NY TIMES
Our professional-services firm has an intern for the summer who, by all accounts, seems to be producing good work. He arrives early, stays late if needed and shows that he is truly interested in what we provide our clients. This person is interested in a full-time role at the firm.
I was recently having a casual conversation with him, and he mentioned his hobby of fixing up cars and then racing them on public roads. He boasted that he frequently reaches top speeds of over 130 m.p.h., but he claimed that this driving is safe because they do it only when a highway is empty.
If it became known in our firm that he broke speeding laws in this manner, I suspect his chances of getting a full-time offer would be seriously impacted; like most firms, we value our reputation. If he got caught speeding at that rate, it could reasonably be expected to end up in the news.
I’m struggling with what to do. Should I let human resources know about this behavior so that we take it into account when deciding whether to make an employment offer? Should I keep quiet and hope for the best and let him be evaluated only on the basis of his work at our firm? Should I approach him and tell him that he is risking his life, and possibly the lives of others, and suggest that if he wants to keep racing, he should do it on a closed racetrack? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Because he told you about his reckless behavior in a moment of friendly collegiality, reporting him would be a betrayal. But you do need to let him know what you think. If you say nothing, he could infer that you condone the pastime, which could encourage him to continue with it. You will have failed to do anything to protect unwary strangers from the dangers that this activity imposes on them. Nor will you have protected him from risking his position at the firm — and elsewhere, if what he’s up to becomes a news item. Using public roads as a racetrack is a good way of going nowhere fast.
Thoughts? If you would like to share a response to today’s dilemma with the Ethicist and other subscribers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.
A Bonus Question
I teach a language at a community college. There has been little demand for my subject — and unless there is demand, classes are not offered. Recently, students who are competent in the language have signed up, knowing via word of mouth that as long as they take and pass the tests, they need not appear in class. The administration is aware of this (classes are evaluated in-person), and it seems a favorable situation for everybody: The college collects tuition, the students get good grades with no effort, the classes are held with fewer students than normal for those who genuinely want to learn and I get paid. But is it ethical? The only minus I can think of is a false picture that a potential employer may get, and the fact that my conscience troubles me. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Your conscience is, alas, troubling you for a reason. I don’t know why the administration thinks it’s OK to give a passing grade to a student who hasn’t attended the class; a grade says that someone has taken a course, not just an exam. A high grade in your class, accordingly, signals that the student is capable of carrying a certain course load. So there are various ways that your no-shows are misrepresenting themselves. It’s true that other students may benefit from a smaller class size. Yet those students might benefit more by being able to have conversations with the competent speakers, both in the classroom and — through the friendships that form there — outside it.
A degree or a certificate can, economists remind us, simply function as a filter or screening device. Indeed, in a job market fixated on paper credentials, it may be little more than an “Admit One” ticket. But I expect you became an educator because you believe in education — in the inculcation of knowledge and skills. By allowing this practice to continue, you and the administration are failing to respect the basic idea of education.
Readers Respond
The previous column’s question was from a reader wondering whether he should attend an upcoming memorial service for his abusive father. His extended family either denied or minimized this abuse and was planning an adulatory memorial. He wrote: “Attending the memorial to witness the lore and mythology will help my understanding of the family. How do I be present with my wife and children at my family’s loyal memorial to my abusive father? How can an abuser be honored or memorialized? The silence about child abuse is deafening.”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “You can’t mend your relationships with the rest of your father’s family while they treat your anger, rather than his abuse, as the problem. This will have to be addressed if you want decent relationships with them. But I doubt you’ll be able to set that right at the memorial. Your speaking out about abuse will, your account suggests, be taken as reflecting badly not on your father but on you. I would show up all the same, if you can bear to. There’s a good chance that you would, as you say, learn illuminating things about the family and their perspectives, and so would your wife and children. You also might consider writing an account of what happened to you, mentioning that your father accepted at the end that he had wronged you, and sending it to your wider family.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
The question and the Ethicist’s answer of how to honor an abusive parent was insightful. The letter idea is brilliant. For now, judicious distribution for loving reflection and comment might better serve the writer’s well-being than a family-wide mailing. — Jon
⬥
The memorial service is your space to grieve as you need to grieve. While it may not be something you want to express publicly at the ceremony, I encourage you to use the space to not only learn more about your family, but also explore any grief you may be carrying, even if it is vastly different from what others express. — Stephanie
⬥
As a daughter of abuse and the only member of the family that remembers it fully, I’ve learned that it’s rare for people to acknowledge something that has already been denied for years, and it’s risky to resurface those truths. There’s shame that people are hiding. Guilt. Vested interests. I would say go, but don’t expose yourself. Look for peace and recognition in individual encounters elsewhere. — Lee
⬥
I would advise the letter writer to not attend. Attending a formal funeral is one thing; a memorial is another. At these types of memorials, truth is rarely spoken. The past is covered over with a sugar glaze, which will only further upset the writer. Best to protect his own mental and emotional health and spend the day with his wife and children doing something that brings him joy. — Chris
⬥
As someone also abused by a parent, I have learned that only by confronting the difficult truth can family members express authentic love for the abused. So my advice to the reader: either go or don’t go to the memorial. But I see no particular reason to factor in the feelings of your family members as they, in constructing their lives, have clearly not factored in yours. —Anson
