The following is the program for the 28th Annual Ethics Symposium sponsored by the Public Interest Section of the American Accounting Association to be held on August 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C. You can register for the Symposium on the website of the American Accounting Association (https://aaahq.org/Meetings/2024/Annual-Meeting). Continuing Professional Education is provided for attending these sessions as indicated in the program.

Ethics Research Symposium

Sunday, August 11, 2024

7:00 am – 8:00 am           Breakfast

8:00 am – 8:55 am           Opening Session – Room 1

Welcome: Bill Miller & Steve Mintz Co-Chairs

Keynote Speaker: George Botic – PCAOB Board Member

9:00 am – 10:15 am         Concurrent Sessions

Session 2.1 ESG – Room 1

Behavioral Ethics – 1.5

Moderator: John Keyser, Case Western Reserve University

The Impact of Environmental Stress on Firm Environmental Performance

Dana Zhang, Susquehanna University (Presenter) Jie Hao, Susquehanna University

Bo Liu, Susquehanna University Viet Pham, Susquehanna University

Discussant: Fabiola Schneider, University College Dublin, Ireland

The “G” and ESG strategy integration and disclosure: exploring the governance-related factors that influence companies' decision-making 

Joanna Krasodomska, Krakow University of Economics, Poland (Presenter)

Karsten Eisenschmidt, Kiel University of Applied Sciences, Germany Discussant:

Enshuai Yu, Boston College

Scope 3 greenhouse gas disclosure: Evidence from fossil fuel producers Fabiola Schneider, University College Dublin, Ireland (Presenter)

Maretno Harjoto, Pepperdine University

Andreas Hoepner, University College Dublin, Ireland

Discussant: Megan Hess, Washington and Lee University

Session 2.2 – Nurture vs Nature – Room 2

Behavioral Ethics – 1.5

Moderator: Adamos Vlitts, University of Cyprus

The Ethics of Executive Compensation: A Case Study

James Lawson, Bucknell University

Daniel Street, Bucknell University (Presenter) Katherine Ward, Bucknell University

Discussant: Piotr Skomra, Case Western Reserve University

Moral Calculations: Anxiety-Driven Decisions in Aggressive Tax Planning

Marion Brivot, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada (Presenter)

Suzanne Paquette, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada (Presenter)

Zachary Huxley, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

Discussant: David Emerson, Salisbury University

Psychopathy, the Fraud Diamond, and Exam Cheating Among Accounting and Finance Students

David Emerson, Salisbury University (Presenter) Kenneth Smith, Salisbury University

Discussant: Charles Richard Baker, Adelphi University 10:15 am -10:30 am   

10:15 am - 10:30 am  Refreshment Break

10:30 am - 11:45 am       Concurrent Sessions

Session 3.1 – ESG – Room 1

Behavioral Ethics – 1.5

Moderator: Joan Lee, Fairfield University

The Effect of Public Criticism on Corporate Greenwashing

Leting Liu, University of Toronto – Rotman, Ontario, Canada (Presenter)

Discussant: W. Eric Lee, University of Northern Iowa

How Intergenerational Difference in Environmental Sustainability Perception Impacts Accounting Education and Training

Eric Lee, University of Northern Iowa (Presenter)

Discussant: Leting Liu, University of Toronto – Rotman, Canada

A Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking System (GETS) for Climate-Related Disclosures

Lanxin Jiang, Rutgers University School of Business - Newark (Presenter)

Yu Gu, Rutgers University School of Business – Newark

Jun Dai, Michigan Tech University Wen Jun Yu, PwC

Discussant: Dana Zhang, Susquehanna University

Session 3.2 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging – Room 2

Behavioral Ethics – 1.5

Moderator: Dana Wallace, University of Central Florida

Integrating Microaggression and Microexclusion Training into Accounting Education

Bill Miller, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire Tara Shawver, King’s College (Presenter) Steve Mintz, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Discussant: Louella Moore, Washburn University - Topeka

Accounting Ethics and Professional Identity: A Practitioners' Guide

Megan Hess, Washington and Lee University

Discussant: Francine McKenna, editor of The Dig

A Text-Mining Investigation of Afro-Centric Accounting Abstracts

Louella Moore, Washburn University - Topeka (Presenter)

