During the recent snowstorm that blanketed the northeastern United States, I found myself stuck at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. A fellow strandee was busily tapping into his e-mail, downloading files from the Internet and generally having a grand old time with his laptop computer. He told me that O'Hare had allowed him to pay $6.95 for the day to log onto its wireless network, allowing him to stay connected while in the airport.
Increasingly coffee shops, restaurants and other establishments are also offering wi-fi access on a pay-as-you-go basis. Some communities even have set up free wi-fi-access areas for their residents.
But what happens when, for example, you find that a neighbor has set up a wi-fi connection for her own use or a college has set up one for its students, but they've failed to secure it from other users logging in?
Recently several readers have written to ask me if it's OK for them to use an unsecured wi-fi access point to connect to the Internet if they haven't been granted formal permission to do so.
One reader in Fullerton, Calif., writes that his hometown offers free access, only asking residents to answer a few questions online and to provide their e-mail addresses. But what about other communities that don't ask for any information and "let you in without restriction?"
Another reader, from Columbus, Ohio, visited his mother recently. She had only a very slow dial-up Internet access, but the son found that one of her neighbors had a high-speed wireless connection.
"I find it quite easy to log in and gain Internet access," he writes."As I see it, I am not really stealing anything. As long as I am limiting my use to standard e-mail or Web access, I am not using enough bandwidth to degrade her own Internet activity, so no harm done, right?"
Most institutions or individuals who establish wireless Internet connections know how to set them up so that a login and password are required for access. If they decide not to do this, then the connection is open for anyone in range to use.
While I suppose that an argument could be made that you should never use what you don't pay for, I don't believe that this would apply here -- and I'm not even sure that I agree with the broad sentiment. Unless it is made clear to users tapping into wireless connections that they must agree to certain conditions before proceeding, they have not breached any ethical mandate by logging on in any way that they legally can.
The right thing would be for those who set up wireless connections and want to keep them private to take the time to do so. If you're a piggybacking user and can identify the individual to whom the connection belongs, it would be courteous but not essential to let that person know that you and presumably others are able to enjoy their wireless largesse.
But the responsibility for deciding whether others should be able to tap into a given access belongs squarely on the shoulders of whoever is setting up the original connection.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
I WANT FREE STUFF TOO
I asked readers if companies are being unfair to existing customers when they offer discounts and special deals that are limited to prospective new customers.
If they think it's unfair, I added, would it be wrong for long-term customers to cancel their service -- if they can do so without incurring penalties -- and then re-up to take advantage of offers made to newcomers?
"I understand why companies market to the new consumer," writes Carol Bobke of Mission Viejo, Calif., "but I still don't think it's fair. Why should new customers get great deals and giveaways when there is no reward for loyalty?"
Bobke also doesn't see anything wrong with an existing customer canceling a service only to sign up again to receive the perks.
"It's business," she writes.
Mark Jones of Huntington Beach, Calif., has contacted companies with which he's done business in the past to see if they'd offer him the same discounts they were offering new customers. Some readily agreed to, he writes, while others were "steadfastly against" it.
"Since it is a free economy," Jones writes, "you can guess how I exercised my freedom of choices."
Post your own opinion by clicking on "comments" below.
If they think it's unfair, I added, would it be wrong for long-term customers to cancel their service -- if they can do so without incurring penalties -- and then re-up to take advantage of offers made to newcomers?
"I understand why companies market to the new consumer," writes Carol Bobke of Mission Viejo, Calif., "but I still don't think it's fair. Why should new customers get great deals and giveaways when there is no reward for loyalty?"
Bobke also doesn't see anything wrong with an existing customer canceling a service only to sign up again to receive the perks.
"It's business," she writes.
Mark Jones of Huntington Beach, Calif., has contacted companies with which he's done business in the past to see if they'd offer him the same discounts they were offering new customers. Some readily agreed to, he writes, while others were "steadfastly against" it.
"Since it is a free economy," Jones writes, "you can guess how I exercised my freedom of choices."
Post your own opinion by clicking on "comments" below.
Monday, February 20, 2006
MAKING THE LIST
You're a manager in a company, and you're called into a meeting where you and other managers are told that layoffs will take place at the end of the month. A list is circulated with the names of employees to be laid off, including those in your department. You are all told not to inform anyone about the layoffs until two weeks later, when an announcement will be made to the entire company.
When you get back to your office, one of the employees you manage comes in and tells you that he's about to make a down payment on a house. He asks if you know of anything going on at the company that should make him reconsider. You know that his name is on the list of employees to be laid off.
Do you tell him?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on 'COMMENTS' below. Or send your comments to rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
When you get back to your office, one of the employees you manage comes in and tells you that he's about to make a down payment on a house. He asks if you know of anything going on at the company that should make him reconsider. You know that his name is on the list of employees to be laid off.
Do you tell him?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on 'COMMENTS' below. Or send your comments to rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
SECRET IDENTITITES
Lying about your credentials on your resume is wrong, there's little question about that. It's also not very smart.
George C. Deutsch, a 24-year-old NASA public-affairs officer, resigned in early February after Texas A&M University confirmed that he had not graduated from the university with a journalism degree, as he had claimed in his resume -- only the latest evidence of the way such fabrications can backfire. If knowing that lying is wrong weren't enough to convince people not to inflate their credentials, you'd think that the consequences of being caught would be.
But what about when an employee deflates his resume? Is there anything wrong with understating one's credentials?
Several years ago Leesa Dupree of Brea, Calif., hired a financial analyst for a position that required a great deal of repetitive work on weekly and monthly reports. It was a position for which he seemed capable and well-suited.
Shortly after he started, the analyst had an idea about a new line of business for the company. Dupree was not enthusiastic about his idea, but they agreed that he would work up a proposal on his own time and submit it to top management for consideration.
