Clayton County School Board: Obligations and Violations

By Lois Robley, Ph.D. and Tom Creely, Ph.D.

In March, The National Accreditation Commission voted unanimously to revoke Clayton County school district’s accreditation September 1, 2008, unless the district meets the conditions set forward by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

The decision follows allegations that the Clayton County School Board is riddled with financial mismanagement and unethical behavior. A special investigation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools was initiated after Board members filed complaints against other Board members, and members of the faculty and staff, and parents sent written complaints. In January, SACS visited Clayton County schools and interviewed staff members and board members and reviewed the County’s financial records. In February, after compiling the findings of the investigation, SACS sent a scathing report to the Clayton County School District recommending that accreditation be revoked, stating the “Clayton County Board of Education is fatally flawed.”

To students and residents of Clayton County, this is a big issue and many residents have gathered to voice their concerns. The loss of accreditation in September could possibly prevent students from graduating next year. It could also hinder students’ chances of getting into college, and their eligibility to receive HOPE scholarship funds and other scholarships and grants. In a district where students are reliant upon public education, these concerns are a vital issue to both parents and students.

Thousands of Clayton County residents have attended school board meetings and press conferences to demand the present School Board members step down, as many feel the Board has not lived up their obligation to put students first.

Other than violating the standards for accreditation, what other violations do you think the Clayton County School Board has committed? Have they violated the public’s trust? What obligations do members of the Board have? Are they obligated only to the students they serve or to the larger community as well?

Dr. Lois Robley, Ph.D., is assistant director and professor of ethics at the Siegel Institute. Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.

Mortgage Crisis: A Moral Crisis?

By Tom Creely, Ph.D.

The current mortgage crisis has contributed to the United States sliding into a recession which adversely affects all Americans. Recently, three major credit card companies, Bank of America, Capital One, and Discover Financial Services, revealed before Congress that they are passing their losses in the mortgage sub-prime loans on to credit card holders by increasing their interest rates on balances. Even people who have paid more than the minimum payment and on time are being hit with dramatic rate increases. According to recent testimony for the US Senate Committee on Bankruptcy Reform, Professor Elizabeth Warren stated “Sub-prime mortgage companies … have unlawfully taken millions of dollars from homeowners, then fled to the bankruptcy courts to protect their insiders and bank lenders.” This is more than a legal issue, it is a moral issue of greed, manipulation, and deception of people who could ill-afford high risk mortgages. Do you think such predatory lending was focused on the poor and economically disadvantaged? With Metro Atlanta having a large minority population, were they victims of cunning mortgage brokers? What ethical responsibilities do major financial institutions have? Tell me what you think.

Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.

Voter Shock Therapy for America

By Tom Creely, Ph.D.

Many Democratic and Republican voters in Iowa stated that they voted for Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee because they want a change that will shock America. As anti-establishment, they want a changed America. Hillary Clinton, an expected winner, came in third. Where were the women voters for her? Iowa women who love and support Hillary Clinton stated that they abandoned her because their vote was to shock change the future of America – Obama’s hope. Nonetheless, evangelical voters propelled Huckabee far ahead of his Republican competitors. Mitt Romney out spent, out marketed, and out visited the other Republicans for a distant second place. Obama and Huckabee are unknown on the national and international scene, yet there is a phenomenon of the power of the unknown. Is there a moral impetus for this phenomenon of a shocking change in America? Is it ethical to vote for the future leadership of America just for shock effect? Does the voter have a moral obligation to reason and work through who is best qualified to lead and serve Americans?

Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of Leadership and Ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.

If You Can’t Say Something Nice, Don’t Say It?

By Lois Robley, Ph.D.

You have heard the old adage, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say it”, and you probably know people who try their best to live by this mantra. Is it a good principle or practice? And, should we encourage others to follow suit so that gossip is eliminated or at least minimized?

We need to consider whether gossip is something that benefits society and institutions or whether it is wholly wrong to engage in gossip of any kind. Gossip is variable defined in the dictionaries as: light, informal conversation for social occasions; a report about the behavior of other people, news mongering, tittle-tattle, and idle talk and rumors especially about the private affairs of others.

