EDUC 525 (Fall 2020)

LT2– QUESTION 1

Bignell Claire, 30098475

Curzon Shelby, 10150223

Purcell Madyson, 30091012

October 30, 2020

Introduction
 As will be discussed in this paper, the incident at hand includes the Principal at a school
who has been recorded using the “N-word” when confronting a group of Black students
(Students). This issue was brought to the attention of a teacher who is now in charge of deciding
what course of action to take. The teacher must look at the three different ethical schools of
thought and refer to the ATA Code of Professional Conduct. These will be examined and a
recommendation will be made.

Deontological Approach
The deontological approach to ethical decision making outlines the importance of one’s
obligation to “do the right thing” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). The fundamental theme for the
deontologist is that one’s obligation to act in accordance with ethical principles or rules far
outweighs the potential for negative consequences falling back onto the one who raises concern.
The deontological school of thought follows the ‘Golden Rule’ alongside the Categorical
imperative. When combined they state that, “one should do unto others as one would have them
do unto themselves” but when one makes, “an ethical decision it must be universally applicable
to all persons including the decision maker” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, p. 23). A key role under
this school of ethical thought is that of the whistleblower who often puts these beliefs into action,
regardless of what negative outcomes might happen upon them as a result (Donlevy & Walker,
2011). When considering the incident at hand through the lens of the deontologist, the teacher
acts as the whistleblower and must ask themselves a number of questions to determine if the
principal’s actions were ethical or not.
The first question under the deontological school of ethical thought, is “to whom do I
owe a duty in this decision?”. In this instance, the duty is owed to the Students who brought the
audio footage of the Principal’s conduct to the teacher. Under the Alberta Teachers’ Association
(ATA) Code of Professional Conduct (2018), it states that “4. the teacher treats pupils with
dignity and respect and is considerate of their circumstances”. In the case of the issue being
brought forth to the teacher, the principal did not treat the Students with respect. As is outlined in
the CBC News article on this incident the N-word, when used by a white person who is someone
in an inherent position of privilege and power, becomes violent and oppressive against Black
people (Edwardson, 2020). Therefore, the Principal did not act in a way that was respectful or
considerate to the Students’ circumstances and cultural background, and thus is unethical under
the deontological school of thought.
The second and third questions for a deontologist are “does the proposed decision meet
the Golden Rule condition?” and “does the proposed decision meet the Categorical Imperative
principal?” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). For this incident, the decision for the teacher to bring this
information forth as a whistleblower would be appropriate within these questions as the Students
are not being treated accordingly, nor would this treatment be universally applicable. Much of
this can be examined through a lens of cultural difference, and the use of the N-word in a school
setting towards the Students creates a substantial ethical conflict. As stated in the news story that
covers this incident the N-word, which the Principal used in full, the word only recently being
reclaimed by the Black community. Particularly when it is used by a white individual, even in
the situation where the intention is for ‘educational purposes’, it still perpetuates the continued
oppression towards members of the Black community (Edwardson, 2020). As stated in the ATA
Code of Professional Conduct (2018), “1. The teacher teaches in a manner that respects the
dignity and rights of all persons without prejudice as to race…”, and as such the use of the word
towards the group of Black students is inherently prejudicial towards them. The teacher who was
brought the audio in this scenario would have to act as a whistleblower under these conditions.
The actions of the Principal were unethical in that they violate the Code of Professional Conduct.
And as they meet the conditions for the Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative principle, it is
the teachers’ ethical duty to report the audio recording as such.
The final question to consider is, “regardless of the consequences, is there a principle
which must be adhered to in this case?” (Donlevy & Walker, 2011). Under this question, the
teacher must adhere first and foremost to the ATA Code of Professional Conduct. In this
document it states that, “16. The teacher recognizes the duty to protest through proper channels
administrative policies and practices which the teacher cannot in conscience accept; and further
recognizes that if administration by consent fails, the administrator must adopt a position of
authority” (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2018). This standard for teachers in Alberta clearly
states that in principle the teacher who would have been brought the audio would have to bring
the principal's actions forward to the appropriate channels. In this case, there is a principle which
must be adhered to, and it is the teachers ethical duty to bring the Principal’s use of the N-word
forward as problematic.
 Utilitarian Approach
When examining this incident from the Utilitarian approach, also referred to as
Teleological ethics, one must understand “the issue is that a decision should be judged to be
ethical if it is made with the intention to create the greatest good or happiness for the greatest
number of people” (Donlevy and Walter, 2011, p. 27). Are the Principal’s words and actions for
the greatest good? Considering the effect that these words have on the vulnerable students, the
answer is no. As Donlevy and Walter (2011) mention, considering both the immediate and long
term consequences of the proposed decision in addition to whether this decision relates to this
specific instance or a general principle used in such a decision is key to ensuring an ethical
decision is made. When a teacher is made aware of a situation as delicate and controversial as
this, it is in their best interest to consider the ATA Code of Professional Conduct (2018) which
explicitly states that, “1. The teacher teaches in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of
all persons without prejudice as to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, gender expression, physical characteristics, disability, marital status, family
status, age, ancestry, place of origin, place of residence, socioeconomic background or linguistic
background”. By using the real “N-word”, the Principal did not follow this regulation. It is
common knowledge that the use of this word is not appropriate, no matter the context, and the
fact that it was used by an individual with authority makes it even more severe. Furthermore the
ATA Code of Professional Conduct (2018) states that, “4. The teacher treats pupils with dignity
and respect and is considerate of their circumstances”. By using this word, it is clear that the
Principal does not treat their students with dignity or respect. By not doing anything about this,
the Students will be negatively affected and their trust in the school system will be tarnished. In
the long-term this could affect their performance in school and thus negatively impact their
future possibilities. With that said, if the matter was reported, the career of the Principal would
be tarnished and perhaps the reputation of the school and school board. The flaws and lack of
racism training would be evident and made public. Thus, under the Utilitarian approach the
teacher must consider what is in the best interest for all people. It has been concluded that,
regardless of the tarnished reputation that may arise from reporting, the teacher should inform a
higher level of authority to deal with this issue. When working in an environment where
vulnerable and impressionable children attend, there is a duty to protect these individuals from
any sort of prejudice.