Soon the analyst started missing deadlines, however, and the quality of the reports he turned in was so poor that Dupree had to rewrite several of them. After looking at his time sheets, she realized that he was spending 25 hours a week researching the new-business proposal, which he was supposed to be doing only on his own time.
"It was about this time that I found out that my analyst held a Ph.D in economics," Dupree says. "This had been omitted from his resume because he considered it irrelevant."
When he pitched his new-business idea to top management, she reports, he got a cool reception, and thereafter his performance suffered.
"He wasn't happy," she says, "and I wasn't happy with his work."
Eventually she encouraged him to resign, which he did.
"I probably wouldn't have hired him had I known about his Ph.D," Dupree says, "at least not without some discussion of whether he would be happy with the nature of his job."
Was he justified in leaving the Ph.D off his resume?
The analyst likely guessed -- correctly, as it turns out -- that, if his resume had included his degree, he would have been pegged as overqualified for the position. But withholding that information prevented his prospective employer from accurately gauging what kind of fit he might bein the organization. It wasn't an outright lie, but he certainly wasn't as forthcoming as any employer would want a job candidate to be.
If he left that credential off his resume in hope of gaining a foothold in the company, even in a job he didn't really want, he was misleading hisemployer. Sure, advancing in a company is a good goal, but most of us accept that advancement requires excelling at the job we're hired to do.
The right thing would have been for him to include the Ph.D on his resume. If during his job interview Dupree had questioned whether the job could hold his interest, he could have made the case that it would. If he couldn't convince her, or himself, then it was likely not the right job for him.
George C. Deutsch, a 24-year-old NASA public-affairs officer, resigned in early February after Texas A&M University confirmed that he had not graduated from the university with a journalism degree, as he had claimed in his resume -- only the latest evidence of the way such fabrications can backfire. If knowing that lying is wrong weren't enough to convince people not to inflate their credentials, you'd think that the consequences of being caught would be.
But what about when an employee deflates his resume? Is there anything wrong with understating one's credentials?
Several years ago Leesa Dupree of Brea, Calif., hired a financial analyst for a position that required a great deal of repetitive work on weekly and monthly reports. It was a position for which he seemed capable and well-suited.
Shortly after he started, the analyst had an idea about a new line of business for the company. Dupree was not enthusiastic about his idea, but they agreed that he would work up a proposal on his own time and submit it to top management for consideration.
Soon the analyst started missing deadlines, however, and the quality of the reports he turned in was so poor that Dupree had to rewrite several of them. After looking at his time sheets, she realized that he was spending 25 hours a week researching the new-business proposal, which he was supposed to be doing only on his own time.
"It was about this time that I found out that my analyst held a Ph.D in economics," Dupree says. "This had been omitted from his resume because he considered it irrelevant."
When he pitched his new-business idea to top management, she reports, he got a cool reception, and thereafter his performance suffered.
"He wasn't happy," she says, "and I wasn't happy with his work."
Eventually she encouraged him to resign, which he did.
"I probably wouldn't have hired him had I known about his Ph.D," Dupree says, "at least not without some discussion of whether he would be happy with the nature of his job."
Was he justified in leaving the Ph.D off his resume?
The analyst likely guessed -- correctly, as it turns out -- that, if his resume had included his degree, he would have been pegged as overqualified for the position. But withholding that information prevented his prospective employer from accurately gauging what kind of fit he might bein the organization. It wasn't an outright lie, but he certainly wasn't as forthcoming as any employer would want a job candidate to be.
If he left that credential off his resume in hope of gaining a foothold in the company, even in a job he didn't really want, he was misleading hisemployer. Sure, advancing in a company is a good goal, but most of us accept that advancement requires excelling at the job we're hired to do.
The right thing would have been for him to include the Ph.D on his resume. If during his job interview Dupree had questioned whether the job could hold his interest, he could have made the case that it would. If he couldn't convince her, or himself, then it was likely not the right job for him.
Monday, February 13, 2006
UP IN THE AIR
A reader from Naperville, Ill., was planning a trip, with her son and husband, to visit her mother-in-law in Las Vegas. They had a "standby" buddy pass, and decided to offer it to their 22-year-old nephew.
They made sure that he understood that his flight would be on a standby basis: If he didn't get onto the flight the others were on, he could get onto the next flight that had open seats available. The nephew would stay with them at their hotel in Las Vegas, so he needed money only for gambling and personal expenses.
As anticipated, the nephew wasn't able to get a seat on the same plane to Las Vegas. He got the last seat on the next flight, however, and met his relatives at the hotel.
Things didn't go as smoothly on the trip home. Again the nephew wasn't able to get on the same flight as his relatives, but this time, when they called him after getting off the plane back home, they found that he was about to miss out on a third flight that day.
"We gave him a list of instructions and our standard `be patient and flexible,"' my reader says.
She also gave him the telephone number of her mother-in-law, who had offered to put him up overnight if necessary. The nephew didn't seem put out, and told her that he had no place that he needed to be the following day.
While they were still on their way home from the airport, however, they got an irate telephone call from their nephew's father.
"He tore into us for leaving his son behind and alone in Las Vegas," my reader says. "When we got home we bought a regular ticket for my nephew, picked him up from the airport when he arrived and dropped him off at his parents' empty house."
Others to whom they've given these standby tickets also have experienced "nightmare trips," she concedes, but she's never been chewed out this way before.
Her question: "Did we act in an unethical, immoral, misleading or just plain wrongheaded way in offering our nephew a standby buddy pass while we traveled with a reservation?"
Of course not. A gift is a gift, so long as any drawbacks involved are made clear, and my reader obviously laid out the risks to the nephew well in advance. When all is said and done, the nephew got a free trip to Las Vegas and, whether or not his father feels otherwise, he's got nothing to complain about.
