting has become a business/industry with new forms of ownership and financing that are akin to the business world, such as privity equity ownership and ownership of the firms in the hands of non-CPAs.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA. You can learn more about Steve’s activities on his personal website and sign up for his blogs: www.ethicssage.com and www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.
[1] Pharmacy, Dentistry doctorate, Veterinary medicine, Chiropractic, Law, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathic medicine, Podiatry, Theology, Clinical psychology.
Beware of Rationalizations for Unethical Behavior
Why Do Good People Sometimes do bad things, in general? In the past, I have blogged about this issue. I have 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, community involvement, and/or business practices.
What Does Morality Require of Us?
How is it that people do things that are inconsistent with their own moral standards and values?
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 a similar situation. This is the essence of Kantian rights.
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 are accountable for their actions, accept responsibility for their behavior, and always consider the consequences of their actions and strive to learn from their mistakes and improve their behavior throughout their lifetime.
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, or those they work with, to deviate from ethical behavior. This happens in business all the time.
The Greater Good
Sometimes, good people take actions they believe are for the ‘greater good,’ not understanding the harmful consequences. “We find ways to justify it, rationalize it, minimize it, frame it in a way that we can still feel OK about ourselves,” according to Lorne Michael Hartman of York University’s Schulich School of Business.
“The ends justify 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 their actions and 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.”
Bending the Rules at Work
Good people bend rules at work due to pressure for results, desire to help colleagues/company (even if unethical), seeing others do it (normalization), outdated rules, or feeling unfairly treated, justifying actions through rationalizations like “ends justify the means” or minimizing harm to maintain self-image while serving perceived organizational or personal needs, according to the Psychology of Compliance and research from The Conversation.
The Role of Organizational Culture
According to Hartman, “If you put an ethical, moral person into an unethical, dysfunctional culture and environment… the culture will win out almost every time.”
And even for those people who resist or report, such as whistleblowers, they may suffer the consequences, says Hartman, citing cases such as Boeing where those who spoke up about defective parts/systems faced firing and informal blacklisting.
“If an unethical salesperson wins sales awards by tricking customers, other employees will quickly learn what the organization really values,” says Lance Ferris from the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa, regardless of what is written in the company’s values statement. This occurred at Wells Fargo where some staff opened accounts customers didn’t ask for to enhance their sales record.
What Drives Unethical Behavior in the Workplace?
While we often assume unethical behavior is driven by personal greed, high-profile corporate scandals tell a different story. In cases like the Boeing 737 Max crashes, Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, Wells Fargo bogus accounts, and so many other fraudulent activities in business, news coverage suggest employees were motivated by a sense of obligation, loyalty or pressure to advance company goals, not by personal gain.
What’s striking is not just the number of people who participated, but how many recognized wrongdoing and remained silent. This pattern highlights a deeper problem: ethical failures rarely result from deliberate malice.
They emerge when ordinary people talk themselves into crossing lines they would normally respect. Understanding how that happens is essential if leaders want to create workplaces where employees don’t just know the right thing to do, but actually act on it, according to Hartman.
Rationalization for Unethical Action at Work
When employees face unrealistic goals, aggressive norms or leaders who silence dissent, the space for ethical reflection becomes increasingly narrow. Rationalization fills the gap, allowing people to maintain a sense of integrity even as their decisions drift further from their values.
Hartman identifies 7 ways to resist rationalization at work:
Normalizing ethical dialogue.Ethical dilemmas often arise in grey areas, where there is no clear right or wrong answer. Leaders should encourage open discussions about ambiguous situations before they escalate into problems.
Rewarding the process, not only the result.When outcomes are all that matter, employees are more likely to cut corners or bend rules to achieve targets. By recognizing the work process, organizations reinforce the importance of integrity alongside performance.
Modelling moral humility.Leaders set the tone for acceptable behavior. When they admit mistakes, they signal ethics is about vigilance, not moral perfection.
Building in “ethical speed bumps.”People are more likely to rationalize decisions under pressure. Interventions like checklists, second reviews or pausing to slow down can give employees the time to consider whether their actions align with ethical standards.
