Reading "The Dark Side of Freelancing," on a Harvard Business Review blog, got me thinking about the author's final question: Is there "something inherently lazy and unaccountable about outsourced intellectual labor"?
As a freelancer myself I want to say no. That it is just a byproduct of the pace and connectedness of our world. While I do believe that when it comes to corporate communications outsourcing intellectual labor, when transparent and fairly compensated, is perfectly ethical. However, I can't say the same when it comes to academics and the so-called "essay mills" that lurk in the Far East and many nations notorious for permissive sweat-shop cultures.
Working at UVA in graduate school showed me that too many students are ill prepared for any sort of robust academic/intellectual endeavor — most would rather rip their own teeth out than write an essay on Hobbes' State of Nature. Those from affluent means were more than willing to buy a pass on course requirements, even if that meant cheating. Despite the Jeffersonian "Honor Code," we found students desperate to "clear the academic bar" were willing to risk expulsion rather than put time and effort into writing a decent paper themselves. Students' willingness to "outsource" work and claim credit for the product points to grave ethical problems ahead (not to mention decreasing intellectual standards).
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Friday, April 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Felony claim leads to defamation lawsuit
0 comments
When former Nevada State Sen. Sandra Tiffany found herself on the losing end of an election she decided to sue. And rightly so, she experienced libel that exposed her to ridicule and contempt, not to mention a resounding defeat, ending her career as a state lawmaker.
Tiffany claimed defaming mailers, sent by the Nevada State Education Association, contributed, unfairly, to her failed reelection bid in 2006. The claimed defamation touted in the mailers: Henderson could go to prison for unlawfully using her elected position for personal gain.
It’s true that before the election Tiffany was under investigation by the state Ethics Commission. Investigators found evidence that Tiffany used her position to obtain information about other states’ online government auctions. Information she later admitted to using in order to increase the prosperity of her private business. So the charge that Tiffany unlawfully used her position and violated the states ethics laws is accurate. But were such violations felony offenses as the mailer charged? No.
Tiffany admitted to two willful ethics violations before the election and subsequently paid her $10,000 fine, she was not cited with and criminal violation. Thus, the charge of Tiffany’s impending imprisonment in the Education Association’s mailer may be libelous, since the mailer wasn’t spot on. As a point of fact, that the teacher’s union should have reasonably known, the ethics violations charged to Tiffany were far from felonies: ethics violations in Nevada result only in fines.
Of her desire for $10,000 compensation Tiffany said: "This is defamation. We're not kidding around here. Yes we want compensation and we want the teachers union to know they can't do that to people. They can't go that far over the line."
While the teacher’s union has yet to comment on the lawsuit it should be prepared for a Tiffany to put forth a serious case for defamation of character. Such a case requires Tiffany to show a) a false statement of fact was made: that she could be jailed for her ethics violations; and, b) this statement was conveyed to a third party and intends to harm Tiffany’s reputation: the teachers union printed the claim on mailers and dispensed them throughout Nevada’s 5th District.
In the case of a public figure, such as a senator running for reelection, the plaintiff must prove malice spurred the defaming statement. In the political arena, as in the private sector, malice isn’t easily proved. The teacher’s union may be able to fight Tiffany’s claim, but it should also remember that ethical due diligence (i.e. fact checking) keeps lawsuits like these from ever arising.
Tiffany claimed defaming mailers, sent by the Nevada State Education Association, contributed, unfairly, to her failed reelection bid in 2006. The claimed defamation touted in the mailers: Henderson could go to prison for unlawfully using her elected position for personal gain.
It’s true that before the election Tiffany was under investigation by the state Ethics Commission. Investigators found evidence that Tiffany used her position to obtain information about other states’ online government auctions. Information she later admitted to using in order to increase the prosperity of her private business. So the charge that Tiffany unlawfully used her position and violated the states ethics laws is accurate. But were such violations felony offenses as the mailer charged? No.
Tiffany admitted to two willful ethics violations before the election and subsequently paid her $10,000 fine, she was not cited with and criminal violation. Thus, the charge of Tiffany’s impending imprisonment in the Education Association’s mailer may be libelous, since the mailer wasn’t spot on. As a point of fact, that the teacher’s union should have reasonably known, the ethics violations charged to Tiffany were far from felonies: ethics violations in Nevada result only in fines.
Of her desire for $10,000 compensation Tiffany said: "This is defamation. We're not kidding around here. Yes we want compensation and we want the teachers union to know they can't do that to people. They can't go that far over the line."
While the teacher’s union has yet to comment on the lawsuit it should be prepared for a Tiffany to put forth a serious case for defamation of character. Such a case requires Tiffany to show a) a false statement of fact was made: that she could be jailed for her ethics violations; and, b) this statement was conveyed to a third party and intends to harm Tiffany’s reputation: the teachers union printed the claim on mailers and dispensed them throughout Nevada’s 5th District.
In the case of a public figure, such as a senator running for reelection, the plaintiff must prove malice spurred the defaming statement. In the political arena, as in the private sector, malice isn’t easily proved. The teacher’s union may be able to fight Tiffany’s claim, but it should also remember that ethical due diligence (i.e. fact checking) keeps lawsuits like these from ever arising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
