Cheap Homework Help-SMGT 503 Case Analysis: What are the main alternative actions or policies that might be followed in responding to the ethical issues in this case?
Case Analysis Instructions
In evaluating your case analyses, instructors will apply the Case Analysis Grading Rubric. Each case analysis should be a 5–7 pages and follow the current APA guidelines.
The basic guidelines for analyzing ethical case are as follows:
- Issues
- What are the major moral or ethical issues raised by the case?
- What are the major factual issues raised by the case?
- What are the major conceptual issues raised by this case?
- Who are the major stakeholders in this case?
- How are the issues in this case related to making ethical decisions?
- Options
- What are the major views on the conceptual issues raised by this case?
- What are the main alternative actions or policies that might be followed in responding to the ethical issues in this case?
- What facts are unknown or disputed that might be relevant to deciding this case (may require research to determine some facts)?
- Ethical Arguments
- Determine which of the four moral standards (egoism, natural law, utilitarianism, and respect for persons) apply to this case.
- Identify the moral principles that can be invoked to support a conclusion as to what ought to be done ethically in this case or similar cases.
- Determine whether the different moral standards yield converging or diverging judgments about what ought to be done.
- Decision or Conclusion
- Decide which of the identified options you would recommend or judge to be the ethically best way to deal with the issue presented in this case based upon which option has the strongest ethical reasons behind it.
- Determine how a critic of your position might try to argue against it using other ethical reasons, and present a rebuttal or counter-argument in defense of your judgment.
- Include a scripture to support your decision.
The purpose of these reports is to give you a chance to work out your own view about the issues raised by each case and to practice the procedure for analyzing ethical dilemmas. It is important that you include biblical references to defend your stance.
Case Scenario:
Plaintiffs . . . in this case are three former students of Wheatley High School (WHS) in Houston, Texas, and their mothers. These students allege that they were sexually molested by their former high school coach, Tommy Reaux. The students and their mothers filed suit against several defendants, including the principal of WHS, Eddie Orum, III, for failing to prevent Reaux’s abuse.
On September 12, 1989, . . . Roland Major [student at WSH] informed several WHS teachers that Reaux had pinched and patted him on the but- tocks. One of these teachers sent Major to [principal] Orum, who interviewed Major and had him make a written statement. Orum then met with Reaux, who admitted that he had patted Major on the behind. Reaux told Orum that he had been trying to persuade Major to rejoin the football team and that the pat had simply been a “coach’s gesture.” At this meeting, Orum told Major that because there were no witnesses to the incident, nothing further could be done.
Orum did not personally contact Major’s mother to tell her of the incident. Later that afternoon, Reaux approached Major and asked if he could give Major a ride home after school so that Reaux could talk to
Major’s mother. Accompanied by another teacher, Reaux and Major went to Major’s home. Reaux told Major’s mother that he had patted her son on the buttocks and that Reaux, Major and Orum had already met and discussed it. At some later time, Orum warned Reaux that he should be careful in his gestures with students. Aside from this warning Orum did nothing further about Major’s complaint.
On October 25, 1989, . . . Cleveland McCord [student at WSH] reported to several teachers that he had been having sexual relations with Reaux. One of these teachers took him to speak to Orum. Orum met sepa- rately with McCord and with Reaux, then met with them together. In Reaux’s presence, Orum had McCord make a written statement. Orum also separately questioned Reaux, who denied McCord’s allegations. Later that day, Orum tried to telephone McCord’s mother, but could not reach her because the telephone number was either disconnected or incorrect. Orum contacted an official with the Houston Independent School Dis- trict (HISD) and relayed the information McCord had given him. The HISD instructed Orum to get statements from McCord and Reaux and to prepare a written report. The HISD also told Orum that William Morgan, the HISD District IX Superintendent, would begin an investigation. Orum sent a written report to the HISD that day.
Shortly afterward, Reaux approached McCord and offered him fifty dol- lars to say that nothing had happened. McCord took the money and on October 26 made a new written statement withdrawing his allegations. When Orum questioned McCord about the reason for his change of heart, McCord told Orum that he just wanted to drop it. Orum again contacted the HISD and informed them of McCord’s new statement. Orum told the HISD that he still considered the situation serious and stated that he had warned Reaux that, in spite of McCord’s retraction, Orum would rec- ommend that Reaux be fired if there was reason to believe the original charges. At that point, Orum intended to discontinue his active inves- tigation but to monitor the situation by “keep[ing] [his] eyes open.”
Several days later, McCord told Orum that he wanted to revive his com- plaint. On November 1, Orum went to McCord’s home to speak to his mother. Orum informed McCord’s mother of McCord’s allegations and told her that he had spoken with both McCord and Reaux. Orum also told McCord’s mother that Reaux would no longer be allowed to be alone with students. This was apparently the first that McCord’s mother had heard of this matter and she told Orum to hold off his investigation because she wanted to speak to her son first. The next morning, McCord’s mother visited Orum’s office, informed Orum that the relationship between Reaux and her son had been consensual and asked Orum to stop investigating. On that day, Orum wrote to Morgan and informed him that his investigation had been inconclusive and that he planned to end his inquiry unless he was instructed otherwise. Some time in 1990, Orum was approached by Daphne Chappell, the band teacher at WHS, who suggested that he speak with a student named Earl Armstrong to see if Armstrong had been having problems with Reaux. Chap- pell told Orum that Armstrong’s youngest brother had said that Reaux and Armstrong were having sexual relations. Orum spoke to Armstrong and to Reaux, both of whom denied the allegations. Orum also spoke to Arm- strong’s mother, who told him only that she was concerned that the WHS football and band departments were too aggressively vying for Arm- strong’s exclusive participation. At this time, Orum believed that some of the past allegations against Reaux might have been true, but because of the outcome of his interviews with Armstrong, Armstrong’s mother and Reaux, Orum concluded that he should take no further action.
