Page 1



2018 | Issue 7

Co-Directors’ Welcome Welcome to the Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility’s annual symposium! Every spring, the symposium serves as a capstone to the events sponsored by the Institute over the past academic year, all of which are informed by a theme which is developed anew each fall. Our theme for this year – Social Justice/Social Responsibility – was meant to highlight the responsibilities that society has toward addressing issues of social justice, issues that affect the well-being of all members of society. In October, the Institute hosted J. Jondhi Harrell, Founding Director of The Center for Returning Citizens, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia that assists recently incarcerated persons in the retransition from incarceration to society by providing job training, housing assistance, counseling services, legal aid, and referrals. Mr. Harrell spoke of problems in the U.S. Criminal Justice system, and of a project aimed at revitalizing the Nicetown-Tioga section of Philadelphia while putting formerly incarcerated city residents to work. In January, local visual artist/muralist/community educator and Rosemont alumna Michelle Angela Ortiz (’02) shared with the campus community her use of art as a vehicle to represent people and communities whose histories are often lost or co-opted. Her work with immigrant communities is of particular salience in light of current affairs. The creator of over 50 large-scale public works nationally and internationally, Ms. Ortiz received the Americans for the Arts’ Public Art Year in Review Award in 2016, which honors outstanding public arts projects in the nation. Excerpts from Ms. Ortiz’s talk are included in this issue. Today’s event addresses the theme by calling attention to new conceptions of the business and society relationship. Whereas the dominant view has long been that the only social responsibility of business is to maximize profit, new movements are afoot, such the Benefit Corporation or “B Corps” movement that emphasizes business as a force for positive change in the world. We are fortunate to have with us today two speakers affiliated with the B Corps movement. Philadelphia Councilwoman Maria Quinoñes-Sánchez has been instrumental in drafting legislation to help make Philadelphia the “B Corps capital of the world,” and Bart Houlahan co-founded B Lab in nearby Berwyn together with colleagues J. Coen-Gilbert and Andrew Kassoy in 2006. Both will share their thoughts on how business can be directed to serve the common good. Their presentations will be followed by three breakout sessions and a closing panel session in which our guests will continue the conversation. We are delighted to have you with us today, and I hope that you will come away from the program inspired by our speakers’ insights – enjoy!

Alan A. Preti Co-Director, Institute for Ethical Leadership and Responsibility

Col. Timothy Ringgold Co-Director, Institute for Ethical Leadership and Responsibility

The title of this publication - Ethos - is the ancient Greek word for ‘character,’ and the root of ethikos, from which the English ‘ethics’ is derived. A central moral concept, an individual’s ethos is his or her credibility or trustworthiness, while a community’s ethos is manifested in the beliefs, practices, and ideals which provide its members with meaning and shared purpose. We look forward to the ethos of the Institute being a guiding light for the College and the greater community in the years ahead.

Major support for this Symposium and the Institute is provided by Halloran Philanthropies and individual donors.

Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility ETHOS STAFF Editorial Director Alan A. Preti, PhD DESIGN AND ILLUSTRATION Susan DiGironimo


WRITERS Katherine Baker Adam Lusk, PhD Michelle Moravec, PhD Michelle Angela Ortiz Alan A. Preti, PhD PHOTOGRAPHY John Michael Szczepaniak-Gillece

What is the Common Good?

PRINTING Garrison Printing Company © 2018 Rosemont College Ethos is published by the Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility and the Office of College Relations. Communications regarding the contents of Ethos should be directed to the Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility, 1400 Montgomery Ave., Rosemont, PA 19010 or ielsr@rosemont. edu. To support the Institute or to learn more, please visit institute.

Alan A. Preti, PhD

Ethics and Moral Decision-Making



INTERNAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven Alessandri, PhD Associate Professor of Psychology Troy Chiddick, MBA Dean of Students, Undergraduate College Jeanne Marie Hatch, SHCJ, MA Vice President of Mission and Ministry Jennifer Jackson, PhD Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies

Political Engagement at Rosemont College Adam Lusk, PhD

| 13

Adam Lusk, PhD Assistant Professor of Political Science Michelle Moravec, PhD Associate Professor of History EXTERNAL ADVISORY BOARD Joseph S. Camardo, MD Maureen Caulfield, MD Peter Clark, SJ, PhD Juliet Goodfriend Harry R. Halloran, Jr. Tom Handler Irene Horstmann Hannan

Lifting Our Voices Michelle Angela Ortiz, ’02

The Margaret M. Healy Fund Institute Fellows Michelle Moravec Katherine Baker

| 15

| 17

Maria D. Quiñones-Sánchez Councilwoman Maria D. Quiñones-Sánchez is a veteran activist with over 30 years of service to the City of Philadelphia, currently serving a third four-year term on Philadelphia City Council. Councilwoman Sanchez has advocated tirelessly for creating and preserving family-sustaining jobs, investing in a trained and educated workforce, reducing blight and transforming vacant land, keeping families in their homes, mandating ethics and transparency in government, revitalizing neighborhood economies, reforming unsafe demolition practices, and securing the rights of women, families, and workers across the City. In 2016, she was at the forefront of legislative initiatives designed to help make Philadelphia the “B Corps capital of the world.”

