APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES FOR ETHICAL ANALYSIS
As you examine one or more of the following case studies from the perspective of a particular ethical theory, ask yourself some questions:
- What are the moral issues implied by this case?
- What information in the case would this particular ethical theory find to be the most important factors? Why?
- What specific moral conclusions would be reached by someone analyzing this case from this particular ethical theory approach?
- What are the strengths of analyzing this case from this particular ethical theory perspective? What are weaknesses in doing so?
The more you practice using the ethical theories of the course to think through these case studies the better ethical reasoner you will become.
Case One: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s decision to speak out in an interview with Oprah Winfrey By Kendal Clark3
Introduction
Oprah with Meghan and Harry was a 2021 television special hosted by American media personality Oprah Winfrey, that featured an interview between Winfrey, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. The special premiered March 7, 2021, on CBS in the United States, and in the United Kingdom the next day on ITV.
Several “bombshells” were shared during a Primetime interview between Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry, and Meghan Markle. They shared remarks on the royal title, security, racism, lack of support from the Royal Family, the reason they moved to the States, and more. This two-hour interview had 17.1 million viewers for CBS Sunday night, according to preliminary Nielsen figures.
People from all over the world have become infatuated with the royal family and their history. Many people are also remaining up to date on the royal family pop culture, or even “royal family drama.”
Recently, the main point of discussion has been racism. There were questions, according to Markle, of how dark her son’s skin would be. This entire debacle was partly the reason for the suicidal thoughts she had experienced (Morris, 2021). It was not only the verbal discussion that provided insight into how this family was feeling but hidden significance could also be found visually. Meghan wore a black Giorgio Armani dress which featured a white lotus print on the shoulder. The lotus flower signifies enlightenment, self-regeneration, and rebirth. Markle somewhat resembles American socialite and divorcée, Wallis Simpson. In 1936, King Edward VIII (Prince Harry’s great-uncle) abdicated the throne to marry Simpson. Markle, of course, is also American and was previously married, showing the connection in history (Klich, 2021).
Truth played a large part in this interview. They wanted to be “real, authentic, and share their truth.” Just before the interview, bullying allegations were made against Markle. This brought her to tears, according to Harry, due to the statements made against her nature/character. Harry also brought up his struggles with mental health (Mizoguchi et al., 2021). Harry and Meghan both speak about how they endured so many overwhelming moments since the wedding that it truly affected their health and that changes/decisions needed to be made. The stakeholders in this were the family, the monarchy, the British public, Harry and Meghan, the firm, the press, and finally Oprah.
The interview was a respectful discussion. Markle seemed ready to talk and answer any questions. “It’s really liberating to have the ability to say yes and be able to talk…to be able to speak for yourself,” said Markle. She made a comment that she related to the Little Mermaid story. She fell in love and felt that her voice had been taken away but that she was gaining it back in the end. The interview began discussing the wedding. Meghan went into the wedding “naive.” She even stated that she had never looked up her husband online. Her own family did not know much about the royal family. She was brand new to the idea of the Monarchy.
Oprah said, “In any family, the grandmother is the matriarch.” When Meghan met the Queen, they went to lunch at Royal Lodge, casually. Meghan was shocked at the thought that she would be expected to curtsy to his grandmother in a casual setting. However, it is a form of respect, and Harry said, “Well, she is the Queen.” Meghan feels it was easy to confuse the idea and feeling of seeing Los Angeles celebrities and the royal family, however, they are extremely different. These are not concert singers, this is a monarchy. There was drama surrounding the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. One instance, in particular, was between Kate and Meghan regarding Bridesmaid dresses. Headlines said that Meghan had made Kate cry regarding the conflict, however, Meghan states in the interview with Oprah that it was the reverse. Kate had made Meghan cry. She did not want to go into details as “She had apologized, and I had forgiven her.” Oprah asked, if everyone in the institution knew it was the reverse that happened, why didn’t anyone say anything? Meghan replied, “That’s a good question.. this was a real character assassination” (Winfrey et al., 2021).
The royal family is expected not to discuss politics (Gross 2020). Markle is an advocate for women’s rights. “Were you silent, or were you silenced?” asked Oprah. Meghan responded, “The latter,” and she was directed to say “no comment” on questions directed her way once her relationship with Harry was public (Hogan 2021). She says she listened to them for if she did, “they would protect her.” “I believed that… I came to understand that not only was I not being protected, but they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing, to tell the truth, to protect me and my husband.” This was why she did not feel protected.