His father's reaction was out of line. Any good father is going to be worried about his son, regardless of age, but a 22-year-old is no child. He's entitled to make decisions for himself, including accepting a free plane ticket with the understanding that doing so might involve considerable inconvenience.
The father can question his son's judgment in accepting the offer, but he's got no right to chastise the person who gave his son the gift, simply because his son's standby didn't go smoothly. That risk is intrinsic in flying standby, and my reader had made clear the conditions of her travel offer, the restrictions of the ticket and the risks involved. That was the extent of her obligation, and even so her gift was a generous one.
When she learned how upset her nephew's father was, my reader even bought her nephew a ticket home out of her own pocket. This was above and beyond any reasonable expectation, and is further evidence of how generous a family member she is.
They made sure that he understood that his flight would be on a standby basis: If he didn't get onto the flight the others were on, he could get onto the next flight that had open seats available. The nephew would stay with them at their hotel in Las Vegas, so he needed money only for gambling and personal expenses.
As anticipated, the nephew wasn't able to get a seat on the same plane to Las Vegas. He got the last seat on the next flight, however, and met his relatives at the hotel.
Things didn't go as smoothly on the trip home. Again the nephew wasn't able to get on the same flight as his relatives, but this time, when they called him after getting off the plane back home, they found that he was about to miss out on a third flight that day.
"We gave him a list of instructions and our standard `be patient and flexible,"' my reader says.
She also gave him the telephone number of her mother-in-law, who had offered to put him up overnight if necessary. The nephew didn't seem put out, and told her that he had no place that he needed to be the following day.
While they were still on their way home from the airport, however, they got an irate telephone call from their nephew's father.
"He tore into us for leaving his son behind and alone in Las Vegas," my reader says. "When we got home we bought a regular ticket for my nephew, picked him up from the airport when he arrived and dropped him off at his parents' empty house."
Others to whom they've given these standby tickets also have experienced "nightmare trips," she concedes, but she's never been chewed out this way before.
Her question: "Did we act in an unethical, immoral, misleading or just plain wrongheaded way in offering our nephew a standby buddy pass while we traveled with a reservation?"
Of course not. A gift is a gift, so long as any drawbacks involved are made clear, and my reader obviously laid out the risks to the nephew well in advance. When all is said and done, the nephew got a free trip to Las Vegas and, whether or not his father feels otherwise, he's got nothing to complain about.
His father's reaction was out of line. Any good father is going to be worried about his son, regardless of age, but a 22-year-old is no child. He's entitled to make decisions for himself, including accepting a free plane ticket with the understanding that doing so might involve considerable inconvenience.
The father can question his son's judgment in accepting the offer, but he's got no right to chastise the person who gave his son the gift, simply because his son's standby didn't go smoothly. That risk is intrinsic in flying standby, and my reader had made clear the conditions of her travel offer, the restrictions of the ticket and the risks involved. That was the extent of her obligation, and even so her gift was a generous one.
When she learned how upset her nephew's father was, my reader even bought her nephew a ticket home out of her own pocket. This was above and beyond any reasonable expectation, and is further evidence of how generous a family member she is.
OPEN SEASON ON BLOGS
My readers were of one mind in concluding that anything a child posts on a public blog is fair game for teachers, parents or others to read.
"There is no expectation of privacy in a public forum," writes Alan Sechrest of Mission Viejo, Calif.
Kevin Eav of Irvine, Calif., likens blogs to the whiteboards posted on dorm-room doors. "If someone reads a blog and learns something that the blogger didn't want them to," Eav writes, "then that is the fault of the blogger."
"Of course parents and teachers should be able to read these blogs,"writes Jamie Thomas of Costa Mesa, Calif. "Maybe kids would relearn the sense of modesty that seems to be lacking from today's `Net' generation."
After hearing from students about their pages at www.myspace.com, Kelly Yarborough, a teacher from Cypress, Calif., checked out their sites...and told them about it the next day. "If they had asked me not to return," she writes, "I would have abided by their requests."
Beth Houghton of Cypress, Calif., thinks that most bloggers understand that their postings are available even to their near and dear, even if some young people think otherwise. "Only the standard-issue arrogant kid could think that he or she can make public their most intimate thoughts/urges/musings or practices to the entire world and everyone but the parents is invited to read," Houghton fumes. "What insolence!"
Post your own thoughts on the topic below by clicking on "Comments." Please include your name, hometown and state in your response or email them to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
"There is no expectation of privacy in a public forum," writes Alan Sechrest of Mission Viejo, Calif.
Kevin Eav of Irvine, Calif., likens blogs to the whiteboards posted on dorm-room doors. "If someone reads a blog and learns something that the blogger didn't want them to," Eav writes, "then that is the fault of the blogger."
"Of course parents and teachers should be able to read these blogs,"writes Jamie Thomas of Costa Mesa, Calif. "Maybe kids would relearn the sense of modesty that seems to be lacking from today's `Net' generation."
After hearing from students about their pages at www.myspace.com, Kelly Yarborough, a teacher from Cypress, Calif., checked out their sites...and told them about it the next day. "If they had asked me not to return," she writes, "I would have abided by their requests."
Beth Houghton of Cypress, Calif., thinks that most bloggers understand that their postings are available even to their near and dear, even if some young people think otherwise. "Only the standard-issue arrogant kid could think that he or she can make public their most intimate thoughts/urges/musings or practices to the entire world and everyone but the parents is invited to read," Houghton fumes. "What insolence!"
Post your own thoughts on the topic below by clicking on "Comments." Please include your name, hometown and state in your response or email them to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
A KISS IS JUST A KISS?