Bart Houlahan

Bart Houlahan is co-founder of B-Lab, a nonprofit organization located in Berwyn, PA that serves a global movement of people using business as a force for good. Prior to B Lab, Bart was CFO, COO, and President of AND 1, a $250M basketball footwear, apparel and entertainment company. As the principal operator of the business, Bart joined AND 1 in its second year, when revenues totaled just $4M. Over the course of the next 11 years, Bart helped to finance, operate and scale the business to $250M in brand revenues with distribution in 85 countries worldwide. AND 1 undertook a leveraged recapitalization in 1999 with TA Associates, and eventually was sold in May, 2005, to American Sporting Goods out of Irvine, CA. Bart is a Henry Crown Fellow of the Aspen Institute.




John F. Connolly, Jr. John F. Connolly, Jr. is Founder, President, and CEO of InspiriTec, an inspired social entrepreneurship that adds value to the lives of disabled and disadvantaged persons through assistive technology and other services. He has led the development of high profile systems for firms such as AT&T, the National Disease Research Interchange, the University of Pennsylvania, United Engineers, and ActionAIDS. John has particular expertise in the development of Case Management Systems for the social services, health care, and managed care industries. John graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude from Lehigh University with three majors: Sociology, Religion Studies, and Urban Studies. He received his Master of Social Work degree from Penn and an MBA in Finance from Temple.

John McCall John McCall is director of the Pedro Arrupe Center for Business Ethics at Saint Joseph’s University. A founder of the Society for Business Ethics, Dr. McCall focuses on mentoring Erivan K. Haub School of Business faculty in the Center’s Fellows Program so that students are assured of substantive and repeated exposure to questions of ethics in the classroom. Dr. McCall is the author of numerous journal articles, and is co-author of Contemporary Issues in Business Ethics (Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2004).

Anne Rouse Sudduth As Co-Founder and Principal of Boyer Sudduth Environmental Consultants, Anne draws on her background in the non-profit and corporate sectors to develop and implement sustainability initiatives for K-12 schools in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Massachusetts. Anne was previously National Director of Community Involvement at Deloitte, the global accounting and consulting firm, where she developed the U.S. firm’s award-winning community involvement program. Prior to joining Deloitte, Anne was Senior VP for Education and Workforce Development at the Partnership for New York City, the city’s leading business and civic organization. Anne received the New Hampshire 40 under 40 Award recognizing the state’s emerging young leaders in 2010 after founding the Seacoast Women’s Giving Circle, a philanthropic and civic leadership organization. She is a LEED Green Associate and a certified Zero Waste Associate through the USGBC. She also holds a certificate in non-profit management from LaSalle University’s School of Business. | 4

The Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility

Alan A. Preti, PhD The notion of the Common Good has deep roots in the history of Western thought. Although the fundamental idea can be traced to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, it is primarily associated with his student Aristotle who in turn set the stage for its further development by thinkers such as the Roman statesman Cicero, the medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among many others. For such thinkers the common good was at heart a political notion, one which emphasized the harmony of the good of the individual with the good of


| Ethos

the political community. For Plato, the two were one and the same: the good of the individual simply is the good of the state (and vice-versa). Aristotle expressly made the connection between the two in his contention that the primary concern of the study of politics is to determine how societal institutions can best serve to help develop virtuous citizens. Such a view is not likely to resonate with most people today, but for Aristotle, the common good depended on the active participation of citizens, in that it was through joint deliberation, decision and

action by citizens that the common good would result. The Catholic Social Teaching tradition is another source for the idea of the common good. In this tradition, the common good is defined as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (CSDC 2004, 164). Or, put another way, the common good is “the good of all people and of the whole person” (ibid., 165). Ultimately, there is an obligation on everyone’s part to contribute to the

Rosemont College

conditions that will serve to improve the lives of all. But what does all this have to do with the social responsibilities of business? One way to think about this is to note that during the European Enlightenment of the 18th century, the idea of the common good went through a variety of transformations, and took a very different direction than that established by the tradition initiated by Aristotle. One of the seminal figures in this transformation was the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith, whose classic Inquiry into the

Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is probably best known for select passages that are included in nearly every introductory economics textbook, such as the following: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages” (I.2.ii) . . . “by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his

own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” Passages such as these have often been taken to imply that the unrestrained pursuit of self-interest will serve to promote the general welfare in the most efficient way possible – a view that has exercised an enormous amount of influence on American business’s self-representation, and which continues to be the prevailing view among many free-market economists and business practitioners, as well | 6

The Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility

as the public at large. As dissenting voices began challenging this interpretation throughout the 1960s, the economist Milton Friedman defended it in a 1970 New York Times Magazine article in which he argued that the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits, within the limits of the law and conventional mores. Friedman may not have equated self-interest with selfishness, but unfortunately, many people do; thus, Adam Smith’s observation has often been (erroneously) used to justify a view of business that sanctions greed, corruption, and any number of nefarious practices designed to boost the bottom line. Such a view blatantly ignores Smith’s account of human nature as articulated in his only other book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it” (2002, I.1.i.i). Even on the more charitable interpretation, however, critics argue that Friedman’s is a myopic vision of the purpose of business that marginalizes the humanitarian value of the free enterprise system. Indeed, over the course of the past several years there has been a growing number of books authored by prominent CEOs and other business leaders articulating a new vision of corporate purpose challenging Friedman’s account. Some of the more popular titles in this expanding market are (now deceased) Ray Anderson’s Mid-Course Correction and Confessions of a Radical Industrialist, Jeffrey Hollender’s The Responsibility Revolution, and more recently, John Mackey’s Conscious Capitalism. Each of these authors – the CEOs, respectively, of Interface Global, Seventh Generation, and Whole Foods Market – makes the case that the purpose of business lies elsewhere than in maximizing profit, a view which they find to be essentially passé-fare (pun intended). The alternative is a version of stakeholder theory, the now well-established approach that emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and addressing the obligations of business toward all those who affect and are affected by a given business enterprise. Books such as these, aimed at a general audience, are nothing new; popular publications speaking to effective and responsible business leadership by well-known executives have been standard fare for years. Nor is the message particularly new, as management theorists and business ethicists would be inclined to point out. Indeed, as far back as 1951, Standard Oil’s board chairman Frank Abrams wrote presciently in a Harvard Business Review article that managers had a duty “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise to maintain an equitable and workable balance among the claims of the variously directed interest groups, a harmonious balance among stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large” (Frederick 2006, 7). This is an early expression of what eventually came to be known as stakeholder theory, although similar sentiments can be found in the business literature even earlier. The notion gained increasing traction in the post-WWII years, and by the late 1980s stakeholder theory and the related integrative model of Corporate Social Responsibility had become particularly influential, primarily in academic circles and among the public in general. Yet there is something decidedly different about the vision underlying the most recent calls for a reassessment of the purpose


| Ethos

of business, a vision which is at once more vibrant and expressed with greater urgency than those of the past. Jeffrey Hollender, for example, writes of a revolutionary and evolutionary transformation involving sweeping change by “wiping away the deeply ingrained way that we’ve come to narrowly define the purpose of business” (2010, xvii). We are experiencing a “moment of punctuated, accelerated change … [which] will redefine business’s obligations to society and reconfigure the sources of growth and competitive advantage,” and that will “require us not only to anticipate the end of corporate responsibility as we’ve known it, but also to imagine the whole new models that will replace it” (2010, 13). In a similar vein, John Mackey writes that he has “come to realize that the world urgently needs a richer, more holistic, and more humanistic philosophy and narrative about business than the one we have encountered from economic textbooks, in business school teachings, and even from the mouths and pens of many prominent business leaders” (2013, 7-8). So what is involved in this reconception of the aims of business and of the business-society relationship? At bottom is simply the need to, as stakeholder theorist R. Edward Freeman puts it, “automatically think about what is owed to customers, suppliers, employers, financiers and communities, in virtue of their stake, and in virtue of their basic humanity” (Hartman and DesJardins 2011, 82). In so doing, business leaders will have adopted a perspective that is fundamentally more conducive to human flourishing and the common good; it is also, according to proponents, the shape of things to come. References Anderson, Ray C. Mid-Course Correction: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model (White River Junction, VT Chelsea Green Publishing Co., 1998). Anderson, Ray C. (with R. White), Confessions of a Radical Industrialist (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009). Frederick, W.C. Corporation, Be Good! The Story of Corporate Social Responsibility (Indianapolis: Dog Ear Publishing, 2006). Friedman, Milton. “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine (New York: The New York Times Co., September 13, 1970). Hartman, Laura and J. DesJardins. Business Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility, 2nd ed. (Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill, 2011). Hollender, Jeffrey, and B. Breen: 2010, The Responsibility Revolution: How the Next Generation of Businesses will Win (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2010). Mackey, John, and R. Sisodia. Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013). Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004). Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations: A Selected Edition, ed. K. Sutherland (Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 2008). Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. K Haakonssen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Rosemont College

The Society of the Holy Child Jesus, founder of Rosemont College, compelled by the Gospel and by our mission

to rejoice in God’s presence and to help people believe that God lives and acts in them and in our world supports the College's symposium on Social Responsibility and the Common Good: Business in the 21st Century. | 8

The Institute Institute for for Ethical Ethical Leadership Leadership and and Social Social Responsibility Responsibility The

Ethics and Moral Decision-Making Alan A. Preti, PhD

Ethics is is both both extremely extremely familiar familiar to to Ethics us and and yet yet at at the the same same time time somewhat somewhat us of aa mystery. mystery. As As the the domain domain of of human human of experience that that concerns concerns how how we we act act and and experience behave, about about what what is is right right and and wrong wrong behave, or good good and and bad, bad, ethical ethical values values inform inform or our lives lives from from our our earliest earliest days. days. Think Think of of our those early early childhood childhood admonitions admonitions such such those as “Don’t “Don’t cheat!,” cheat!,” “Don’t “Don’t steal!,” steal!,” “Share “Share as and share share alike!,” alike!,” etc. etc. The The “do’s “do’s and and and don’ts” that that we we are are exhorted exhorted to to follow follow set set don’ts” the stage stage for for much much of of our our habitual habitual behavbehavthe ior as as we we mature. mature. And And yet, yet, at at some some point point ior we discover discover that that such such rules rules do do not not always always we serve as as clear clear guides guides to to moral moral decisiondecisionserve

