Ethical Dilemma: September State University

Chandler Mueller
Salem State University
Practicum II
Dr. Lee Brossoit
18 November 2017
ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 2

SETTING AND CHARACTERS

Dr. Jane Kernel

Recently elected president of September State University. Former general council

member and vice president for administration with an extensive background in law and politics.

Has worked at SSU for 8 years.

Carl Kravitz

Associate Director of College Housing and Student Conduct. Has worked in his position

for almost 11 years. Reports to the Associate Dean of Students.

The Office of Student Conduct

This office oversees the Student Code of Conduct for all of those enrolled within the

institution, hears and adjudicates student cases, distributes and assigns disciplinary and

educational sanctions, trains hearing officers, and manages the system that organizes

incident/police reports and correspondents. Additionally, the office is responsible to uphold and

guarantee the right for due process for the students at September State University so that they are

treated justly under the standards and expectations agreed upon at the time of their formal

enrollment. The jurisdiction of the Office of Student Conduct extends throughout the entirety of

a student’s time at September State University; from the point of enrollment to the when they

graduate or officially withdraw/are dismissed from the institution. This means that offenses that

occur off campus, over leave of absence, on study abroad, or over summer/winter/spring break

all have the potential to be heard by the Office of Student Conduct and can result in disciplinary

action through the university.

Institution
ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 3

September State University is a four year, public institution settled in coastal New

England several miles north of Boston, Massachusetts. The institution has approximately 11,000

students; including both graduate and undergraduate students. With 7 residence halls, the

university serves almost 4,000 residential students; all of whom are undergraduate, making 36%

of the student population residential while the remaining 64% commuter/off campus. The

September State University campus has a unique geographical composition, made up of three

campuses: West Quad, South Quad, and East Quad, with the exception of some outlying

academic and student specified locations.

September State University has a number of sports teams: soccer, lacrosse, field hockey,

ice hockey, baseball, tennis, volleyball, softball, and basketball. All of which have a space

designated for practice and play; tennis courts, soccer/lacrosse/field hockey field, ice rink,

basketball courts, and a baseball field. The Basketball and volleyball court, soccer/field

hockey/lacrosse field, and softball diamond are all inside or next to our fitness center, our

baseball field is just outside of two of our major residence halls as well as our Residential

Services central office, while our tennis courts are somewhat tucked behind a swamp, pushed

back from the heavily trafficked areas of September State University.

INCIDENT

One October Saturday night at the beginning of the school year, someone or some people

spray painted incredibly racist, hateful messages on the fence and benches of our tucked away

tennis courts that explicitly target Black and African American individuals, promoted white

supremacy, and wrote messages in support of the current president of the United States, Donald

Trump. This act was also in the wake of a racially fueled, social media hack that occurred over

the summer leading up to the school year that included similar messaging of biased and racist

statements targeted at people who are Black and African American identified and supporting
ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 4

President Trump. The day following the incident in October, a mass email message was sent out

from President Kernel stating the following:

“Today, we learned that a racist message was spray painted on a fence lining the

university’s tennis court. We do not know who is responsible and campus police are

investigating. September State University has zero tolerance for discrimination and hate,

and we strongly reject and condemn this message. This deeply troubling language has no

place at our university as we strive to be as inclusive a campus as possible. Please know

that we are investigating and that this language does not represent the views of our

university in any way. ”

The incident and the messages from President Kernel sparked a powerful response from

students, faculty, and staff. University and community members were furious, upset, confused,

etc. Through social media and emails, plans to rally as a response began to formulate. A march

was then developed as a response to the incident where students, faculty, staff, community

members could participate in marching from one of our campus adjacent academic buildings to

the tennis courts organized for the Friday following. As the campus community began to grow

in agitation and frustration in what they feel was an inadequate response to the bias and

discriminatory event, President Kernel sent a second mass email to the entire campus community

without the consultation of Carl Kravits. The message reads as follows:

“As you know, our tennis courts were recently vandalized and defaced with despicable

racist graffiti. Our campus has zero tolerance for such criminal conduct. I am writing to

assure you that this matter is under investigation by campus police. If we are able to

determine that the perpetrator of this heinous act is a September State University

students, the discipline will be immediate dismissal from the university and referral to the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts for potential criminal prosecution. As it is an active

ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 5

criminal investigation at this moment, I am not able to disclose any more information.

Finally, as some have raised questions about the investigation itself, we will also be

reviewing it to make sure appropriate protocol was and is followed. ”

In the week(s) following the incident and the messaging, the September State University

campus community had several events that influenced that campus climate. More bias related

incidents, open forums, demonstrations, plans of action, and the way administration addressed

the community developed, however, the perpetrator(s) of the tennis court incident were never

found and no formal updates had been distributed in the continuing months.

ETHICAL DILEMMA & ORGANIZATIONAL POLITICS

From the situation above, the ethical dilemma is not as prevalent since the incident does

not include an immediate decision where either choice or outcome is unfavorable, however, with

the influences of organizational politics, communication, and responsibility could certainly

create a potential for one. The dynamics of how the administration, specifically President

Kernel, responded to the incident and the following actions was reactionary in a way that could

possibly compromise the integrity of either the institution’s administration or the Office of

Student Conduct.

At September State University, administration reserves the right to temporarily dismiss

someone from the institution as they deem necessary, however, due to the temporary nature of

the dismissal, the student is then guaranteed the right to a formal university hearing in front of a

hearing board. The hearing is a right of any student for due process so that they are treated, tried,

and reprimanded accordingly to the policies, procedures, and based on the preponderance of

evidence; including the perspective and input of the accused. Once the hearing officer, or what

would be a hearing board in this case, has met with the student(s), they would then collaborate,
ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 6

consider all information, potential previous conduct history, influencers that may have fueled the

perpetrator, and any additional factors that may aid the overall understanding of the events that

took place. Upon receiving all of the details an factors, it is then the responsibility of the hearing

board to make a determination that outlines if the individual(s) are to be found responsible and

what appropriate sanction would best fit into the process, meet the expectations of the institution,

and ultimately be the most educational and corrective for the perpetrator(s) that is both warranted

and justifiable.