In a recent episode of the television series "Lost," one of the characters, a surgeon named Jack, is shown in a flashback scene. The flashback finds him in a hospital parking lot with the daughter of a patient he has operated on. The daughter moves in and plants a substantial kiss on Jack's lips. After a moment Jack pulls away, even though he appears to enjoy the kiss, and tells her that this is wrong and cannot happen.
When he gets home that evening, Jack is shown in the kitchen with his wife. Given that he rejected the attentions of his patient's daughter, should he tell his wife about her advance?
Post your thoughts below by clicking on "COMMENTS" or send them to rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
When he gets home that evening, Jack is shown in the kitchen with his wife. Given that he rejected the attentions of his patient's daughter, should he tell his wife about her advance?
Post your thoughts below by clicking on "COMMENTS" or send them to rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
ARE YOU WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE?
About 25 years ago I went on a double date with a stripper. The stripper wasn't my date -- she was the across-the-hall neighbor of a female friend whom I was taking to see a play called "The Shadow Box." The stripper and her date joined us.
The stripper went by the stage name of Princess Cheyenne and, at the time, was a fairly well-known personality in Boston. I occasionally would read about her in the newspaper thereafter, but sometime around the mid-1980s she seemed to disappear from the scene.
Now she is back in the news. In October The Boston Globe reported that Lucy Wightman, the former Princess Cheyenne, had been "indicted on 26 counts of felony larceny, six counts of filing false health-care claims, six counts of insurance fraud and one count of practicing psychology without a license."
Wightman allegedly had passed herself off as a licensed psychologist, when in reality she had only a master's degree in counseling psychology and had never earned a Ph.D in psychology from any accredited institution, though she had purchased a Ph.D online.
Genuine psychologists, believing Wightman to be licensed, had referred patients to her. Some parents had taken their children to her for neuropsychological evaluations that Wightman was neither trained nor licensed to administer.
The Wightman incident -- her indictment, not my double-date with her -- created quite a stir in my household. My wife, a licensed therapist who earned the same master's degree that Wightman did, wondered what responsibility lay with the professionals who had referred patients to Wightman. Weren't they obligated to make sure that she had the credentials that she said or implied that she had?
Presumably the referrers didn't knowingly recommend an unlicensed practitioner -- if they had, they too would be in a heap of trouble -- but, even if they had no legal requirement to check out Wightman's credentials, didn't they have an ethical responsibility to make sure that she was on the up and up before sending patients to her? It's a question that reaches beyond the medical arena. Do we have an obligation to make sure that people are not faking their credentials when we're involved in recommending them or hiring them to do a job? If you're leading a search for a new employee, for example, and if no one else has verified the information on a promising candidate's resume, should you place a few calls to former employers or educators to confirm the information?
I would argue that, because of your responsibility to the company and to other employees, you should make those calls. It's not that I'm cynical and believe that most people provide false information, it's simply that checking out a candidate as thoroughly as possible should be a routine part of screening him or her for a job. If you're accepting anything he or she says at face value, you're failing to fulfill the basic idea of a screening.
In the Wightman case, the right thing would have been for the referrers to make sure that she -- and any other professional they recommended -- was qualified and licensed to do the work. While it might take extra work to check someone's credentials, mental health is too critical an issue to take anybody's expertise for granted.
There are times when, regardless of our efforts to check out someone's credentials, we are going to be duped by a clever hoaxster. Nonetheless we owe it to the people who might fall prey to such posers to make every effort to make it as difficult as possible for any deception to succeed.
c.2006 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
The stripper went by the stage name of Princess Cheyenne and, at the time, was a fairly well-known personality in Boston. I occasionally would read about her in the newspaper thereafter, but sometime around the mid-1980s she seemed to disappear from the scene.
Now she is back in the news. In October The Boston Globe reported that Lucy Wightman, the former Princess Cheyenne, had been "indicted on 26 counts of felony larceny, six counts of filing false health-care claims, six counts of insurance fraud and one count of practicing psychology without a license."
Wightman allegedly had passed herself off as a licensed psychologist, when in reality she had only a master's degree in counseling psychology and had never earned a Ph.D in psychology from any accredited institution, though she had purchased a Ph.D online.
Genuine psychologists, believing Wightman to be licensed, had referred patients to her. Some parents had taken their children to her for neuropsychological evaluations that Wightman was neither trained nor licensed to administer.
The Wightman incident -- her indictment, not my double-date with her -- created quite a stir in my household. My wife, a licensed therapist who earned the same master's degree that Wightman did, wondered what responsibility lay with the professionals who had referred patients to Wightman. Weren't they obligated to make sure that she had the credentials that she said or implied that she had?
Presumably the referrers didn't knowingly recommend an unlicensed practitioner -- if they had, they too would be in a heap of trouble -- but, even if they had no legal requirement to check out Wightman's credentials, didn't they have an ethical responsibility to make sure that she was on the up and up before sending patients to her? It's a question that reaches beyond the medical arena. Do we have an obligation to make sure that people are not faking their credentials when we're involved in recommending them or hiring them to do a job? If you're leading a search for a new employee, for example, and if no one else has verified the information on a promising candidate's resume, should you place a few calls to former employers or educators to confirm the information?
I would argue that, because of your responsibility to the company and to other employees, you should make those calls. It's not that I'm cynical and believe that most people provide false information, it's simply that checking out a candidate as thoroughly as possible should be a routine part of screening him or her for a job. If you're accepting anything he or she says at face value, you're failing to fulfill the basic idea of a screening.
In the Wightman case, the right thing would have been for the referrers to make sure that she -- and any other professional they recommended -- was qualified and licensed to do the work. While it might take extra work to check someone's credentials, mental health is too critical an issue to take anybody's expertise for granted.