9 | Ethos

In January, January, Institute Institute co-Director Co-DirectorAlan AlanA.A.Preti, Preti,PhD, PhD,represented representedRosemont Rosemont In College at at the the NCAA NCAA Convention Convention in in Indianapolis Indianapolis with with aa presentation presentation on on EthCollege Ethics Athletics. to provide participants an underics andand Athletics. The The aimaim waswas to provide participants withwith an understanding standing of fundamental ethicaland concepts and afor method forreasoned making moral reasoned of fundamental ethical concepts a method making moral decisions. What follows is an exposition of thethat ideas that informed decisions. What follows is an exposition of the ideas informed Dr. Preti’s Dr. Preti’s presentation. presentation.

making. One One of of the the problems problems is is that that making. simple rules rules are are not not so so good good at at capturing capturing simple the complexity complexity and and nuances nuances of of aa great great the number of of situations situations with with ethical ethical dimendimennumber sions –– moral moral situations situations can can be be messy! messy! sions Apart from from that, that, ethics ethics can can seem seem to to be be aa Apart mystery in in that that we we often often find find ourselves ourselves mystery thinking that that we we know know precisely precisely what what thinking the right right thing thing to to do do is, is, and and then then acting acting the on that that belief; belief; in in retrospect, retrospect, however, however, on we may may come come to to realize realize that that perhaps perhaps we we we didn’t have have it it quite quite right, right, that that we we really really didn’t shouldn’t have have acted acted on on that that decision decision -shouldn’t that in in fact fact it it was was the the wrong wrong decision decision in in that the first first place. place. Another Another reason reason that that ethics ethics the can be be aa mystery mystery is is that that we we often often find find can ourselves in in situations situations in in which which we we simply simply ourselves don’t know know what what the the right right thing thing to to do do is, is, don’t situations in in which which two two or or more more values values situations compete for for our our attention attention and and in in which which compete there is is no no clear clear answer answer as as to to what what to to do: do: there moral dilemma. dilemma. aa moral There is is aa 2,500 2,500 year year history history of of There philosophical reflection reflection about about right right and and philosophical wrong, and and good good and and bad, bad, in in both both WestWestwrong, ern and and non-Western non-Western traditions. traditions. Many Many ern philosophers have have developed developed unique unique philosophers theories that that are are meant meant to to explain explain our our theories moral experience experience and and to to guide guide our our moral moral moral

decision-making. These These theories theories are are decision-making. usually abstract abstract affairs, affairs, often often couched couched in in usually arcane and and technical technical language language that that can can arcane make it it difficult difficult to to appreciate appreciate precisely precisely make how the the theories theories are are supposed supposed to to apply apply how to practical practical problems. problems. Each Each also also typically typically to posits aa single, single, universal universal standard standard of of conconposits duct that that is is meant meant to to guide guide human human action action duct in every every situation situation that that calls calls for for aa moral moral in decision; such such aa standard standard is is considered considered decision; as the the correct correct answer answer to to what what is is ethically ethically as required. required. The American American philosopher philosopher John John Dewey Dewey The (1859-1952) was was chiefly chiefly concerned concerned with with (1859-1952) the role role philosophy philosophy could could play play in in solving solving the problems. Recognizing Recognizing both both the the weakweakproblems.

Rosemont College

nesses and value of traditional ethical theories, he developed his own account of ethics as inquiry – that is, as a method that seeks to discover the best plan of action in the particular, concrete situations in which humans find themselves. Dewey found the paradigmatic model for inquiry in scientific method, which as a process begins in a condition of doubt and uncertainty and ends with a solution that is felt as a “return to normal.” In broad outlines: our initial awareness of a problem prompts a desire to identify the specific nature of the problem; the problem having been defined, tentative hypotheses are proposed as possible solutions, implications of the hypotheses are worked out, and the most promising hypothesis is tested in experiment or direct action. The restoration of equilibrium or harmony is a confirmation of the hypothesis; thus the problematic situation is resolved. Dewey’s account of ethics as inquiry acknowledges that the moral life is multidimensional and messy, and consequently ill-served by universal standards such as those proposed by the traditional ethical theories. Dewey did not deny the usefulness of moral principles or rules of conduct; having emerged over the course of history from reflection on human needs and aspirations, they are indispensable tools for guiding moral inquiry. Each furnishes us with a point of view from which to appreciate what is at stake, consider competing demands, foresee how various acts will affect the interests of all concerned, and determine which action best suits the occasion. Moral principles thus illuminate rather than dictate. One way in which Dewey’s insights can be best appreciated is through a moral decision-making model, that is, a step-bystep procedure for determining the best course of action when faced with a moral dilemma. Such models make explicit a process of decision-making that identifies what is morally at stake, the various available courses of action, those affected by the decision, and the consequences. By following each step and answering relevant questions, we will be better prepared to address moral dilemmas. Here is one such model:

A Moral Decision-Making Model * Awareness of the problem

If we aren’t aware of a problem, then we can’t even get off the ground! Oftentimes, our awareness of a moral dilemma comes through a felt discomfort; we may feel uncomfortable because a decision may result in harm, or treat someone or some group unfairly. We may also feel a conflict of interest that manifests as “tugs” in two directions.

