AC360°

Editor's Note: Documents leaked from the House of Representatives Ethics committee, one of the most secretive and closely guarded in Congress, has forced the panel to publicly acknowledge at least eight active investigations into ethics breaches from current members of the House of Representatives. Read their response here.

New York congressman Charlie Rangel is one of the most prominent names being investigated by the House Ethics committee.

Editor's Note: Documents leaked from the House of Representatives Ethics committee, one of the most secretive and closely guarded in Congress, has forced the panel to publicly acknowledge at least eight active investigations into ethics breaches from current members of the House of Representatives. One of the most prominent names on that list has been Representative Charlie Rangel, Democrat from New York and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Lisa Desjardins
CNN Political Ticker

Congressional Republicans intensified their calls for powerful House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel of New York to resign his post heading the committee, at least temporarily.

Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, introduced a motion that would have forced Rangel to step down during an ongoing ethics investigation into his finances and activities.

House Democrats responded by voting to shut off debate and instead send the resolution to the House Ethics Committee, where the matter has sat for a year. The move to effectively kill the resolution by sending it to the committee passed on a mostly party-line 246-153 vote.

The vote has no significant effect but shows Republicans are turning up the heat on Rangel and hoping to score political points by highlighting the ethics probe.

Keep Reading...

Jonathan Safran Foer
Special to CNN

Like most people, I'd given some thought to what meat actually is, but until I became a father and faced the prospect of having to make food choices on someone else's behalf, there was no urgency to get to the bottom of things.

I'm a novelist and never had it in mind to write nonfiction. Frankly, I doubt I'll ever do it again. But the subject of animal agriculture, at this moment, is something no one should ignore. As a writer, putting words on the page is how I pay attention.

If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.

It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it.

Keep Reading...

William Bynum says he discussed the new dress-wearing ban policy with Morehouse's campus gay organization.

David A. Love
The Grio

Morehouse College, that legendary institution of higher learning in Atlanta, recently enacted a new dress code for its all-male student body. The dress code, called the "Appropriate Attire Policy", is a perfect example of the good, the bad, and even worse, the homophobic.

The policy – based on Morehouse President Dr. Robert M. Franklin's notion of the Renaissance Man – is part of his "Five Wells" strategy for the all-male historically black college or university which includes being "wMorehouse College, that legendary institution of higher learning in Atlanta, recently enacted a new dress code for its all-male student body. The dress code, called the "Appropriate Attire Policy," is a perfect example of the good, the bad, and even worse, the homophobic.

The policy – based on Morehouse President Dr. Robert M. Franklin's notion of the Renaissance Man – is part of his "Five Wells" strategy for the all-male historically black college or university which includes being "well read, well spoken, well traveled, well dressed and well balanced."

In an 11-point document, Morehouse outlined its expectations concerning the appearance of its students on campus. For example, the college forbids the wearing of do-rags, caps and hoods in classrooms and other indoor venues. Sunglasses are banned in class except for medical necessity, while "decorative orthodontic appliances," or grillz, are forbidden altogether on campus. Clothes with offensive messages are also prohibited, as are sagging pants. Students are also not allowed to wear pajamas or walk with bare feet in public.

Perhaps the most confounding, and yet revealing, part of the Morehouse rules is the ban on women's dress. "No wearing of clothing associated with women's garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at College-sponsored events," reads the policy. Placed conspicuously at the end of the dress code, and so fundamentally different from the prohibitions that precede it, one gets the sense that in the end, the dress code is really all about that one sentence.

A statement by Dr. William Bynum, Morehouse vice president for student services, seems to support the argument. "We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men," he said.

On one hand, I can understand that a school like Morehouse has a legacy to protect and a brand name to maintain. After all, this is the alma mater of Martin Luther King Jr., Julian Bond, Maynard Jackson, Spike Lee, and others. The value of an institution's stock rises or falls on the quality of its graduates and the leaders it produces.

Dr. Franklin described part of the Morehouse mystique Soul of Morehouse and the Future of the Mystique – abridged.pdf as "a fundamental sense of discontent with mediocrity and nonsense." In April 2009, he also told his students that "Morehouse men must be so sensitive to the presence of disorder, mediocrity and injustice that they cannot sleep well at night until they tip the scale toward justice. Unto whom much is given, much is required."

Read More

Emanuella Grinberg
CNN

The people who died Thursday at a spiritual resort in Arizona had spent time in a "sweatbox" similar to what Native Americans and other cultures have used for prayer and purification rituals throughout history.

And those who use them say they can be dangerous if care is not taken.

From Scandinavia to South America to Africa, people have come together in the sauna-like structures - typically heated by pouring water on hot lava rocks - for a variety of reasons, said Joseph Bruchac, writer and author of The Native American Sweat Lodge. He's part Abenaki, a tribe concentrated in the northeast United Staes, and part European.

"Each tribal nation has its own traditions, so one group might do it differently from another so you cannot generalize too much," said Bruchac, who runs an outdoor education center in Greenfield Center, New York.

