A scenario (ethics)

[Schuyler Colfax]

Honestly speaking, this is a school assignment and I really have no idea where to begin (I can't get my thoughts on paper) so I just wanted to look at some of your responses and see which ones I agree with and then take that thought and turn it into my own thing.

Here is the scenario:

A history professor (period is 1500-1800) with an M.A. student who wants to pursue a doctorate. Though she is smart and capable she is very religious, subscribing to the "young earth" theory that the world is only 6,000 years old. The professor is to work with her for a year and then recommend her to Ph.D. programs. Must the professor do so if he finds her views incongruent with those of historians?

[Pablo Sanchez]

A history professor (period is 1500-1800) with an M.A. student who wants to pursue a doctorate. Though she is smart and capable she is very religious, subscribing to the "young earth" theory that the world is only 6,000 years old. The professor is to work with her for a year and then recommend her to Ph.D. programs. Must the professor do so if he finds her views incongruent with those of historians?

If the professor believes that the M.A. student's views on the period of history in which she specializes are founded in a reasonable and unbiased interpretation of evidence then he has no reason not to recommend her. If her conclusions are the product of bias or shoddy work, then he should not recommend her. Her beliefs as to the origin of life and the universe are at best marginally related to her field of study, and as long as they do not interfere with her historical work they are immaterial.

[Zixinus]

A history professor (period is 1500-1800) with an M.A. student who wants to pursue a doctorate. Though she is smart and capable she is very religious, subscribing to the "young earth" theory that the world is only 6,000 years old. The professor is to work with her for a year and then recommend her to Ph.D. programs. Must the professor do so if he finds her views incongruent with those of historians?

This is in... 1500-1800? Or is the topic of the doctorate the period between 1500-1800?

Either way there is no moral dilemma: the professor is obligated to do his job. If the young lady's work is according and befitting to academic standards, then the professor has no reason why he shouldn't recommend this young woman.

In fact, doing otherwise would be a moral violation on the professor's side. I dislike creationists and cannot stand their supporters, but they have the right to believe whatever nonsense they want as long as they keep it to themselves.

What's more likely to happen is that this woman will have a problem: to side either with her religious beliefs or allow her studies to change her world-views.

The professor does not have to do anything else but to treat this lady like any other student: demand work of academic quality, with rational, objective and well-researched reasoning.

If she allows her religious views to influence her work, than the professor has to do nothing else than what he would do with any student who allows their personal emotions bias their work: punish her accordingly and do not recommend her. After all, her work is not according to academic standards.

There is no moral dilemma here, except for the religious lady in question.

[Kanastrous]

If a person with full access to all the published studies in biology, astronomy, geology, geophysics, etc etc etc chooses to ignore all that data in favor of a preferred belief, then it's kind of impossible to buy that she will be any more inclined to perform her history studies with any better honesty or accuracy.

History is an academic field; someone who demonstrates absolute contempt for the findings of other academic fields impresses me as a terrible candidate for any sort of degree in any field that calls for academic rigor and honesty.

Your right to believe as you will does not cover willfully ignoring and distorting scientific and academic findings, when you are yourself in an academic field largely underwritten by the findings of other, scientific disciplines.

[Alyeska]

If a person with full access to all the published studies in biology, astronomy, geology, geophysics, etc etc etc chooses to ignore all that data in favor of a preferred belief, then it's kind of impossible to buy that she will be any more inclined to perform her history studies with any better honesty or accuracy.

Bullshit. For many people its very hard to shake the indoctrinated beliefs of their parents. But that doesn't mean they are useless when it comes to education. I have a friend who is a YEC and also holds a Masters in Electrical Engineering. So long as the religious beliefs don't come into conflict with the degree that she is working on, there is no problem.

History is an academic field; someone who demonstrates absolute contempt for the findings of other academic fields impresses me as a terrible candidate for any sort of degree in any field that calls for academic rigor and honesty.

Your right to believe as you will does not cover willfully ignoring and distorting scientific and academic findings, when you are yourself in an academic field largely underwritten by the findings of other, scientific disciplines.

Someone's views on other subjects are not the purview of their main education and research. Or would you rather fire every scientist who has a belief in God? Due to your own personal bias you would toss any candidate who doesn't agree with you entirely while completely ignoring their potential on a specific subject.