There are times when, regardless of our efforts to check out someone's credentials, we are going to be duped by a clever hoaxster. Nonetheless we owe it to the people who might fall prey to such posers to make every effort to make it as difficult as possible for any deception to succeed.
c.2006 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, January 29, 2006
OPRAH'S SORRY; BOOK SALES SOAR
Eric Deggans, a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, has had an uncanny knack of predicting what the next developments will be in the James Frey/Oprah Winfrey incident. You can read his columns at http://www.sptimes.com/columns/deggans.shtml.
Today, his column looks at Oprah's apology for defending Frey. It's at http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Worldandnation/Need_to_say__I_m_sorr.shtml.
In it, he cites me:
"Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College who also writes a column on ethics for the New York Times Syndicate, noted that Winfrey had little to lose by admitting her mistake. Other celebrities in hot water, such as Clinton and Enron founder Kenneth Lay, faced everything from impeachment to prison time.
"'Oprah had everything to gain because it's in keeping with her image as someone in touch with her feelings who can show she's human,' he said. 'She was able to gather together all the people involved and say I was wrong and here's the guy who made me wrong. So, of course, one of the other lessons, is that you don't (mess) with Oprah.'"
He also continues the discussion on his blog at http://www.sptimes.com/blogs/media/, where he features "Other Voices Talking About Frey and Oprah." There, I say: "This guy Frey is very smart and (the show) oddly puts him in the position of being a victim, again. Basically, it was Oprah and...everybody else just piling on. And he just sat there and took it as smartly as you can do it. And meanwhile, his books keep selling...But, on a positive note, 20 years ago, nobody probably would have called his book into question. So one of the questions left is: Are the lies worse than ever before, or are we just catching people more now?''
Meanwhile, Frey's books continue to sell very, very well.
Today, his column looks at Oprah's apology for defending Frey. It's at http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/Worldandnation/Need_to_say__I_m_sorr.shtml.
In it, he cites me:
"Jeffrey Seglin, a professor at Emerson College who also writes a column on ethics for the New York Times Syndicate, noted that Winfrey had little to lose by admitting her mistake. Other celebrities in hot water, such as Clinton and Enron founder Kenneth Lay, faced everything from impeachment to prison time.
"'Oprah had everything to gain because it's in keeping with her image as someone in touch with her feelings who can show she's human,' he said. 'She was able to gather together all the people involved and say I was wrong and here's the guy who made me wrong. So, of course, one of the other lessons, is that you don't (mess) with Oprah.'"
He also continues the discussion on his blog at http://www.sptimes.com/blogs/media/, where he features "Other Voices Talking About Frey and Oprah." There, I say: "This guy Frey is very smart and (the show) oddly puts him in the position of being a victim, again. Basically, it was Oprah and...everybody else just piling on. And he just sat there and took it as smartly as you can do it. And meanwhile, his books keep selling...But, on a positive note, 20 years ago, nobody probably would have called his book into question. So one of the questions left is: Are the lies worse than ever before, or are we just catching people more now?''
Meanwhile, Frey's books continue to sell very, very well.
WHO'S STEALING MY TRASH?
Early on Friday mornings in my neighborhood, I can hear the rickety wheels of an old supermarket shopping cart making their way up the street. The guy pushing it stops to check the recycling bins in our yards for cans and bottles that have refundable deposits and, as he finds them, adds them to his cart.
If I were more industrious, I suppose, I would take the returnables to the redemption center myself. But as long as I separate them out, I know that they will either be recycled by the city or be collected by this fellow. It's an arrangement with which I've grown to live very happily.
I have never seen anything wrong with the neighborhood collector taking the cans that were meant for the city's recycling program. But a recent letter from a reader in Columbus, Ohio, has made me wonder whether it matters where actions such as those of my neighborhood collector take place.
The reader writes that his local Home Depot has recycling bins outside the store for public use. He's noticed that, whenever he brings stuff to deposit in the bins, an older man climbs into the bins to collect aluminum cans.
"He does not speak English," the reader says, "but he checks the stuff you are tossing into the bins to see if he can use any of it. He has amassed about 15 30-gallon bags, and keeps them piled next to a runoff pond."
My reader figures that the guy probably needs the money, but wants to know if he should call the company number listed on the side of the bin and report the man, or whether he should let it go. If he lets it go, he wants to know if he should "offer to help by collecting the bags and take them to a venue that pays for the cans."
It's no more wrong for this guy to be collecting returnable cans from these recycling bins than it is for my neighborhood collector to take them from the bin in my yard. In both cases, the key is where the bins sit.
On Home Depot property, the store managers have a perfect right to ask the collector not to go through the bins, the same way it would be fine for me to ask my neighborhood guy not to mess with the empties on my property. But Home Depot doesn't seem to mind, any more than I do, so there's no ethical reason to turn in the guy to the authorities.
So long as they don't leave trash strewn about, the same thing goes for collectors who cull public waste baskets to collect empty cans -- possibly more so, in fact, because the cans they retrieve would otherwise go unrecycled.
If I were planning to turn in those cans for the deposits, or if Home Depot were planning to do so, then the collectors would be cheating us of that money. But since neither of us plans to collect the deposits, there's no reason not to let the collectors claim them. Either way, the cans and bottles will get recycled. If collectors are willing to go to such an effort to supplement their income, I see no harm in it.
Since my reader sees recycling as a worthy effort -- I agree -- the right thing would be for him to continue to bring his goods to drop off in the recycling bins at Home Depot. As for helping the older gentleman by offering to drive him and his garbage bags full of cans to someplace where he can redeem them, that would be going the extra mile. There's no ethical obligation for him to offer such help, but there's certainly nothing to stop him from doing so.
If I were more industrious, I suppose, I would take the returnables to the redemption center myself. But as long as I separate them out, I know that they will either be recycled by the city or be collected by this fellow. It's an arrangement with which I've grown to live very happily.
I have never seen anything wrong with the neighborhood collector taking the cans that were meant for the city's recycling program. But a recent letter from a reader in Columbus, Ohio, has made me wonder whether it matters where actions such as those of my neighborhood collector take place.
