Add one pinch of Habermas to taste

From the incredible AutoAdmit case:

Bartow believes the problem lies in technology outstripping the law and our cultural responses.

Um, yes. Unquestionably, especially our cultural responses.

Or, as Jeff Goldblum once argued in Jurassic Park: "We were so busy worrying about whether or not we could, we never stopped to think whether or not we should."

Or, as an instructor of mine once argued in a debate about whether or not cloning was ethical: What we think is ethical or not doesn't matter, as someone, somewhere, is going to do it anyway, and what's important is not our approval or disapproval, but having a coherent, comprehensive response.

I think the latter holds true here.

Habermas, of course, would probably categorize this as a byproduct of the colonization of the lifeworld (if that goes over your head.... don't worry about it).

Oregon School Board Association: This is what it takes to be a good board member

From the OSBA (which is not exactly a horribly progressive group):

A school board member:

* Understands that the board sets the standards for the district through board policy. Board members do not manage the district on a day-to-day basis.
* Understands that the board makes decisions as a team. Individual board members may not commit the board to any action.
* Respects the right of other board members to have opinions and ideas that differ.
* Recognizes that decisions are made by a majority vote and should be supported by all board members.
* Makes decisions only after the facts are presented and discussed.
* Understands the chain of command and refers problems or complaints to the proper administrative office.
* Recognizes that the board must comply with the Public Meetings Law and has authority to make decisions only at official board meetings.
* Insists that all board and district business is ethical and honest.
* Is open, fair and honest -- has no hidden agenda.
* Understands that he or she will receive confidential information that cannot be shared.
* Recognizes that the superintendent is the board’s adviser and should be present at all meetings, except when the board is considering the superintendent’s evaluation, contract or salary.
* Takes action only after hearing the superintendent’s recommendations.
* Refuses to use board membership for personal or family gain or prestige. Announces conflicts of interest before board action is taken.
* Refuses to bring personal or family problems into board considerations.
* Gives the staff the respect and consideration due skilled professional employees.
* Presents personal criticism of district operations to the superintendent, not to district staff or to a board meeting.
* Respects the right of the public to attend and observe board meetings.
* Respects the right of the public to be informed about district decisions and school operations as allowed by law.

I am going to leave the subject of deciding by who and how often these are violated up to someone else. Preferably, everyone will reach their own conclusion. Lord knows I certainly have reached some of my own.

[LCSD] Possible Ethics Violation?

It's nice to be in one's mid-20s. Lots of one's friends are still in school learning interesting things. Look what a conversation I had led to me looking for and finding:

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

In representing a client or the lawyer’s own interests, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by a lawyer on that subject unless:

(a) the lawyer has the prior consent of a lawyer representing such other person;

(b) the lawyer is authorized by law or by court order to do so; or

(c) a written agreement requires a written notice or demand to be sent to such other person, in which case a copy of such notice or demand shall also be sent to such other person’s lawyer.

In other word, a lawyer cannot speak directly to someone who is represented by another lawyer unless one of the exceptions applies; instead, they must speak to the person's lawyer.

That's from the Oregon Code of Professional Conduct. You know, the one that applies to lawyers... like Jay Jackson.

If, as has been alleged, Jackson really sat down and wrote the amendments to the PIE contract with Josh Wineteer, then it sure looks like Jackson violated this part of the code in regards to Paul Dakopolos, the LCSD legal counsel, doesn't it?

Heck, if that's true, then think about all those contacts between Alexander or Wineteer - arguably clients of Paul Dakopolos - and Jackson that occurred without authorization, written permission, prior consent, or a court order.

I am not a lawyer. I don't know that what Jackson did is a violation of anything other than plain ol' ethics. I don't know if this part of the Code applies to organizations like the LCSD or only individuals. But Jackson could be in a world of hurt on this one. In fact, I would not be surprised if the words 'lost' and 'license' were used in the same sentence here soon.

The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct can also be found in PDF form here.

...

It's somehow hard for me to believe that people are willing to do this to each other:

Some Detainees Are Drugged For Deportation

Any comments attempting to justify this practice will be ignored.

Hering, Journalism, and Ethics (Which One Of These Does Not Belong?)