She even stated that their son Archie was not going to receive security. She was also not asked to take the traditional photo once Archie had been born. Markle had described the racism she received and her unborn child received as “almost unsurvivable.” She was having suicidal thoughts. “I thought it would have solved everything for everyone,” Harry said he will never share the conversation regarding Archie’s skin tone and that it was awkward and shocking.
Meghan and Harry moved to Canada, but without security, then they made the move to California where they stayed with Tyler Perry temporarily until they got settled in with security. The Queen replied to the move saying, “Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the royal family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”
Harry and his grandmother had no issues with one another during this change. Harry felt there was a “lack of support and understanding” from others. Harry did not blindside the queen. He says he had phone calls with his father and grandmother. His father stopped taking his calls, “because I took matters into my own hands,” for his family he says. Harry said he was “trapped” without realizing he was.
After he met Meghan and saw how she was treated, that trap became clear. He feels his mother would have been angry and sad, but would want them to be happy. He was let down by his father because he expected to support and for his father to relate to the pain his family felt. “I will continue to make it one of my priorities to heal that relationship,” said Harry. Currently, his brother William and are giving each other space… If they had support, they would still be there. “This was never the intention,” said Harry.
Case Resolution
On February 19, 2021, it was stated from Buckingham Palace that Prince Harry and Meghan would not return as working members of the royal family and that their royal patronages and Harry’s honorary military titles would be returned to the Queen. Harry enjoys the family time they have been having. Harry has no regrets. “We did what we had to do and now we have another little one on the way.” Meghan has one regret: “Believing them when they said that I would be protected… we have survived and are thriving… this is just the beginning for us.” They feel their story has a happy ending “greater than any fairytale” and that they saved each other (Winfrey et al., 2021).
Looking at the larger dialog, or public opinion, Harry and Meghan continued to receive support from various individuals. “The queen has always been wonderful to me,” Markle said (Winfrey et al., 2021). A show on Netflix aired about Meghan and Prince Harry and it showcased the continuation of the discussions regarding the attributes and inner workings of the royal family. The interview Markle chose to have with Oprah brought about a worldwide drama regarding the royal family (Henni, 2022).
Case Two: An equity, diversity, and inclusion office gone rogue. By Melanie Lawrence4
Introduction
On February 13, 2023, the safety of Michigan State University (MSU) students was violated as an active shooter killed three and injured five on the East Lansing campus (Taylor, 2023). In the United States, which claims more school shootings than any other industrialized country (Lemieux, 2014), gun violence continues to be a growing problem in schools.
Victims of these nightmares are also subjected to the national platform of public opinion and political debate as people strive to bring about change. With the increase of social media, instant posting capabilities, and generative artificial intelligence, victims may be re-subjected to the horrors of the crime which may trigger symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
According to The Texas Tribune author Kate McGhee (2023), many universities within the United States have implemented Departments of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) to ensure “historically underrepresented groups could be successful and graduate.”
Facts of the Case
Three days following the MSU shooting, Vanderbilt University Peabody College of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Associate Dean and Assistant Dean addressed the MSU shooting by sending an email of condolence to Vanderbilt students (Perrotta et al., 2-23; Wu, 2023). What surprised the students the most about the email? According to the Hustler, Vandy’s official student newspaper, it was the line above the signatories that stated, “paraphrase from OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI language model”(Perrotta et al., 2023; Schladebeck, 2023). Following the release of the email, the Hustler, released information concerning students’ outrage at the email (Perrotta et al., 2023) that would make headlines across North America and Europe (Southern, 2023).
However, using ChatGPT was not the only possible mistake made by the department. According to The Dean of Peabody College, Camilla Benbow, the office went against the grain by breaching campus review protocols prior to sending the letter to students (Mendoza, 2023; Wu, 2023). Subsequently, involved staff stepped back from their university duties pending a campus investigation (Wu, 2023).
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include those invested in Vandy’s Peabody College, those that received the email directly, and eventually, those that heard of the email through the press or social media. Vandy students had the following to say about the email:
“It’s hard to take a message seriously when I know that the sender didn’t even take the time to put their genuine thoughts and feelings into words,” -Samuel Lu (Perotta et al., 2023)
“There is a sick and twisted irony to making a computer write your message about community and togetherness because you can’t be bothered to reflect on it yourself.” -Bethanie Stauffer (Perrotta et al., 2023)
“Automating messages on grief and crisis is the most on-the-nose, explicit recognition that we as students are more customers than a community to the Vanderbilt administration. The fact it’s from the office of EDI might be the cherry on top.” -Joseph Sexton (Perotta et al., 2023)
Case Resolution
Both Joseph and Hasina Mohyuddin, Assistant Dean, stepped back from their university positions while the incident was reviewed by the University (Wu, 2023) but were reinstated in April (Lele and Faquih, 2023). Benbow, Dean of the Vandy Peabody College stated, “I am also deeply troubled that a communication from my administration so missed the crucial need for personal connection and empathy during a time of tragedy (Schladebeck, 2023; Wu, 2023).