Ferhat Zengul, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Nurettin Oner, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Mahmut Unan, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Discussant: Tara Shawver, King’s College

11:45 – 12:15    Editors Panel Publishing Advice – Room 1

Behavioral Ethics – 1.0

Moderator: Bill Miller, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire

Panelists:

Steve Mintz, The CPA Journal

Dana Wallace, Accounting and the Public Interest

Nick Seybert, Behavioral Research in Accounting

Tara Shawver, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting

12:15 pm - 1:30 pm         Award Luncheon

Accounting Exemplar Award (Presented by: Patrick Kelly, Providence College)

Excellence in Accounting Ethics Education Award (Presented by: Steve Mintz, California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo)

Best Paper Awards (Presented by: Bill Miller, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire)

1:30 pm – 2:45 pm           Concurrent Sessions

Session 4.1 Audit Quality – Room 1

Behavioral Ethics – 1.5

Moderator: Christine Earley, Providence College

The Determinants of Using Population Testing in Auditing: A Systematic Literature Review

Nicolas Epelbaum, York University, Ontario, Canada

Patricia Jackson Farrell, York University, Ontario, Canada

Sameera Khatoon, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada

Dawn Massey, Fairfield University (Presenter)

Linda Thorne, York University, Ontario, Canada

Discussant: Brandon Schweitzer, University of Maryland Global Campus

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics in Accounting

Brandon Schweitzer, University of Maryland Global Campus (Presenter)

Discussant: Dawn Massey, Fairfield University

Audit Firm Quality Controls: The Case of Marcum LLP

John Keyser, Case Western Reserve University

Piotr Skomra, Case Western Reserve University (Presenter)

Discussant: James Lawson, Bucknell University

Session 4.2 – Regulations – Room 2

Behavioral Ethics – 1.5

Moderator: Marty Stuebs, Baylor University

Regulatory Costs and Vertical Integration: Evidence from Supply Chain Disclosure Regulations

Enshuai Yu, Boston College (Presenter)

Discussant: Joanna Krasodomska, Krakow University of Economics, Poland

Deconstructing the PCAOB: Using organizational economics to assess the state of a regulator

Francine McKenna, editor of The Dig (Presenter)

Mikhail Pevzner, University of Baltimore

Amy Sheneman, Ohio State University

Tzachi Zach, Ohio State University

Discussant: Lanxin Jiang, Rutgers University School of Business - Newark

Implicit promises and the timing of defined benefit pension plan freezes

Adamos Vlitts, University of Cyprus (Presenter)

Zacharias Petrou, University of Liverpool, England

Discussant: Suzanne Paquette, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

2:45 pm – 3:00 pm         Refreshment Break

3:00 pm – 3:45 pm          Ethical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence AI in the Classroom – Room 1

Session 5.1 Teaching with Artificial Intelligence

Behavioral Ethics – 1.0

Christine Earley and Patrick Kelly, Providence College 

3:45 pm – 5:00 pm          Panel Session: Accountability, Regulation and the Public Interest – Room 1

Behavioral Ethics 1.5

Moderator: Steve Mintz, California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo

Panelists:

Cynthia Cooper, CFE, CEO CooperGroup

James Doty, Former Chairman PCAOB

Dan Goelzer, Former Board Member PCAOB

Kimberly Westermann, Professor, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

5:00 pm – 5:10 pm           Closing Remarks

Keynote Speaker Bio

George Botic

PCAOB Board Member

George R. Botic was appointed as a Board Member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board by the Securities and Exchange Commission in September 2023 and sworn in on October 25, 2023. His current term expires on October 24, 2028.

Board Member Botic is a Certified Public Accountant who has been with the PCAOB since 2003. Prior to his swearing in as a Board Member, he was the Director of the PCAOB’s Division of Registration and Inspections (DRI), which includes the Global Network Firm, Non-Affiliate Firm, and Broker-Dealer Firm inspection programs, as well as the registration program. He oversaw the registration and inspection of all domestic and foreign accounting firms that audit public companies whose securities trade in the U.S., as well as all broker-dealer audits.