[Darth Wong]

It's rather unrealistic and may seem unreasonable to reject people for holding insane views on science, even if those views are not directly relevant to their job function. But that's really only because these views are so common: we are running into the "If it's commonplace then it can't be crazy" mindset.

Nobody has a problem with the idea of firing drug addicts even if it could be shown that they are still capable of doing their jobs and they only do drugs when they're not at work. The rationale is that they are untrustworthy. But why isn't a YEC naturally more untrustworthy than someone who's not a YEC? How do you know the YEC won't go nuts if, for example, you have to work with Muslim colleagues? Why take the risk if you don't have to? The reason we take that risk is simple: we have no choice. There are so many of these lunatics out there that you really can't afford to have such a policy. But if only 1% of the population were crazy YECs, then frankly I wouldn't be surprised at all if people routinely chose to hire others over them, nor would I find that unreasonable.

YEC beliefs are relevant to any kind of scientific or historical research because they speak to the basic scientific and historical methods: YECs consciously reject both of them, by confusing hearsay historical sources for primary sources or even scientific evidence (ie- the Bible). How can you be sure that this will never lead to a conflict? Why should you be expected to take this risk if you don't have to? What if this history student has to study conflicts between Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire? Shouldn't you be concerned that her radical insane religious beliefs might affect her judgment? Would you hire a member of the Branch Davidian cult to research the Waco incident?

As I said, we overlook this sort of thing because we have no choice, not because it would be totally unreasonable to take it into account as you seem to be suggesting.

[Thanas]

If I would be the professor in question, I would recommend her only if she would be able to demonstrate that she is able to keep her religious beliefs out of her academic studies. For example, one of my best friends is a catholic and she believes in saints and reliquiae. However, she is one of those that also believe there to be a seperation between science and religion (kinda like church is on Sunday, science is the rest of the week). Her work has always been of a very high quality and I enjoy bouncing ideas of her.

However, the person in question strikes me as a fundamentalist, believing in a hardcore christian worldview that has been disproved numerous times. Chances are that she will also be very biased towards the other teachings of the bible and therefore incapable of being objective when it comes to subjects like the conflicts of science and religion as well as religious conflicts throughout the ages. It does ultimately depend on the exact subject she wants to study (1500-1800 is way too broad), but this would not bode well for her chances.

Since I would have one year to test her, I would assign her some essays that disprove the young earth theory or challenge the superiority of christianity. One can always sneak in biological or geological theories in historical essays (like mining, stone quarrys, farm lands etc) or sociological topoi like Galileo Galilei, witch burnings etc. If she is able to demonstrate that she is objective, I would be willing to recommend her. Yet since she is a creationist, I doubt she will be objective.

[Gil Hamilton]

*raises hand*

Actually, I'd have a problem with firing a drug user if his job performance wasn't effected by it and he did it completely on his own time. What he does in his own home isn't his company's business, nor does it necessarily make him untrustworthy. That said, if he starts showing up at work messed up or is going out publicly, that's a different story.

On topic:

The professor should probably recommend the girl, so long as her work meets academic standards of research on the subject of her graduate work. If undue bias creeps into her work, and a history student, some bias probably will, then he shouldn't write her letter.

[Darth Wong]

*raises hand*

Actually, I'd have a problem with firing a drug user if his job performance wasn't effected by it and he did it completely on his own time. What he does in his own home isn't his company's business, nor does it necessarily make him untrustworthy. That said, if he starts showing up at work messed up or is going out publicly, that's a different story.

Drug addicts are at a higher risk for becoming worse in future, just as fundie scientists have been known to go off the deep end. Are you saying that companies should completely ignore risk factors, and only be allowed to look at present conditions?

[CaptainZoidberg]

Drug addicts are at a higher risk for becoming worse in future, just as fundie scientists have been known to go off the deep end. Are you saying that companies should completely ignore risk factors, and only be allowed to look at present conditions?

I'm curious if you have a source showing that when outside variables (like years of education, etc.) are taken into account, fundamentalists are less able to perform jobs that are not directly related to their religious beliefs.

[Gil Hamilton]

Drug addicts are at a higher risk for becoming worse in future, just as fundie scientists have been known to go off the deep end. Are you saying that companies should completely ignore risk factors, and only be allowed to look at present conditions?

