Ethical Dilemma Case Study II: Supervision, Accountability, and Confidentiality

1. Ethical Dilemma Case Study II:
Supervision, Accountability &
Confidentiality
Deb Bishop
Quin Gonell
Angel Seto
Salem State University EDU803B Helping Skills for Student Affairs Professionals
Fall 2014
Dr. Randi Korn

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. “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

8. “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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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