Creating psychological safety.Employees must feel confident that raising concerns or questioning decisions won’t lead to fear of reprisal or harm to their careers. Creating psychologically safe workplaces reduces the likelihood of ethical lapses.
Aligning incentives with values.When incentives focus only on short-term results or profit, employees are more likely to justify harmful shortcuts. Performance metrics should emphasize collaboration, accountability, feedback and conflict resolution.
Supporting well-being and work-life balance.Stress and burnout make people more prone to self-justification. Policies that support well-being indirectly foster ethical workplace behavior.
These approaches reflect growing evidence that behavior change requires more than information. It requires habit formation, cultural reinforcement and aligned systems.
Doing Good by Being Good
“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 those committed by 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.
Blog posted on January 21, 2026, by Steven Mintz, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Find out more about Steve’s activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/. Sign up for his blogs at: https://www.ethicssage.com and https://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com.
Catch Me if You Can
To say that President Trump cuts corners when ethics is involved in decision making is like saying Boeing skipped necessary steps and procedures to ensure their planes were safe. Obviously, Boeing skipped important steps and that’s why there were two crashes of 737 MAX planes with the death toll of 346 in 2018 and 2019. Now, many of Trump’s decisions can be challenged from an ethical point of view, but, hopefully, no one will die as a result.
Last week I blogged about some of the activities Trump has engaged in during his first year in office. For the most part, these are conflicts of interest where Trump or his family can benefit from some arrangement with a foreign country and/or wealthy individual. For example, Trump held a gala dinner for the biggest buyers of a Trump-branded niche-cryptocurrency: meme coins. The highest bidder was billionaire Justin Sun, who bought more than $40 million of $Trump coins. Sun is a businessman and former Permanent Representative of Grenada to the World Trade Organization. The ethical problem here is Trump is using his office to encourage Sun to make the investment, that is, what’s in it for Sun?
Trump Media & Technology GroupTrump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Truth Social, announced on December 18, 2025, that it will merge with TAE Technologies, a privately held nuclear fusion developer, in an all-stock transaction valued at more than $6 billion. TAE is a company at the leading edge of fusion energy. The deal will create one of the first publicly traded fusion companies in the U.S. and marks President Trump’s entry into the highly regulated nuclear energy sector.
Here’s the problem as I see it. Trump Media & Technology Group (DJT) is regulated by the federal government, as are all nuclear fusion companies. Trump will simultaneously have a major financial interest in a company whose fortunes will be influenced by the actions of the government, over which he presides. The company may need the government’s deep research and funding to become commercially viable. This creates a conflict of interest, the size of which could become massive. Moreover, the merger needs to be approved by federal regulators – some of whom were nominated by Trump.
“There is a clear conflict of interest here,” said Richard Painter, the top ethics official under former President George W. Bush. “Every other president since the Civil War has divested from business interests that would conflict with official duties.” It seems that Trump is doing the opposite.
How can Trump not see the obvious conflict of interest. At a minimum there is the appearance that he may influence decisions affecting nuclear fusion. I believe Trump is acting differently in his second term. In his first term, he was more careful and didn’t exploit these kinds of arrangements – at least to the extent he is doing in his second term. My guess is he realizes he can’t run again so there’s nothing to stop him from maximizing the monetary gains he can get by entering in ill-thought-out-arrangements with other individuals/companies. It won’t affect his re-election because, regardless of what he may think, he can’t run again.
Trump MobileTrump Mobile, the phone company launched by President Trump’s family business, pushed back plans to deliver a $499 (£371) gold-colored smartphone by December 31, 2025. Customers are required to pay $100 to pre-order the device. Trump’s family business licensed its name to launch a U.S. mobile service and a $499 smartphone, the T1, in June, branding it Trump Mobile. The venture is the latest effort by the president’s children to monetize the Trump name. The phone venture is headed by Trump’s sons Donald Jr. and Eric, who took over the family company after their father transitioned to his second presidency.
Cryptocurrency and AI
The Trump family has made significant investments in cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure through a new company, American Data Centers Inc. Trump Media has also raised $2.5 billion to invest in Bitcoin and plans to award shareholders digital tokens and, as you have probably guessed by now, it will be engraved with $TRUMP.
