The Unethical Practice of Racism in a Doctor’s Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Moral/Ethical Issue and Relevant Facts
Plausible Actions and Impact on the Shareholders
Philosophical Theories Involved
Contemporary Theories
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

I am writing to inform you of my opinions or suggestive actions to take against Barrett following his involvement in the last night’s rally. Below are some analyzed issues based on ethical and theoretical approach analysis.

Moral/Ethical Issue and Relevant Facts

The moral or ethical issue here is that Barrett is involved in the practice of racism. Barrett displays racism by supporting a racist group that seeks to protect white people as a tribe. On the previous night, a university faculty member, Corey Barrett participated in a ‘white nationalist rally that resulted in chaos and the death of one person. According to available online videos and pictures, Barrett is seen shouting, “You will not replace us.” The rally participants are also seen shouting, “Blood and soil,” a common slogan for Nazi Germany. These events are unethical because morally, all tribes are equal and none should feel superior or demand to remain as a majority.

The involvement of Barrett in the protest is both unethical for the university’s image and immoral for the community. The university should represent a space where all races are equal and treated with the same respect. It is even a worse scenario for the university since it recently launched an equity and inclusion campaign to diversify the student body. Barrett’s involvement with the anti-Semitism rally makes the university look like a fake or unreal societal system. The community also has confidence in the university a system to stand on its moral ground and set an example for their children. The university’s leading body is now under pressure to fire Barrett for his unethical behavior. Various supporting stakeholders are threatening to withdraw their support should the institution refuse to fire Barrett.

Plausible Actions and Impact on the Shareholders

Action 1 and Consequences

The first reasonable action would be to fire Dr. Barrett as a faculty member and a university staff. Firing him would stop the significant shareholders from withdrawing their support from the university. For example, the school’s large donors and the large corporate co-sponsor for the fundraising event would maintain their support for the school. The community would also be happy for firing Barrett and would keep strong support for the university. As a faculty member, Barrett represents the university leadership. Firing Barrett would show the whole society that his actions do not represent the leadership of the university. However, the school would likely face tougher court fines and a direct order to reinstate Barrett’s position

Action 2 and Consequences

The second action is to keep Barrett in the university and the same position. In this case, the school will be taking no disciplinary action against Barrett. Such an action can be justified by the law enforcement report which indicates that Barrett did not break the law. The officers also provide that Barrett was not involved in the killing or reported violence. This option would contribute to major implications for the university. The donors, sponsors, and other significant supporters of the school would withdraw their support. The community would continue its outrage and would also withdraw its social responsibility support. To the general public, the university would have sent a silent racism message. It would be assumed that the school leadership supports the anti-Semitism words, whether they make a public apology for Barrett’s actions or not. Furthermore, the media would be on the university’s neck with scrutiny and allegations of racism.

Action 3 and Consequences

The last action would be to demote Barrett from the faculty position to a lower university position. Barrett would be required to stand before the school ethical committee and explain his actions. The disciplining committee will also be allowed to punish Barrett for his poor representation of the school. The top school leaders would then host a press conference and publicly apologize to the public for Barrett’s actions. The press statement would also be formulated to reveal the consequences of Barrett’s unethical practices, distance his actions from the school, and hope to retain all stakeholders. The leaders should also explain to the public why it is not legally possible to fire Barrett. At this point, the stakeholders would be in a position to decide whether to withdraw or maintain their support. Based on the school’s sincerity, the general public would understand the leadership position and its legal boundaries. This action would be based on faith and hope that the university’s stakeholders will give the institution the benefit of doubt based on its racial history.

Philosophical Theories Involved

Utilitarianism

Depending on the action the university will take, it will be bound by philosophical theories. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that advocates act promoting joy or happiness regardless of their consequences (Arnold et al., 2019). It supports actions that make society or a large number of people happy. Utilitarianism ignores the consequences of such actions that could only make a few people unhappy. In this case, utilitarianism would support firing Barrett and oppose retaining him in the university. Firing Barrett would make all the stakeholders happy except for the judicial system. The philosophy holds that if firing Barrett makes a large part of society happy then it is morally right.

Dentology (Duty-based)

Dentology (duty-based) ethics is based on whether an action is right or wrong no matter its consequences. The philosophy encourages people to do the right thing not because it will give better results but because it is the right thing to do (Arnold et al., 2019). In this case, the university has no legal right to fire Barrett. The law enforcement officers already reported that he did not break any law. However, it would be right for the university to include ethical considerations in the matter. The school ethical committee exists for such reasons hence is obligated to question and punish Barrett. Therefore, whether the stakeholders will be happy or not, the school should not fire Barrett.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics are person-based and look at the moral characters of a person other than their actions. The theory does not also consider a person’s duties or consequences. The philosophy seeks to find whether the person is honest, integral, courageous, compassionate, prudence, self-controlled, or fair among other virtues (Arnold et al., 2019). Barrett, gauged by these virtues is not compassionate, self-controlled, fair, or prudence. Barrett failed to show compassion to other races and showed a loss of self-control, fairness, and prudence. Therefore, based on this theory, Barrett is not a virtuous man.

Contemporary Theories

Professional Codes of Ethics

Professional codes of ethics are developed to govern the behaviors of employees. Employees are expected to behave in a manner that is respectful and socially acceptable. The employees are also expected to act with integrity and respect for one another and the clients (Arnold et al., 2019). In this case, Barrett is bound by the university codes of ethics to behave with respect towards others. Barrett, by saying that other tribes were replacing the whites did not behave professionally. He disrespected his fellow employees, employer, and all school stakeholder members who are of diverse races.

Principal-Agent Theory

A principal-agent problem is a theory that explores a conflict between the principal and the acting agent. The theory provides that the agent is expected to act according to the interest of his or her principal (Arnold et al., 2019). In this case, Barrett is an employee of the university hence expected to act in the interest of the institution. Dr. Barrett did not act in the school’s interest hence the institution can choose to fire him. The institution as the principal can also decide to keep him but the decision lies with the leadership.

Conclusion

Dr. Barrett has been involved in the unethical practice of racism. The law has however made it clear that he has not committed any legal crime. From an ethical perspective, Barrett as a representative of the university has broken his moral obligation. He has poorly represented the institution and now risks making the school lose critical stakeholder support. The most balanced action considering the law and the school’s reputation is to demote Barrett and punish him. After putting him in a lower position, the school leadership should hand him over to the ethical committee for further discipline. The school leaders should then hold a press conference to distance themselves from Barrett’s actions.

Reference

Arnold, D. G., Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (2019). Ethical theory and business. Cambridge University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!