The reader writes that his local Home Depot has recycling bins outside the store for public use. He's noticed that, whenever he brings stuff to deposit in the bins, an older man climbs into the bins to collect aluminum cans.
"He does not speak English," the reader says, "but he checks the stuff you are tossing into the bins to see if he can use any of it. He has amassed about 15 30-gallon bags, and keeps them piled next to a runoff pond."
My reader figures that the guy probably needs the money, but wants to know if he should call the company number listed on the side of the bin and report the man, or whether he should let it go. If he lets it go, he wants to know if he should "offer to help by collecting the bags and take them to a venue that pays for the cans."
It's no more wrong for this guy to be collecting returnable cans from these recycling bins than it is for my neighborhood collector to take them from the bin in my yard. In both cases, the key is where the bins sit.
On Home Depot property, the store managers have a perfect right to ask the collector not to go through the bins, the same way it would be fine for me to ask my neighborhood guy not to mess with the empties on my property. But Home Depot doesn't seem to mind, any more than I do, so there's no ethical reason to turn in the guy to the authorities.
So long as they don't leave trash strewn about, the same thing goes for collectors who cull public waste baskets to collect empty cans -- possibly more so, in fact, because the cans they retrieve would otherwise go unrecycled.
If I were planning to turn in those cans for the deposits, or if Home Depot were planning to do so, then the collectors would be cheating us of that money. But since neither of us plans to collect the deposits, there's no reason not to let the collectors claim them. Either way, the cans and bottles will get recycled. If collectors are willing to go to such an effort to supplement their income, I see no harm in it.
Since my reader sees recycling as a worthy effort -- I agree -- the right thing would be for him to continue to bring his goods to drop off in the recycling bins at Home Depot. As for helping the older gentleman by offering to drive him and his garbage bags full of cans to someplace where he can redeem them, that would be going the extra mile. There's no ethical obligation for him to offer such help, but there's certainly nothing to stop him from doing so.
SOUND OFF: O, CHRISTMAS TREE
Without exception, readers who responded to the question of whether it is appropriate to use the word "Christmas" as the official description of the trees and other decorations that adorn public places agreed with Elinor Stein of Cypress, Calif., who called the whole argument "rather silly."
"A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree," writes Veronica Ross of Garden Grove, Calif. "In order to please everyone, the government would have to remove every holiday from the calendars, tell the unions that they would have to renegotiate all contracts to remove all holidays and, in effect, tell the nation that they can't celebrate anything that can't be celebrated with everyone. Pish posh!"
As for the possibility of offending those of other religions, Adam Karp of Irvine, Calif., doesn't see a problem there. "As a Jewish person, I do not have a problem with the term `Christmas tree' being used," Karp writes. "If the capitol put up a `Holiday menorah, 'the Jews would be livid -- it's a `Hannukah menorah' -- and it's aChristmas tree."
Stephanie White of Fountain Valley, Calif., doesn't see the Christmas tree as offensive to anybody. "It is a universal sign of goodness and sharing to everyone," she writes, "except those Scrooges of the world."
Remarkable response given all the brouhaha this past holiday season. Surely, some of you come down squarely on the de-Christmas-ing side of the argument. Post your thoughts here -- whether you disagree with these folks or echo their sentiments.
"A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree," writes Veronica Ross of Garden Grove, Calif. "In order to please everyone, the government would have to remove every holiday from the calendars, tell the unions that they would have to renegotiate all contracts to remove all holidays and, in effect, tell the nation that they can't celebrate anything that can't be celebrated with everyone. Pish posh!"
As for the possibility of offending those of other religions, Adam Karp of Irvine, Calif., doesn't see a problem there. "As a Jewish person, I do not have a problem with the term `Christmas tree' being used," Karp writes. "If the capitol put up a `Holiday menorah, 'the Jews would be livid -- it's a `Hannukah menorah' -- and it's aChristmas tree."
Stephanie White of Fountain Valley, Calif., doesn't see the Christmas tree as offensive to anybody. "It is a universal sign of goodness and sharing to everyone," she writes, "except those Scrooges of the world."
Remarkable response given all the brouhaha this past holiday season. Surely, some of you come down squarely on the de-Christmas-ing side of the argument. Post your thoughts here -- whether you disagree with these folks or echo their sentiments.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
SOUND OFF: SHOULD NEW KIDS GET ALL THE CANDY?
It's not unusual for companies seeking new customers to offer special deals to prospective customers without extending similar offers to existing customers.
Magazine publishers, for example, may offer cheaper rates to first-time subscribers than they do to existing customers. High-speed Internet services may offer several months free to new customers if they sign on for multiple-month contracts.
While commonplace and perfectly legal, such offers strike some long-term customers as overlooking the loyalty they have shown to a company, leaving them paying full freight for goods and services that others get much more cheaply.
Is a company being unfair to existing customers when it offers discount prices that are limited to prospective new customers? Or is this simply a smart way to attract new business? If it's an unfair practice, would it be wrong for long-term customers to cancel their service -- if they can do so without incurring penalties -- and then re-up to take advantage of offers made to newcomers?
Post your thoughts here. Or send them to rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," New York Times Syndicate, 609 Greenwich St., 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10014-3610.
Magazine publishers, for example, may offer cheaper rates to first-time subscribers than they do to existing customers. High-speed Internet services may offer several months free to new customers if they sign on for multiple-month contracts.
While commonplace and perfectly legal, such offers strike some long-term customers as overlooking the loyalty they have shown to a company, leaving them paying full freight for goods and services that others get much more cheaply.
