A634.4.4.RB_MedleyKim_In a Word... Yes

In a Word… Yes

            Recalling LaFollette’s (2007) charge, the goal of ethics is to better the way by which folks live through an assimilation of knowledge from “history, psychology, sociology, and biology”; then, in a word, “Yes”, it is ethical (p. 1). Its history begins with Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” and is furthered with the promise of equal opportunity delivered on a bloody battlefield in Gettysburg. Like a carousel at the center of an amusement park, painted ponies saddled with actions from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government carry enumerated dos and don’ts that rise and fall with each passing generation while the attempts to find balance between who and what a person is alludes us all (Connerly, 2000).

            Lincoln’s Executive actions gave it life. The proposed and ratified actions of the Legislative branch, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution gave it room to grow; and, as offered by Abbott, Argersinger, Argersinger, Barney, Anderson, Goldfield and Weir (2011), led to many branches such as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. A few ten years, after the Executive and Legislative arms of the government attempted to right a wrong perpetuated for centuries, the Judicial Branch, as explained by Marlow and Rowland (1989) added its painted pony to the circling carousel and pruned its growth with this pronouncement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Bradley:

            when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficial legislation has shaken

            off the inseparable concomitants of the state, there must be some stage in the progress of

            his elevation when he takes the rank of mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite

            of the law (p. 542).

This acclamation combined with withdrawal of armies from the South and further judicial ponies i.e., Plessy v. Ferguson (Plessy), took the founding principle, “all men are created equal”, and the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided by McAdams, Neslund, and Neslund (2007), “equal protection of the laws” and twisted its branches as “separate but equal”, which led to decades of sanctioned actions that further harmed a group who had already suffered centuries of systemic abuse at the hands of another group (Marlow & Rowland, 1989, p. 542).

            Its re-birth began with a dream. Sixty years after the Plessy pony was added to the circular motion of the carousel; and, as noted by Loevy (1997), Brown v. Board of Education (Brown) caused the rising action of Plessy to fall and the carousel reversed with a new direction, “separate facilities were, by definition, unequal and, therefore, unconstitutional (as cited in Moreno, 2003, p. 16). Moreno (2003) states Kennedy’s Executive Order called for government services to volunteer to enact it. President Johnson attempted, through executive action, to speed up the carousel by mandating it (Moreno, 2003). Marlow and Rowland (1989) and Moreno (2003) observe it quickly turned from an attempt to once again address equal opportunity to a way to realize equal outcomes and pay for discrimination of the past. Perhaps this is the point from which further arguments against it gained traction. Rather than seeking to address “ancient wrongs” in a manner commensurate with the length of time that had elapsed from the time the wrong began to its end, society sought immediate actions to assuage its own guilt (LaFollette, 2007, p. 89). From Reconstruction to the present, it has invoked battles that have entangled every branch of government; and, with each rise and fall of painted ponies, firmly affixed to a carousel spinning in a circle, the ethics of it have been viewed from each side.

            LaFollette (2007) provides “we should treat all people the same unless there is some general and relevant difference between them that justifies a difference in treatment” (p. 75). With the exception of indentured servants, who had the ability to choose to come to America and work for a pre-determined number of years to pay off the debt and secure freedom, the mistreatment of black slaves was inescapable and resulted in unbearable work hours and circumstances, unhealthy and insufficient living quarters, verbal abuse, physical abuse, mental anguish from family separations, and a host of other consequences for which we may never fully appreciated the implications (LaFollette, 2007). Those who argue it seeks to correct the sins of the past by now wronging the group responsible for such sins either overlook or simply do not acknowledge the centuries of abuse suffered by and that harmed an entire group of people (LaFollette, 2007). Further, the simplistic notion of “two wrongs, do not make a right” ignores the very tenets that must be considered when practicing ethics (LaFollette, 2007, p. 88). Opponents further contend “those who suffered and those who perpetrated the most egregious harms (slavery) are long since dead” and since “blacks have had sufficient opportunity to overcome any lingering effects of slavery and Jim Crow”, their children should not have to continue to pay for the wrongs of the past (LaFollette, 2007, p. 90). Voices raised against it believe it keeps those who deserve jobs or college placement out while rewarding those less qualified (LaFollette, 2007). None of these positions advise if it is justified, merely, voices against it are not convincing.

