Educational Leadership: Theory and Assessment

Educational Leadership: Theory and Assessment

The human conduct is often driven by subjective criteria that address and determine the degree of the morality of their actions. This is indeed the involuntary result of the contribution that personal attributes and characteristics bring when one considers his own reactions to outside events. However, there are certain moral standards universally accepted that make possible a minimum acceptance of fairness and a reduced arbitrary attitude. As John Bigelow once pointed out "everyone has a standard by which he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong." (Bigelow 1927) However, there are some generally accepted truths and limits which determine the extreme values of good and evil. From a personal view, the term "ethics" largely defines the scope of these general values. Nonetheless, judging the morality or ethical nature of one event or action depends on the point of reference, as "when we speak of a man's good or evil acts, we judge his conduct either by his standard or by our own. No one of us can ever pretend to know what is right or wrong according to the standards of Infinite Wisdom." (Bigelow 1927) This is why there has been heated debate over different positions taken when judging matters that question moral and ethical perceptions. Eisenhower High School in Decatur, Illinois provided one such case.

There are several issues arising from the analysis of the September 1999 situation in Decatur. The entire discussion revolves around the basic idea of the "golden rule" as the general framework for ethical considerations. This is due in large parts to the arbitrary of ethical criteria and in order to insure that a certain set of moral limits are kept, it is important to address the exact personal criteria which determines the morality of an act. However, aside from the golden rule, there are additional dimensions which modify and deepen the discussion over the efficiency of applying personal criteria to determine and judge morality. One of these dimensions deals with the notion of public good vs. personal interests. The debate here is whether the society at large should sacrifice or undermine self-interest for the sake of the public common good. This in turn points to a new set of questions related to the equity of any possible actions from society, in terms of objectivity and respect for social and cultural differences. All these ideas can arise when discussing cases such as that of Eisenhower High School.

The social order is based, from the most ancient of times, on an arbitrary set of norms which subscribe still to a wider more generous framework. This in turn is described by "the golden rule," a general theoretical determination of "the universal recognition of the propriety of doing unto others as we would that others, under precisely like circumstances, should do unto us, and of doing nothing unto others which, under precisely similar circumstances, we should not wish done unto us." (Bigelow 1927) Although this would imply universality, most often there are cultural and religious matters that influence the final implementation of such general assessments. For instance, the Christian religion is centered on the ethical principle stated in the Bible which points to a deeper love for our neighbor than for ourselves, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have, ye? For sinners also do even the same."(Bigelow 1927) The Islamic religion points to a similar idea while Confucianism considers that personal behavior would influence and improve the attitudes of the ones around. (Wing-tsit Chan 1969)

Despite differences, the modern state is based on the deontological principles deriving from a combination of interpretations. Therefore, there is no supreme structure or human instance which can act in a manner that he in its turn would consider unacceptable for his own person to experience. From this perspective, the Illinois case seems to fundamentally question the availability of this "rule" because the six black students were subject to a much more drastic punishment than other individuals in their place; thus it comes into question either the fairness of judgment or the correct application of ethical standards.

The official motivation of the ruling which initially determined a two-year suspension for the students in question invoked the common good which is placed above personal interest. The practical evidence for such a concern is the "zero tolerance" policies. In theory, it tries to consider the best interest of the community by applying a predetermined punishment; Angelique Forrester points out "a zero tolerance policy for schools would create the same ground rules and consequences for the whole student body" (cited in Vanderham 2006). Critics argue though that measures are taken without real regard to the culpability of the individual. The rationale behing the entire idea is that a more rigid system of punishments would serve as a deterrent for future criminals or law breaking individuals. This utilitarian approach focuses on the rationale nature of man, which reconsiders his gains and losses before acting in a situation (Keel 1997). Thus, the intention is morally justifiable, and results have proven that the actions taken in this respect offered visible results, for instance "The Granite City School District has experienced a 50-75% decline in expulsions as a result of zero tolerance policies." (Vanderham 2006) Nonetheless there are also those who reject such practices on the basis of disproportional nature of punishment. In the Eisenhower High School case, Reverend Jesse Jackson argued in support of the six students by pointing out that "The fight 'was less violent than a wrestling match" considering the school's decision "too harsh and extreme." (cited in Jesse Jackson arrested 1999) Therefore, despite the honorable nature of the intentions, the actions taken to implement them fall short of the minimum moral and ethical standards.