Is a company being unfair to existing customers when it offers discount prices that are limited to prospective new customers? Or is this simply a smart way to attract new business? If it's an unfair practice, would it be wrong for long-term customers to cancel their service -- if they can do so without incurring penalties -- and then re-up to take advantage of offers made to newcomers?
Post your thoughts here. Or send them to rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," New York Times Syndicate, 609 Greenwich St., 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10014-3610.
THIS EXCITING FREE OFFER FOR - SOMEONE ELSE
When Pat Johnson of Tustin, Calif., got a notice in the mail offering a free companion airline ticket if she put $250 on her Bank of America credit card, it sounded like a great opportunity. She was about to pay a $300 veterinary bill with her Discover card, but decided to use her Bank of America card instead.
Then she read the form more closely and realized that the offer was intended not for her but for her granddaughter, who is living with her while attending a nearby university. She called Bank of America to see if she could get the same offer with her own card, but was told that she wasn't eligible for it.
"Could I have my granddaughter pay the veterinarian's bill with her card to get the free airfare," she wondered, "and then I would pay her back?"
Her granddaughter agreed to pay the veterinarian's bill with her card, but Johnson was still stewing over the rights and wrongs of the situation. Eventually, though she thought that getting a free airline ticket "would bevery nice," she decided not to do it.
For Johnson, the whole decision boiled down to one question: Would it be unethical to take advantage of an offer intended for her granddaughter and not for her? She wasn't sure, so she passed up the offer.
It's not uncommon for people to be exposed to attractive offers or opportunities that weren't intended for them. Often it's inappropriate for them to take advantage of those opportunities.
If, for example, a local newspaper's theater reviewer is invited to a preshow gathering for an upcoming play, it would be inappropriate for her to send her teenage son in her place, even if the son happens to be an enormous fan of one of the actors who will be at the gathering.
The reviewer might reasonably transfer the invitation to a newspaper colleague who also covers theater, however. The invitation was extended because of her professional standing, and someone of equivalent standing would be a reasonable substitute. Transferring the offer to a family member who lacked such standing would clearly be inappropriate, however.
In this particular instance, the offer to Johnson's granddaughter was conditioned only on the granddaughter's spending $250 with her credit card.There was no stipulation about what she should spend it on or who would pay for the charge when the bill came due. Credit-card companies generally don't care who pays the bills, as long as they get paid.
Therefore, assuming that the airline placed no restriction on who could be issued the purchased ticket or free companion ticket, there is nothing wrong with Johnson taking advantage of a creative way to cut down on her travel expenses.
Johnson went the extra mile by calling the credit-card issuer to see if she could get the same offer for using her own card. Even if she hadn't, though, and had gone ahead and worked out an arrangement to put the vet's charge on her granddaughter's credit card so as to get the free ticket, no ethical lapse would have occurred.
When contemplating whether to take advantage of an offer originally intended for someone else, the right thing to do is to weigh whether doing so would violate the intention of the offer and result inmisrepresentation. Johnson should have had no reservation in seizing this opportunity.
Post your reactions here or send your thoughts to: rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," New York Times Syndicate, 609 Greenwich St., 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10014-3610.
Then she read the form more closely and realized that the offer was intended not for her but for her granddaughter, who is living with her while attending a nearby university. She called Bank of America to see if she could get the same offer with her own card, but was told that she wasn't eligible for it.
"Could I have my granddaughter pay the veterinarian's bill with her card to get the free airfare," she wondered, "and then I would pay her back?"
Her granddaughter agreed to pay the veterinarian's bill with her card, but Johnson was still stewing over the rights and wrongs of the situation. Eventually, though she thought that getting a free airline ticket "would bevery nice," she decided not to do it.
For Johnson, the whole decision boiled down to one question: Would it be unethical to take advantage of an offer intended for her granddaughter and not for her? She wasn't sure, so she passed up the offer.
It's not uncommon for people to be exposed to attractive offers or opportunities that weren't intended for them. Often it's inappropriate for them to take advantage of those opportunities.
If, for example, a local newspaper's theater reviewer is invited to a preshow gathering for an upcoming play, it would be inappropriate for her to send her teenage son in her place, even if the son happens to be an enormous fan of one of the actors who will be at the gathering.
The reviewer might reasonably transfer the invitation to a newspaper colleague who also covers theater, however. The invitation was extended because of her professional standing, and someone of equivalent standing would be a reasonable substitute. Transferring the offer to a family member who lacked such standing would clearly be inappropriate, however.
In this particular instance, the offer to Johnson's granddaughter was conditioned only on the granddaughter's spending $250 with her credit card.There was no stipulation about what she should spend it on or who would pay for the charge when the bill came due. Credit-card companies generally don't care who pays the bills, as long as they get paid.
Therefore, assuming that the airline placed no restriction on who could be issued the purchased ticket or free companion ticket, there is nothing wrong with Johnson taking advantage of a creative way to cut down on her travel expenses.
Johnson went the extra mile by calling the credit-card issuer to see if she could get the same offer for using her own card. Even if she hadn't, though, and had gone ahead and worked out an arrangement to put the vet's charge on her granddaughter's credit card so as to get the free ticket, no ethical lapse would have occurred.
When contemplating whether to take advantage of an offer originally intended for someone else, the right thing to do is to weigh whether doing so would violate the intention of the offer and result inmisrepresentation. Johnson should have had no reservation in seizing this opportunity.
Post your reactions here or send your thoughts to: rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," New York Times Syndicate, 609 Greenwich St., 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10014-3610.
Friday, January 20, 2006
SOUND OFF: BLOG ON
In the past many young people wrote in personal diaries, but nowadays they are increasingly turning to personal Web logs, or "blogs," to chronicle their innermost feelings. Services such as livejournal.com make it easy for anyone to create a personal space on the Internet in which they can effuse and to which other readers can post comments. Most of these blogs are readable by outsiders, and new search engines such as feedster.com and technorati.com make it easy to seek out particular sites.