            Those who support it, admit it favors black; however, not because of the color of their skin, rather because of the systematic victimization of an entire race. They also recognize that while today’s descendants did not personally inflict the harm, they, nonetheless continue to benefit from the power and wealth amassed by their ancestors’ efforts to suppress an entire race. Finally, the qualification factor acknowledges the “most “deserving” students” are the ones who will be recognized by the college’s admission process as those who can best serve society’s or the community’s needs (LaFollette, 2007, p. 93). It is clear to see, from both sides of the argument, those painted ponies placed on that circling carousel so many decades ago are still rising and falling with each passing generation. “Many Americans now reject” it, although the Judicial Branch still recognizes instances where it is “legally permissible” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 87).

            If we recognize and accept the premise, “People’s history shapes their opportunities. Since the history of the blacks in America is one in which they have been systematically harmed, then their opportunities have been, and continue to be, limited”; then we must accept the notion there must be a remedy that will help to improve their lives and the lives of their future generation (LaFollette, 2007, p. 91). If its practice is to simply look at what a person is i.e., a person is white or a person is black, in an effort to realize equal results rather than equal opportunity, then it is ethically wrong as it does nothing more, in this author’s opinion, than lead to what Connerly (2000) described as “an annoying intrusion of racial bean-counting” that runs the risk of placing people in a position of possible failure and immediately being stereotyped as one who landed a job or got into a university simply because of the color of their skin, rather than the content of character. If; however, it seeks to do that which this writer’s grandmother explained some forty years ago, to give opportunity to a group of people who suffered greatly and often ran the risk of being killed for learning to read and write, and to provide for their children to one day return to that impoverished neighborhood that sparked their dream of becoming a doctor and delivering quality care to those less fortunate; then, it, affirmative action, in a word, “Yes”, is ethical.

References

Abbott, C., Argersinger, J.A., Argersinger, P.H., Barney, W.L., DeJohn Anderson, V., Goldfield,

            D., & Weir, R.M. (2011). The American Journey: A History of the United States.

            (6^th ed.). (Vol. 2). Boston: Prentice Hall.     

Connerly, W. (2000, March). My fight against race preferences: a quest toward 'creating equal'.

            The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(27), B6+. Retrieved from:

            http://go.galegroup.com.db06.linccweb.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA59793347&v=2.1&u

            =lincclin_dbcc&it=r&p=AONE&sw=wn

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Marlow, E.K., & Rowland, K.M. (1989). Affirmative Action: Federal Support, Supreme Court

            Decisions, and Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management, 28(4),

            541-556.

McAdams, T., Neslund, K., & Neslund, N. (2007). Law, Business, and Society. (8^th ed.). Boston:

            McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Moreno, P. (2003). The History of Affirmative Action Law and Its Relation to College

            Admission. Journal of College Admission, (179), 14-21.

A640.6.5.RB_MedleyKim_Trusting Ferguson Is Not A Manipulation

            For more than a week, I have watched the media coverage of the grand jury’s decision in the Ferguson, Missouri case, wherein a police officer faced, and later exercised, the decision of the use of deadly force in order to subdue a suspect in a robbery. Had the story been portrayed with this generic approach, in all likelihood none of us would have any interest in the story; much less know the location of Ferguson. Unfortunately, manipulation has been used almost from the very beginning to fan the flames of racism and social injustice; thereby forming a narrative through which the current leader of the free world, President Obama, can tell a story.

            According to the proponents of authentic leadership, Wong and Cummings (2009), “honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards” are the fundamental principles of a leadership style that came about as a response to the many ethical scandals that captured headline after headline for the past decade (as cited in Earnhardt, 2014; Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). The escapades of Enron and Martha Stewart had left a bad taste in the mouths of many; leading to vocal cries for more trustworthy and genuine leaders. As with any force for good, there is an equal force for bad, the dark side. Critics of authentic leadership recognize this and see this style as offering many the opportunities to inspire followers through manipulation and deceit, rather than through ethics and truth (Earnhardt, 2013). As I began to read and research, in order to respond to this week’s moment for reflection, the story coming from Ferguson, and more importantly from the President, helped with my understanding of the two statements regarding trust and manipulation.

