week 3db cled 815

Case Study 7.3 Time Off for Religious Services1

Guam, a U.S. territory, is a small island community with a population of approximately 165,000 people (Guam Economic Development Authority, 2014a). Residents comprise a melting pot of ethnicities: Chamorros (the indigenous people of the island), Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Chinese, Palauans, Micronesians (people from the Federated States of Micronesia: Chuuk, Yap, Pohnpei, Kosrae), White Americans (non-Hispanic), African-Americans, Indians, and others. Specifically, the ethnic groups represented on the island, according to the 2000 census, were: Chamorro 37.1%, Filipino 26.3%, other Pacific islander 11.3%, White 6.9%, other Asian 6.3%, other ethnic origin or race 2.3%, mixed 9.8% (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014a). The cultural diversity on the island of Guam is typified by the existence of the various ethnic groups who make up the residents of the island. The nationality of individuals born on Guam is classified as Guamanian (Central Intelligence Agency, 2014b). “Guam’s culture has also been influenced and enriched over the last 50 years by the American, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Micronesian immigrants that have each added their unique cultural contributions” (Guam Economic Development Authority, 2014b). The island is also home to both a U.S. Air Force Base and Naval Base, which work in a partnership known as Joint Region Marianas.

Public education on Guam is overseen by the Guam Department of Education, which is a single unified school district for grades Kindergarten through 12 with 26 elementary schools, 8 middle schools, 5 high schools, and an alternative school, serving over 30,000 students (Guam Department of Education, n.d.). Public schools on Guam are patterned after school systems in the continental United States and “the Chinese and Japanese communities each support schools to preserve their respective language and culture” (Guam Economic Development Authority, 2014c). The teachers in each of the schools are as diverse as the community residents. Like the community, many of the public school teachers are Chamorro or of Chamorro ancestry and devout Catholics. According to the Central Intelligence Agency (2014c), 85% of the community residents are Roman Catholics. In any given week of the year, Catholic rosary services are held in cathedrals, residents’ homes, or both. What follows is a hypothetical case scenario that considers the realities of an island community in which a large number of the population follow the same faith.

On May 30, the day after the Memorial Day weekend and just 2 weeks shy of the end of the school year, teachers and administrators were busily preparing for year-end testing and budget review. At Central Elementary School, teachers had just been notified that one of their recent retiree colleagues, Mrs. Maria Cruz, had passed away over the weekend. A well-liked teacher, Mrs. Cruz had worked at Central Elementary for 30 years. On this Tuesday, Catholic rosary services for Mrs. Cruz were to take place at noon and 6 p.m. at the town cathedral.

Principal Robert Perez circulated a written notice to all teachers regarding the rosary services for Mrs. Cruz. The notice read:

One of our former teachers, Mrs. Maria Cruz, sadly passed away over the weekend. Noon rosary services for Mrs. Cruz will be held at the cathedral. Any teachers wishing to attend the noon rosary service for Maria may do so as long as their classes are covered by other teachers for the time they are away. No official leave form is required to attend the rosary services. Kindly inform my secretary, Ms. Anita Baza, of your intentions and who will be covering your class.

Later that morning, Principal Perez saw first-grade teacher Ms. Rose Torres in the hallway. “Hi Rose! Are you planning to attend the rosary for Maria anytime this week?”

Ms. Torres replied, “Yes, I am. Tina Mafnas (another first-grade teacher) and I are combining our classes and will take turns covering for the hour.”

Principal Perez responded, “Great. As always, you do not have to sign a leave form if you stagger the coverage of your classes. Just be sure the kids are working on the set curriculum for that time period and let my secretary, Ms. Baza, know your schedule.”

On receipt of the notice, fourth-grade teachers Mrs. Sashi Takagumi (a Japanese resident in the community) and Ms. Meifeng Wei (a Chinese resident, originally from Hong Kong) fumed over the notice in the teachers’ lounge. “The fact is that Principal Perez has practiced a no leave deduction policy during our entire 5 years of employment here,” Mrs. Takagumi complained. “Just last week, I wanted to visit the Shinto shrine, and I signed annual leave to do so—in which I returned back to work within one hour.” She continued, “Meifeng, this is really unfair! Maybe I should say that I am going to attend a rosary service next time so that I do not have to sign annual leave.”

“Yeah, but what can we do? We are in the minority when it comes to religious beliefs in this community. And the fact that Principal Perez is a devout Catholic only perpetuates this ‘school culture’ of taking care of your own kind,” retorted Ms. Wei.

“We need to stand up for what is right,” replied Mrs. Takagumi. “We are foolish to let it escalate further. We are no longer new teachers trying to pass our probationary period. We do not need to keep a low tone about this any longer. Either we are allowed the same no leave policy to attend our religious services or else everyone has to sign for annual leave for any kind of absence related to attending a religious event.”

“I see your point, Sashi,” said Ms. Wei. “But the real focus should be on what is the appropriate action to take as professionals. I mean, shouldn’t church and state issues stay out of our public schools? I don’t think that central office, in particular Superintendent Salas, will be happy to know that classes are being combined even if it is only for one hour. And what about the parents of these children in combined classes; what will they think? You know that regardless of what religion these children practice, their parents will be upset over lumping two classes into one huge classroom. It really has become more of a break period than a focus on teaching the curriculum for that hour. It is too difficult to oversee so many students and keep their concentration. By the time the classes combine, which usually means going to the library or study hall room, 30 minutes have gone by,” explains Ms. Wei.

“Yes, I agree with you Meifeng,” Mrs. Takagumi firmly stated. “We need to petition Superintendent Salas to investigate this ‘time off without leave’ practice. The children are the ones at a disadvantage with this practice, not us. We really should focus on doing our best job to educate our students.”

