Ethics In Action: Criterion Two - Integrity, Ethical And Res

Ethics In Actioncriterion Two Integrity Ethical And Responsible Cond

Ethics in Action Criterion Two. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct The institution acts with integrity; its conduct is ethical and responsible. —Higher Learning Commission, “The Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components” The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), which accredits institutions of higher learning in the north central section of the United States, requires its member institutions to operate ethically and responsibly. The other five commissions require the same of their institutions. Some ethical lapses are obvious, such as when someone falsifies data in research or when athletes pass courses they have not attended. Other ethical issues can be tragic, such as when a research subject dies during the course of a study.

For this Discussion, you will examine how institutions have addressed questions of integrity on their campuses and how leaders have responded. To prepare: Research an institution of higher education that has experienced a crisis situation that had an ethical or integrity component. Consider the situation in light of the HLC’s Criterion Two. You may also choose to use the integrity criteria from another accrediting body. If you do, include a reference with your submission.

To complete: By Day 3 of Week 7 Write a post in which you briefly describe the ethical situation. Include responses to the following: Analyze whether the situation violates HLC’s Criterion Two. Make a recommendation to avoid the situation in the future. Provide evidence to support your position. Include links and APA formatting for your evidence.

Paper For Above instruction

In recent years, numerous higher education institutions have faced crises that involved ethical lapses impacting their reputation, operational integrity, and stakeholder trust. One particularly notable case is the University of California, Davis, pepper-spray incident in 2011, which highlighted issues of ethical responsibility and leadership accountability. This incident occurred during a protest when campus police used excessive force by pepper-spraying seated students, raising serious questions about the institutional values of ethical conduct and responsible leadership.

Analyzing this situation through the lens of the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC) Criterion Two reveals significant violations. Criterion Two emphasizes that an institution acts with integrity and is committed to responsible conduct. The UC Davis police’s actions starkly contravened this criterion, as the excessive use of force not only compromised safety but also breached ethical standards expected of a responsible educational institution. The university’s leadership was critiqued for failing to prevent or adequately respond to the incident, which further contradicts the principle of ethical accountability endorsed by the HLC.

To prevent similar incidents in the future, institutions must implement comprehensive ethics training for campus police and all staff involved in student interactions. Establishing clear codes of conduct and accountability measures ensures responders understand the importance of ethical behavior, especially in tense situations. Additionally, universities should foster a culture of transparency, encouraging reporting of misconduct and swift corrective actions. Leadership must uphold ethical standards through consistent messaging, training, and accountability protocols.

Empirical evidence suggests that organizational ethics training reduces misconduct and increases trust within academic communities (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Furthermore, establishing clear misconduct policies and reporting structures can serve as deterrents to unethical practices (Kaptein, 2011). Transparency initiatives, such as public accountability reports, reinforce institutional integrity and align with HLC’s emphasis on responsible conduct. Implementing these measures can help higher education institutions maintain high ethical standards, thus aligning with Criterion Two and fostering an environment of trust and integrity.

References

• Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.
• Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling unethical organizational cultures. Human Relations, 64(6), 843–869.
• Higher Learning Commission. (2020). The Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components. Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/Criteria-Review/criteria.html
• Carroll, A. B. (2018). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Cengage Learning.
• Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 639–653.
• Schwepker, C. H. (2001). Ethical climate's relationship to organizational commitment and work productivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(4), 101–111.
• Valentine, S., & Barnett, T. (2003). Ethics training and organizational ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 381–391.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage publications.
• Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2001). Instrumental type of ethical work climate and ethical decision making processes: An examination of the impact of ethical climate on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(3), 211–222.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.