Before being named DRI Director in 2018, Board Member Botic had served as Director of the PCAOB’s Office of International Affairs and as Special Advisor to former Chair James R. Doty. From 2003 to 2014, he held several roles within DRI, including as a Deputy Director. Earlier in his career, he was a senior manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Board Member Botic holds a Bachelor of Science in accounting from Shepherd University and received a Master of Accountancy from Virginia Tech.

Editor Panel Journal Information

The CPA Journal – The Voice of the Accounting Profession

The CPA Journal is a publication of the New York State Society of CPAs, and is internationally recognized as an outstanding, technical-refereed publication for accounting practitioners, educators, and other financial professionals all over the globe. Edited by CPAs for CPAs, it aims to provide accounting and other financial professionals with the information and analysis they need to succeed in today’s business environment.

Accounting and the Public Interest (AAA Journal – Public Interest Section)

Accounting and the Public Interest views accounting as a social activity with far-ranging consequences for every citizen. The Journal welcomes research in a wide variety of areas such as, but not limited to: sustainability accounting and reporting; professional and business ethics; corporate social responsibility and governance; regulation; and social justice.

Behavioral Research in Accounting (AAA Journal – Accounting Behavior and Organizations Section)

Behavioral Research in Accounting publishes original research relating to accounting and how it affects and is affected by individuals and organizations. Theoretical papers and papers based upon empirical research (e.g., field, survey and experimental research) are welcomed. It prints semi- annually in Spring and Fall, and is indexed in Scopus and ESCI.

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting is devoted to publishing high- quality research and cases that focus on the professional responsibilities of accountants and how they deal with the ethical issues they face. The series features articles on a broad range of important and timely topics, including professionalism, social responsibility, corporate responsibility, ethical judgments, and accountability. The professional responsibilities of accountants are broad-based; they must serve clients and user groups whose needs, incentives, and goals may be in conflict. Further, accountants must interpret and apply codes of conduct, accounting and auditing principles, and securities regulations.

Compliance with professional guidelines is judgment-based, and characteristics of the individual, the culture, and situation affect how these guidelines are interpreted and applied, as well as when they might be violated. Interactions between accountants, regulators, standard setters, and industries also have ethical components. Research into the nature of these interactions, resulting dilemmas, and how and why accountants resolve them is the focus of this journal.

Closing Panelist Bios

Cynthia Cooper

Cynthia Cooper, CFE, is the CEO of Cooper Group. She is best known for being the whistleblower at WorldCom who exposed the fraud. Cynthia chronicles her experiences at WorldCom and lessons learned in her book, Extraordinary Circumstances: Journey of a Corporate Whistleblower. Cynthia was named as one of Time Magazine’s persons of the year in 2002 along with Sherron Watkins and Coleen Rowley. In 2020, Cynthia was included in Time Magazine’s Most Influential Women of the Century. Cynthia continues to share her thought leadership and has served the profession by being a member of the board of directors of the National Association of State Board of Accountancy Center for the Public Trust. She also served as a member of the Standing Advisory Group of the PCAOB and was the Chair of the Board of Regents of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Cynthia is a recipient of the Accounting Exemplar Award given out by the Public Interest Section of the American Accounting Association and an inductee of the AICPA Business Hall of Fame.

James Doty

James R. Doty was appointed by the SEC as the Chairman of the PCAOB in January 2011 and served until January 2018.

Under his leadership, the PCAOB adopted standards to increase audit quality and provide greater transparency into the audits of public companies and brokers and dealers.

During Chairman Doty's tenure, the PCAOB expanded its cooperation with international counterparts, signing more than a dozen inspection agreements with foreign audit regulators. In 2013, after years of negotiation, the PCAOB entered into an enforcement cooperation agreement with China.

From 1990 to 1992, Chairman Doty served as general counsel of the SEC. Prior to and following his SEC service, he was a partner at the law firm of Baker Botts LLP, which he first joined in 1969. At Baker Botts, he practiced securities and corporate law and counseled boards of directors and audit committees on regulatory and compliance matters, including matters arising under the Sarbanes-

Oxley Act of 2002. At Baker Botts, he also represented the PCAOB in its successful 2010 defense

in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, a U.S. Supreme Court landmark challenge to the constitutionality of the PCAOB.

