Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LT2 Ethics Assignment
LT2 Ethics Assignment
November 9, 2018
Introduction
When considering the case of Professor Ben Levin it is relatively easy to decide his fate
based on a personal opinion of his crimes and the resulting consequences. Some may feel as
though the crimes he committed are inexcusable and he should not be rewarded by being allowed
to return to the university. Others may feel as though his time has been served and he should be
allowed to move on with his life. The ethical implications of him returning to the ABC
University can be considered through the five principles outlined in Beyond Relativism to Ethical
Decision-Making by Walker & Donlevy (2006). These principles include commitment to:
conscience, and professional convictions. By using these principles to examine the case we will
be able to see the situation through a more critical lens rather than simply a personal lens. This
article outlines that these principles can be used to help clarify the content of the case but are not
exhaustive in nature. Instead they are based on “reasonable, responsible and balanced set of
Faculty members of the ABC University should uphold the ethical principles to
demonstrate to the students the importance of ethical integrity. The common ethical principles
outline the foundation of a democratic society (Walker & Donlevy, pg. 15, 2006). These
principles apply to all people within society regardless of differences such as cultural
Dr. Levin has accomplished positive things throughout his career, however he is no
longer a respectable member of the academic community based on his lack of ethical leadership.
The main ethical principles are as follows; trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, justice,
fairness, caring and civic virtue, and citizenship. Looking at these principles Dr. Levin has failed
in all areas as an ethical leader. As a professor, he has a responsibility to be a leader for those
which he advises. Through his criminal actions he has violated the trust of his students and has
acted in a disrespectful manner towards others. Through breaking the law and committing crimes
he has discredited his work. Academics are unable to substantiate his previous claims as these
claims are called into question because of his personal actions (Yosef-Hassidim, 2013). If Dr.
Levin were to return to this position, one must consider he may be in the presence of underaged
children and as a university it is our responsibility to protect all students and ensure they feel safe
Reciprocal Relationships
There are many types of relationships that can exist between a leader and people within
both their personal and professional circles. These leaders should strive to achieve the I – thou
relationship. This type of relationship allows for the best results for both the leader and the
participants. Valuing both sides of the relationship equally and committing to the view that all
people matter regardless of differences. This path may not always be the easiest for external
factors such as political influences, public opinions, and dehumanization of themselves and
others often impact the relationship which they are working to establish. In order to remain
balanced, a leader must ensure that they respect themselves as well as respect the dignity of those
involved, implicated or affected by their personal choices (Walker & Donleavy, pg. 16, 2006).
Dr. Levin was unable to create a balanced relationship for he had placed the importance
of his desires over that of the others in his relationships. When moving to this extreme he created
respect, choice, and worth. He used those around them for his own personal gain with little to no
understanding of the consequences that could negatively impact their lives. If he were to return
to the ABC university his students may struggle to create a positive relationship with Dr. Levin.
This imbalance within the relationship would lead to a devaluing of the leaders role and
Professional Constraints
Although Dr. Levin had been punished for his actions and “done his time” his past
actions have violated his commitment to professional constraints and codes of conduct. Most
professional educational leader organizations have codes of conduct that ensure members will
meet the standards of that code (Walker & Donleavy, pg. 17, 2006). These codes ensure that
members are responsible for upholding the honor and dignity of their profession in all their
actions and relations with pupils, colleagues, school board members and the public (Walker &
Donleavy, pg. 17, 2006). According to The Alberta Teachers’ Association Code of Professional
Conduct (2004) Teachers may not engage in activities which adversely affect the quality of the
teacher’s professional service. These activities not only include actions in the workplace but also
actions made in a teachers’ personal life if they become public knowledge. Despite having been
punished for his actions, Dr. Levin’s past crimes violated the Alberta Teachers’ Association
Code of Professional Conduct and compromised his ability to uphold the honor and dignity of an
educator. If Dr. Levin should be allowed to return to ABC University as a guest lecturer, then the
Faculty of Education at ABC University will be allowing the breach of professional constraints,
thus questioning the facilities integrity of adhering to professional code of conduct and allowing
Personal Conscience
Personal commitment to conscience requires administrators to use their own moral
judgment when it comes to applying ethical conscience to the management of their schools
(Walker & Donleavy, pg. 231, 2006). The question of allowing Dr. Levin to guest lecture at the
ABC University must be examined through our own understandings of what is right and wrong.
As faculty members of ABC University we have a covenant to our students and faculty members
to protect them from any harm, potential or immanent. There are underage students on our
campus and there are daycares and preschools on campus whose children may be endangering by
allowing Dr. Levin onto campus grounds. The conditions of Dr. Levin’s parole explicitly
prohibit him from having contact with any persons under the age of 18 (Mandel, 2017) because
he is a threat to those individuals. Any benefit that Dr. Levin would bring to the university does
not outweigh the severity of the crimes he has committed. Any other scholar could provide much
the same impact without the negative and potentially dangerous consequences that Dr. Levin
would carry with him. The consideration of the safety of all members of the university must be
While Dr. Levin's work is respected and his knowledge would provide quality learning,
the Faculty must consider more when making this decision. Walker and Donleavy state that
"school leaders promote and safeguard the interests of students, parents, support staff, teachers,
and other professional and community leaders" (p. 18, 2006). It may be in the best interest of the
students academically to be taught by Dr. Levin but from a student safety perspective it could be
detrimental to be around a convicted sadist. Even at the university level there is still a chance that
minors could be required to interact with Dr. Levin. There are members of the Faculty who do
not believe that Dr. Levin should be invited and even believe that his work should no longer be
referenced (Yosef-Hassidim, 2013). The interests of these Faculty members need to be
considered as their safety and professional opinions are important as well. As mentioned in
Walker and Donleavy, leaders will listen to others to refine their convictions (2006). These
convictions will lead to an environment that is in the best interest of the students and staff and
will promote high quality instruction. While some Faculty believe that Dr. Levin has paid his
dues, having him lecture at the university does more harm to the quality of education than it
benefits.
Conclusion
actions should be taken with regards to Dr. Levin. Looking at the five fundamental principles we
feel it would not be ethical to include Dr. Levin as a guest lecturer or a scholar. His presence on
campus may compromise the safety and respect of both students and faculty members. Although
he has served his time, we feel as though his previous actions would compromise the Facilities
code of conduct and send the wrong message to student and other stakeholders. With regards to
Dr. Levin’s previous research projects, we believe that they should be replaced with works from
other authors. Although Dr. Levin’s work may hold credibility the value of sharing his work
does not outweigh the importance of insuring all people within the institution feel respected. We
wish Dr. Levin the best, however, at this time we are unable to include him within our
community.
References
Mandel, M. (2017). Depraved World View of Ben Levin Continues On Parole. Toronto Sun. Retrieved
from:
Yosef-Hassidim, D. (2013). Following Dr. Ben Levin’s case: Posing Difficult Academic-Ethical
Questions. Critical Intersections in education. Vol. 1(2), 111-116.