Get the facts

It’s important to have as many facts about the situation as possible; in some cases, the facts may reveal that there’s no ethical dimension to the situation at all. In other cases, the facts will help us to state the problem clearly and to direct our deliberations. It is always important to ask what additional facts would, if known, make a difference in how to approach the problem.

Identify the stakeholders

What individuals or groups will be affected by the decision, and how? Will some stakeholders be advantaged at the expense of others? Are some concerns more important than others?

Consider the alternatives

This is the stage where we imagine to ourselves various courses of action. The best deliberation will go beyond the obvious alternatives and be open to creative solutions – think outside the box!

Weigh the options

Here we compare and weigh the alternatives, using such tests as the following: Harm Test: Does this option do less harm than any alternative?

Duty Test:  What are my professional duties here? Is there a relevant code of conduct?

Fairness Test:  Does this option treat people fairly, with respect for their autonomy and equality?

Virtue Test: What sort of person would I become if I chose this option often?

Reversibility Test:  Would I still choose this option if I were one of those adversely affected by it?

Defensibility Test: Could I defend my choice of this option before my family or my peers?

Publicity Test: Would I want my choice of this option published online or in the newspaper?

Make a decision based on steps 1-5 Monitor and learn from outcomes

Were you satisfied with the outcome? What could make it less likely that you would have to make such a decision again? | 10

The Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility

Moral decision-making models such as this are not infallible guides, nor they intended as inflexible decision-procedures, with each step to be executed consecutively in rote fashion; rather, they distill the stages of a fluid deliberative process in which stages can overlap or merge into one another with no clearly defined boundary. Depending on the circumstances, awareness of the problem may precede the identification of relevant facts or it may emerge as facts are gathered; consideration of the alternatives for action may lead to a revisiting of the facts or to a deeper understanding of what is at stake, and so on. Additionally, questions serve as prompts for thinking creatively about alternative solutions and how they might be implemented conscientiously, with post-decision reflection clarifying further the extent to which the action was called for under the circumstances, how attentively it was carried out, and how well it addressed the problem. With practice, skill in moral deliberation becomes a habituated response, one that serves to amplify sensitivity to moral

problems and develop the ability to address them – in short, it helps us become morally conscientious individuals. As Aristotle put it, “we do not study ethics in order to know the good, but to become good, otherwise there would be no profit in it.� And this, at bottom, is what ethics is really all about.

* This model is drawn from two sources: 1. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University. Original URL: ethical-decision-making/a-frameworkfor-ethical-decision-making/

Garrison Printing Company recognizes that the Earth is our most valuable resource.

2. Michael Davis, Center for Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. Original URL: Format%20for%20Ethical%20Decision%20Making.pdf. TM Trademark of American Soybean Association

Gardens which increase in value and beauty over time. Outdoor spaces where people and nature can commune. Year-round, naturalistic, low maintenance gardens. Walks, patios, perennial gardens, energy efficient lighting. Ponds, waterfalls & other water features. 610-640-0164

Gardens which increase in value and beauty over time. Outdoor spaces where people and nature can commune.


Year-round, naturalistic, low maintenance gardens. Walks, patios, perennial gardens, energy efficient lighting.

Gardens which increase in value and beauty over time. Outdoor spaces where people and nature can commune. Ponds, waterfalls & other water features.

Year-round, naturalistic, low maintenance gardens.




Walks, patios, perennial gardens, energy efficient lighting. Ponds, waterfalls & other water features.

Rosemont College



©2014 WXPN

XPN.ORG | 123

Political Engagement and Rosemont College Dr. Adam Lusk, Department of Political Science Eric B.Kmiec, PhD For the past five years, Rosemont College has participated in the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE). This survey is conducted by the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University and measures student voting rates at more than 1,000 colleges and universities and nearly 30 million college students. Data from NSLVE shows that from 2012-2016 Rosemont’s student voter registration rate increased by 4.7% and student voting went up by 3%. Compared to other institutions, Rosemont demonstrated a significantly higher voting rate: 61.9% for Rosemont and 50.4% for all institutions. The higher levels of registered voters helped increase these voting rates. These increased levels can be partially attributed to several initiatives undertaken by the Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility and the Department of Political Science. In 2015-2016, Dr. Adam Lusk and Professor Eleanor Gubins from the Department of Political Science have worked with Dr.