Other Products with Trump’s Name/Endorsement
Here are some of the other consumer products that will carry his name and related royalties. He has launched new licensing deals, earning millions in royalties from various branded consumer goods.
Apparel and Accessories. This includes sales of the “Never Surrender High-Top” sneakers, “45”guitars, and Trump watches.
Media and Merchandise. Trump earns income from selling “God Bless The USA” Bibles, fragrances, and Trump collectible NFTs (non-fungible tokens).
Other Real Estate and International Ventures
The Trump organization, now managed by his sons Donald, Jr. and Eric, continue to focus on real estate development and branding globally.
Middle East Deals. Deals have been made with the Saudi-owned real estate developer Dar Global. Projects include the announcement of a Trump hotel in Dubai, a Trump golf resort in Qatar, and a Trump Plaza in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. These deals have led to billions in investment commitments in the U.S. from Saudi entities.
Domestic Properties. The Trump Organization maintains ownership of various hotels, golf clubs, and residential properties across the U.S., which are used for political events and stays.
Government and Trade Deals. Trump’s current business deals involve a range of domestic and international ventures, primarily in real estate licensing, technology, and consumer products, managed by the Trump Organization and his social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). He has earned significant income from these deals, although charges of conflict of interest persist.
There are other deals that Trump does that smack of using his office for personal gain or gain for his businesses. I’ll address this in my next blog.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, on January 13, 2026. Steve is a Professor Emeritus, from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He is a recipient of the Accounting Exemplar Award from the Public Interest, Ethics and Sustainability Section of the American Accounting Association.
What’s the End Game?
Most of Americans thought President Donald Trump was an isolationist when he ran for President in 2016. It was one reason he got elected. Americans were tired of endless wars, including incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who could forget the site of our troops leaving that country under President Biden’s orders, and Afghani’s trying to leave the country with the troops.
Last week I blogged about how Trump’s actions benefitted his family and hurt the U.S. In this blog I focus on actions that affect international relations.
Fast forward to Trump’s second term and the opposite of isolationist true. It almost seems like Trump wants America to control a handful of countries that he has issued threats or taken action against, including—Canada. Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran, Mexico, and now Venezuela.
Venezuela
Venezuela is different because military action has led to the removal of President Maduro from his Presidency in Venezuela. No one really knows where this is going. It seems clear Trump wants to control the oil industry in Venezuela one way or another.
I don’t support Trump’s action in Venezuela because it seems to interfere in the actions of a sovereign nation. Also, there was no discussion in the U.S. about this move and Congress did not have an opportunity to weigh in.
In writing this blog, I sought to learn why Trump did what he did in Venezuela. Has he gone completely going off the rails? At first, I thought so, and still do. However, to be fair and inform my readers of both sides of the story I discuss below the genesis for his actions.
On December 31, 2025, it was reported that Venezuelan security forces had detained several Americans in the months since the Trump administration began a military and economic pressure campaign against the government of Venezuela. Some of the detainees face legitimate criminal charges, while the U.S. government was considering designating at least two prisoners as wrongfully detained. Those arrested included three Venezuelan-American passport holders and two American citizens with no known ties to the country.
President Maduro has done this before as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the U.S. President Trump has made the release of Americans held overseas a priority. He negotiated the release of 17 American citizens but suspended further talks, choosing instead to apply military and economic pressure against Maduro. The number of detained Americans began to rise in the fall, with the deployment of a U.S, naval armada in the Caribbean and the start of airstrikes against boats that Trump officials said transported drugs into the U.S.
The U.S. increased its economic pressure against Colombia in December. Targeting tankers carrying Venezuelan oil and stifling the country’s biggest source of exports. The action also threatened the oil supply to countries such as Cuba, China, and Russia.
There have been other interventionist actions and attempts to intimidate leaders of other countries. Here are just a few.
