Ethical Dilemma Case Study II:

Supervision, Accountability &

ConfidentialityQuin Gonell

Angel SetoSalem State University EDU803B Helping Skills for Student Affairs Professionals

Fall 2014

Dr. Randi Korn

The setting: Camille Mills College

5,400 student enrollment

Private, liberal arts, rural Northeastern Connecticut

Midway through Fall semester

Main characters: David, the new M.Ed. Hall Director, former Greek Life

graduate assistant and current supervisor to:

Candice, the sophomore Resident Assistant

Peripheral roles: National Pan-Hellenic Council, Greek sorority

Candice’s mother

The Setting & Characters

The dilemma: David’s supervision of Candice and Candice’s non-performance:

Candice has missed two staff meetings

Candice is also chronically late with required paperwork

Candice’s grades may be slipping

Candice is over-involved in activities, especially Greek life

Also, issue of deceit/lying about absence from staff meeting

Candice is possibly involved in hazing sorority pledges

David has written notes to Candice’s file but has not (yet)

brought further disciplinary action

The Dilemma

What are the boundaries of performance for an RA?● Is there a contractual agreement for 3-strikes-you-are-out?

● Is there a policy for probation/suspension for missing staff meetings?

● This is a competitive position and being an exemplary role model is a requirement of the RA agreement. Violations of the rules (lying, time management, meeting attendance, etc.) are all serious.

What issues are potentially critical?● Is hazing occurring and is Candice a part of it?● Hazing or “going online” is prohibited at Camille Mills College

The Analysis

What are David’s responsibilities as a supervisor, as

an agent of the institution, and as a practicing

professional to ensure that beneficence, justice,

autonomy, fidelity and non-malfeasance are served?● Candice may feel that David’s reporting is harmful to her but in the

end it is to her benefit not to be involved in hazing.

● David’s fidelity is in the interest of keeping the institution from

being harmed by bad press due to illegal hazing activities.

● By uncovering and reporting hazing activities, David is doing his

part to help bring justice to any victims of hazing (including

Candice).

The Analysis, continued

What are the institutional protocols to guide David’s next steps in following this issue with Greek life and his supervisor?● David needs to involve his supervisor ASAP and depending on the

level of support he receives, he needs to reach out to Greek Life and other upper management.

How to resolve different points of view in emphasis

reflected in ethical standards (CAS, ACPA, and

NASPA)?● Ethical standards follow.

The Analysis, continued

“Supervision, Accountability & Confidentiality”

1. Professional responsibility and competence: David must

determine an appropriate course of action, including disciplinary

proceedings if warranted, as the supervisor of Candice and as an

agent of the college.

2. Student learning and development: David must inform Candice

about the limits of confidentiality and her responsibility to be

trustworthy.

3. Responsibility to the institution: David must confirm and inform

superiors about suspicions of Greek life hazing/predatory

membership practices.

4. Responsibility to society: David must encourage Candice to take

responsibility for her actions as a young adult.

The Principles: ACPA

“Supervision, Accountability & Confidentiality”

1. Autonomy: If it turns out that Candice was not involved in hazing then David can allow her to learn from her experience and continue developing as an RA.

2. Non-malfeasance: David is protecting Candice from harm by reporting and hopefully putting an end to a potentially harmful and illegal activity. David must be careful not to publicly expose Candice as a whistle blower.

3. Beneficence: Candice may benefit by removing herself from a potentially harmful situation.

4. Justice: Reporting would bring justice to victims of hazing.

5. Fidelity: David must demonstrate commitment to institution by reporting an activity that could harm the institution’s reputation.

6. Veracity: David should not discuss Candice’s situation publicly and make sure he is as accurate as possible in his reporting.

7. Affiliation: Perhaps David can make suggestions to Candice on how she can work to help reform campus Greek Life so that illegal or questionable activities are no longer practiced.

The Principles: CAS

Ethical professional practice “focuses specifically on the integration of ethics

into all aspects of self and professional practice”.

Basic:

● “Utilize institutional resources to assist with ethical issues”: David should meet

with a colleague in Greek Life to discuss the meaning of going “on-line”.

● “Assist students in ethical decision making”: David needs to teach Candice that

lying about her whereabouts is not OK or ethical.

● “Appropriately address institutional actions that are not consistent with ethical

standards”: If the Greek Life office does not sanction Candice’s sorority for

hazing, David should meet with the Director/Dean/Vice President to ensure an

appropriate response.

The Principles: NASPA

Intermediate:

● “Address and resolve lapses in ethical behavior among students”:

David should identify Candice’s unethical behavior and discuss her

lying and potential hazing.

Advanced:

● “Ensure those working in the division adhere to identified ethical

guidelines”: There should be clear ethical guidelines at the

institution across all divisions (e.g. Residence Life and Greek Life).

The Principles: NASPA

Based on the synthesis of the three models for ethical standards, we

recommend the following action steps in priority order.

1. Urgent:

∗ David must investigate whether hazing is occurring and whether

the sorority is in violation of rules, potentially exposing students to

harm.

∗ David must meet with Greek Life office and his supervisor to

determine protocols and consequences for violations, especially

hazing.

∗ David must have a conversation with Candice about her

involvement with “going on-line” in a face-to-face meeting to

discuss the consequences of her actions.

The Strategy & Solutions

2. Soon:

∗ David must write-up Candice for failure to perform including lying,

absence, and late paperwork; is there a 3-strikes- you’re-out

policy?

∗ David to discipline Candice. Candice’ actions warrant a second

warning (if in fact, a first has been served).

3. Timely:

∗ David must discover what mid-term grades are and whether

Candice eligible to continue as RA?

∗ If so, David to encourage Candice to prioritize her responsibilities

and improve her performance as an RA, and succeed in that role.

The Strategy & Solutions

1. Do not wait for this to blow up and ignore the situation!

2. Do not prematurely indict Candice; but there needs to be a swift

response including meeting with Greek Life and Residence Life

upper management.

2. Do not discuss Candice’s potential involvement in investigating

whether hazing is happening.

2. Do not wait to send this information up the chain of command;

hazing is potentially too dangerous both to student safety and

institutional reputation.

What Not to Do

American College Personnel Association. (2009). Supervision, accountability

and confidentiality. In Benjamin, M. and F. A. Hamrick (Eds.), Maybe I

should…case studies on ethics for student affairs professionals (pp. 79-80).

Lanham MD: University Press of America.

ACPA and NASPA Joint Task Force (2010). Professional competency areas for

student affairs practitioners. Washington: Authors.

Bresciani, M. & Todd, D. (2010). Professional Competency Areas of Student

Affairs Practitioners. Retrieved December 1, 2014.

Council for the Advancement of Standards (2006). CAS statement of shared

ethical principles. In Council for the Advancement of Higher Education (Ed.),

CAS professional standards for higher education (6th Ed.). Washington, DC:

Author.

Resources