People who've suffered from mental illness in the past are statistically at higher risk that most people of developing problems at work, too. However, if such things, be they drug use, prior mental illness, or fundamentalism don't effect their jobs and they are capable of doing it, then they are welcome to it. Once it starts affecting their job, then that issue can be revisited, but plenty of people do or are one of the three and work just fine, and I don't think they should be sacked for it.

[Darth Wong]

Drug addicts are at a higher risk for becoming worse in future, just as fundie scientists have been known to go off the deep end. Are you saying that companies should completely ignore risk factors, and only be allowed to look at present conditions?

I'm curious if you have a source showing that when outside variables (like years of education, etc.) are taken into account, fundamentalists are less able to perform jobs that are not directly related to their religious beliefs.

A scientist or historian does NOT have a job which is necessarily unrelated to religious beliefs.

[Darth Wong]

Drug addicts are at a higher risk for becoming worse in future, just as fundie scientists have been known to go off the deep end. Are you saying that companies should completely ignore risk factors, and only be allowed to look at present conditions?

People who've suffered from mental illness in the past are statistically at higher risk that most people of developing problems at work, too. However, if such things, be they drug use, prior mental illness, or fundamentalism don't effect their jobs and they are capable of doing it, then they are welcome to it. Once it starts affecting their job, then that issue can be revisited, but plenty of people do or are one of the three and work just fine, and I don't think they should be sacked for it.

Why should employers be forced to ignore these things? I would quite frankly rather not hire someone with a history of drug addiction, or a current or former member of a radical religious cult, or a prior mental illness. When you employ someone, you are taking a pretty big risk; why should you not be able to minimize that risk? Should we seriously not be allowed to discriminate against drug users or those with a history of mental illness now? Why not tell people that they're not allowed to discriminate against people with criminal records either, using the rationale that they're all better now?

[Jalinth]

Given that the time period in question and her outside oopinions do not apparently have any direct bearing on the course of study , I'd have no problem giving a recommendation. I'd likely caveat it by saying that professor student X would be a worthy medieval/modern history study but would not recommend her for an ancient/prehistoric (basically, pre-Etruscan period just to have a buff) course). This is assuming that her religious views don't so skew her worldview that they distort even a Renaissance historical view.

If you were asking about an anthropologist, archeologist, or someone on those lines, then my answer would be hell no.

[TheKwas]

I'd imagine, although based off no studies I'll admit, that white employees in America are also higher at risk for unionization than, say, Latino or Filipino workers. Should all employers be able to hire based off race in order to minimize risk?

The workplace isn't just about minimizing costs, it's an institution of everyday life and we should demand the same sort of values out of our workplace that we demand in civil society, even if some efficiency is lost while we're at it. Many businesses are/were opposed to legislation that demanded all major employers be handicap accessible due to potential costs, but yet society is better off with such legislation.

Why should we tolerate discrimination against the mentally ill or even convicts? I know why employers might want to, but I'm not an employer, I'm just a citizen. From a social perspective, the issue of convicts not finding decent work and re-entering a life of crime is a much bigger problem than the issue of risk that employers face.

EDIT: To Darth Wong obviously.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why should employers be forced to ignore these things? I would quite frankly rather not hire someone with a history of drug addiction, or a current or former member of a radical religious cult, or a prior mental illness. When you employ someone, you are taking a pretty big risk; why should you not be able to minimize that risk? Should we seriously not be allowed to discriminate against drug users or those with a history of mental illness now? Why not tell people that they're not allowed to discriminate against people with criminal records either, using the rationale that they're all better now?

I thought we were talking about people who are already known to capable employees or graduate students and were talking about firing them for using drugs at home or had weird convictions. However, if the people are capable of doing the job well, I don't see what the problem is. Everyone's gotta work, and if the person has the skillset required and the above conditions don't affect it, then there isn't a reason not to employ them. That's what "all better now" means. They don't have the problem anymore. Personally, I'd rather hire someone who used to be on anti-depressants or thinks they are Saved By Je-yay-zus but otherwise amicable and capable than alot of the frat boy jackasses I see entering the workplace.

[Pablo Sanchez]

A scientist or historian does NOT have a job which is necessarily unrelated to religious beliefs.