I know the Society for Professional Journalists is not a mandatory organization for journalists to join, but I thought I'd post an excerpt from their Code of Ethics to further illustrate why I tend to get annoyed with DH Editor-in-Chief Hasso Hering. (See this post for a specific reason.)

This is too easy - from the first sentence of the frackin' preamble...

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

Got that? Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.

Advocating the destruction of records runs directly counter to public enlightenment, I would think. Not to mention "providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues."

Next (heck, the section is even called "Seek Truth and Report It"):

— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Nope. Can't say advocating the destruction of public records and "that government records are open to inspection" are anything alike. In fact, they seem run directly counter to each other.

Moving on (from the section entitled "Act Independently"):

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

I don't really know what interests Hering was advocating for when he approved of the destruction of the records, but it certainly wasn't "the public's right to know." (Shades of Civic Journalism!)

Finally, we get to the one section that I think might have provided Hering with his best argument, had he chosen to make one.

From "Minimize Harm":

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

This is where Hering could have made an argument for keeping the records under strict lock and key, since their public release will undoubtedly cause harm to the detainees in the videos (not to mention the CIA and military folks who carried out the alleged acts of torture).

But he didn't. He didn't really make an argument at all, actually; he just sort of asserted the claim, almost like he expected us to believe him because he's Teh Editor, didn't you know?

Certainly Hering wasn't about to make an argument defending the rights and humanity of the victims of torture at the hands of the U.S.

Worse, as it stands, the people who were tortured at the hands of U.S. officials just lost a compelling piece of evidence that would allow them better access to justice - and Hering supported that.

Anyway - the point here is that Hering's editorials show an amazing lack of concern and respect for a sensible code of ethics for journalists.

One can make the argument that an editorial is not the same as a news story, and strictly speaking, that's true. But it doesn't excuse his behavior, especially since the SPJ's Code of Ethics speaks of the actions of a journalist, not the medium they are working in.

I ask again: Can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper? Of course - he is undoubtedly qualified and has years of experience.

Should he be?

No.

Oh, Hasso. Even When You're Right You Manage to be Wrong.

Hering editorializes on President candidate Mitt Romney's recent speech on religion:

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor seeking the Republican presidential nomination, restated an important American principle Thursday.

The principle is that public affairs be governed by notions of the public interest, not by the tenets of any particular religion.

Yay! (Yay?) Romney apparently believes in the separation of church and state. Who would have... wait a minute. Can we get an excerpt of what Romney actually said?

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Oh.

That's a bit different.

In fact, that is, as Pam at Pandagon pointed out, "pious bullsh*t."

I agree with Pam. The implication of Romney's statement - that "freedom requires religion" - seems clear: The only source of morality, or ethics, in the world is religion.. and take in the context of a Republican primary, that's code for Christianity. Sorry, Eastern Hemisphere - you're all immoral.

As someone who a) is not religious and b) has a BA in Philosophy (which includes multiple classes on ethics), I am more than a little annoyed. The statement is simply historically and factually inaccurate, as well as insulting to anyone whose sense of right and wrong comes from anything other than religion. Like me.

How Hering got it wrong - that Romney supposedly believes in the separation of church and state in any meaningful way - is beyond me. (Well, that's not true: He misrepresents the truth all time.) Given Romney's well discussed and maligned statement, I don't see how one can conclude that Romney believes the State has a basis in anything other than religion. After all, what is the state if not the arbiter of official morality?

The Daily Barometer: WTF?

I'm seriously starting to wonder what's going on over there.

First the Barometer has to subcontract the story about Saturday's protest at Reser to a professional reporter - what's that all about?

Second, I just read this thing which I think is supposed to be an editorial... but I'm confused. Even editorials are supposed to be checked before they are published, and this is so incoherent and self-serving I am having trouble believing no one raised any objections as it went through the editing process.

Either that or the Barometer is taking too many clues from Tim Russert.

In any case, it's not pretty:

The Barometer, though it works to facilitate discussion on campus, is not a public forum. The Barometer remains independent of the university and is able to deny publication of any material submitted.

This is the opening line of the editorial. Not only is it wrong*, but starting out with this is a big 'fuck you' to just about everyone: "We'll provide lip service towards serving the community, but you can't make us do anything. Neener neener neener!"

[*While the Barometer does not take student fee dollars, it does receive plenty of financial compensation from the university in the form of free rent and utilities and the salaries of at least three professional faculty members, including Frank Ragulsky, the Director of Student Media and the primary Barometer staff adviser.]

