Objecting instead of invoking morality is the right thing to do

A longtime reader of the column from North Carolina we’re calling Paul wrote to tell me that about seven years ago he developed peripheral neuropathy, a condition caused by damage to the nerves that often results in pain and difficulty in using your hands or feet. Paul, who experiences occasional pain, has had to rely on hand controls to drive his car for the past five years, but he notes that he is “one of the relatively fortunate ones” because several members of his support group endure unrelenting pain.

Paul wrote to tell me that several members of his group rely on medical marijuana for pain relief that no other prescription or nonprescription remedies provided. In an effort led by Republican lawmakers, the state legislature in North Carolina has taken up the issue of legalizing the use of medical marijuana.

Although marijuana use is still against federal law, the majority of states have legalized the use of medical marijuana. (A regularly updated list appears here.) In late June, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature held a hearing where they listened to those for and against the state’s legalization of medical marijuana use.

Will Doran of “The News & Observer” in Raleigh reported that “politicians, health professionals, veterans and Christian activists” all weighed in. Bill Rabon, a Republican state senator, sponsored the bill. In the hearing, he referenced his own battles as a cancer survivor and the pain he experienced while undergoing chemotherapy. Of Rabon’s effort to legalize medical marijuana in North Carolina (albeit with far more restrictive parameters than other states), Doran reports that Rabon said: “I owe it to my fellow man. And I think you do, too.”

What got to reader Paul, however, was when some of those expressing opinions at the hearing used “morality” as a reason to thwart the legalization. According to Doran, another Republican state senator at the hearing said, “I do have a number of concerns, morally and otherwise.” Paul said he believed that “relief from severe, nonstop pain trumps the ethical concerns expressed by those opposed” to the bill.

Although it seemed fair for those in attendance to present evidence to support their stance for or against legalizing medical marijuana, Paul does raise a strong and valid point about determining the greater good, which is often a basis for making an ethical choice.

But Paul’s note is also a reminder of how, far too often, people fall back on labeling something “immoral” or “unethical” rather than simply acknowledging they don’t agree with it. In her 1965 essay “On Morality,” Joan Didion observed that “when we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something” but that it is a “moral imperative that we have it,” that is when “we join the fashionable madmen” and that “is when we are in bad trouble.”

For those supporting the legalization of medical marijuana, the right thing is to express their support for it. For those objecting to it, the right thing is to object. About a week after the late June hearing Paul wrote to tell me that a key state senate committee almost unanimously approved the bill. If the bill makes its way through a few more committees in the state Senate, it would then have to pass the state House.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin. 

(c) 2021 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Must we write every recommendation we are asked to write?

Writing recommendations for former colleagues or students can be time consuming. But it sparks a certain amount of joy to put in the time to write a strong recommendation for someone when that person did good work or added value to a class or workplace. If the former student or colleague seems poised to continue their education or accept a job that will enable them to do the kind of work they seem qualified and determined to do, writing a strong, thoughtful recommendation may take time but it never feels like something I wouldn’t gladly do.

I’ve written before about how I find it inappropriate for recommenders to expect their colleagues or former students to write out the recommendation or reference letter and simply have the recommender sign it. No matter how much you might agree with the words the requester wrote, if you agree to write a recommendation, you should write it.

After agreeing to write a recommendation for someone many years ago, the person emailed me a packet of guidance on how to write a strong recommendation. It contained samples of letters written for others by others that had been successful. It also included a checklist of the types of things the receiving organization looked for in a candidate. That kind of guidance might have been overkill, but it didn’t step over any lines. I wrote the letter I would have written without all the guidance from the packet and the person’s application was successful.

But what happens when you’re asked to write a recommendation for someone you barely know or someone about whom you don’t have the highest opinion when it comes to their traits or ability to do the type of thing they are applying to do?