In North America, most Native American tribes use the term "sweat lodge" to refer to a dome-shaped structure where the intimate ritual of the sweat takes place, said Bruchac, who has his own sweat lodge on his property in the foothills of the Adirondacks.

"Sweat lodges are typically used for a ritual preparation, like before a hunt, or nowadays, people might do it before a wedding or dance or some kind of community event as a way of putting yourself in balance," he said.

Bruchac noted that incidents like the one in Arizona tend to raise discussion in Native American communities over whether non-Natives should be allowed to adapt traditional ceremonies.

"It's a very meaningful ceremony. I can understand why people find it attractive," Bruchac said. "But I consider it sacrilegious and foolish to do someone else's rituals without proper guidance or practice, especially in sweat lodges where you're raising people's body temperatures. With that many people, oxygen is going to be depleted, and if you have heart problems or breathing problems, you could faint or die."

Keep Reading...

Program Note: Tune in tonight to hear more from Peter Flaherty tonight on AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Peter Flaherty
President, National Legal & Policy Center

With the spotlight this week on House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), we found this timeline of his current issues posted by the National Legal and Policy Center.

July 11, 2008- New York Times’ David Kocieniewski reports that Rangel occupies three rent-stabilized apartments in a luxury building, and uses a fourth as a campaign office.

July 14, 2008- NLPC files Complaint with the Federal Election commission alleging use of a rent-stabilized apartment for a campaign office comprises an illegal corporate contribution from the landlord. Rangel announces he will close the office.

July 15, 2008- Christopher Lee of the Washington Post reports that Rangel solicited donations on Congressional letterhead to the so-called Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York (CCNY), in violation of House rules.

Find the rest of the timeline here...

Congressional Republicans intensified their calls Wednesday for Chairman Charlie Rangel of New York to resign his post.

Lisa Desjardin
CNN Radio

Congressional Republicans intensified their calls Wednesday for powerful House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel of New York to resign his post heading the committee, at least temporarily.

Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, introduced a motion that would have forced Rangel to step down during an ongoing ethics investigation into his finances and activities.

House Democrats responded by voting to shut off debate and instead send the resolution to the House Ethics Committee, where the matter has sat for a year. The move to effectively kill the resolution by sending it to the committee passed on a mostly party-line 246-153 vote.

The vote has no significant effect but shows Republicans are turning up the heat on Rangel and hoping to score political points by highlighting the ethics probe.

Keep Reading...

Program Note: Tune in tonight to hear more from Peter Flaherty tonight on AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Peter Flaherty
President, National Legal & Policy Center

With the spotlight this week on House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), we found this timeline of his current issues posted by the National Legal and Policy Center.

July 11, 2008- New York Times’ David Kocieniewski reports that Rangel occupies three rent-stabilized apartments in a luxury building, and uses a fourth as a campaign office.

July 14, 2008- NLPC files Complaint with the Federal Election commission alleging use of a rent-stabilized apartment for a campaign office comprises an illegal corporate contribution from the landlord. Rangel announces he will close the office.

July 15, 2008- Christopher Lee of the Washington Post reports that Rangel solicited donations on Congressional letterhead to the so-called Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at City College of New York (CCNY), in violation of House rules.

Find the rest of the timeline here...

Editor's Note: A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy who is refusing treatment for his cancer, after neither she nor the boy showed up for a court appearance.

Doctors say Daniel Hauser's lymphoma responded well to a first round of chemotherapy in February.

Anderson Cooper spoke with CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Arthur Caplan, Chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Cooper: Dr. Caplan, is this a tough call for you?

Dr. Caplan: It's not a tough call for me, Anderson. When you compel treatment, it has to be something that's well established and proven. This is. The chemotherapy success rate for the cancer that this boy has, if we can get it going soon, is about 95%. It's very, very good. You wouldn't push as hard if you had an experimental treatment or something that was iffy. Other facts, if you look at the situation with the chemotherapy, the alternative the parents proposed is well known to have a success rate of zero. So sometimes you can say, well, you know, the parents prefer surgery. We prefer chemo. Let's go with what they want first. you've got to move to save this child's life. Parental rights are strong, but they do have a limit when you're basically sacrificing your child for a religious belief that they themselves can't articulate.

Cooper: Dr. Caplan, though, it may be tough to actually give this boy treatment. He's saying he's going to kick and refuse, you know, and make it difficult for doctors to put any needles in him. How do you deal with that?

Dr. Caplan: Well, I'll tell you, I've seen these cases. What happens is, you've got the dad who's already started to come around and say maybe chemo. They'll work with a psychologist. They will try very hard to bring the boy around. And I will tell you, Anderson, there's a lot of success in sort of swaying people once they understand and see one of their parents start to waver. I've never seen a case where you actually had to strap a child down and sedate them and administer chemotherapy that way. Could happen, but most of the time when parents begin to sort of change their minds and the dad is here, you get the kid to come on, too.

Cooper: Art, are you surprised to hear that maybe the dad is starting to change his mind, or you say that's what often happens in these cases?