Next, the editorial mischaracterizes the debate:

There are two sides of this debate. There are community members who have been offended by the Barometer's coverage of the "Blackout Reser" event and there are community members who are offended that their school spirit has been called into question.

I have an aversion to claiming there are two sides to an issue. There are almost always more, and I really don't like seeing the Barometer reinforce the she said/he said model of journalism, where every conflict is placed into a neat, preexisting narrative that never has more than two sides and is almost always unrealistic.

But more importantly, I'm not sure anyone is calling anyone's 'school spirit' into question. More like we are calling into question folks' refusal to listen to and learn from people of color, or to take seriously any claim that might require either introspection or a change in behavior.

Furthermore, I'm not sure "coverage" is the right word - it's more like the lack thereof combined with a set of responses from the editorial staff that seem transparently self-serving.

Material submitted by those not affiliated with the Barometer must be less than 300 words, submitted as a letter to the editor and deemed fit for publication.

Uh, unless this is a previously unannounced change in policy, the Barometer has previously run op-eds that are well over 300 words in length by students, staff and faculty alike. Either this is new or a lie - and I'd like to know which.

Some consistency here would be nice - I have long had the sense that the Barometer wants to have their cake and eat it too by claiming independence from the university community while still claiming to be the source of campus news. Frankly, it's not possible to do both - either the Barometer is a member of the campus community, meaning that it genuinely responds to community concerns, or it's not**, in which case it should stop claiming such status.

We are doing our best to continue the discussion respectfully.

Because opening an online forum in which all comments are a priori approved is the height of taking responsibility for creating a respectful space. From what I've seen, there's no communication going on there whatsoever, just extended rants that don't address each other. I believe it would be possible to create a moderated forum in which respectful, constructive discussion could take place. The Barometer has not done that.

If you, as a member of the community that we cover, feel offended or hurt by any material in The Daily Barometer, we urge you to first contact us.

We cannot represent students unless they first represent themselves to us. As of yet, we have not been asked to respond.

I don't want to discount the possibility that this will work, but I am highly skeptical. Perhaps it's because every time something like this happens, the Barometer asks people to come to the mountain, rather than actually reach out and make an effort to listen - and when people do attempt to reach the Barometer staff, they find it closed off, cliquish and unwilling to really listen (I am speaking from both personal and second-hand experience). It smacks of a sense of privilege about their place in the community, privilege that I think is increasingly assumed and not earned.

And of course there is the obligatory plug, the one that accentuates just how much the Barometer wants to be independent of any responsibility to the community and yet have the community rely on them:

As students, as student editors and those who continue to strive toward the goals of being a well-read, relevant publication, we hope that you would come to us first.

**If the Barometer is not a member of the campus community, if it is not the campus paper, then it should be truly independent of the university, which means it needs to handle its own accounting (which is currently done someone who is paid at least partly by student fee money), it needs to pay rent for use of the on-campus space, it needs to pay its own utilities, and it needs to pay the salaries of its advisers if it wants to keep them. The Daily Emerald down at the University of Oregon does all those things and is, therefore, truly independent of the university. The Barometer is not, and should not be allowed to claim that status.

I've been waiting for years for that conversation to happen.

***Final note: Another way to look at this is that the staff really has no idea of how the public views the paper. If I were the newspaper, I would start a campaign to educate the campus community on the basics of journalism. It might serve to soften the response because all too often, it seems like the staff is doing what they think is right based on journalism standards - standards the larger community is unaware of.

Medical Ethics? What are Those?

From TPM Muckracker, questions about the role of medical doctors in all the torture that's been going on under the US flag.

For me, this is a no-brainer: Doctors who advised anyone on torture methods should lose their licenses, permanently and everywhere. Same goes for psychiatrists. Not only is that a proper response, I think it's in the self-interest of both professions.

Though I imagine that one rationale used to justify the participation of medical professionals is that "national security" or the "threat of another terrorist attack" trumps everything else. It's been a tried and true talking point for conservatives for some time, and I can see it getting into the head of people who are nominally professionals.

A much harder question to answer is whether or not doctors and psychiatrists should make themselves available to treat victims of torture, since they stand a good chance of becoming enablers.

Thoughts?