In 2011, Chairman Doty was presented with a Statesman Award by the Foreign Policy Association for his commitment to worldwide audit integrity.

Dan Goelzer

Dan Goelzer is a retired partner of Baker McKenzie, an international law firm. He chairs Deloitte’s Audit Quality Advisory Council and prepares a bi-monthly newsletter, Audit Committee and Auditor Oversight Update, focusing on regulatory developments affecting audit committees.

Dan was a Sustainability Accounting Standards Board member from 2017 to 2022.  He was appointed to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as one of its founding members and served on the PCAOB from 2002 to 2012, including as Acting Chair from August 2009 through January 2011. Dan was on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s staff for 16 years and served as SEC General Counsel from 1983 to 1990.

Kimberly Westermann

Kim Westermann is a Professor of Accounting at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. She holds a PhD in Accountancy from Bentley University. Prior to her doctoral studies, Kim was a senior auditor at EY in San Jose, California and subsequently worked at PwC in New York, ending her career in public accounting as a manager in the firm’s Learning and Education division. Kim is interested in qualitative methods and conducts research rooted within sociology and organizational behavior literatures, examining both audit practitioners and clients about their perspectives on current global issues (e.g., group audits, PCAOB inspections, international licensure) in auditing. Kim has published in Contemporary Accounting Research, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, and Issues in Accounting Education. She serves as an editor for Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory and serves on the editorial board of Contemporary Accounting Research. She is the recipient of the 2022 Deloitte Foundation Wildman Award and the 2024 Notable Contributions to the Auditing Literature Award.

For additional information or questions please contact Steve Mintz at: smintz@calpoly.edu.

              

Related Stories

• The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer: Innovation and Trust
• The Story of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried
• It’s Time for State Boards of Accountancy to Move to the 120/150 Educational Requirement for Licensing as a CPA

 

Do What We Say, Not What We Do

No, it is not about washing your clothes in a responsible way. Ethics Washing refers to the practice of ethical window dressing. It is where an organization gives lip service to ethics to make it seem as though it acts responsibly but does not do anything to make sure that, in fact, it is occurring in practice. Ethics is mainly for show. In other words, the organization adopts the position: “We are an ethical organization. Just look at these policies.”

An example of ethics washing is the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies of organizations. If we reflect on the recent student protests aimed at Jews and Israel, we could argue that universities might have extensive DEI programs for students but when push comes to shove—i.e., blocking Jews from going to classes, hurling discriminatory remarks and so on—the reality of DEI does not match what might be stated in policy statements.

It has become somewhat common to discuss ethics washing in the context of AI. Kapersen and Wallach describe it as “creating a superficially reassuring but illusory sense that ethical issues are being adequately addressed, to justify pressing forward with systems that end up deepening current patterns.”

In this regard, ethics washing is the practice of fabricating or exaggerating a company’s interest in equitable AI systems that work for everyone. An organization that practices it follows a concept that can best be characterized as promoting ethics for the good of all. Some point to Google’s experience in 2019 of creating an Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics board only to disband it less than two weeks later.

The Importance of Values

When the practices of an organization do not match its stated values, the door is open to ethics washing. The organization might make promises publicly or in the goods and services they provide, but these become misleading or inaccurate claims that harm its reputation. Here is part of the Boeing values statement about engineering excellence:

“A strong engineering foundation enables us to build and maintain our products with safety, quality and integrity in the factory and in service. Our customers expect it. That’s why we will always take the time to get the engineering right.”

Unless you’ve been hiding in a cave these past several years, you know about the safety issues with Boeing’s 737 MAX planes. It appears a week doesn’t go by without another safety issue faced by Boeing.

Oakley and Graham relate ethics washing to greenwashing in stating that ethics washing can be used to describe the practice when organizations paint themselves in a better light than warranted and have no way to back the claims. They identify DEI policies as one example where organizations with DEI policies then discriminate against some candidates in the recruitment process.

The Harvard Business Review points out that “consumers today face a barrage of green-friendly messaging from companies hoping to profit from increased concern over environmental issues. Unfortunately, many of these environmental promises don’t pan out. Research carried out in Europe found that 42% of green claims were exaggerated, false, or deceptive, which points to greenwashing on an industrial scale.