Alan Preti from the Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility to advance student political and civic engagement. Through various courses, programs, events, and practices, they have focused on improving student knowledge, culture, and agency in and for politics. Believing in the critical necessity for informed and active citizens for democracy, we have purposefully redesigned the curriculum and extracurricular activities to integrate political and civic engagement throughout a student’s time at Rosemont, rather than simply provide episodic exposure to these values and information. For example, we revised Political Science 101 for the fall of 2016 to introduce first-year students to civic and political engagement in order to help them realize its importance for liberal democracy. As part of this revision, the students conducted a non-partisan voter registration drive on campus. Working together as a group, they researched the requirements to register as a voter in Pennsylvania and set up stations in Car-

Rosemont College

dinal Hall during lunch. The students promoted the event through advertising campaigns using posters and social media. Working with the IT and Media Services departments, the students had several computer stations for electronic reservations, which ensured on-the-spot registration. The students also helped other students and staff complete traditional paperwork as needed and encouraged others to sign up. As seen in the NSLVE data, this studentled program helped improve voter registration numbers for Rosemont College. Moreover, students in the class reflected on the activity through a written assignment and class discussions. Many of the students commented on various forms of political disengagement, where some students refused to register to vote or thought that politics was a waste of their time. The class then read about different theories of citizenship, examining “what does it mean for me to be a citizen?” and then reflected on their responses through the lens of immigration. Our class discussion then highlighted the differences between civic engagement and political engagement. The students remarked how the voter registration drive was a form of civic engagement. While important and critical for democracy, this voter registration drive did not address or change the political system and structures that determined who could register to vote and how they needed to do so. Students identified specific cases of peers who felt either excluded or marginalized by the voter registration process which contributed to political disengagement. As a class, we explored the ideas of political discussion, often sidelined in our daily lives as uncomfortable or unimportant, and how it connected to ideas about how civil disagreement is needed for contestation and struggle. While Political Science 101 focused on first-year students, the Political Science department offered an experiential course on Elections for upper-level students in fall of 2016. In addition to learning about the dynamics of elections, students joined political campaigns. This first-hand account of a political campaign helped bring theory to practice and underscore what was learned. At the same time as this coursework, the Institute and the Department of Po-

litical Science hosted an all-campus panel discussion about the 2016 election, titled “Beyond the Spin” on 20 September 2016. Approximately 80 students, including the political science students, attended the event and participated in the discussion with three experts on elections and campaigns. The students learned more about the election and the structure and process of the US political system. To build on these levels of student interest and knowledge, Political Science offered two additional courses in the spring of 2017. The first course, The American Political System, provided first-year students an opportunity to learn more about how our political system worked. The second course, The American Presidency, was another upper-level elective that explored the power and office of the President. In the fall of 2017, first-year students could take Political Science 101, while upperlevel students could take a course on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. In addition, the Institute hosted Jondhi Harrell, the Executive Director for the The Center for Returning Citizens in the fall of 2017. Mr. Harrell provided an insider’s perspective on the structural problems and implicit racial bias found in the criminal justice system, issues raised by the 2017 First-Year Seminar reading of Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson. Through this presentation, students learned more about the links between the political system and issues of social justice. When

speaking with the students, Mr. Harrell highlighted the importance of civic engagement and how The Center for Returning Citizens helps individuals, families, and communities address the return of recently incarcerated citizens from the prison system. Finally, the Institute continued this subject with a movie screening of “13th” which highlighted the role of disenfranchisement in the US political system. The movie and the student-led discussion afterwards returned to the distinctions, and often occurring tensions, between civic and political engagement. Students pointed out that political exclusion, through the systemic process of disenfranchisement, could not be solved simply through volunteering or service events but required political action that would impact the issues, systems, and structures that contributed to these issues of social justice. This multi-year, vertical integration of political engagement has shown important outcomes, including the higher voter registration and voting rates at Rosemont College. Students have discussed forming a student club around social justice issues and have requested more courses and programs that address important areas of political engagement. Moving forward, the Institute and the Department of Political Science plan to meet these demands through curricular and program initiatives that can prepare students for lives as engaged citizens in the 21st century.

Voting Registration Rates Registration Rate

Voting Rate

100 90 80 70

RC 2016 Voting Rate

61.9 %

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

2016 Voting Rate for all Institutions





50.4 %

All Institutions, 2016 | 14

The Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility

What follows are excerpts from Michelle Angela Ortiz’s talk on Rosemont’s campus on January 25.

Angela Ortiz, ‘02 Stories are powerful, especially within the context that they are told or represented. Currently through my work, I strive to counteract mainstream narratives that criminalize immigrants and devalue the contributions of communities of color in the fabric of our society. The common themes of immigration, socio-economic inequalities, and erased histories are present in my work as a way to record, reclaim, and elevate these stories that connect us to our humanity. I am a child of immigrants, a woman of color, a mother, a product of two people that experienced violence and extreme poverty that led them to immigrate to this country. It is within this context, that I see my work as an artist as cultural currency that I use to invest back into the communities I am connected to and to reflect what we contribute to our society. Through my creative process I continue to ask myself, how do I begin to shift power structures and open the space for the families to share their experiences? How do I utilize my privilege, skills, and resources as a way of providing opportunities to share their stories, especially in spaces where they are not represented? I first learned about the Berks Detention Center when I was working on my “Familias Separadas” project which focused on stories of families affected by deportations in Philadelphia. I created 5 temporary public art installations throughout the city including City Hall, Love Park, 9th Street Market, and the Immigrations Customs Enforcement building. Based on an interview conducted by Juntos, a local immigrant rights organization, I captured the words of Ana, an undocumented mother, from Guatemala who was detained at the Berks family prison. The Immigrations Customs Enforcement (ICE) building, located on 16th and Callowhill Streets is the first step of deportation and where family members are first detained. This building has jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and West Vir-

