Running Head: ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR.

BEN LEVIN 1

Ethical Hypothetical: Dr. Ben Levin

Malia Gray

Lana Lodhar

Mohamed Noordeen

Rachelle Troendle

University of Calgary

EDUC 525 L02 – Summer 2018

Ethics and the Law

LT2 – Ethics Assignment

ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR. BEN LEVIN 2

On the ethical hypothetical where we serve as the Educational Faculty Committee tasked

with deciding whether or not Dr. Levin should be invited as a guest speaker and if his works be

used by the faculty, we have arrived at a consensus; we reject the proposal to invite Dr. Levin as

a guest speaker, as well as rejecting the use of his works by our faculty. Our decision is based on

the following three premises: (1) we feel it is unethical to promote someone with a criminal

record into a position of power and trust where they will come into direct contact with our

students and community members on campus; if we hold a standard of safety first then our

actions must not contradict our philosophy; (2) we feel the need to establish clear expectations

for our preservice teachers as to where the professional duty in education lies; in this regard we

feel it is crucial to lead by example and not endorse or promote a professional who has failed to

uphold their duty towards children; (3) we feel an ethical imperative to follow a decision-making

process which honors the foundationalist commitments required for integrity in leadership;

therefore, we feel we would do a disservice to our profession if we make light of our

responsibility to ensure our leadership caters to vulnerable persons as well as to the community

at large. There has been a loss of trust amongst peers and professional colleagues which taints

Dr. Levin’s character, and we have considered this alongside all other factors carefully in our

decision-making process.

To begin, the committee unanimously choose to reject inviting Dr. Levin as a guest

speaker on our campus citing safety and a responsibility to our students as the immediate

priority. As a committee our duty and first interests are to the safety and well-being of our

students and community members on campus. Having an individual such as Dr. Levin lecture

and present on campus creates a space for his physical presence and a possibility for contact with

our students or community members, which poses an immediate safety risk. Dr. Levin is a
ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR. BEN LEVIN 3

convicted criminal who, by his own account, pleaded guilty of sexual crimes towards and

relating to children (Blatchford, 2015). As educators we commit to upholding a bond of trust

between ourselves, other professionals in the field, and the students we have been entrusted to

educate, inspire, and guide to towards a better future; we have vowed to protect students, and

committed to safeguarding their interests at all times. Dr. Levin has relinquished any ounce of

trust he held as an educator and we cannot in good conscience condone the presence of an

individual who has maligned the trust placed in educators and proven to be a danger to those

most vulnerable. We considered that Dr. Levin's crimes were an abuse of his authority and power

as an educator, and thus concluded by inviting Dr. Levin to speak on campus we would be

promoting him to a position of authority once again. To promote authority onto an individual

such as Dr. Levin would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible and through such actions, we

as leaders would violate our responsibility to our students. As diligent educators we take our duty

to ensure students’ safety seriously and we simply "cannot underestimate the cost of failing to do

the right thing" (Donlevy & Walker, 2010, cited in EDUC 525 Ethics and Law handout, 2014, p.

9). We echo the sentiments of Judge McArthur, which stated that because of Dr. Levin's career

as a leading expert and authority in the field of education, his actions render "his moral

blameworthiness particularly high" (Blatchford, 2015). It is precisely for these reasons of safety

and modelling of responsible, moral leadership that we reject inviting Dr. Levin on our campus.

On the issue of using, referencing and/or citing Dr. Levin’s works in our faculty at the

University, we reject the proposal based on the conclusion that our promotion of Levin’s works

will confuse our students in understanding a teacher’s responsibility to uphold standards of

professional conduct. In deciding on this we weighed the utilitarian point of view advocating for

the use of Dr. Levin’s works, considering arguments “for the greater good” and “if the ends
ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR. BEN LEVIN 4

justify the means” (Donlevy & Walker, 2010, cited in EDUC 525 Ethics and Law handout, 2014,

p. 20). Furthermore, we considered the acclaim Levin’s works have received both nationally and

internationally and what benefit they offer our purpose in teacher education. To these

considerations we respond that while we understand in education it would be counter-intuitive to

lead a “book burning” crusade, we are of the firm mind that the core our profession revolves

around serving the best interest of children; it is this duty which remains at the forefront of our

decision-making process. As leaders in educational administration we must question the long-

term consequences of our professional service model (Donlevy & Walker, 2010, cited in EDUC