Dr. Caplan: It often happens that way. When you're really up against it and you start to realize the doctors are saying this is the cure and you've got to go with it, pretty soon, or you're going to miss the opportunity, one or both parents usually begin to waver. One other point, Anderson, you can sometimes get a parent who holds out to work with you, saying you pray, you do the ceremonies, healing ceremonies you want, we'll do the chemo, we can work together. That sometimes brings them around, too.

Cooper: Jeff, if they continue to refuse treatment and this boy dies, god forbid, would the parents be charged?

Toobin: They could be. Oftentimes the prosecutors exercise their discretion and say, look, they've lost a child. They've suffered enough. But the point is not to, you know, prosecute later. It's to save the kid now. That's the focus of everybody's effort. And what makes this case so excruciating is that you have a real cure here. 90-plus percent, and you have a 0% chance for the others. As art was saying, this one is a particularly easy case. Sometimes you have cases where there's only a 10% chance of saving the child. And the parents just want to take the kid home and, you know, do hospice care. That's an understandable situation under circumstances. This is not. This is, as far as I'm concerned, just child abuse.

Cooper: What's the legal precedent for something like this?

Toobin: There actually are a lot of precedents mostly involving Christian scientists, Jehovah's witnesses and virtually all the time the court says what this mother is doing while we sympathize with her pain, this is child abuse. This is the same thing –

Cooper: She could do it for herself, but it's the fact that she's making that decision for a minor.

Toobin: Absolutely. This is a minor. He is not qualified to make this decision for himself. This is what it needs to be a minor. Other people make your decisions for you, and you are not allowed to make this decision. This is the same thing as if he got hit by a car blocking the ambulance and letting him bleed to death. There is no difference. and if need be, they have to take the kid away and strap him down and put - and apply chemotherapy that way. It's horrible to think of, but it's life or death.

Cooper: In terms of what would the mom be charged with if, in fact, she is found?

Toobin: Child neglect, child abuse. It is a form of assault. It's just - you know, you are allowed to believe anything you want. And you are allowed to treat yourself in line with your own beliefs if you are an adult. But you can't impose religious beliefs on a child who has no other options.

Eboo Patel
Interfaith Youth Core
AC360° Contributor

Picture religious violence. What images come to mind? A plane crashing into the World Trade Center on 9/11? A videotape confession by a suicide bomber?

The perpetrators of religious violence are masters of marketing. They want you to see them commit acts of violence, and they want you to associate it with their religion. In fact, the violence is in many cases simply an excuse for the image. The goal is not the murder of a few, it is the poisoning of many with the pictures of violence, with the ultimate hope being the incitement of a religious civil war in cities like Baghdad.

Now picture interfaith cooperation. Did your brain-screen go fuzzy? I wish interfaith images came just as readily and were just as clear as images of religious violence. In fact, I believe one of the reasons we lack a strong, cohesive interfaith movement is because of the absence of such clear visual reference points.

But there is cause for hope from, of all places, Northern Ireland. When I visited Belfast last year, an official told me that bombs used to go off so frequently in the city that people wouldn’t even look up from their newspapers. The tension was still thick between Protestants and Catholics; the situation, he told me, could well go either way.

It looks like Northern Ireland chose the path of peace. The murders of two British soldiers and a policeman last week – the types of acts that previously burned hateful, sectarian images into people’s minds – did not widen the faith divide in Ulster, it actually brought them together.

A community that has seen thousands of deaths over several decades of faith-based civil war, instead saw (as the New York Times here described it) “sworn enemies (filing) into a provincial church on Friday to mourn as one … Some who were there said that never in Northern Ireland’s modern history had there been quite such an improbably gathering of old foes.”

Old IRA guys mourned with diehard unionists. There were silent vigils held in Belfast and other cities around Northern Ireland. The Catholic priest who delivered the eulogy at the funeral said that an attack on the police (once a hated institution amongst the Catholic population) amounted to “an attack on the whole population of Northern Ireland.”

The images from Belfast, and what I recently saw in Bombay Revival, are images of hope. I hope they burn inside our brain as deeply as the pictures of religious violence.

CNN

A top congressional Republican on Sunday criticized President Barack Obama's expected decision to reverse the Bush administration's limits on embryonic stem-cell research, calling it a distraction from the country's economic slump.

"Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done," Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, told CNN's "State of the Union."

Obama's move, scheduled for Monday morning, is part of a broader effort to separate science and politics and "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision-making," White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said Sunday. The Bush administration's 2001 policy bars federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells beyond the cell lines that existed at the time.

Cantor, R-Virginia, has been among the leaders of GOP opposition to Obama's economic policies.

Read more...

Julianne Pepitone
CNNMoney.com

The Securities and Exchange Commission said Tuesday that it has charged financier Robert Allen Stanford and three of his companies with orchestrating a $9.2 billion investment and sales fraud.

The SEC's complaint alleges that the fraud centered on a CD program in which Stanford International Bank promised "improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates."

Read More...

Thomas Frank
Wall Street Journal

The announcement last week that Trader Monthly magazine was ceasing publication was one of those moments when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bull's eye on a deserving target. The current recession, brought on at least in part by Wall Street's bonus lust, has claimed countless innocent victims. But in this case it has finally delivered a comeuppance to our era's loudest, gaudiest, cockiest champion of Wall Street excess.