AI Ethics Washing

I have previously blogged about Ethics Washing, relating it to Google’s false steps in creating AI ethics board that flamed out. Beyond that, AI Ethics Washing is a relatively new concept that suggests organizations give lip service or window dressing in claiming it cares about AI principles, but at times it fails to abide by them or even subverts or undercuts AI Ethics approaches. Workplace ethics requires that the actions of an organization match its values and create an ethical organization environment.

Writing for Forbes online, Dr. Lance B. Eliot, a world-renowned expert on AI and Machine Learning, says that in addition to possible reputational harm there are “numerous legal ramifications [that can] bite them and their firm. One is that they didn’t do what they said they did and can be potentially legally held liable for their false claims. Moreover, AI practices might end up violating laws involving societally sensitive areas such as exhibiting undue biases and acting in discriminatory ways.

Firms that exaggerate what they have done with AI might do so because they assume that they will have a sufficient defense if questioned. Absent a comprehensive and cohesive set of metrics, it is difficult, to say the least, to measure compliance. False promises might be made because the organization knows how difficult it is to equate practices with promises.

Rome Call for AI Ethics

Perhaps the least likely place to look for guidance on AI ethics principles is the Vatican, yet in Rome Call for AI Ethics, six primary AI ethics principles are stated as follows.

Transparency. In principle, AI systems must be explainable.

Inclusion. All individuals should be offered the best possible conditions to express themselves and develop.

Responsibility. Those who design and deploy the use of AI must proceed with responsibility and transparency.

Impartiality. Do not create or act according to bias, thus safeguarding fairness and human dignity.

Reliability. AI systems must be able to work reliably.

Security and privacy. AI systems must work securely and respect the privacy of users.

We should add one principle developed by the U.S. Department of Defense in their Ethical Principles for the Use of Artificial Intelligence. The addition is governable, which relates to the responsibilities of the Department (or any organization) to design and engineer AI capabilities to fulfill their intended functions while possessing the ability to detect and avoid unintended consequences, and the ability to disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate unintended behavior. This principle is essential if the organization is to closely monitor the outcome of AI with respect to its guiding principles and builds confidence in the system.

Conclusion

The practice of ethics washing has been growing in many ways, and the need for ethical principles is more important now than ever before, especially in the AI space. Just think about generative AI and Chat GPT, and so much more that have been evolving over time with little or no stated ethical principles for their use.

Posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., aka Ethics Sage, on May 28, 2024. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

              

Related Stories

• The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer: Innovation and Trust
• Considerations in Deciding Whether to Blow the Whistle
• Boeing: Putting Profits Ahead of Safety

 

The Decline of Moral Values in Society

I have blogged many times before about the decline of moral values in America. We are falling off a cliff in that regard. Let’s face it: We have lost our moral compass as a society and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. Just consider the following:

• Gun violence in our streets has risen by epic proportions.
• Racial injustice persists in our society.
• Black Americans have been gunned down by police for inexplicable reasons even with the #blacklivesmatter movement.
• Sexual harassment in the workplace has not been abated even after the #MeToo movement.
• Sexual assaults on college campuses have been increasing over time.
• Social media continues to post inappropriate images that can affect the behavior of young Americans.
• Politicians continue to say one thing but do something else – just to get elected—and some engage in inappropriate behavior.
• The behavior of “heroes” in sports and entertainment is frequently found wanting.

Most of these offensive actions raise questions about whether education in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is working. More will be said about this later.

Recent Protests on College Campuses

To make matters worse, during the past few weeks we witnessed protests on college campuses by those speaking out against the attack on Palestinians in Gaza following the horrific events of October 7 when about 1,200 Jews were killed and about 240 people were taken as hostages by Hamas.. These protesters have a right to protest---peacefully---but it hasn’t always been so. In some cases, Jewish students were blocked from access to campuses, made the brunt of hateful speech, and even physically attacked. The lack of moral values is, in part, what is behind all these actions.

The situation would be equally concerning if protesters spoke out about the violent attacks in Gaza but were harassed or otherwise mistreated by those supporting Israel. Muslims have the same right to protest as Jews---but peacefully and without harassing others.