15 | Ethos

ginia. On Monday, October 12th, 2015 on “Columbus Day”, I organized over over 30 volunteers and undocumented families from Juntos to place the words of Ana, an undocumented mother, in front of the ICE building. Together we installed the 90’ long words ‘WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, RISKING OUR LIVES, FOR OUR FAMILIES AND OUR FUTURE”. These words were placed at the exit point where the detained family members are then transported to other prisons to process their deportation. The Berks County Family Detention Center, a prison outside of Philadelphia for immigrant families is one of three family prisons in the United States, where children as young as two-weeks-old have been incarcerated. The Center has a laundry list of human rights abuses which led a Federal Court to revoke their license and order the immediate release all the families. From March through August 2017, I met with two mothers from Honduras and El Salvador that were detained for over 600 days. The two mothers are four of the fourteen families that were

detained for close to two years. During their time there they organized labor and hunger strikes as they fought for their freedom. Ten families were deported back to their home country returning to the violence they were fleeing, and four families were released still fighting against their possible deportation and living through the trauma of being detained. During my visits, I understood that I had the power and privilege to go in and out of the Center where the mothers were detained. A privilege that is a human right, a freedom that they and their children have been denied. As an artist working in communities, I believe that it is important that we hold these experiences with care. I am conscious of where it is that I stand and know that my perspective as an ally is not the same as someone that is directly affected by the issue I am exploring in the work. It is important that my creative process offers moments of healing, especially to those that are wounded from their trauma. My conversations with the mothers were centered on their continued fight for freedom and reminding them of their strength, love for their children,

Rosemont College

and resilience in the midst of a place and system that constantly is devaluing their existence. My “Seguimos Caminando” (We Keep Walking) moving monument on the gates of City Hall that brings to the forefront the stories written by the mothers at Berks and brought to life through a series of animated projections. The project was featured in Monument Lab, a public art and history project produced by Mural Arts Philadelphia and a curatorial team led by Paul M. Farber and Ken Lum that operates around a central guiding question: What is an appropriate monument for the current city of Philadelphia? It was through our conversations that the mothers wrote a combined story that shared their experiences and their hopes, before and after detention. In the presence of the statues of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Frank Rizzo, the written stories of the mothers unfolded in the animation, as the voice of one of the mothers echoed through City Hall and our city streets. Our collaboration provided a space for the mothers to express their thoughts and reveal their whole selves. When I was visiting the mothers at Berks, I was not allowed to leave them with any art supplies. After several visits, I found that I was only able to leave paper and pens with the mothers. The idea of creating the paper flowers came from these visits. It was also a tradition that I learned through my maternal grandmother, Maria Dionisia. The mothers created 10–15 flowers with messages of freedom and hope that traveled outside of the confines of the Center and became the inspiration for the extension of my

moving monument, “Flores de Libertad” a creative action. In preparation for the creative action, I offered a series of paper flower making workshops at the Monument LAB hub at the Barnes Foundation. More than 100 volunteers that included students, educators, and families in Philadelphia participated. A total of 1,600 flowers with messages of freedom (including the flowers made by the mothers at Berks) were hand dyed and assembled at the north gates of City Hall in late October. The flowers installed together spell out

the 10’x40’ word “Libertad” (Freedom/ Liberty). This creative action was followed by a press conference led by the Shut Down Berks Coalition to put pressure on Governor Tom Wolf who has the power to shut down the center and end family detention in Pennsylvania. The Shut Down Berks Coalition led a press conference following the creative action. The Coalition continues to organize vigils, call-in days, and lobbying days to push Governor Tom Wolf to close the Berks family prison. Through my Rauschenberg Artist as Activist Fellowship, I will continue to work with the families detained and released from the Berks prison and bring back their messages to the state capitol to support the fight to end family detention. The Shut Down Berks Campaign is a grassroots coalition fighting to shut down the Berks County Family Detention Center and end family detention. The campaign is led by several local organizations, including Make the Road PA, Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition (PICC), Free Migration Project, and Unitarian Universalist Pennsylvania Legislative Action Network (UUPLAN) with the support of national groups: Detention Watch Network, #Not1More, and We Belong Together.

