Comments on: Ethical Intelligence

By: David Chudzicki

David Chudzicki — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:39:32 +0000

How did they “forfeit[] the right to impose the above rules” by adopting a policy against buying alcohol? In fact, they enforce all of those rules today, except for the one about underage drinking (which you say they didn’t enforce then, either). But I don’t understand why they wouldn’t have the right (and responsibility, some would say) to enforce all of them.

By: David Salmanson

David Salmanson — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:42:40 +0000

If I can provide context on the receipts issue and at the same time add complexity to the debate. As late as 1989, the college paid for alcohol at parties as part of the Student Activities Fund in the same way it paid for other supplies. Because the college paid for the alcohol, it also dictated the rules under which alcohol could be served and these were strictly enforced. These rules were: 1) There had to be an equal number and equally desirable number of alcoholic and non-alcoholic options (if beer and two mixed drinks then water, soda, and juice) all served by “bartenders” 2) There had to be substantial food available. 3) If the food or non-alcoholic beverages ran out, alcohol could not continue to be served. 4) State law reagarding the drinking age had to be posted and it was up to the bartenders to enforce that law. These rules were strictly enforced although “bartenders” never checked IDs. The college stopped paying for alcohol because the school’s lawyers went ballistic regarding liability. Therefore the forged receipt systems went into place. The college basically said, we will stop paying for alcohol (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) as long as we have legal cover. But they also forfeited the right to impose the above rules. Eventually, people in both student government and the administration realizied that the forged receipts policy was a bad idea but by that point the pattern was set.

By: Katie Davenport

Katie Davenport — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:38:58 +0000

I was surprised that Myrt Westphal said (in the Phoenix article) that the administration had recently attained “clarity” on the receipts-forging issue. It had always been my impression that everyone (administation included) knew receipts were being forged; that this was the way things were done, and that’s why, in the minds of students, it was “okay”. I never planned a party myself, and I was certainly never a dean of residential life, but I’ve known about this for five years. How could the administration not know?

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:42:00 +0000

"[W]hat weâ€re looking for the underpinnings of a capacity for ethical judgement, one that students can freely exercise at their own discretion and in their own ways, like any other form of knowledge or intelligence." and on the other hand... "Some institutions of higher learning look at ethics as something to impose with a velvet fist instead, not as a capacity which individuals develop but as the force that a community exerts on the people within it." I'm sure my response here, Tim, is utterly predictable, but still I have to make it: don't you think that the way you've described these two positions is a little simplistic? I'm all for encouraging my (as you rightly observe, often "surprisingly innocent") students to take ethical responsibility for their own lives. But can such responsibility--which involves issues of consequence and power--really arise entirely through debate? Take that "force which a community exerts," for example. What might that force be? Well, I suppose it could be brute majoritarianism. But given that majoritarianism is by no means a feature of social life to be entirely dismissed in one's consideration of political and ethical issues (it's been a factor in social thought for as long as the modern world has existed, if not longer), simply waving the flag "down with the tyranny of the majority!" certainly doesn't qualify as "ethical intelligence"--such intelligence would of course have to involve explaining why it is one is concerned about the moral costs of the majoritarian crushing (if it is a crushing) of individuality. Which means someone is going to have to fall back on an ontology of the human person, an argument about various moral goods, etc. Will all of this really be able to be accomplished without any sort of appeal to tradition, or authority ("velvet" or otherwise), or some other (perhaps also majority embraced!) community standards? Somehow, I doubt it.

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 04:25:54 +0000

Swarthmore’s position on student drinking seems reasonable, but aren’t there some kind of federal mandates with regard to enforcement? I haven’t had to deal with that here, but my last appointments did seem to take the drinking thing very seriously for reasons which had to be funding related.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 02:00:58 +0000

Whoops. Wow, I am tired. Fixed.

By: abstractart

abstractart — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:16:26 +0000

It’s “Alfred”, IIRC.

Also, thanks again for coming onto my show the other day. I’ve had multiple people tell me it was the best show of the semester.

By: isorkin1

isorkin1 — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:22:40 +0000

It’s not so much forging receipts as acquiring valid receipts (standing in the parking lot and asking people for their receipts). Not that this changes much ethically, but it does require far fewer technical skills.

By: Endie

Endie — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:31:34 +0000

How do you think that “ethical intelligence” varies from “wisdom”?