The underlying problem is we have forgotten The Golden Rule, which is to treat others the way we want to be treated. How can either protesting group say that they would want those with contrary views to act the way they act?

Is DEI Education Working?

I’ve considered what has been going on from the lens of DEI. As a college professor, I have started to wonder about the value of DEI education. Have the protests against Jewish students met the “Diversity” and “Inclusion” standards? I think not. Let’s examine what they mean.

The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means to treat each person as unique and to recognize our individual differences. It means understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of individuality.

An inclusive society is one that overrides differences of race, gender, class, generation, and geography, and ensures inclusion and equality of opportunity, as well as capability of all members of the society to determine an agreed set of social institutions that govern social interaction.

It seems to me that an inclusive society was the last thing protesters thought about in deciding how to deal with the terrible events of October 7 and thereafter.

DEI Policies Being Reviewed at Colleges and Universities

Some colleges and universities are starting to examine the value of DEI programs. Last month the University of North Carolina System committee voted to repeal diversity goals and jobs at 17 campuses across North Carolina. UNC at Chapel Hill’s Board of Trustees have dismantled its DEI programs and transferred $2.3 million in funding instead to public safety and campus police on the heels of sweeping anti-Israel demonstrations. UNC voted on May 14, 2024, to eliminate DEI hiring practices. The diversion of the money comes a month after the entire UNC system moved to repeal and replace a DEI policy in favor of a policy that it says maintains "institutional neutrality." The full Board of Governors will meet again in late May in Raleigh. If the policy change is passed then, it will become final and effective immediately.

"My personal opinion is that there’s administrative bloat in the university," Board Chair David Boliek told The News & Observer, anticipating some jobs would be scrapped as a result. "Any cuts in administration and diverting of dollars to rubber-meets-the-road efforts like public safety and teaching is important."

UNC will join the ranks of other notable public universities that have stripped diversity spending, such as the University of Florida in Gainesville, which announced in a March memo it was reallocating funds to faculty recruitment.

Some universities, including UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State University, include diversity in their mission or vision statements.

At NC State, for example, the university has a stated vision to “be known as a diverse, equitable and inclusive community that has a transformative impact on society and advances the greater good.”

These are worthwhile statements and commitments by universities, but it does not mean that DEI should become a separate academic unit thereby diverting needed funds elsewhere, such as lowering student tuition. Questions also exist about the value of teaching about DEI. Instead, universities should include it in their orientation programs and special events held on campus.

Gallup Poll

The underlying problem and cause of the failure of DEI to take hold is a decline of moral values in society. In a 2023 Gallup Poll, 54% of respondents said the state of moral values in U.S. is poor; 33% only fair; 10% good; and 1% excellent. And 83% think U.S. moral values are getting worse, up five points from last year and 16 points since 2021. The previous high of 82% was recorded in 2007, when 44% of Americans rated moral values as poor. Currently, 12% of Americans think moral values are getting better, which is the lowest percentage since 2008.

Pessimism about moral values edged up in the past year across party groups. Republicans’ outlook for deteriorating values is now at a new high of 97%, while 73% of Democrats and 80% of independents think they are getting worse. Republicans’ pessimism about moral values has been on the rise since Joe Biden took office in 2021. While Democrats’ and independents’ outlooks improved in 2021, they quickly reverted to levels seen during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Revisiting the Value of DEI

The fallacy of DEI is it should work but only if we embrace moral values in society. The problem is the underlying moral values that should drive behavior consistent with DEI treatment has long since gone from society and, in my opinion, is unlikely to change in the future. We are a “What’s in it for Me” society, driven by the pursuit of self-interest, often without regard for others. We no longer seem to value kindness/compassion/understanding/and empathy, the underpinning of treating others equally.

The lingering question is why are colleges and universities spending so much money on creating an administrative structure and hiring faculty and staff to teach DEI when students and others do not embrace these values in their daily behavior? Indeed, in some cases the universities themselves seem to ignore the message of DEI.

Posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., aka Ethics Sage, on May 21, 2024. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.

              

Related Stories

• America Has Returned to the Wild West
• Can America Ever Regain Its Civility?
• What is the Difference Between Virtue and Virtue Signaling?