Being asked to write a recommendation letter for someone you barely know is not all that uncommon. A friend of a friend or the child of a friend or a friend of a connection on LinkedIn or a friend of someone you went to school with or some other distant connection may believe that a recommendation letter from you based on your background would make a strong impression. In these cases, if you agree to consider writing a recommendation letter, the right thing to do is to talk with the person or exchange emails and get to know as much about the person as you can that’s relative to what’s being applied for. It would be wrong to exaggerate how well you know the person. Focus instead on the person’s strengths based on what you do know of him, her or them.

If you don’t have the highest opinion of someone and can’t imagine writing a recommendation letter that truly reflects your sense of the person’s abilities, then the right thing is to decline the invitation. Lying to make someone else look good is wrong. Seizing any opportunity to make someone look bad doesn’t show a lot of character unless there is a real possibility that the person might put others in danger by getting a particular job.

Ultimately, while helping people gain an opportunity to do something meaningful or important for themselves can be a satisfying endeavor, if you don’t have time or would prefer not to, just say “no.”

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2021 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Learning to ask the right questions is always the right thing

One of the side benefits of writing an ethics column for the past 23 years is that there is no shortage of people who feel compelled to tell me what to write about. Those who send questions or suggestions about topics are a gift. There are, however, a whole other group of people who simply want me to agree with them about something.

Early on, I used to believe I couldn’t do much with those types of messages. If, for example, a reader wants me to take on a school system for hiring a superintendent who was mean when they were both children, that kind of falls beyond what I try to do. I can try to help a reader sort out the ethics of holding a grudge, but I won’t jump in and take something on simply because someone else doesn’t like it.

If these 15 months of working remotely and conducting a large part of my life online have reminded me of anything, however, it’s the importance of listening closely and trying to ask questions in a way that helps someone express concerns, hopes, dreams in a way that makes things clear to me.

Throughout the pandemic, my wife, Nancy, and I have each worked online. I have taught from my computer upstairs in our home and she has seen clients from her laptop downstairs. We’ve tried to break up the days by getting out for long walks or masked trips to the local market. But mostly, we have been online using various platforms to stay connected to our work. We are each pretty facile with technology, but I have become her de facto IT department.

When Nancy’s screen would freeze or she was having trouble logging on to the logon screen that enabled her to logon to another logon screen, she would ask if I had a minute to help. When I would see she had something open on her screen she couldn’t seem to navigate out of, initially I would ask: “What did you do?”

I learned quickly how wrong a question that was to ask. For me, it was a question to get at how she ended up at the screen she was on. What she heard in my question was a suggestion she had somehow done something wrong which was never the case. I no longer begin our IT sessions with that question but instead try to get at what she is trying to do to help figure a way to do it. She often figures a solution before I do.

The experience reminded me that listening to people and asking them questions in a way that gets at what matters without sounding accusatory or judgmental is the right thing to do. That reminder caused me to be far more patient with those who write in to tell me I should believe as they do as opposed to asking me how I might believe. By asking them what it is that troubles them about an issue I’ve found that our conversation often leads to something fruitful even if we end up disagreeing.

If we can find a way to talk with and listen to one another, then disagreeing is OK. Not listening is not.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com. 

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin. 

(c) 2021 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Should you let your kids win at games?

My youngest grandson Lucas is a gifted athlete. I am not.

Throughout grade school and high school, Lucas was a competitive gymnast and played on his school’s soccer team. While he wasn’t a huge fan of football, basketball or baseball, whenever he engaged in a pickup game his skills were clear from the start.

Table tennis, however, was a different story.

We had purchased a used ping pong table for our unfinished basement when Lucas was about seven years old. Lucas had never played before but he was game to learn even if he barely could reach over the table. I am not a great player but I’d played occasionally as a kid and could patiently return most volleys.

After I taught Lucas the rules, we’d play often when he visited. He got better, but each time he lost. The consistent losses went on for several years, but Lucas never stopped wanting to play.