Those who still single out former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain as a symbol of extravagance should take note. Yes, the man once spent over a million dollars having his office remodeled and went on to arrange questionable bonuses for the year in which Merrill lost billions and sold itself to Bank of America.

Read More...

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel denies any ties between pledges for a project and preservation of a tax loophole.

Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN

Congressman Charles Rangel's fate hangs in the balance as a report concerning the Ways and Means Committee chairman is being prepared for release in early January.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she is waiting for the report from the House Ethics Committee before deciding what to do about several allegations against Rangel.

He's under investigation for allegedly using formal letterhead to solicit donations to a school to be named in his honor; helping one donor's company keep a tax loophole; having unreported income from a vacation villa; and having several rent-controlled apartments at below market rates, including one set up for his campaign operations in violation of state and local laws.

Editor's Note: The Ethics Guy, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek.com.Here is Dr. Weinsteins followup blog to to downsizing: "Downsizing 101 – When You Have to Do It"

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

Americans are bracing for massive job losses in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Even before the recent crisis on Wall Street, anxiety about employment was high; earlier this year, the U.S. Labor Dept. released a report stating that there had been a net loss of 63,000 jobs, which was the biggest decline in five years.

Whether or not your own job is in jeopardy in the near future, at some point in your career you may become a victim of downsizing. What should you do? What you should avoid doing at all costs? We’ll consider these questions in this column, the second of a two-part series on the ethics of downsizing.

WHAT’S ETHICS GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Being laid off is one of the most traumatic events we can experience. On the Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale, getting fired is the eighth most stressful life experience, behind the death of a spouse (#1) or going to jail (#4), but ahead of the death of a close friend (#17), foreclosure on a mortgage or loan (#21), or in-law troubles (#24). Rightly or wrongly, many of us define ourselves by our jobs, which is why one of the first questions we ask someone we meet is, “What do you do?”

I’ve already shown why downsizing has ethical implications for the bearers of bad news. But ethical issues are also at stake for those on the receiving end. If you’ve just been downsized, I’ll bet your first response was, “That’s not fair!.” Even if your company had—or believes it had–good reasons to eliminate your position, from your point of view it feels as though an injustice has occurred. And of course fairness is one of five fundamental ethical principles (Read 'Be Fair- Part 1' and 'Be Fair – Part 2' ). Even if it’s hard to see how ethics plays a role in other areas of your life, when you’re on the receiving end of a perceived injustice, ethics moves front and center into your field of vision.

But it’s not just fairness that is at stake here. When you ask yourself, “How will I able to pay my bills now?,” the underlying question is, “How can I meet my responsibilities to my family, myself, and those to whom I owe money?” All of these responsibilities are ethical ones and are applications of the principles avoiding harm of making things better, and showing respect for others.

Finally, we’ve all known people who let the loss of their job get the better of them, so the ethical principle of compassion, which applies to how we treat ourselves too, is also on the table.

A CODE OF PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY
I propose the following guidelines for you to consider, should you find yourself suddenly out of a job.

1. Get Angry…Later
   It’s easy to react with hostility when you’re told that your position is being eliminated. Don’t. The suggestions I’ve made for dealing with anger-provoking situations are especially relevant in this circumstance. It’s only human to be terribly upset or even filled with rage, but acting on those feelings may violate the do-no-harm principle. Less obvious but also important to think about is the damage you would do to a valued relationship that you may not be able to undo. You won’t regret holding back, but you will regret losing your cool.
2. Don’t Take It Personally
   We’d like to be able to control our lives and shape our destiny through the sheer force of will, but sometimes things happen to us that have absolutely nothing to do with what we’ve done or who we are. This is one of those times.
3. Get a Recommendation
   One of the best ways for a potential employer to find out how valuable you are is to hear from your current boss, but you may have to be the one to make this happen. Get a recommendation in writing as soon as possible. Volunteer to write it yourself. If a letter is out of the question or doesn’t arrive in a timely fashion, ask your boss to send you a short e-mail; even a one- or two-line testimonial will do. Get your boss’s permission to put his or her direct phone number on your resume and give out at job interviews.
4. Be a Self-Promoter
   We’re raised to believe that it’s wrong to toot your own horn, but if ever there were a time to put that belief aside, it’s now. As Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be?” (Of course, he wisely added, “But if I am not for others, what am I?”) One of our greatest challenges is striking the right balance between self-absorption and devotion to others. Still, there is not only no harm in standing up for yourself; it is unethical not to do so.Believing in yourself is one of the best ways of applying the principle of compassion to your own life. Consider this as well: how can others benefit from your expertise if you don’t get the word out?
5. Grief is Good
   Grief is a natural and healthy response to losing something or someone of value in your life, and taking your grief seriously is another important way to treat yourself with kindness. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to seek counseling in the wake of being downsized. If you sustained an injury to your back, you would have no qualms about getting physical therapy. Why shouldn’t you seek the appropriate remedy when your world is turned upside down? Many of us still attach a stigma to psychotherapy—wrongly so.
6. Accentuate the Positive
   Is it possible that one of the worst things that could happen to you might turn out to be the best? Take a look at Harvey MacKay’s We Got Fired!: . . . And It's the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Us (Ballantine Books, 2004). Michael Bloomberg, Muhammad Ali, Billie Jean King, Home Depot (HD) founder Bernie Marcus, Lee Iacocca, and Robert Redford are just a few of the wildly successful people who explain how losing a job led to something much better.