The most worrying thing about this putative student is not that she rejects science, because geology, biology, et al. could well be unimportant to her field (e.g., if she is an expert on Habsburg dynastic politics of 1500-1800 or something), it's that she accepts the veracity of the bible at face value. This indicates flawed reasoning. That said, doublethink is extremely common among religious fundamentalists and she could very well have potential as a doctoral candidate. For example, she might be able to examine non-biblical sources critically because she reasons that the bible is special, being inspired by God, whereas other sources require serious scrutiny. But as you said, if the field was sufficiently rich and open to allow finer gradations of selection, then between two candidates of equal qualifications it would be easy to reject the one who believed in bronze age mythology.

However, what we're talking about is not hiring somebody, it's writing a letter of recommendation. I'm not familiar with the etiquette in those, but I'm fairly sure that a professor can issue one but still communicate any reservations he might have--like, this student does good work, but you're concerned that her religious dogmatism might interfere with academic work.

[Darth Wong]

I'd imagine, although based off no studies I'll admit, that white employees in America are also higher at risk for unionization than, say, Latino or Filipino workers. Should all employers be able to hire based off race in order to minimize risk?

No, because race is a protected classification and because race is not voluntary. Drugs, crime, and religious affiliations are voluntary.

The workplace isn't just about minimizing costs, it's an institution of everyday life and we should demand the same sort of values out of our workplace that we demand in civil society,

Bullshit. Just to take one example of where civil society and employment differs, civil society helps the unfortunate. Employers are under no such obligation whatsoever; you cannot get or keep a job by trying to make people feel sorry for you, or by showing that you are needy.

There is a serious mental disconnect here: when people think of jobs as some kind of entitlement, they demand to know why they shouldn't get them. That's just flat wrong: they should have to prove that they deserve them, not treat them as a right or entitlement. Same goes for letters of recommendation; a letter of recommendation is a solemn article upon which an individual stakes his integrity, and no one should ever be expected to write one if he is not comfortable with it.

[Thanas]

Given that the time period in question and her outside oopinions do not apparently have any direct bearing on the course of study , I'd have no problem giving a recommendation. I'd likely caveat it by saying that professor student X would be a worthy medieval/modern history study but would not recommend her for an ancient/prehistoric (basically, pre-Etruscan period just to have a buff) course). This is assuming that her religious views don't so skew her worldview that they distort even a Renaissance historical view.

That won't really work, because every period is in some way connected to religion. You cannot seperate it.

[Kanastrous]

Since my father is a Professor Emeritus of Medicine at GU, I figured that he was a good person to ask about this sort of thing.

His take was very much like Thanas' - if the candidate seems promising in some way, challenge her with assignments designed to cultivate a more open-minded scholarly approach.

He pointed out that professors sometimes like taking on promising PhD candidates who need a lot of polishing because it's an interesting challenge for the professors, too.

[Stuart]

I'd concur with the "test her and see" approach. Give her assignments that will challenge the YEC mind-set and see what happens. My bet is that she wouldn't last long enough to get to the next step forward. I've actually been in this position in a previous company. We got interns coming in every summer for work experience and every so often we got one whose beliefs sort of contradicted our line of business. We had one guy in particular who was a really radical and assertive pacifist which was a bit odd for a company where people kept 155mm artillery shells in their offices as hat-stands. The upshoot was that we had a job to do that involved tracing power generation capacity and power supply lines in a target country. He was told to start tracing the power transmission net. We started Monday, on Friday at the progess meeting, he hadn't done a damned thing. When asked why, his reply was essentially "I know what this work is going to be used for and I won't have anything to do with it." Obviously, there was no way we could consider employing him.

In a more general sense, anybody who seriously believes YEC is obviously incapable of critical thought or information analysis. They may get away with things for a while but eventually it will catch up with them. Some fields of study might not be affected to any great degree but I'd suggest that history isn't one of them. What is the YEC going to do when presented with historical artefacts that are say 8,000 years old? Ignore them? Destroy them?

So, the final answer here is that its up to the Professor to mentor her so that she either adapts to real history or is eased out and put somewhere that will do no harm.