Mrs. Takagumi and Ms. Wei decided to write a formal letter to Superintendent Salas concerning this dilemma. In addition, they planned to attach a petition containing signatures of other teachers from Central Elementary School who were opposed to Principal Perez’s “time off without leave” practice.

Questions for Discussion

Is there a legal issue here? If not, why not? If so, what is it and how would you resolve it? What is the fairest way to handle this situation? The most caring?

Why do you think the “time off without leave” practice has been allowed to go unnoticed for five years? Do you think the “culture” of the community and/or school should determine policy and/or practice? Explain your answer.

Does the ethic of the profession support Principal Perez in carrying out his “time off without leave” practice? Why or why not? How should Superintendent Salas respond to this dilemma, keeping in mind the best interests of the students?

What action would you take as a teacher who does not agree with the practice? Do you think Mrs. Takagumi and Ms. Wei chose an appropriate strategy to address this dilemma? Why or why not? What else could they have done?

How do you think Principal Perez should respond to possible negative reactions from the parents of the children being placed in a so-called break hour period? Do you see an ethical issue here? If so, what is it and how would you resolve it? If not, why not?

Case Study 9.6 A Merit-Based Scholarship

Jessica Walters stared at the two files on her desk. As director of admissions at a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest, she and her staff were faced with tough admissions decisions each day, but this case was the most difficult she had dealt with in her 20-year admissions career, and it was certainly the thorniest she had ever experienced here at Midvale College.

The applications in question were from two top-achieving students competing for a unique scholarship offered to a single high school senior from the town. Each one had attended strong schools, taken challenging courses, led clubs, started organizations, and were in the top 10% of their graduating classes. Despite their similarities, their family situations, their gender, and their racial and ethnic backgrounds were different. The Hispanic male candidate, Juan Hernandez, came from a single-parent home; however, that single parent, a father, was a lawyer. The White female student, Courtney Rolands, came from an intact home, but both parents were in blue-collar hourly wage jobs and neither had attended college.

Academically, while these students were both strong candidates, there was one key difference: their American College Testing (ACT) scores. The Hispanic male student’s score was four points—a substantial difference on the composite ACT scale—below that of the White student. Jessica knew that if she followed the college’s written guidelines for this scholarship, Courtney Rolands, the student with the higher ACT score, would get the award. Jessica reviewed the files again. This time she looked for any other serious differences in the students’ applications. She could not discover any particular challenges that might be considered as a plus factor in the scholarship consideration. The only significant difference was their ACT scores.

This case was exacerbated by the fact that Jessica’s college had been enjoying record enrollment numbers during her tenure. She was a shrewd marketer, and she and her team had been able to attract more and better qualified students. Unfortunately, with increasingly higher ACT scores from their incoming freshmen, more students of color were denied admission. Jennifer’s graduate work had been in the area of standardized test differentials, so she was acutely aware of students of color having admission difficulties. Admittedly, the decline in Hispanic numbers was slight, but some people were starting to notice. Student groups and faculty were beginning to agitate about the declining number of Hispanics admitted to Midvale College, and the president of the college was feeling the heat. The issue was compounded by the fact that the town, like many other towns in the Midwest, had been experiencing a Hispanic population boom.

On the one hand, Jessica could understand their concerns. Enrolling a diverse student body was a compelling issue and important enough to allow colleges to consider race as a plus factor in admissions. However, University of Michigan U.S. Supreme Court cases (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003) gave Jessica pause; colleges and universities across the country were re-evaluating their admissions policies to ensure they were legal. These court decisions addressed the use of race in admissions, but much of the discussion surrounding them indicated that minority scholarships and financial aid would be the next targets. In sum, what the decisions said was that race could be a factor in assuring diversity in admissions but that there could not be a quota system to ensure minority representation. The policy needs to be flexible and highly individualized in that a number of factors are considered. The admissions policy in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) was illegal because, among other things, it automatically gave applicants an additional 20 points if they came from underrepresented minority groups.

Midvale College had never used an affirmative action policy in admissions, and the information distributed to the public indicated that the college did not consider race in admissions decisions. In the case of the Midvale scholarship application it did ask for race, but the form clearly indicated it was optional and would have no impact on the scholarship decision. If Jessica started to use that piece of information as part of the scholarship decision process it would feel to her to be unethical, and possibly it might even be illegal. However, Jessica wondered if she could consider race in this situation because it had to do with a scholarship award as opposed to admissions. After all, both students would be admitted to the college.

As she was still considering which student should win the scholarship, the college president contacted her to say that he had just received an angry call from a member of the college’s board. The Hispanic member was outraged at the possibility that a minority student might be passed over for the scholarship due to a lower test score. He pointed out that a minority student had never received this scholarship (in fact, few had ever applied), and this year it was important that someone who was not in the majority should receive it.

The president was tired of all the pressure and effectively told Jessica that she “should” award the minority student the scholarship. As she put down the phone, Jessica knew she had to make the most ethically challenging decision of her career. Traditionally, it had always been the admissions director who made the decision about the scholarship. Should she allow the president and the board member to determine the recipient of the award, or should she make the decision herself?

Questions for Discussion

Which ethical paradigm(s) does the president of Midvale College seem to be most influenced by? Is his directive legal? Is it just?

If we only had the ethic of justice as a paradigm, what decision would Jessica have to make?

How might Jessica use the ethic of care in this case? Is it possible to care for all parties in this case? If so, how? If not, why not?

From a critical perspective, what are the ethical issues in this scenario that relate to social class, racial/ethnic equality, power, and oppression?

Imagine that you are the admissions director. Choose the student you think should win the scholarship competition. Carefully consider which ethical paradigm(s) you are using as you make your decision. Explain.