Yes, it’s dispiriting to get laid off, but MacKay’s book reminds us of the riches that may lie just beyond the horizon, which would have been unavailable had we stayed where we were.

Bottom line: Taking the high road is challenging enough when all is going well. The real test of your character comes from how you respond when things are at their worst. Following the above guidelines will help you show the world—and yourself—that nothing, not even the loss of your job, can hold you back from success.

Note: Nothing in this column is intended to be or should be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney for legal questions you may have about your termination.

Editor's Note: The Ethics Guy, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek.com.

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

Most discussions about downsizing focus on the legal, economic, or psychological issues raised by this practice. These are essential concerns, but we rarely consider how or why downsizing is also an ethical issue. This is the first of a two-part series that will redress that problem. Today, we'll consider your ethical responsibilities if you are the one charged with giving the bad news. In the second part, we'll look at what you ought and ought not to do if you are the one being downsized.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Downsizing refers to a company's decision to reduce its workforce for reasons other than poor performance, criminal conduct, or unethical behavior on the part of those being let go. The word is a euphemism meant to soften the blow as much for the company as much as it is for the soon-to-be eliminated. There is nothing wrong with making a difficult task easier to bear. In fact, there are good ethical reasons for doing so, as we'll soon see. Still, there is no getting around the fact that downsizing is a type of layoff, with all that this implies. The ethical manager will keep in mind what is really going when he or she is charged with letting good people go.

WHY DOWNSIZING IS AN ETHICAL ISSUE

Anytime we’re faced with a decision that can affect the rights or well-being of others, we're looking at an ethical issue. No matter how strong the justifications for reducing the workforce are or seem to be, laying off loyal and productive employees is an upsetting experience for all concerned, and those on the receiving end face not just financial but psychological injury.

How so? For many of us, the workplace isn't just a place for work; it's where we develop and maintain some of the most important relationships we have. During the week, we spend more time with co-workers than with our families, and for better or worse, work is how many of us define ourselves and give meaning to our lives. Getting laid off compromises all of these things, so managers should think of downsizing as a deep and painful trauma for those being let go, and not as a mere set-back or reversal of fortune.

Yes, downsizing has legal implications, and it is understandable that companies want to minimize their liability when they downsize. Yes, there are economic matters to consider, which makes downsizing a management issue, too. But at its core, downsizing is an ethical issue, and the good manager is concerned not just with protecting the company's financial and legal interests but with honoring the dignity and integrity of the human beings who work on the front lines and who are the lifeblood of the organization.

DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY

I propose the following management guidelines for downsizing ethically:

1. DO IT IN PERSON. This seems obvious thing to do, but I'm surprised by the number of reports I've heard about employees who were downsized on the phone or by e-mail. Managers who use this method claim it makes the whole thing it easier to deal with. Yes...but for whom? Certainly not for the employee being let go. As uncomfortable as it is to end someone’s employment, the right thing to do is to have a private conversation with him or her in person. The ethical principle of respect for others requires nothing less. 
2. DO IT PRIVATELY. Respecting others means honoring their wishes and values, and it is reasonable to assume that most people would prefer to have troubling news delivered in private. This means in your office, with the door closed. I've heard of managers who broke the bad news at the employee's cubicle within earshot of everyone in the vicinity. Again, one would think that this would be a matter of common sense and common decency, but apparently neither is all that common.
3. GIVE THE PERSON YOUR FULL ATTENTION. Interrupting the conversation to take phone calls, check your BlackBerry, or engage in other distractions isn't just rude. It tells the other person that the matter at hand isn't all that important to you and is yet another violation of the principle of respect. The impulse to turn your attention to less troubling matters is understandable, but along with the privileges of being a manager come responsibilities, and downsizing with integrity is one of the most important obligations you have.
4. BE HONEST, BUT NOT BRUTALLY SO. Must you always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, if you're giving sworn testimony in a court of law, but beyond the courtroom the duty to tell the truth is constrained by the duty to minimize harm. In practical terms, this means being forthright with the employee but also choosing with the care the words, tone of voice, and demeanor you use. Compassion- –literally, 'suffering with' someone–honors the dignity of your employee and speaks to the better part of your nature. We can't always make things better, but we shouldn’t make things worse.
5. DON’T RUSH.  A shock takes time to absorb. Imagine that your physician tells you that you have a serious illness. Wouldn't you expect him or her to allow the news sink in, rather than to summarily dismiss you and call for the next patient? Being let go isn't as serious as getting a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease, but it is still a major, life-changing event. You owe your employee the space to absorb the information, and you may have to explain more than once what is happening and why. You would demand nothing less if it were happening to you, and you would be right to do so.