Since these blogs are publicly available, is it acceptable for a parent to dip in and read her child's latest entry without letting the blogger know she'll be doing this? How about a teacher? Is it reasonable for him to read up on what his students might be saying?
What do you think? Where does a child's right for privacy end and a parent's or teacher's rightful concern about a child's safety -- or simple curiosity about a child's actions and feelings -- begin?
Send your thoughts to: rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown . Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
Since these blogs are publicly available, is it acceptable for a parent to dip in and read her child's latest entry without letting the blogger know she'll be doing this? How about a teacher? Is it reasonable for him to read up on what his students might be saying?
What do you think? Where does a child's right for privacy end and a parent's or teacher's rightful concern about a child's safety -- or simple curiosity about a child's actions and feelings -- begin?
Send your thoughts to: rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown . Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
WHEN FINDERS AREN'T KEEPERS
Sue Maghy of Fountain Valley, Calif., wants to feel proud of her son for doing the right thing. This past fall, during his first semester at the University of California in San Diego, he found an Ipod nano player and decided to turn it in to the campus police department.
"I'm proud of him," Maghy says, "and feel good that, when he was faced with this decision, he made the right choice."
The problem arose when her son asked whether, if no one claimed the Ipod, he could have it.
"The person in the department made him feel like some criminal for asking," she reports.
Feeling that her efforts to raise her son to make good ethical choices were being called into question, Maghy called the campus police. She was told that, according to departmental policy, if the item wasn't claimed in 90 days it would be sold at auction.
When she asked whether her son could claim the Ipod if the owner didn't come forward, she adds, the department representative made her feel as if this was "all about my financial gain."
"Now," she concludes, "I feel like an unethical, greedy person."
She's neither, of course, and she and her son were both perfectly reasonable in asking about what happens to found goods that aren't claimed.
As it turns out, if her son had found cash, UC/San Diego policy would have been to return it to him if went unclaimed for 90 days. All other found property, however, is sold at auction after 90 days, with the university keeping the proceeds.
This may seem inconsistent, and there are other colleges, including some in the UC system, that return both cash and other found property to their finders after a set amount of time has passed. But that's not the current policy at UC/San Diego, and there's nothing unethical about not returning found objects -- though, of course, there's also nothing unethical about Maghy's questioning that policy.
As is often the case, however, the problem here is not with the policy itself as much as with the university's failure to make the policy clear and available to anyone who has a question. On a quick check of UC/San Diego's Web site, I found only the simply instruction that lost-and-found items should be turned over to the campus police department. It was only after talking with Mary Garcia, who is in charge of records for the university's police department, that I was able to find a Web address where I could read the university's official policy on disposition of those items.
Making a rule transparent and easy to find helps to manage situations such as the one faced by Maghy's son, who ended up feeling bad for having been a good campus citizen. How hard would it have been for the university's "Police Services: Lost and Found" Web page to provide a link to the more detailed campus policy? It would make it simpler for the campus police to field any questions and would have saved Maghy and her son from feeling that their questions were unwelcome and in some way reprehensible.
Garcia tells me that UC/San Diego is now reevaluating its policy to determine whether found property should be treated the same as found cash. Whether or not the policy changes, however, the right thing would be to make the found-object policy clear and easily available to everyone on campus. A policy that people don't know or don't understand is a recipe for misunderstandings and resentment.
Post your thoughts on the column below. Or Send your thoughts to: rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
"I'm proud of him," Maghy says, "and feel good that, when he was faced with this decision, he made the right choice."
The problem arose when her son asked whether, if no one claimed the Ipod, he could have it.
"The person in the department made him feel like some criminal for asking," she reports.
Feeling that her efforts to raise her son to make good ethical choices were being called into question, Maghy called the campus police. She was told that, according to departmental policy, if the item wasn't claimed in 90 days it would be sold at auction.
When she asked whether her son could claim the Ipod if the owner didn't come forward, she adds, the department representative made her feel as if this was "all about my financial gain."
"Now," she concludes, "I feel like an unethical, greedy person."
She's neither, of course, and she and her son were both perfectly reasonable in asking about what happens to found goods that aren't claimed.
As it turns out, if her son had found cash, UC/San Diego policy would have been to return it to him if went unclaimed for 90 days. All other found property, however, is sold at auction after 90 days, with the university keeping the proceeds.
This may seem inconsistent, and there are other colleges, including some in the UC system, that return both cash and other found property to their finders after a set amount of time has passed. But that's not the current policy at UC/San Diego, and there's nothing unethical about not returning found objects -- though, of course, there's also nothing unethical about Maghy's questioning that policy.
As is often the case, however, the problem here is not with the policy itself as much as with the university's failure to make the policy clear and available to anyone who has a question. On a quick check of UC/San Diego's Web site, I found only the simply instruction that lost-and-found items should be turned over to the campus police department. It was only after talking with Mary Garcia, who is in charge of records for the university's police department, that I was able to find a Web address where I could read the university's official policy on disposition of those items.
Making a rule transparent and easy to find helps to manage situations such as the one faced by Maghy's son, who ended up feeling bad for having been a good campus citizen. How hard would it have been for the university's "Police Services: Lost and Found" Web page to provide a link to the more detailed campus policy? It would make it simpler for the campus police to field any questions and would have saved Maghy and her son from feeling that their questions were unwelcome and in some way reprehensible.
Garcia tells me that UC/San Diego is now reevaluating its policy to determine whether found property should be treated the same as found cash. Whether or not the policy changes, however, the right thing would be to make the found-object policy clear and easily available to everyone on campus. A policy that people don't know or don't understand is a recipe for misunderstandings and resentment.
Post your thoughts on the column below. Or Send your thoughts to: rightthing@nytimes.com. Please include your name and your hometown. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)