            Leadership, overall, is a process that takes place between leaders and followers such that the leader influences a group of people in order to reach a common goal (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). The trust camp is captured by DuBrin (2010), “authenticity is about being genuine and honest about your personality, values and beliefs as well as having integrity” (as cited in Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 299). Note the genuineness and the honesty are about the leader’s values and beliefs; not the situation facing the followers. Proponents believe the authenticity demanded by the masses in the wake of the unethical practices that came to light through a voracious news media is represented by leaders that are trustworthy, transparent, and trying to do what is right (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). Their honesty is so refreshing and uplifting, and such a one-eighty from the practices of Enron’s executives, followers trust, are influenced, and work with the leader to achieve the common goal. By using the Ferguson news as an example; authentic leadership came from the members of the grand jury. Although the story began in August of 2014, with the robbery committed by Michael Brown and the subsequent shooting by Officer Wilson, which led to Brown’s death, the two paths of authentic leadership came with the announcement on Monday, November 24, 2014.

            My husband and I had been watching FOX News, as we typically do. News media outlets, radio, television, and Internet, had been anticipating a decision from the grand jury for about a week and a half. I remember the breaking news when the Governor of Missouri had activated the state’s National Guard, in anticipation of the decision, presumably as a way to prevent a repeat of the violence that took place in August. Prior to the grand jury’s decision, many media organizations had reported that Officer Wilson had engaged in racial profiling; and, while confronting Michael Brown, Brown had raised his hands up, in a surrendering fashion, and, Wilson, in an act of aggression against a black youth, shot Brown in an execution style manner. I also remember other commentators, specifically Limbaugh and Hannity, cautioning with regards to a rush to judgment and challenging reporters to report facts. If only the trust side of authentic leadership had been followed, by both the media and the President; perhaps Ferguson businesses would still be standing.

            The grand jury returned a decision of no bill; a decision not to indict Officer Wilson. Having been a member of the Flagler County Grand Jury, I understood the task those twelve people undertook. They were not chosen for this specific case. Like most grand juries, they were selected in advance. I know here in Flagler, jurors serve for a term of one year. I did not agree with the judge’s decision to release the demographics of the jury, 9 white and 3 blacks, as I believe this would only add to the manipulation of the storytellers. The prosecutor did not ask for a specific rendering. He had his team present all of the evidence and witnesses and gave the grand jury five separate options, should they find some level calling for an indictment against Wilson. I know the threshold for a grand jury to return an indictment is much lower than that of a trail jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt; so, when the final decision was announced, my first reaction was the evidence presented overwhelmingly refuted the narrative, and the story, that had been developed and told since August.

            I remembered the statement made by Obama, while he was vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard in August. I went back and watched it again. Having read Auvinen, Lämsä, Sintonen, and Takala (2013) and their definition of manipulation “a way of exerting influence in which the target does not know that she or he has been influenced”, I could begin to see why critics are concerned with the dark side of authentic leadership (p. 416). According to Dick (1978):

               The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you

               can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the

               words (as cited in Auvinen et al., 2013, p. 416).

Although the storytelling, a critical element for manipulation and subsequent deceit of followers, began in Ferguson, with Brown’s accomplice and his reports of Brown’s ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ attempt to surrender, the tale continued from the pulpit of the President. First, the President chose to comment on the shooting at the same time he was updating Americans about the actions of ISIS against Christians trapped on a mountain top. He further embellished by saying this [the Ferguson unrest] all started with the loss of a young, eighteen year old, with parents who will never be able to hold their child again. It was not until the detailed reporting, post grand jury decision, that I learned just how big this child was; more than 6 feet in height and almost weighing 300 pounds. Obama further added there would be varying accounts as to what happened that night, equality under the law is paramount, and his Department of Justice would be working in concert with local authorities to insure justice. From August to November, the manipulation of words, by Sharpton, Farrakhan, and other leaders of the African-American community, led to a control of the people; such that, Ferguson became the poster child for racial profiling, and, absent a decision by the grand jury to indict Wilson, Brown would be viewed as yet another black child gunned down by a white policeman.

            When the shooting took place, how many journalists took the wait and see approach? How many said we needed to wait for all the evidence to be collected and for all of the investigations to be completed? We heard from the Brown family attorney, multiple times. They were represented by the same attorney that represented Trayvon Martin’s family. Remember what the President had said about Trayvon? If Obama had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. We scarcely heard from the Ferguson Police Department or the prosecutor during the investigation. Likewise, we did not hear from Officer Wilson. Isn’t this the normal process? Crime scene information is often withheld from the public so that when witnesses do come forward, officers know the information is not simply being regurgitated by witnesses from news accounts. Remember the beer summit at the White House? The President, without demonstrating balanced processing, defined by Rowe and Guerrero (2013) as listening to and processing positive and negative information in an objective manner, accused the police of “acting stupidly” and attributed their actions to racial profiling. Does the story sound familiar?

