Search Reslife.net
		The Ethical Development of College Students By David A. McKelfresh Director of Residence Life Colorado State University & Ray Gasser Assistant Director of Residence Life for Student Development Indiana State University The ethical development of students is an appropriate responsibility for Residence Life staff members. We have entered an era on college campuses that requires the creation of an ethos of academic integrity, the development of effective policies, and a more focused implementation of programs. To accomplish this Residence Life staff need an understanding of student development theories, ethical education and training, and assessment techniques of developmental outcomes. If you were to ask students what the word ethics means to them, you will find a variety of answers. Rules, morals, what's right, or even guidelines. Many students do not know how to define ethics. This lack of understanding creates problems for residence life staff who are at times struggling just to communicate "the rules" without the additional responsibility of ethical decision making that goes into each life dilemma. The current environment residence life staff find themselves in is more challenging and ambiguous than in recent memory. Today's college students are more affluent, better educated, and more ethnically diverse. While today's young people are more spoiled and unethical than adults would like (Howe and Strauss, 2000), students in this millenial generation "see national leaders and pop-culture celebrities as being vastly more spoiled and unethical than their own generation." (p. 18) Competition to get ahead has never been so fierce: A U.S. News and World Report poll (Kleiner & Lord, 1999) found that 1 in 4 adults believes he or she has to lie and cheat to get ahead. Never before have so many highschool students been involved with academic dishonesty: In a recent survey conducted by Who's Who Among American High School Students, 80 percent of high-achieving high schoolers admitted to having cheated at least once; half of the students indicated they did not believe cheating was wrong (Kleiner & Lord, 1999). Thus, residence life staff face a new situation in carrying out their responsibilities to help students with their ethical development. It holds some novel challenges and presents some fresh opportunities. Given the changing external environment, student demographic fluctuations, and increased pressures on students to succeed in college, residence life staff cannot neglect opportunities to impact students' ethical development. Careful and thoughtful implementation of developmental interventions has become crucial. Templeton and Schwartz (1999) in the recent publication Colleges that Encourage Character Development say it best when they state: "Character is not engraved by age six -- or even sixteen. We can change and improve our character. However, like a comfortable pair of shoes, selfishness, laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsibility are easy to slip into. But the uplifting message of character development is that we can acquire a good and sound character -- one that is durable yet evolving. All it takes is hard work and commitment. Just as a mountain is constantly being reshaped by weather patterns, our character is reshaped by the different choices we make and the virtues we choose to practice. In much the same way, our choices develop our character -- and our character determines our choices." (p. vii) Can ethics be taught? If one looks at the evidence psychologists have amassed the answer is yes. James Rest (1986b) summarizes the major findings of contemporary research in the field of moral development: Dramatic changes occur in young adults in their 20's and 30's in terms of the basic problem-solving strategies they use to deal with ethical issues. These changes are linked to fundamental changes in how a person perceives society and his or her role in society. The extent to which change occurs is associated with the number of years of formal education (college of professional school). Deliberate educational attempts (formal curriculum) to influence awareness of moral problems and to influence the reasoning or judgment process have been demonstrated to be effective. Studies indicate that a person's behavior is influenced by his or her moral perception and moral judgments. Helping students develop an understanding of ethics and an appreciation of the ethical decision making process can play an important role in the development of college students. William Kibler (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1992) recommends a required educational program for students who violate policies regarding academic integrity. Kibler states that "such a program should include discussion of what cheating is and why it is unacceptable. It should also include education in moral development, to help students understand the relationship of moral reasoning and behavior." (p. B2) In the Templeton Guide, Colleges that Encourage Character Development (1999), 405 outstanding examples of character development programs are highlighted. The exemplary programs are divided into ten categories: First-year Programs, Academic Honesty Programs, Faculty and Curriculum Programs, Volunteer Service Programs, Substance-Abuse Prevention Programs, Student Leadership Programs, Spiritual Growth Programs, Civic Education Programs, Character and Sexuality Programs, and Senior-Year Programs. Name and contact information are provided for the college faculty or staff member who coordinates a particular program. Residence life staff members seeking out examples of successful programs would do well to make the Templeton Guide a primary resource. One of the exemplary programs in the