Postmodern Approach
As outlined in their work, Working Through Ethics in Education and Leadership,
Donlevy and Walker explain that: “As leaders, we must work consciously for continuous
improvement in our ethical behaviour and be examples to others” (2011, p.16). While this
statement should be followed by educators everywhere, there are significant differences in
ethical schools of thought and how teachers decide to deal with ethical dilemmas.
Addressing this incident from the Postmodern lens, the issue becomes convoluted in what
is personally ethical for the individual. For the postmodern ethicist, “human reality is messy and
ambiguous – and so moral decisions, unlike abstract ethical principles, are ambivalent” (Donlevy
& Walker, 2006, p. 226). Furthermore, a postmodernist would believe that moral duties can only
apply to the individual and not the collective, for “when addressed to me, responsibility is moral.
[However], it may well lose its moral content completely the moment I try to turn it around to
bind the Other” (Donlevy & Walker, 2006, p. 226). The Postmodernist believes groups and
organizations that claim to have the “truth” are only able to do so because of their power and
privilege and to accept the ethical values offered by others would essentially disallow the
individual to think for themselves; they would become subject to “agendas” of others who would
manipulate them for their own benefit. (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, pp. 30-31). Therefore, rather
than looking at postmodernism as a school of ethical thought where “anything goes,” it should be
given credit for its emphasis on ethical actions, for: “it is in the making of…choices that the
individual exhibits an ethical sense, not because of what she or he thinks, but rather by what she
or he does (Donlevy & Walker, 2011, pp. 30-31).
To answer what the postmodern teacher would do upon hearing the recording of the
Principal using the N-word is almost impossible because it would be based solely on the
individual teacher and their personal ethics. This is where the ATA Code of Professional
Conduct (2018) becomes critical. It states, “4. The teacher treats pupils with dignity and respect
and is considerate of their circumstances” and, “18. The teacher acts in a manner which
maintains the honour and dignity of the profession.” As both the Principal, and the teacher who
has been confided in, are contractually bound by the Code of Professional Conduct, the teacher
must take this into consideration when making their decision. The Principal did not treat the
Students, or the profession, with dignity by using the N-word. Further, the teacher must adhere to
item 13 in the Code “The teacher criticizes the professional competence or professional
reputation of another teacher only in confidence to proper officials and after the other teacher has
been informed of the criticism, subject only to section 24 of the Teaching Profession Act.”
Clearly there has been a breach in the Code of Professional Conduct, but it will be up to
the postmodern teacher to act. The postmodernist must, in “solitude,” listen to the “existential
urge to be in relationship with the other and to act in a human fashion, with care” (Donlevy &
Walker, 2011, p. 32).

Conclusion
In conclusion, after considering the approach of the utilitarian, the postmodernist, and the
deontologist, we have come to the decision that the deontological approach is the most fitting
guide of ethics to follow in regard to how we would choose to deal with this incident. The
deontological perspective aligns most with the ATA Code of Professional Conduct. By the
Students taking the audio of this incident to their teacher, the teacher is now obligated to become
a whistleblower in getting justice for these students. All of the questions within this school of
thought are fulfilled, and thus the actions of the Principal would be deemed unethical, and the
teacher would be taking the proper course of action.
 References

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2018). Code of professional conduct. Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-
Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf.
Donlevy, J. K., & Walker, K. D. (2006). Beyond relativism to ethical decision making. Journal
of School Leadership(16) p. 216-239. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-
com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/105268460601600301.
Donlevy, J. K., & Walker, K. D. (2011). Working through ethics in education and leadership :
Theory, analysis, plays, cases, poems, prose, and speeches. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Retrieved from https://about-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/products-
services/ebooks/ebooks-main.html.
Edwardson, L. (2020). Students suspended over recording of Calgary school principal using N-
word. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-
catholic-school-principal-recorded-racial-slur-students-1.5745427.