The Vandy EDI office mission now includes “Advocating a human-centered approach” (Equity, 2023). OpenAI continues to improve its software and debates exist in countries such as China that have blocked the software for spreading American propaganda (Ray, 2023). News networks and social media have moved on from the tragedy and are focusing on other matters. Stakeholders will continue to mourn and heal, and some will search for change.
Canadian government decision to not search landfill for the bodies of three murdered Indigenous Women by Arthur Sennett5
Introduction
Democratic governments are often referred to as the best form of government. This is because democracies are governments of the people by the people and for the people. Democracies as opposed to dictatorships have the well-being of the populace in mind (Paul, 2021). Democracies are also referred to as a responsible form of government. This refers to a government that is responsible to those they govern (McIntosh et al. 2006). This responsibility is reflected in the three roles democratic governments play. These roles are played out in American government as well as Canadian government. They reflect the type of responsiveness on the part of government that is expected in democratic societies. The first role of a responsible government is upholding the rights of individuals in a society.
The rights of individuals in a society are one of the primary features of a democratic government. Without governmental protection of these rights citizens would be hard pressed to live productive lives. These rights also at times must be protested for in a democratic society. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 is an example of this. This piece of legislation motivated by racial tensions in the South would allow federal prosecution of anyone who tried to stop someone from voting (History Editors, 2009). This guarantees the fundamental right of all citizens to vote. This again is an example of how government is to protect the rights of the citizenry.
A second role of responsible governments is to uphold the laws. This means that governmental activity should be guided by a constitution. Upholding the law means governments should lead by example (Paul, 2021). Governments not only make laws for the well-being of a society, but they must also live by those same laws. Not doing so would cause the emergence of conflict between the government and those being governed.
A third role of responsible government is responding to the needs of the citizenry. This involves creating policies that would respond to those needs. These policies create programs for the disadvantaged persons in a society (Slaughter, 2017). This government aid in America is expressed in a variety of ways that includes food aid, housing help, Social Security, and health insurance to name a few. These types of government programs are crucial to the well-being of those in a society, who through no fault of their own, find themselves on the bottom rung socially and economically in society.
Case Narrative
The mystery of the murder of four Indigenous women began to unravel on June 15, 2022, when police uncovered partial human remains, found in the Brady Road Landfill (Gowriluk, 2023). The remains were identified as those of Rebecca Contois, a 24-year-old homicide victim. Jeremy Skibicki a 35-year-old Canadian was charged with the crime. Police believed also that when they found the partial human remains, that there was a possibility of other victims. These victims, the other three murdered Indigenous women, Police believed are buried in a landfill at the Prairie Green site (Deer, 2023).
This fact led Cambria Harris, a daughter of one of the murdered victims, to ask police to search for her mother, Morgan Harris, and the other murdered victims in the Prairie Green landfill site. The Winnipeg Police responded to this request with a decision not to search the landfill because of feasibility of the search and low possibility of recovery (Deer, 2023). This response was responded to by the Manitoba’s leaders bringing a panel of experts together to see if the search could be done. The findings of the panel concluded that the search can be done at a cost of $184 million and could take up to three years but could be done safely (Unger, 2023). In addition to the findings of the panel, protests were formed against the decision to not search the landfill for the other three murdered women. A place called Camp Morgan was set up in front of the Prairie Green Landfill entrance to stop further dumping in the site (Gowriluk, 2023).
These facts, however, did not sway the local police or governmental authorities from changing their decision. The moral argument on the part of the Indigenous community for searching the landfill for the murdered women along with the responsibility of the Canadian government to its citizens was seemingly ignored. The Canadian authority’s decision was alleged to be based on budget concerns and not the need of the Indigenous community.
Stakeholders
We now turn our attention to the stakeholders in this case. There are the Families of the murdered Indigenous women, the Indigenous community, the Canadian governmental officials, and the global community. Loyalty was not being expressed to the families of the murdered Indigenous women, the national community of Canada, or the global community. This is a result of not identifying with the Indigenous community which led to an us versus them mentality. The principle of stewardship, humaneness, and truth should have been paramount when screened through the Ubuntu Philosophy concept of identifying with others in the community.