Templeton Guide is the Ethics Workshop at Colorado State University. The Ethics Workshop was designed in 1989 to challenge students regarding character development issues. Over the years it has evolved into a highly successful experience for students, faculty, and staff. The program bridges theory and practice and has become an excellent vehicle for empowering participants to engage each other in discussion regarding character and contemporary moral and ethical issues. The Ethics Workshop is designed to achieve the four goals of ethics training set forth by Karen Kitchener: To sensitize students to ethical issues -- Students frequently have difficulty recognizing ethical dilemmas, especially conflict of interest. To improve a student's ability to reason about ethical issues and to make ethical judgments. To develop in students a sense of moral responsibility and the ego strength to act in ethical ways. To teach students a tolerance of ambiguity in ethical decision making; helping them to understand that few absolute answers exist. The following is an outline of the Ethics Workshop at Colorado State University: 1. Introduction Workshop facilitators introduce themselves and share why they think it is important to talk about the topic of ethics. 2. Brainstorming ethical role models Facilitators should ask the group to identify (verbally) all the well known people who have appeared in the media for the past 2-3 years for unethical behavior. People who generally come to mind for college students are O.J. Simpson, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh, Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton, and many more. It is generally easy for the group to identify a long list of names. Next, facilitators ask the group to identify all the well known people who have appeared in the media for the past 2-3 years for notably ethical behavior. This is typically much more difficult. Often the group cannot think of anyone. Typical names are Mother Theresa and the Pope. Facilitators, then, generate a discussion about the messages students received growing up and lead the conversation into receiving at college. 3. It's OK, Son We have found that it is most powerful to read aloud an excerpt (p. 23-25) from the Power of Ethical Management (1988) by Blanchard and Peale. When discussing this excerpt, many students share that they had similar experiences while growing up. For a group that is not as willing to share or discuss, we will sometimes ask each person to share with us who they look to for ethical role models in their life and why. In order to spark discussion, we will often ask the group two questions: Who do you look to for an ethical role model in this environment? What are the things that happen on campus that unethical but everybody knows they happen? The people students see as heroes has changed significantly in the past 25 years. In 1979, if students had a hero, the most common answers were God or an entertainer. Currently, student heroes and role models are "local" (Levine & Cureton, 1997) - two out of three students chose someone they knew personally. Student heroes can be seen more clearly in the table below: Hero Percentage reporting Parents 29 Religious figure (usually Jesus) 14 Relative, friend, or neighbor 12 Entertainer 6 Teacher or professor 5 Politician or government leader 5 (Levine and Cureton, 1997, p. 37) 4. Escaped Prisoner Dilemma Next, facilitators have the group read the dilemma and indicate whether they would respond to the story with "report, not report, or can't decide." The questions are well received for discussion purposes. It is important during the discussion that the facilitators challenge as much as seems reasonable. The Escaped Prisoner Dilemma can be found in the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1986a). The Escaped Prisoner A man was sentenced to prison for ten years. However, after one year, he escaped from prison, moved to a new area of the country, and took the name of Thompson. For eight years, Mr. Thompson worked hard, and he gradually save enough money to buy his own business. He was fair to his customers, gave his employees top wages, and contributed most of his profits to charity. Then one day, Mrs. Jones, an old neighbor, recognized him as the man who had escaped from prison eight years before, and she knew the police still were looking for him. Should Mrs. Jones report to the police that she knows where Mr. Thompson is? ____ Should report Mr. Thompson ____ Cannot decide whether or not to report Mr. Thompson ____ Should not report Mr. Thompson 5. Ethic of Care, and Ethic of Justice At this juncture the facilitators explain that there are at least two different ways people conceptualize moral reasoning: the justice and fairness perspective (Kohlberg, 1969) and the Ethic of Care perspective (Gilligan, 1982). Facilitators present a short review of these theoretical perspectives and share that the research indicates that in the United States of the people reasoning using a "justice and fairness" perspective, 80% are men and 20% are women, and of the people reasoning using an Ethic of Care perspective, 70% are women and 30% are men. It becomes understandable how two people with different moral reasoning perspectives can be discussing an issue and completely misunderstand each other. 