YOU VS. THE COMPANY

These guidelines assume that the organization has good reasons for downsizing–but what if you don't see things this way? For example, suppose your company believes that it is necessary to shift its customer service jobs overseas, and you believe that doing so is both unethical and bad for business. In this case, you not only have a right to object; you have an ethical obligation to object.

Does this mean that you should be prepared to give up your job on moral grounds? Not necessarily. Depending on your personal circumstances, your duties to your family or to yourself might justifiably override the value of making a statement by quitting. Even if you are committed to keeping as many jobs in the U.S. as possible, this goal will take time to achieve, and it may be easier to do so from within the company than from the outside.

The bottom line is important, but so are the values of respect, compassion, and simple human decency. The good manager takes all of these into account—always.

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy®, BusinessWeek.com

The hot-button issues of politics can lead to inflamed tempers that can impede your productivity—and possibly, your progress.

Who do you think should be the next President of the U.S.? John McCain? Barack Obama? Jon Stewart? Regardless of who gets elected, there is no question that this is the most diverse and exciting campaign in many years.

Given what is at stake in the election and the historic nature of this year's race, it is tempting to discuss the issue at work with those colleagues we're accustomed to chatting with and hashing out so many things. Yet there are very good reasons why we shouldn't.

The Fearsome Foursome.

Along with sex, money, and religion, politics is one of the most controversial topics of conversation that exists. I submit that money, more than sex, is the most personal aspect of our lives, and it is the one that opens us up to the greatest potential for embarrassment.

Only the most boorish among us would ever think about asking a colleague, "So, how much did you make last year?" Thanks to reality television, cell phones, Facebook, MySpace, blogging, and other 21st century technological developments, we know far too much about people, but however thin the line between professional and personal is getting, many of us still value a modicum of privacy, particularly when it comes to what we earn.

Sex, too, is still an off-limits topic for discussion at work and not merely for the legal reasons relating to sexual harassment. We talk about sex with our closest friends (with whom we probably would not even discuss our income), but this kind of conversation is wisely held after business hours. Neither your salary nor your sex life is anyone's business at the office. Nor, for most professional settings, are your religious beliefs. Discussing the existence of God is fine for a college philosophy class or a third date but not at a company whose mission is banking, insurance, public relations, or just about any other field one can think of.

Politics may not be as close to our hearts, minds, and souls as money, sex, or religion, but it's not too far away, either. In its purest form, politics is to our country what ethics is to us as individuals or social groups. Ethics asks, "How should I live?" Politics asks, "How should we live?" It's true, of course, that the term "politics" has come to be practically a slur word. When we are prevented from accomplishing a goal at work, we often say that what got in the way was "office politics." If a less-qualified job candidate is hired over a more qualified one, we conclude that it was "politics" that somehow won the day. However, where I am using "politics" here, it is in its classical sense: the study of how our society should be ordered.

When conversation at work turns to politics, it inevitably touches on the meaningful issues at stake in the election, and most of these issues are by their nature highly divisive. Among the questions now on the table are:

• Should abortion continue to be legal?
• Should same-sex marriage be legalized?
• How relevant to holding public office is a person's religion?
• How much should the wealthy be taxed?
• To what extent should the federal government be involved in social programs?

No matter what your position on these issues is, it is clear that:

• There is disagreement about them.
• The passions raised by each question are strong.
• In all but a few instances, where you stand on each issue has little or no bearing on the job you are doing or your ability to do it.

In considering whether it is appropriate to have political discussions on the job, five fundamental ethical principles are at stake: Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair, and Be Loving.

Here is an example of the very real danger of allowing free and unfettered discussions about Presidential politics at work:

Let's say that you and your boss are arguing the respective merits of your preferred candidates. Unbeknownst to you, your boss is very passionate about the abortion issue, but your candidate—and you—hold a view that is contrary to your boss's. As much as your boss might strive to respect your right to have and express your opinion, can you be sure that s/he won't hold your position against you when, say, your performance review comes around? If you are the boss in question, can you be certain that your subordinate's political beliefs won't affect your decision to give her a raise or even keep her on?

Preferences about music, art, or food are three of the many areas in which reasonable people may disagree. Your co-worker likes Madonna and you like U2? No problem. However, when someone holds contrary political beliefs from us, do we say that he or she merely has a different opinion? No. We say, rightly or wrongly, that he or she is mistaken, and this has troubling implications in the workplace. If you believe in evolution, and you suddenly discovered that a colleague is a creationist, can you honestly say that your view of him or her would not then suffer? Might this not affect how well you work together on a project that has nothing to do with how the world came into existence?

"But I'm not that way, and neither are my colleagues," you argue. "We're able to take the high road even when we talk about controversial subjects." Even if this is the case, it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of other people will follow in your footsteps, as nice as that would be.

"This is utter nonsense," you claim. "I have a right to talk about politics if I want to." Yes, of course you have a Constitutional right to free speech, and there may be no prohibitions in your workplace against discussing whatever you like, short of committing harassment or other hostile acts. But just because we have a right to do something doesn’t mean that we should do it.. When we reflect on how we ought to conduct ourselves, it is more important to ask, "Is this the right thing to do?" rather than, "Do I have a right to do it?"