Psychologists and communication researchers have narrowed the definition to “evaluative talk about a person who is not present” (Turner, Mazur, Wendel & Winslow, 2003).

Gossip is an alluring, entertaining and prevalent part of everyday life, comprising as much as 60% of adult conversations (Wert & Salovey, 2004). It can be the “social glue” that holds people together, builds group bonds, creates workplace and social identity, raises esteem, and clarifies boundaries.

Without gossip, a new person in an organization will be hard pressed to learn the culture and organizational rules of behavior. Without gossip, she learns little about the expertise of those in the organization.

Talking about others is a way to understand what is mysterious, unique, and challenging about people. It is a way of helping us to “absorb and evaluate intimations about other lives” (Bok, 1989, p.91). Gossip also can have negative valence, instructing us about socially disapproved behavior. This cautionary gossip is helpful particularly when shared with friends.

Negative talk about another can, however, cause “relational ruin” as it injures and destroys individual reputations and even causes stock to plummet in worth. When the impression of another is disproportionately negative it can be injurious; when gossip is used for personal advantage it can devolve into personal attack. And studies show this type of gossip is more prevalent than socially positive gossip (Turner, Mazur, Wendel & Winslow, 2003).

But what about information that is truthful or based upon conjecture or suspicion that we might like to share? Much of this disclosure could be seen as an invasion of privacy especially if placed in written format (e-mail, blogs, My Space, Facebook, text messaging, etc.).

One method we might use to discern the appropriateness of such gossip is to ask the question: is the information of a private (secret) nature? And, can the individual(s) talked about be hurt by sharing such information with others?

It is natural to think that by gossiping we are sharing a tidbit of information (in a very privileged way) with a trusted friend or colleague and that the information will go no further and will be neutral in its effect.

However, there are two fallacies to that idea: (1) expecting another to hold secret something you cannot keep yourself places an undue burden on the relationship and the individual and (2) in subtle (or not so subtle) ways the recipient of that knowledge treats the person talked about in a uniquely different or negative way.

So, is the advice, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say it” wise? Not necessarily. In one way sharing negative messages about a third party can be very beneficial, but only if done with good intention and with some thought to its consequences.

Dr. Lois Robley, Ph.D., is assistant director and professor of ethics at the Siegel Institute.

Spouting Off Online: Public Places and Private Spaces

By Tom Creely, Ph.D.


Too often we hit the enter key without rereading, editing, or even sleeping on what we have written. The Atlanta Journal Constitution recently published an article about Atlantan John Fitzgerald Page, a jilted suitor who blasted the potential damsel. Laced with malignant narcissism, Mr. Page’s blast noted his superiority: the damsel should be honored for him to even consider her. He had done a great thing, he is a great man, and he has prestige and power. Being so overwhelmed with such magnanimous personality, the damsel couldn’t keep it to herself. With such greatness, Mr. Page’s character must be shared with the world. That, she did. She forwarded it to Gawker.com, which has awarded him the title of “The Worst Person in the World” status.

Is spouting off online our right to say what we want, or is it a matter of character? The Internet has given the general public a medium to write and publish to the world. The power of the electronic media is in the hands of anyone with access to the Internet. Myspace and Facebook are websites that allow us to network and make friends. Friends and so-called friends can post their opinions on the two sites. Like this blog, we can express our opinion and seek reflection and input from others.

However, throwing out what is on our mind without thinking it through critically makes us vulnerable to our emotions driving our behavior. Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean that we can say anything without repercussions. The Internet can be a technology that comes back to bite us when we spout off about other people. We forget that others have the same power to spout off about us whether what is said is true or not.

Technology subverts the norms of civility with its instantaneousness. The process of civility and ethical pondering is eliminated for expediency in being heard. The power of the Internet has diminished love thy neighbor and sacrifice the ego. Is silence no longer powerful? Have we become a society of talking heads?

Once what we have said has been disseminated into cyberspace by the forward key it is there for eternity for all to see. I’m sure our prospective employers will be impressed. Can government and corporate sensitive jobs that require backgrounds investigations trust those who spout off? Does such behavior reflect our character? Are there ethical concerns regarding forwarding private emails to others?


Dr. Tom Creely is assistant professor of ethics at the Siegel Institute, Kennesaw State University.