[TheKwas]

The workplace isn't just about minimizing costs, it's an institution of everyday life and we should demand the same sort of values out of our workplace that we demand in civil society,

Bullshit. Just to take one example of where civil society and employment differs, civil society helps the unfortunate. Employers are under no such obligation whatsoever; you cannot get or keep a job by trying to make people feel sorry for you, or by showing that you are needy.

I never said we demand all the same values and practices, just the same sort of values. For example: Handicap accessiblity, 8-hour work-day, in some places no working on Sundays to promote family-time, 15 minute breaks, safety regulations, ect. In all these cases, workplace costs are higher than if such things weren't demanded from the public sphere.

In regards to convicts, it should be society that decides the punishment best suited for any criminal, not employers who want to minimize costs. Once criminals do pay off their debts to society, employers should not be allowed to punish them further by being allowed to discriminate against them. This grants society control over it's own punishment and rehabilitation system, and allows the prevention of criminals being forced back into their criminal ways.

[CarsonPalmer]

It should be worth pointing out that she could be a YEC out of indifference, and is a creationist by default. She could be one of those people that if she ever took the time to actually read about the issue, her mindset would change, but she never has. That's worth considering, too.

[Themightytom]

I'd imagine, although based off no studies I'll admit, that white employees in America are also higher at risk for unionization than, say, Latino or Filipino workers. Should all employers be able to hire based off race in order to minimize risk?

No, because race is a protected classification and because race is not voluntary. Drugs, crime, and religious affiliations are voluntary.

Regarding drugs and crime, Mike I can see why you feel that way but just for the record it makes my job REALLY frigging hard. Unfortunately I also agree with your perspective. Clients of mine who ahve criminal records shouldn't roll into an interview as though they never did anything wrong just because they are "Rehabilitated", there is a Fidelity bonding program run through the department of labor that I tell my clients about in order to reduce the risk involved in hiring them.

I even counsel them to disclose their record, describe the fidelity bonding program and point out that a person who is an identified reformed criminal may actually be a safer bet than a potential X factor, because the Employer knows what they are getting ahead o time, they get the bonding insurance and more often than not there is some sort of monitoring program the potential employee is associated with. Conversely competing applicants could very well have committed a crime and just not been caught, could have a mental Illness which would not show up on a background cehck, etc. SOME clients complain they are discriminated against. I agree and point out i is not illegal to do so, and as they committed the crime, they must be aware at this point that it never "Goes away".

Not only do I agree the employer has the right to make a call that considers risk management, he has an ethical obligation to both his business and the individual. I prescreen for job sites based on their past offense because it wouldn't be particularly ethical of ME to suggest a job placement taht puts them in a situation that could trigger a repeat offense, ie: drug dealers don't work in pharmacies or as nurses, shop lifters don't work at cash registers and sex offenders don't work anywhere near a one on one trust situation.

I suppose a case could be made that people with dual diagnosis don't "Volunarily" do drugs, so much as they are self medicating an untreated mental illness, but if you accept that argument it leads you directly towards "Accepting a religion you were socialized into isn't neccesarily a chouce either"

[Darth Wong]

I never said we demand all the same values and practices, just the same sort of values. For example: Handicap accessiblity, 8-hour work-day, in some places no working on Sundays to promote family-time, 15 minute breaks, safety regulations, ect. In all these cases, workplace costs are higher than if such things weren't demanded from the public sphere.

Those are not "values". Those are worker protection laws, each with its own specific justifications. At no point is it ever stated or implied anywhere that business hiring practices must reflect your completely imaginary social value of completely forgiving and forgetting the past. In fact, the mere fact that employers demand resumes makes it rather obvious that employers are keenly interested in the past.

In regards to convicts, it should be society that decides the punishment best suited for any criminal, not employers who want to minimize costs.

And society deems that criminal records are not wiped clean after the criminal serves his sentence. Ergo, society deems that the punishment best suited for the criminal does not end the day he gets out of jail. You lose.

Once criminals do pay off their debts to society, employers should not be allowed to punish them further by being allowed to discriminate against them.

Why not? Because YOU say so?

This grants society control over it's own punishment and rehabilitation system, and allows the prevention of criminals being forced back into their criminal ways.

You're full of shit. If "society" actually believed this, they would make it a law. Since they have NOT made it a law, they do NOT believe this. It is YOUR personal belief, and you are presuming to speak on behalf of society.