Simply put, we shouldn't discuss politics in the workplace because, with very few exceptions, these discussions have nothing to do with our job and can only interfere with it.

Toward a More Respectful Workplace.

One might conclude that what I am calling for will lead to a chill in the workplace or, worse, a corporate police state in which speech is carefully monitored and wrongful talk is harshly punished. Rather than make a fetish out of what each individual should be allowed to do (or get away with), a more appropriate perspective to take here—and with all issues concerning conduct at work and beyond—is to consider how our actions might adversely affect others and fracture the community of which we are a part. Yes, in the best of circumstances, discussion with people who hold different points of view can lead to greater understanding of beliefs different from one's own. Yes, it may be possible for you and your colleagues to have a civil, respectful conversation at work about the politics of abortion, euthanasia, creationism, the existence of God, your sex life, and your salary.

Nevertheless, if you are able to have such polite repartee, you are in the minority. For most people, these kinds of discussions too often degenerate into loud arguments and the conclusion that those on the opposing side of the fence are "idiots." In what sort of business would this kind of behavior promote doing one's job effectively? As engaging as such conversations might be, to what extent will they enhance the ability to carry out one's duties and meet the needs of customers and company alike? More to the point, won't such conversations likely impede the performance of one's assignments?

Bottom line: the very real and important need for lively, informed, and vigorous debate is best met before and after one goes to work. Everyone in the body politic will be better off if this rule is treated with the respect it deserves.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will be discussing this column on Issue #1 on Wednesday at 12:24 p.m. ET and again on American Morning on Friday. You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com

Dr. Lisa Boesky
Psychologist, National Speaker & Author

John Edwards…many of those who didn’t want him for president still viewed him as a “nice guy.” A politician cheating? Not shocking. But, John Edwards, the squeaky clean devoted husband who let his cancer-stricken wife stand at his side throughout his entire campaign? Devastating.

Most of us have either cheated, been cheated on, or know someone who has been unfaithful. Yet, much of what we think about cheating is WRONG!

1. Infidelity spells the end of a marriage: It definitely feels that way when you first find out—anger, depression, anxiety. There appears to be no way to work it out. But, with time (and a lot of work), it is possible to rebuild the trust. If couples seek professional help to deal with the aftermath of the affair, their chances of staying together are pretty good.
2. People cheat because they’ve fallen out of love: Many unfaithful spouses report that they still love their wives or husbands. Whereas women often report being unhappy in their marriage, some men consider themselves in semi-happy, or even happy marriages—despite their affair. Cheating typically results from other relationship issues.
3. Once a cheater, always a cheater: It depends. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. However, if someone cheats one time due to immaturity, poor judgment, impulsivity, intoxication or opportunity and receives tough consequences for their actions, they may learn from their mistake and never do it again.
4. Spouses who are cheated on “know” at some level, but choose not to see the infidelity: Many spouses don’t have a clue that their husband or wife is cheating—especially if there is trust in the relationship and the cheater is a slick liar. Hindsight is 20/20–but during the actual affair, extra time at work, plans with friends, or weight-loss won’t automatically spark thoughts of infidelity.
5. People cheat with someone younger, sexier, or better in bed than their partner: Many victims of infidelity are shocked that the “other” man or woman isn’t some young stud or hottie. It may be the other person’s witty banter, submissiveness, undying affection, heaps of attention, shared interests, unexplained chemistry, gifts/money or “understanding” that pulled at your spouses heartstrings.
6. No sex = No affair: Deep and intense relationships are developing over the internet and as male and female co-workers spend hours upon hours together. Emotional affairs can be incredibly addictive due to their secretive and unconsummated nature. Commiserating about unhappy relationships can quickly turn into bonding, attraction, and desire.
7. Women don’t cheat as much as men: The percentage of women cheaters is quickly catching up to men. Both genders report similar reasons for cheating, though some women in midlife feel they “deserve” to cheat after raising kids, being a supportive wife, and sacrificing their identify in a marriage. Women who marry young may feel trapped if they haven’t played the field—especially if their young husband doesn’t fit their idealized view of who she thought he was.
8. A one-night stand is just as bad as a long-term affair: Long-term lying, betrayal, deception can have a much larger impact on marriages than a one-time mistake. Both can negatively affect the marriage and break the trust—but a one-night stand tends to have much less of an emotional component, which gives the relationship a greater chance of surviving.

If you find yourself looking outside your marriage for what needs to be fixed inside your marriage, talk to your spouse or a professional NOT your opposite-sex neighbor, co-worker, or friend!

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

Which of the following statements is most accurate for you?

A) I receive 15 days of paid vacation each year, and I take them—guilt-free.
B) I receive 15 days of paid vacation each year, but I feel guilty if I take any of them.
C) I haven’t had a vacation in years; I’m loyal to my company or business and am proud of this fact.
D) I work for myself and don’t take vacations; if I don’t work, I don’t make money.

