case study

When Patrick decided to take his position as a curator at the Hopstan museum, he knew there were certain rules and regulations in place. The case directly mentions that Patrick is aware that museum curators are not allowed to collect in competition with their employer. He considers resigning, but casts aside the idea pretty quickly and decides to obtain the possible Da Vinci painting for the Hopstan instead. He recognizes the rule and ultimately abides by it. This brings about the question of loyalty. Does Patrick owe this loyalty to the Hopstan and his supervisor, Agnes Grunch? When she calls him to ask if he’ll have an issue with having his discretionary purchase funds transferred to another department, Patrick needs to choose between loyalty to his employer or his profession. His glory as a museum hero, and possible boost to his professional life, could be in jeopardy if too many people become involved. He wants to be the one to bring the rare piece to the museum and receive the praise and recognition for doing so. However, Patrick does owe some form of loyalty and honesty. This does not mean that his loyalty must be unwavering or that he can never make a decision that will benefit him more than it benefits his employers. However, it does mean that in a case that was already morally ambiguous, he should strive to be as transparent as possible. While he might not achieve as much professional success as he might if he were to keep the importance of the painting to himself, he owes loyalty to his employer in this specific case.

Dr. Patrick Barga made a “discovery”. His “discovery” was more of an unconfirmed hypothesis about a painting that was going up for auction at the museum where he was a current employee. This particular painting was thought to be by Leonardo Da Vinci and Pat being a museum curator became conflicted with the idea of this being an authentic painting that could potentially make him a lot of money and the fact that his duty to his workplace. There comes a time when everyone experiences scenarios at our workplace where we can’t distinguish where to draw the line between right and wrong, ethical and unethical situations. I think that if your employer is asking you to do something that is against the values and morals of what your profession expects that one should stand for those values and morals versus the employer. In Pat’s circumstances his decision is not one based off loyalty to his profession as much as it is for his own private benefit and therefore disloyalty to his employer.

Dr. Bargas’ situation is not an uncommon one. Taking into account that studying Leonardo Da Vinci is his life’s work, it is understandable that he is having an immense internal struggle. Patrick does present alternative routes and suggestions on how to overcome his situation, and also ponders how unethical the situation comes across as. In the end, it comes down to how Patrick’s decisions influence others and how he will use this new found knowledge to aid the public.

Personal gain is a recognized factor, however, if Patrick were to remediate this issue, it would aid his final decision. Patrick can use his discovery of the piece to contribute to society, whether it is monetarily (through the funds collected from selling the piece), culturally (by adding another wonderful discovery to the art world’s collection), or in technique/research (in regards to how Patrick is able to identify and legitimize the piece). In the case study, it is presented that upon the piece being sold, the funds will be donated to a local interfaith hospice. If Patrick were to intervene, he would not only be risking loyalty to his employer, but stripping another institution of a potential donation. Patrick could remediate this issue by, upon verifying the pieces legitimacy, donating funds to the interfaith hospice.