Dani Wexler | Leaving room for ethics

Which of the following situations do you consider more probable after graduation: facing a challenging ethical dilemma or being forced to identify, say, the different types of igneous rock on Earth? Well, Penn thinks it's the latter. As students in the School of Arts and Sciences, we're required to take a Physical Science course but don't necessarily need to take any courses on morality or ethics.

When the University decides to make a course obligatory, the administration is articulating its significance, ostensibly saying: "We think your education and professional preparation will be incomplete without you learning this particular information." So when the University doesn't require a course in ethics, the implication is that it doesn't regard a background in professional morality as essential.

Eventually, Penn should require every student to take an ethics course before graduation. So far, Wharton has pioneered the effort to incorporate ethical instruction into the curriculum. If Wharton could take the next step and officially mandate its ethics course, it would set an example for the rest of the University to follow.

Though Wharton indeed offers a course in Corporate Responsibility and Ethics (LGST 210), it's offered as one option among three courses under the Societal Environment Requirement, two of which must be taken to satisfy the bracket requirement. Wharton also offers an elective in International Business Ethics (LGST 220). Because neither course is directly mandatory, students can easily graduate Wharton without ever having deeply considered the moral implications of their future profession.

Nien-he Hsieh, director of the Wharton Ethics Program, extends the issue to the entire University: "I think everybody would benefit from having an ethics course, not just Wharton students. It should be put into the broader teaching of ethical issues in general at Penn."

Hsieh accurately points out that we'll all face ethical quandaries in our professional lives and should be duly prepared. But I think that change should begin with Wharton. The corporate environment is both extremely competitive and the source of a series infamous scandals dating back to the 1920s. From insider trading to various forms of accounting fraud, the potential for cheating is enormous.

"I think that in Wharton there's such an emphasis on our own personal gain and not enough on social responsibility and on accountability to the public," said Wharton and College sophomore David Stark.

In a 2006 Daily Pennsylvanian column, former Wharton Ethics Program chairman Alan Strudman said he "would like to see ethics be a requirement," especially because it's mandatory for MBA students. And yet, the status quo prevails. Wharton still hasn't required the course, and the College doesn't seem to be exploring the option.

"I think that the sectors that exist provide for moral exploration as is," said peer advisor and College sophomore Leila Decker. "A lot of the courses have ethical undertones."

There is such a thing as too much morality. I attended a small, quirky Jewish high school governed by Kohlbergian theory, or the stages of moral development outlined by the late psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg - we're talking spontaneous moral dilemmas during class, weekly town hall discussions, the whole nine yards.

I'm not implying that Penn needs to incorporate anything that drastic (I'm pretty sure I've had my fill). Still, the University needs to inject some ethics-based courses into the requirement pool - even if it means (G-d forbid!) replacing a pre-existing sector requirement. No offense to future geologists, but morality rocks (pun completely intended).

Dani Wexler is a College sophomore from Los Angeles. Her e-mail is wexler@dailypennsylvanian.com. Wex Appeal appears every Friday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.