            During the Ferguson reporting period, many black leaders compared that which happened to Brown to that which happened to Emmett Till. I was stunned when I heard this. I know the story of Emmett Till. He was fourteen, not from the South, accustomed to be able to speak to white girls; and, was tortured and killed for simply being a young boy inspired by a young girl. Whether or not Till saw the color difference and acted just to see the reaction from Southerners is something we may never know; I choose to believe his actions were nothing more than those of a young boy. Now contrast that to the Ferguson story. The main story is that of Brown, a “gentle giant”, who was purposely profiled by this white officer and summarily shot, execution style, even after he raised his hands and said don’t shoot. As noted by Auvinen et al. (2013), storytelling is a way to forget inconvenient facts and embellish history. How many knew of Brown’s height and weight? How many knew that ten minutes before the shooting, he and his accomplice had robbed a local store? Was it his first brush with the law? How many were aware that Brown had reached inside Wilson’s patrol car and attempted to take Wilson’s weapon from him? Did you know Brown was shot by Wilson while Wilson was still in the car? Finally, how many of us knew Brown turned, faced Wilson, lowered his upper body to resemble that of a charging bull; and, after repeated warnings to stop, was shot from the front, not in the back, by Wilson? As I am writing this, I remember Obama’s reaction to the jury’s decision. Again, I reviewed it again, too.

            My husband and I watched the President deliver his remarks. Quite honestly, each of us expected the grand jury to deliver its decision after the President had signed the Executive Order for Illegal Immigration, so that his story would be circumvented by another, in this case, the Ferguson story. Obama’s body language was significantly different than that from August. He was visibly angry with the decision. Although I do not have any proof, and I have not read any of his books, I suspect Obama truly believes in the automatic racial profiling narrative that ensues when blacks are either arrested or shot by white policemen. Likewise, he believes divisions of deep distrust exist between communities and the cops across the country. I do not have any doubt this exists to some degree; however, not the degree being told with this story. The portion of his remarks from that night, that struck me, were those regarding the assumption the decision was the grand jury’s to make, and, it was understandable why many were angered by the decision. This was a perfect opportunity for a leader to use trust and tell the story from that perspective. A chance to explain the grand jury process as a whole; and, rather than the prosecutor listing all the details that led to the decision; the President could have told the American people the real story of Ferguson.

            Auvinen et al. (2013) indicate manipulation is “an umbrella concept” for intentional behavior that includes: lying, misleading, providing disinformation, and misinformation (p. 417). Trust, on the other hand, is being honest and trustworthy, even if the information before you goes against inner beliefs. While preparing for another of this week’s assignment, I learned about Chapman and what he did when faced with an economic downturn. He was honest with his employees and developed a furlough program that spread the suffering of a few across the organization so that layoffs were averted. Think of the hope, confidence, and optimism this gave to his followers. Now, contrast this with the story from Ferguson. Obama, journalists, and African-American leaders forgot history, repeated a false narrative, and are still seeking their version of justice through the ongoing Department of Justice investigation for a crime the officer did not commit. He did not racially profile Brown, neither did the Cambridge police, the other party invited to the beer summit. He did not shoot Brown execution style, neither did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon in an execution style. Because actions and words were manipulated to fit a preconceived narrative, racial profiling still exists across America, the followers were deceived and influenced in such a way that more than twenty businesses were burned, resulting in a loss to the black community, as more than ninety percent of the businesses that burned were owned by African-Americans. The story has even reached the NFL, with a few St. Louis Rams entering the stadium in the hands up, don't shoot model; while former NBA player, Charles Barkley, attempts to use trust to tell the story. Both paths of authentic leadership influence people in a way that achieves a common goal. The questions, posed by Auvinen et al (2013), "what a leader does? ... How a leader does things? ... Why a leader does things?" are easily connected to the golden circle described by Sinek. What is the purpose for telling the Ferguson story with manipulation? How is the leader confronting serious issues with manipulation? Why does the leader feel the need to manipulate and deceive? If this leadership style was born from the ashes of Enron; then, Auvinen et al (2013) are correct with their calls to openly discuss the dark side of authentic leadership as a way to recognize and avoid its trappings.