6. Ethics Rank Order Exercise Facilitators should have the participants rank order the behaviors in terms of how ethical they perceive the behavior to be. After individually ranking and explaining consensus, we break the group into sub-groups, and ask them to come to a consensus ranking of ethical behaviors. Example of Rank Order exercise Rank the statements below from 1 to 8 based on your opinion and how you feel. Number 1 will be the most ethical statement and number 8 in your opinion is the most unethical statement. You cannot assign a number more than once. ____ Looking on someone's test for help with an answer. ____ Playing a joke on a friend and he or she gets slightly hurt. ____ Hiding a book in the library so no one else can find it except for you. ____ Using a fake ID. ____ Lying to a police officer when asked for more information. ____ Missing class and then making up an excuse to give to your professor. ____ Switching a price tag on a book at the bookstore so you can pay a lower price. ____ Tearing down goal posts on a football field and taking them from the field. The facilitators should then lead a discussion regarding those items ranked highest and lowest. You should have the participants describe how they individually and as a group decided which was most and least ethical. What principles did they use to help them in their decision making? 7. Ethical Principles It is important to share Kitchener's ethical principles following the rank order exercise to give students a context in which to think about ethics. These principles can be found in more detail in H.J. Canon and R.D. Brown (Eds.) Applied ethics in student services (pps. 17-20). Respect Autonomy Do No Harm Benefit Others Be Just Be Faithful 8. Ethics Checklist This is one final attempt to give student's a concrete tool for making ethical decisions (Blanchard and Peale, 1988, p. 20). Typically, this is found to be more concrete and easier to understand for some students then Kitchener's principles. Is it legal? Will I be violating an civil law or institutional policy? Is it balanced? Is it fair to all concerned? Does it promote win/win situations? How will it make me feel about myself? Will I be proud? Would I feel good if my hometown newspaper published my decision? Would I feel good if my family know about my choice? Dialogue, role-playing, and case studies are all part of the teaching technique. Andrew Feldman, Assistant Director for Community Services at the University of Vermont, and ethics workshop facilitator, had this to say about the workshop: "Having worked with many students in ethics workshops at Colorado State, I am impressed with the power of the program to challenge students to think differently, to ask them to consider the way in which they face ethical questions, and to give them some resources for making ethical decisions in the future. Students leave feeling not as if they have been scolded, but as if they have been engaged in a discussion about how to participate successfully and ethically in a campus community." Anne Hudgens, Director of Judicial Affairs at Colorado State University, describes the ethics workshop as "a structured program for people who have problems with ethical thinking." The majority of students referred to the workshop end up actively participating in it. Hudgens believes this is due in large part to the workshop's format. "I think the ethics workshop takes the judgment out of the situation. Students expect to be lectured to. Instead, the workshop format gets the students talking about hard issues that don't have clear right or wrong answers, and they have to think out loud about what would be most ethical or least ethical. There's a series of exercises that are detached from their own situations." Residence life staff members must embrace their responsibility to promote character development. Student are better off if they are involved in intentional interventions. Design is better than drift. The time has arrived for Residence Life staff members to develop programs like the ethics workshop and use them. References Blanchard, K. & Peale, N.V. (1988). The Power of ethical management. William Morrow & Co. Canon, H.J. & Brown, R.D. (Eds.). (1985). Applied ethics in student affairs. (New Directions for Student Services, No. 30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Hayes, K. (1993, January/February). Who's to Blame for Cheating? Alumnus. Colorado State University. 22-25. Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage Books. John Templeton Foundation (Ed.). (1999). The Templeton guide: Colleges that encourage character, Templeton Foundation Press: Philadelphia. Kibler, W.L. (1992, November 11). Cheating. Chronicle of Higher Education. B1-B2. Kleiner, C. & Lord, M. (1999, November 22). The cheating game. U.S. News & World Report. 55-66. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.). Handbook of socialization theory and research. Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally. Levine, A. & Cureton, J.S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portait of today's college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Rest, J.R. (1986a). The Defining Issues Test (3rd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for the Study of Ethical Development. Rest, J.R. (1986b). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Publishers. About the Authors David McKelfresh is on a joint-appointment at Colorado State University as Director of Residence Life with the Office of Housing and Food Services, and as an Assistant Professor in the Student Affairs in Higher Education masters program. Dave received his Master's degree at Colorado State University, and his Ph.D. at the University of Northern Colorado. Ray Gasser is the Assistant Director of Residential Life for Student Development at Indiana State University. In his current position, Ray oversees the supervision of the south side of campus, hiring of professional and para-professional hall staff, the programmatic endeavors of the halls, and the support structures for first-year students and minorities. A native of Washington state, he has worked at four different institutions in Washington, Colorado, Florida, and Indiana.