I have always been clear with my children and grandchildren that I won’t let them win at games. Sometimes I might play harder than others, but that has more to do with my level of energy. I’m not a cutthroat player at most things and I try not to be a jerk about winning. I also make sure to encourage the kids by observing how much better they are getting and to remind them of the importance of playing fairly.

But after four or more years of never losing a ping-pong game to Lucas, I began to wonder if it was wrong not to let him win just to boost his confidence. Sure, we’d start over after I was up 13 points to nothing. Or I’d give him an occasional do-over when he’d mistakenly hit the ball with his hand rather than the paddle, but I never let him win.

Like most kids, Lucas doesn’t like to lose. But he never gave up and never lost interest in playing in spite of years of losing.

Sometime after Lucas turned 13, he won his first game of ping pong against me. The next time, he won two games. Each time we played after that he’d win more and more games. He’s still never shut me out in a game, but it’s become a struggle for me to win at least one game over the course of a weekend.

I am not a child psychologist. I don’t know if experts in child development will tell you that letting a child occasionally win at a game even when they lose is somehow good for the child. But I can tell you that even today, being honest with Lucas about how I wasn’t going to let him win still feels like the right thing to have done. It was and remains a chance to model honesty.

Lucas was thrilled when he won his first game of ping pong against me partly because he knew he had worked hard and really won. He learned the importance of patience and persistence.

Lucas just turned 20. Last weekend, I took the first game of ping pong and he won the next two.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com. 

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin. 

(c) 2021 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

If you want to avoid public gatherings, just stay home

As more people become vaccinated against COVID-19 and restrictions on group gatherings are lifted, more invitations have been arriving in my inbox for in-person meet-ups or events. Some of these are for small gatherings. Others are for larger gatherings. Almost all assure me that others in attendance will be fully vaccinated.

After 15 months of working, occasionally socializing, and, more often than I'd have liked, mourning virtually, you might think I'd jump at the chance to be among others in person. But I find myself leaning into my inner Bartleby whose famous refrain in Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" was "I'd prefer not to."

I also find myself regularly asked by readers and others if it's wrong to simply tell someone you'd rather not join them even if you've enjoyed their company in the past because, well, you really don't want to.

Some of my reticence to return to the active in-person social or professional life I'd had in the past is simply a matter of time. While working remotely may have saved me hours of commuting time, shifting to a virtual world has consumed far more hours of preparation, scheduling, and accommodating the varying time zones of those with whom I work. If I were to travel to attend and spend time at in-person events that would take away from the time still needed to complete many tasks already in front of me. I joke with others that this is a space-time continuum challenge. OK, it's not really a joke.

But my real reluctance for grasping at every kind invitation is that, after a year of going full tilt on Zoom, Skype or cell phones or other electronic means of connecting, I simply want to cherish as many moments of silence as possible whether these involve long-put-off repair jobs around the house or finishing reading the pile of books stacked on my bedside table.

In 1992, when I was an editor at a magazine in Boston, I was charged with lining up new regular columnists. One of the writers I tried to entice was the poet, novelist and essayist Wendell Berry. I'd been a fan of his work and while it was a longshot he'd ever respond let alone agree to become a columnist. Still, I wrote to him with the invitation to consider.

Much to my surprise, he responded with a handwritten note on a pre-printed card. The note indicated that he already had as much work on hand as he could hope to do but he expressed gratitude for my kind request. The pre-printed part of his card contained a poem he had written to send to the many people who request he do any number of things including reviewing manuscripts, appearing on TV, giving professional advice, giving a public speech and interpreting Scripture.

"I'm almost not doing anything that can't be done at home," Berry wrote toward the end of his poem. "To your health, Friend! Try staying home yourself."

When faced with an invitation to a personal gathering after 15 months of adapting to a life of virtual connectivity, the right thing is to respond honestly and simply decline if you'd prefer not to go. I cherish the moments now that I get to stay home especially now that I don't have to. 

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com. 

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin. 

(c) 2021 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.