Even if you chose “A,” you surely know people in the other three situations. We in the United States wear as a badge of honor the fact that we rarely, if ever, take time off from work. We need to earn a living, and many of us like what we do, so our reluctance to take vacations is justified, right?

No, it isn’t.

Leaving work behind for a period of time is not only acceptable; it is our ethical obligation.

Here’s why.

AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

With respect to the number of paid vacation days that employees get, the U.S. ranks toward the bottom of 49 counties, according to the human resource consulting firm Mercer. Among large firms in this country, employees are allotted an average of 15 days off with pay, aside from holidays. (Source: CNNMoney.com, June 13, 2007). This figure may sound impressive, but consider the situation in other countries: Australians, Italians, Latvians, and the Japanese get 20 days off; Swedes and Greeks get 25; Lithuanians get 28; and the Finnish and the French get 30. Imagine taking up to six weeks of paid vacation each year and not feeling the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. It’s not a fantasy; for many, it is a happy way of life.

Many countries mandate paid vacation, but the U.S. is not one of them, so it’s quite possible that many firms here view vacation days as a perk, a benefit, something above and beyond the call of duty. But for ethical reasons, it is a serious mistake for employers to view vacations this way, and it is just as wrong for employees to feel that they are being disloyal to their employer or their colleagues when they take time off.

WHAT DOES ETHICS HAVE TO DO WITH VACATIONS?

These are the five fundamental principles of ethics:

1. Do No Harm
2. Make Things Better
3. Respect Others
4. Be Fair
5. Be Loving

Ethical responsibilities apply not just to how we treat others but to how we treat ourselves, too. Although ethics is fundamentally a guard against self-obsession, it is right and good to treat oneself with respect, fairness, and compassion and to avoid causing ourselves harm.

Now consider two states of affairs: how you feel after working for a long time without a break, and how you feel during and after some restorative time at the beach. Can you really be at your best when you’re running on empty? Aren’t you more likely to do a good job when your batteries are recharged?

Taking a vacation from time to time enables you to do your job to the best of your ability, and this is one reason why vacations are an ethical issue. Another reason why it is ethical to take time off periodically is because we simply owe it to ourselves to rest. The ethical arguments for taking vacations are in fact similar to those for staying home when you’re sick. Doing the right thing for yourself and your clients means that that when you’ve got a cold or the flu, you ought to stay home and get better. Being an ethical person also means cashing in those vacation days each year, out of respect for both yourself and those to whom you provide a service.

OBSTACLES TO TAKING VACATIONS, AND HOW TO RESOLVE THEM

Let’s look at some of the most common reasons for not taking time off, and how you can respond effectively to these challenges:

I work for myself/My employer doesn’t give paid vacations/I’ve been laid off, and I need to work.

The reluctance to give up some future revenue is understandable, particularly in our current economy. But how often is this an excuse, rather than an accurate reflection of one’s financial situation? Taking a vacation doesn’t have to mean gambling big in Vegas or flying first-class to Sydney, as fun as these trips may be. With “staycations” becoming more popular, time away from work can mean nothing more than sleeping late, watching DVD’s, and eating lots of comfort food at home. We budget for meals, clothing, and transportation. Shouldn’t we also budget for a vacation? Yes, there ought to be a law mandating paid vacations, but until that comes to pass, we’ll have to find creative ways on our own of taking off.

I love my work, and I’m miserable when I’m away from it.

Maybe it’s time to get a hobby! I’m reminded here of Godfrey Reggio’s astounding 1982 film, Koyaanisqatsi. The title is a Hopi term for “life out of balance.” It’s wonderful to get jazzed about one’s job—I feel the same way—but a rich, meaningful life involves things beyond work.

Most of the people I work with aren’t taking vacations, so I don’t want to burden them with the extra work they’d have if I left for a while.

It’s praiseworthy to want to avoiding causing undue stress on your colleagues, but you—and they—are entitled (ethically if not legally) to some time off. Ultimately, the fair distribution of labor is a management issue, and employees shouldn’t have to worry that a justifiable absence will result in an undue burden on the team.

I’m the only one at work who can do my job. The company, and my clients, can’t afford for me to be away.

It’s nice to feel wanted or needed, but few of us are truly indispensable, as much as we may hate to admit it. I submit that in most cases, the idea that you, and only you, can do your job is a delusion of grandeur rather than a reflection of reality.

I feel guilty when I take vacations.

If you’re not yet convinced that it’s ethical to take time off, perhaps it’s time to talk with a trusted advisor about why you feel you aren’t worthy of a trip to the mountains or the shore or even just some time to yourself. You have every reason to feel good about treating yourself right, and vacations, however you choose to spend them, are self-indulgent in the best possible way.

TO EVERY THING, TURN, TURN, TURN

Checking e-mail, taking work-related phone calls, and reading material related to one’s job are not the elements of a true vacation. A working vacation makes about as much sense as showing up for a corporate job in shorts and a tank top with a margarita in your hand. To the list of things for which there is a time—a time to be born, a time to die, a time to weep, a time to laugh—one might add, “a time to work, and a time to take a long break.”

Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will discuss this article on CNN’s “Issue #1” this Tuesday at 12 noon ET. You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com