Canada. This has been the biggest loss for Trump. Trump demanded that Canada restrict its exports of critical materials—aluminum, steel, and rare minerals—to other nations unless American companies were given preferential access at below-market prices. Trump wanted Canada to subsidize American industry by selling its own resources at a loss. Canada rejected these attempts by Trump to establish his own “most favored nation” for the U.S. as a trading partner of Canada, a country that Trump wanted to become the 51st state in the U.S. Canada wasn’t going for it and stood up to the bully. Canada withdrew from voluntary coordination protocols between custom officials on both sides to keep the goods flowing without paperwork delays.
Colombia. The U.S. military has conducted airstrikes in the Caribbean and Pacific targeting vessels allegedly used by drug traffickers linked to groups like Colombia’s ELN, with some debris washing ashore in that country. These operations, part of “operation Southern Spear,” were framed as anti-drug efforts, leading the U.S. strikes on alleged narco-subs and vessels.
Greenland. Canada was feeling its oats and saw an opening in the attempt by the U.S. to buy Greenland and make it the 51st state. Trump treated it like a real estate deal, attempting to buy it as if it was a distressed hotel asset. Needless to say, Greenland wasn’t going for it. Canada saw an opening so it announced the opening of a new consulate in Nuuk, the capital city with a population of 20,000. Greenland rejoiced, stealing the diplomatic initiative without accompanying it with all the bluster of Trump.
Iran. We all remember Trump’s military action, along with Israel, to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. They warned the Iranian leaders they would face renewed military action if it attempted to rebuild, which is exactly what seems to be happening. Recent reports indicate that the country is pursuing chemical and biological warheads for its ballistic missiles. Trump has promised to knock down any effort to rebuild Iran’s nuclear program.
Nigeria. On Christmas Day, December 25, 2025, the U.S. conducted airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS) militants in Nigeria. The action was carried out with the approval of the Nigerian Government, making it more supportable on an international level. The U.S. launched precision strikes using Tomahawk missiles from a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, targeting two major ISIS enclaves in the Bauni forest of Sokoto State. Multiple terrorists were reportedly killed. Trump explained the strikes as being aimed at radical Islamic terrorists and a response to violence and killings targeting Christians in Nigeria.
I could go on but you get the picture. The overriding question is what gives Trump the “right” to engage in these incursions. One could say it is in tune with the “Monroe Doctrine.”
Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine is a U.S. foreign policy, established in 1823 by President James Monroe, that warned European powers against further colonization or interference in the Western Hemisphere, asserting the Americas were closed to new European colonies and any such attempt would be seen as a hostile act. In return, the U.S. pledged to stay out of European conflicts and internal affairs, creating separate spheres of influence and marking an early cornerstone of American foreign policy to establish U.S. dominance in its hemisphere.
Of course, these incursions haven’t happened against European powers. Trump has simply expanded the U.S. reach to the Caribbean and beyond.
President Trump’s actions cross the line between understandable intervention, which could be used to support the strikes against Isis and even Iran, and seeks to have a regime change. This is dangerous, as we should have learned by our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. There needs to be a national dialogue on where these actions are taking us. What is the end game? I fear our leaders don’t know the answer to this question—and that’s scary!
Blog posted on January 6, 2026 by Steven Mintz, Ph.D. Steve is a Professor Emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit his website at: https://www. https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.
Is the Dignity Index the Same as Civility?
Now that I have explained what the Dignity Index is, its purpose and application, and why it matters, it’s time for me to express my own views. I’ve blogged many times before about the lost art of civility in America. One reason is we tend not to think about it as a moral core value; instead, a behavioral characteristic such as kindness, empathy and compassion, which may differ for each individual. I’m not sure we need another tool to evaluate what should be common sense—to act with dignity in communication with others; to treat others respectfully.
I may be wrong—at least in view of the way AI explains the difference.
AI says that the “Dignity Index and civility are related concepts but differ in focus and application.”
Scope and Purpose
I have been fortunate to be so named for many years and am grateful to Feedspot for the recognition. My blogs span ethics in society, whether political ethics, business ethics, ethics at universities, sports ethics, and so much more. If you are not a current reader, please consider checking them out. Also, you can find out more about my activities on my website.
I try to develop social media friendships through my work and that of my readers. Feel free to contact me on matters of concern.
Steve Mintz is a Ph.D. and professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Posted on April 2, 2026. 