Michelle Angela Ortiz is a visual artist/ skilled muralist/ community arts educator who uses her art as a vehicle to represent people and communities whose histories are often lost or co-opted. Through painting, printmaking, and community arts practices, she creates a safe space for dialogue around some of the most profound issues communities and individuals may face. Her work tells stories using richly crafted and emotive imagery to claim and transform spaces into a visual affirmation that reveals the strength and spirit of the community. A recipient of a number of awards and grants, she holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts from Moore College of Art & Design and a Master’s Degree in Science of Arts and Cultural Management from Rosemont College. | 16

The Margaret M. Healy Fund for Faculty Research in Ethics and Leadership

The Margaret M. Healy Fund for Faculty Research in Ethics and Leadership was established in 2016 in honor of Margaret M. Healy, PhD, former President and long-time supporter of Rosemont College, to facilitate research in Ethics and Leadership Studies within the Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility. Research supported by the Fund is expected to lead to the design of new courses or course modules with an emphasis on ethics or leadership, conference presentations, or to the publication of case studies, journal articles, or books. Award recipients are designated Institute Fellows throughout the duration of their project.

Michelle Moravec

Associate Professor of History

Socially Responsible Research Practices in the Digital Age

Katherine Baker

Assistant Professor of English

Active Storytelling: The Influence of Social Justice on Modern and Contemporary Literature


| Ethos

Over the past four years, as I created a variety of digital history projects with students and on my own, I became convinced that our traditional research practices are not sufficient if we desire to not only comply with institutional ethics requirements for research, but also to rise to the level of socially responsible researchers. In particular, because I write about activists engaged in recent social justice movements, I consider that I have the responsibility to not just comply with the research practices that are dictated by my archivally-based research practices, such as observation of copyright, but also that my writing must not expose my subjects to potential harm. The digital reach of academic research makes this a distinct possibility as what scholars write is now often made available online. If we are making people’s past visible in ways they do not want, what rights do they have to protect themselves? The European Union has recently recognized a right to be forgotten and some U.S.

websites have weak “take down policies” but isn’t it our responsibility as socially responsible researchers to forestall these problems by developing practices that extend a first do no harm principle to the digital realm? After reviewing several recent controversies that arose from precisely such problems, and helping to negotiate a solution to one, I authored a set of guidelines for ethical research practices, which circulated widely online. The Margaret M. Healy Fund for Faculty Research in Ethics and Leadership supported conference travel so that I was able to disseminate these guidelines, convincing my peers that we have a greater responsibility than simply following the letter of the law. Specifically, I disseminated expanded research practices for socially responsible researchers who wish to recognize the “right to be forgotten” even in the U.S. where there is not at present such a legal right.

There is no doubt that we as readers, as listeners, as members of society, and as active engagers in conversation are affected by what we read. We encourage conversation, discussion, and engagement, most especially in the literature classroom where texts of both past and present, fiction and nonfiction, of all forms are up for debate. Even though we tend to think of most literary texts as fiction, that does not mean that these stories, even if they are “fictional” cannot have a strong hold on our own actions and thoughts. However, literature has a great deal to say about social issues of injustice, and these words speak as a call to action. In Social Justice in Modern and Contemporary Literature (ENG 0270), students explore literary representations of some of the most challenging and important cultural, historical, and moral issues of our time, considering texts from our recent past and present. This course shows students how study in the liberal arts, and litera-

ture specifically, can help students understand, confront, and debate key ethical and social justice problems. Through my study of examining the connections between social justice issues and literature under the auspices of the Margaret M. Healy Fund, I have been able to examine a wide breadth of texts to integrate into this course for the fall of 2018, with the hopes of connecting these texts to service and project work both within the Rosemont and outside communities, with students actively reading and engaging in the themes and ideas discussed in these literary works. Thus, going forward, I hope to develop a series of Social Justice in Literature courses, expanding through the years up to our present day. My goal is to show that literature can positively alter the way we view others and promote social justice.



We champion business and community innovation by funding outstanding innovators and entrepreneurs who are advancing human wellbeing through job creation, financial inclusion, clean energy, education and the performing arts. Our global partners are spread throughout North America, South America, India and Africa in the following sectors:

We believe that business is a major catalytic force driving positive social change. In addition to funding, we support our partners by sharing our business expertise, experience and global connections. We support accelerators that enable social entrepreneurs to succeed. We support social innovators who are committed to poverty reduction. We are risk-affectionate when it comes to investing in people with innovative ideas and projects. We invest in young people who have chosen careers with social enterprises that fulfill their sense of purpose and meaning.



Business Innovation

Community Innovation

Performing Arts




We see the world as holistic and prioritize the personal lives of family, team and partners. One of our greatest strengths is our ability to build relationships with people. We have a stake in each other’s personal happiness as well as the wellbeing of the community.

To I n s p i r e , I n n o v a t e a n d A c c e l e r a t e S o c i a l Inter ventions That Promote Human Wellbeing.

Back Cover

Major support for the Institute is provided by Halloran Philanthropies and individual donors.

1400 Montgomery Avenue Rosemont, PA 19010 610.527.0200 x 2345 Good Counsel Hall First Floor Institute for Ethical Leadership and Social Responsibility Alan A. Preti, PhD and Col. Timothy Ringgold, US Army (ret.) Co-Directors

Ethos spring 2018 issue  
Ethos spring 2018 issue