The Canadian Authorities loyalty was limited to themselves. They decided they had the liberty to make the decision they did because of their being stewards of the populace. The exercising of the principles of liberty and stewardship however by the Canadian Authorities ignored the crisis at hand which in turn created disharmony in the community. Focusing on the Ubuntu Philosophy concept of solidarity in the community would have enabled the Canadian Authorities to see the principles of liberty and stewardship in a different light. They would have seen their stewardship and liberty as an opportunity to respond to the genuine need of the Indigenous community in their time of grief.
A Case Study of a Mississippi Daycare Nightmare by Aspen Owen6
Introduction
In October 2022, a disturbing incident occurred at a local daycare center in Hamilton, Mississippi. This case raised concerns about the child’s safety within the daycare and questioned the appropriate care they were supposed to be given, five employees were fired after a video recording went viral across the web, showing daycare workers wearing scary masks and attempting to yell while chasing the children in the daycare. This case study dives deep into the ethical framework that this daycare displayed and the consequences that not only the daycare workers face, but the children and parents of the incident, forced to overcome a horribly traumatic fear.
Background
Five daycare workers were charged with child abuse in Hamilton, Mississippi. The daycare workers were facing charges from their tortuous behavior to the children within the daycare, the workers who had on Halloween masks and purposefully scaring the children. The masks worn resembled from the moving ‘Scream’. Videos surfaced all throughout the internet of the daycare employees just inches away from the children’s faces, while the children were screaming in fear and complete terror. One of the five daycare workers was video recording the whole scene and presumed to record even after the recognizable fear on these children’s faces, “Several people who viewed the video said online that they were disturbed by what they saw” (Diaz, 2022).
Videos surfaced the internet of this horrific scene, “Children can be seen and heard crying and, at times, running away from the employee wearing the mask while another employee gives directions about which children acted good or bad. The employee in the mask is shown screaming inches away from children’s faces at times” (Associated Press, 2022). Alyssa Hayes, mother of a young girl at the daycare center, stated to ABC News, “I want them to see the terror on her face because that is what I see every night” (2022). As a daycare organization, the parents of the children are putting their utmost trust into the hands of the employees, hoping that they will care for their children just as much as their parents do. Unfortunately, this is a case where the trust was completely lost and it resulted in major consequences. For this case, the stakeholders include the parents of the children/family, the children affected themselves, the daycare workers, the other daycare workers who were not involved, the owner of the daycare, and the community/town in which it is located within.
Stakeholders and Loyalties
The decision to fire the employees involved showed the company’s loyalty to the children, their families and the people of the community. However, with the legal charges that face the five employees, the consequences will be difficult to hide. Making the decision to fire and press charges against the employees was the ethical and morally correct choice to make. However, this type of behavior will follow these five workers forever. When it comes to future jobs, being accepted into organizations/companies, future relationships are all factors that might be inflicted from this incident. As for the parents and the future daycare children of the school, the owners’ loyal commitment to terminate anyone or any behavior that is going against the school’s code of ethics and morals, is being treated properly.
Case Resolution
This case resulted in a firing of all five of the daycare workers. Originally, they were all charged with felony child abuse. However, instead they each received a misdemeanor charge, after the grand jury declined to indict the women. As for the owner of the daycare, Sheila Sanders, is not facing charges. She has said that at least four of the employees were fired after the video came to light (NBC, 2022). One of the five employees was previously charged with a misdemeanor and failure to report an abuse assault against a minor, leading her to eventually receive termination from the organization as well. There is no evidence that the daycare had permanently shut down, so as far as the public knows, it is still open for business. We do know that all five participants involved in this case have been terminated from the organization. From research, the daycare did recover from this incident. A statement from the Washington Post shared that the videos have infuriated some residents in the tiny community of Hamilton, an unincorporated area 50 miles south of Tupelo where Lil’ Blessings is the town’s only daycare in business listings. Two days after the incident, Crook urged residents to be patient and let the investigation unfold, while at the same time acknowledging that the videos were “hard to watch.” (Bellware, 2022). According to People Magazine (2022), “The people that did those acts are no longer with us. They were fired. I wasn’t here at the time and wasn’t aware they were doing that. I don’t condone that and never have. I just want to say it’s been taken care of,” Sanders told the outlet.
References:
3. What if? Ethics cases using various philosophies for decision-making.(https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/100659/student/389534?section=8)
4. https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/100659/student/389534?section=10
5. https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/116997/student/389534?section=3
6. https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/116997/student/389534?section=15