525 Ethics and Law handout, 2014, p. 7). The man, his ideas and his actions are one in the same;

it is unsound to imply we can separate Dr. Levin’s works which serve society from his actions

which harm it. As leaders in education we must make decisions in good conscience which we

know will serve the public’s interests, using foresight and discernment (Donlevy & Walker,

2010, cited in EDUC 525 Ethics and Law handout, 2014, p. 8). Therefore, we have decided that

our faculty should not promote the study of Levin’s works to preservice teachers in our program,

as to not confuse students in understanding a teacher’s duty to uphold human dignity and to

safeguard and protect children.

This committee finds that Dr. Levin has broken many of the commitments required for

integrity in leadership and subsequently we would do the same if we were to allow Dr. Levin to

speak or promote his work within our program. Dr. Levin has broken a commitment to common

ethical principles and has proven to be untrustworthy with vulnerable persons, which

consequently leads to the loss of trust and respect required of an educational leader (Walker &

Donlevy, 2006, p. 15). Prior to his conviction, Dr. Levin had been a respected and influential

leader in education, however as Donlevy and Walker (2010) state, “…people are judged by their
ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR. BEN LEVIN 5

worst acts, with no regard to their best intentions, much less their most noble acts...This is why

we must diligently work to be ethical, act ethically, and appear to be ethical” (cited in EDUC 525

Ethics and Law handout, 2014, p. 13). Since “Trust is an extremely important leader concept – a

complex and fragile condition in any organization...” we can’t afford to risk the trust given to

this University and to us as leaders of this committee, by appearing to condone Dr. Levin in any

way (Donlevy & Walker, 2010, cited in EDUC 525 Ethics and Law handout, 2014, p. 9). Dr.

Levin has also broken the commitment to relational reciprocity by harming vulnerable persons

and acting against the children he was dedicated to help as a leader in education (Walker &

Donlevy, 2006, p. 16). As leaders we must act in the best interests of our preservice teachers and

the communities in which they will work. Dr. Levin broke the commitment to the professional

constraints which set the standards for behavior required for those in teaching (Walker &

Donlevy, 2006, p. 18). This committee supports and upholds the professional constraints placed

on us as teachers, which means we can’t support someone who has broken the codes of conduct

which we as professionals are bound to uphold. As educators we take seriously safeguarding

“...the interests of students, parents, support staff, teachers, and other professional and

community leaders”, and by banning Dr. Levin from speaking and promoting his work in our

program we feel we are upholding the conditions required for “...quality learning, teaching and

leadership…” in the education program (Walker & Donlevy, 2006, p. 19).

Our position as the Educational Faculty Committee is to hold firm that Dr. Ben Levin

should not be invited as a guest speaker at the University, and his works should not be cited

and/or referenced based on the premises that: (1) it is unethical to promote someone with a

criminal record into a position of power and trust where they will come into direct contact with

our students and community members; (2) it is crucial to establish clear lines for our preservice
ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR. BEN LEVIN 6

teachers as to where an educator’s professional duty lies, removing any possibility that our

actions may cause any ambiguity to arise in their minds; (3) we have an ethical imperative to

follow a decision making process which honors the foundationalist commitments required for

integrity in leadership, which we have reasoned to demonstrate our decisions are fair and ethical.
ETHICAL HYPOTHETICAL: DR. BEN LEVIN 7

References

Blatchford, C. (2015, May 29). Three-year sentence brings sad, sickening end to onetime

education superstar. The National Post, retrieved from:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-three-year-sentence-brings-sad-

sickening-end-to-onetime-education-superstar

Donlevy, J.K., Walker, K.W. (2010). Working through Ethics in Education: Two Plays and

Ethical Analysis. Sense Publications, Netherlands, cited in University of Calgary. (2014).

EDUC 525: Ethics and the Law. Calgary, Canada: Author.

Walker K. W. & Donlevy, J.K. (2006) Beyond Relativism to Ethical Decision-Making. Journal

of School Leadership Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 216-239.