Given the details of the incident and the responses from President Kernel, it is clear that

she is appealing to what she feels her constituents want to hear as well as being reactionary by

publicly stating ways the administration plans to prosecute regardless of process or procedure.

In the very possible chance that campus police find the perpetrator(s) of the incident, it would

then be on the university administration to follow through with their public commitment and

temporarily dismiss the individual from the institution, however, the specific language in the

email messages clearly neglects to note that it would be a temporary dismissal, perpetuating the

interpretation that the dismissal would be long term/indefinite; which, based on the right for due

process, a permanent dismissal is not necessarily guaranteed and must be determined through

majority agreement of the hearing board. This generates a level of dissonance within the

institution, specifically as it relates to the responsibilities of the Office of Student Conduct. For

example, if the administrators proclaim their decision on how they would like to reprimand those

involved and campus stakeholders believe that to be the end-all-be-all, it adds an additional layer

of pressure for hearing board members as they may feel the need to make a determination and

sanction that is congruent with administrators and with what campus and community members

were told without considering other alternative that meet the mission of the office.
ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 7

The potential compromised situation that administration placed the Office of Student

Conduct relates back to the a handful of ethnically principles that were violated. As outlined by

the Statement of Ethical Principles, a document of guiding professional behaviors and attributes

for student affairs professionals, the way administration responded to the incident neglected to

the appeal to the standards. One ethical code states: “assuring that information provided about

the institution is factual and accurate” (Statement of Ethical Principles, 2009, p. 4). We know

that President Kernel breeched this ethical principle when she distributed information that was

misleading and ultimately was not accurate. Another outlines: “refrain from attitudes or actions

that impinge on colleagues’ dignity, moral code, privacy, worth, professional functioning, and/or

personal growth” (Statement of Ethical Principles, 2009, p. 4). Stemming from the first

violation, President Kernel’s message creates the potential for complete professional functioning

of the office of Community Standards now that she has invited a new set of pressures to make a

decision that runs in favor of what the community has been told. A third ethical principal note

the ability to “demonstrate regard for social codes and moral expectations of the communities in

which they live and work. At the same time, they will be aware of situations in which concepts

of social justice may conflict with local moral standards and norms and may choose to point out

these conflicts in ways that respect the rights and values of all who are involved. They will

recognize that violations of accepted moral and legal standards may involve their clients,

students, or colleagues in damaging personal conflicts and may impugn the integrity of the

profession, their own reputations, and that of the employing institution” (Statement of Ethical

Principles, 2009, p. 5). The violation of this particular ethical principle becomes more

prominent as the potential for a biased platform of due process grows. Seeing as the

administration would temporarily dismiss those involved upon finding out who they were, the

decision and illustration of how the conduct board should make its determination precedes any
ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 8

formal hearing, potentially compromising a completely just determination, sanction, and

resolution.

From the details described in the case study, organizational politics is a very present

factor influencing the ways individuals and organizations make decisions and navigate the

political arena. The first being the “sources of power” that are at play (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p.

197). It is clear that administration at September State University reserve the power to

temporarily dismiss anyone from the institution but any formal dismissal/expulsion from the

institution based on behavior lies in the power of the Office of Student Conduct and those to

uphold its mission. Additionally, organizational politics in this dilemma appeal to two major

constructs of the frame, “agenda setting” and “authority” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 197). As the

incident is described and the subsequent action was taken, there is no more formally authority,

symbolically, than the position of the president at an institution and for the highest positional

power to make a quick, inaccurate determination sets the agenda for how offices and

responsibilities should follow suite. Lastly, organizational politics has a strong guiding factor of

sustaining “reputation” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 197). The president and administration want

to sustain a level of reputation of a representative body that is focused and fighting for the needs

of the people they serve, informing much of the decision making process, while the Office of

Student Conduct must sustain its reputation as a just functional area that works to support the

integrity and rights of the students. Depending on the way each area of September State

University responds could compromise the reputation of the other.

LESSONS AND SUGGESTIONS

ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 9

The case study offered an array of complicated features that challenge the ways

institutions like September State University should handle situations. It is crucial that student

affairs professionals operate within the guideline of the Statement of Ethical Principles.

Looking back at the situation, I would have strongly advised the president of September State

University to modify their message to include “temporary dismissal until meeting in front of a

formal hearing board.” This would have allowed them to exercise their right to temporarily

dismiss the perpetrators, is both informational and accurate in terms of the process, and would

not allow the responsibilities of the office of Student Conduct to operate without pressures to

conform to predefined sanctions.

Considering the case study and the ethical dilemma is hypothetical, seeing as the

perpetrator(s) of the incident have not been found, I feel as though I should still make

suggestions in the event that they did. If the ethical dilemma came to fruition and the individuals

involved had to sit in front of a hearing board, I would remind the hearing officers on the board

that regardless of the feelings and determination of the administration, it is their responsibility to

give the individual(s) their right to due process, hear the case, and amongst the board, come to a

justified resolution regardless of how the administration responded prior. This would reinforce

the integrity of the Office of Student Conduct as well as providing a fair process for those who

are supported by the conduct system.

ETHICAL DILEMMA: SEPTEMBER STATE UNIVERSITY Mueller 10

References

ACPA (2009). Statement of ethical principles and standards. Retrieved from:

http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

Bolamn, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(5th edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass