Analyzing an Ethical/Legal Situation
Paper instructions:
The office of public information at State University yesterday, in response to persistent rumors during the last few days, confirmed that Melody S. Hanzout, daughter of U.S. Sen. Herchel H. Hanzout, has been awarded a full scholarship (tuition, fees, books, supplies, room and board) to finish her fifth year of study at the university.
She has maintained a 3.6 grade point average (on a 4.0 scale) during her first four years of study.
The managing editor of the Clarion (your local newspaper) assigned a reporter to interview Ms. Hanzout because the Hanzout family is widely known.
Early in the interview Ms. Hanzout expressed some dismay at having gotten a scholarship, because she had never applied for one. This prompted the reporter to wonder why the scholarship had been awarded.
Contacts were made with several people.
The president of the university, Dr. T.A. Lott, said that Ms. Hanzout was singled out as a deserving student, and the university simply wanted to acknowledge her scholarship. When asked if the scholarship award was made to win the favor of her father, a U.S. senator, Lott said, “Certainly not. We don’t try to buy influence.”
The director of student financial aid, Edgar M. Burns, said Ms. Hanzout deserved the scholarship not only for her scholarly record but also for her leadership as president last year of her sorority, Alpha Alpha Alpha. He pointed out she had also been active in a number of Greek activities throughout her tenure at the university.
When asked if it was common to award scholarships to students who had not applied, Burns said, “It has happened before, but not often. We try to make sure scholarship money goes to deserving applicants only.”
When asked who made the decision to award the scholarship, Burns said the decision was made “higher up” and the word came in a telephone conversation, but he couldn’t remember from whom.
Asked to name other students who had been given scholarships, he declined to say, indicating that privacy laws prevented such disclosures.
Several members of the scholarship application review committee denied any knowledge of the scholarship awarded to Ms. Hanzout. The chair, Professor Damon R. Philley, said she is appalled by the cavalier way the scholarship was awarded. She pledged that her committee would look into the matter immediately.
Sen. Hanzout was away from his Washington office on a fact-finding tour to the Middle East, but Hanzout’s press aide, Montgomery (Monty) F. Peace, responded to phone
questions from the Clarion reporter that Sen. Hanzout is proud of his daughter and her accomplishments and is especially pleased about her scholarship.
Sen. Hanzout was also reported to have said the university is a fine one and he’s very glad his daughter is a student there.
Sen. Hanzout expects to be named chair of the U.S. Senate’s education subcommittee next year. The current chairman has announced he will not seek office after his current term ends this year.
The story in yesterday’s Clarion caused an uproar on campus. The chair of the university’s faculty senate called an emergency meeting of the executive committee and at noon issued a strongly worded statement that condemned the university’s action. The statement also carried a muted inference that Lott should resign from the presidency.
The executive committee of student government also met briefly and issued a similar statement. But the student government statement openly called for resignations from both Lott and Burns.
Lott issued a prepared statement today at 1 p.m., the text of which reads:
The scholarship awarded to Ms. Melody S. Hanzout was given in recognition of her outstanding scholastic record and her achievements as a leading citizen of the university community.
It is the standing policy of the university to recognize students in many ways for their achievements. I am not sure personally who made the decision to award the scholarship, but it was a good decision. Because there seems to be some concern about it, my office today has launched an investigation into the process by which all scholarship decisions are made.
Lott today did not take or return phone calls from the media. Even when Burns took media calls, he responded to all questions with “No comment.” Unconfirmed reports say several media representatives appear to be camped just outside the president’s office.
Other than staff members, only Ms. Kari M. Backe of ProCom has been allowed into Lott’s suite. Rumor has it that Lott called her in as consultants to assist him with the problem.
The student government president today has called a student protest march around the administration building at 4 p.m.
The phone rings at your desk at ProCom. It is Ms. Backe calling from Lott’s office. She
directs you to get together with the other writers at ProCom and research the situation at the university.
“We’re in Lott’s office now. As you know, it has really hit the fan. We may be here well into the evening while we try to sort out strategic approaches to a solution to the problem.
What I want you to do is to research the legal and ethical dimensions of the problem. Hit the law books and other sources and submit us a summary of your findings to the following:
1. What legal requirements must be observed?
2. Is it better to try to cover up an unseemly situation than to face it squarely? What is the rationale for either decision?
3. What are the university’s obligations to Ms. Hanzout and to its relevant publics, such as students, faculty and staff?
4. What ethical questions must be resolved?
5. Do ethical and legal issues conflict in this instance? If so, how can they be resolved?
Then Backe directs you to write a two-page summary of relevant findings and have it ready for review at 7 a.m. tomorrow.
“We’ll finish the strategy discussion with Lott this afternoon or evening,” she said, “but we won’t implement anything until we’ve thoroughly studied your report. Your purpose is to keep us and Lott from making a serious mistake.”
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!