As the president of a major university one of your responsibilities is to monitor and facilitate student organizations functioning on your campus. One of the stated goals of the university is to actively promote diversity in the student body, faculty, and in the overall student experience. One hallmark of this goal is to allow competing voices to be heard on campus via the faculty, student body and the frequent speakers that certain student groups invite to campus. The university has a long history of meeting this goal and you have continued this throughout your tenure. There are currently a number of student groups that have become more active since the last presidential election both in favor of and in protest of the current administration. One student group has been holding rallies, debates and is now attracting some high profile speakers who wish to come to your campus to speak in support of the group’s work. There are a number of students and faculty who vehemently disagree with this group’s position on a number of issues, claiming that the group’s positions are unnecessarily divisive, polarizing and at times are seen to be at the far extreme of social norms. This group has requested permission to use the school’s main indoor arena as it has secured a nationally recognized figure to come and speak to the group and many members of the community. The group knows that this individual raises a number of unpopular points on many issues and often draws as many protestors as supporters. Their views can be seen as alienating many of the students on campus, as well as some of the faculty, and other members of the community at large. Competing student groups have implied that should this figure speak on campus their activism will kick into high gear and they will organize as big a protest as possible from students, faculty and other members of the community at large. Many students have publicly stated that they will do anything in their power to prevent this individual from speaking on campus and some have even threatened civil disobedience protests, withdrawal from the university and even violence. The students involved with the group requesting to host the nation figure have also indicated that should they be denied the opportunity to host the speaker they will protest as well. You are the final arbiter of this issue and the decision rests with you to either grant the organization’s request or to deny it. You know that your decision will have far reaching consequences including potential faculty retention and recruitment, student recruitment, alumni relations and the university’s overall reputation. What will you do? Grant or deny their request? Use one of the four major ethical constructs (Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory) to support your answer. THOROUGHLY analyze your decision explaining the construct you choose, the factors that contributed to your decision, any potential pitfalls that your decision may create. Use the facts given and explain what information may be lacking in order to fully answer the question. Make any inferences you need to effectively answer the question. Be sure to show why and how that construct supports your decision
Application of Kantianism in Decision Making
It is common to have different factions holding different stance regarding various issues, including the need to host the national figure and those that condemn the move, citing actions such as civil disobedience or worse, violence, in case their stance is ignored. This compels the president to embrace critical thinking that includes in-depth analysis of the motivations, consequences and options, the actions they yield and decide whether to grant or deny the request. As the decision-maker, I will employ Kantianism to justify the need to grant the request to host the national figure in the indoor arena.
Kantian ethics primarily advocates for morality as an ability humans possess to reason logically. As the president, I will argue based on Kant’s ethics which entails compelling the students to embrace their actions, practices, or choice, and hope they yield intended and desirable results in case the opposing faction wishes to host a national figure that conforms to their ideologies. The theory holds that determining if indeed both student factions’ stance is morally right is important. It further holds that every person should be morally equal under the rationality approach. The argument deviates from what the students want to do to what they out to embrace, which, in this case, is tolerance for diverse opinions and stance on nation figure. He implies that it is normal to hold different opinions; however, rationality, goodwill, and morality should be employed to determine what they ought to do (Bowen 193). Based on Kant’s categorical imperative, the students should embrace logical soundness and embrace respect for each factions’ stance as rational beings.
The university champions for diversity, which compels the faculty to tolerate competing student voices. The institution has a long history of observing the aforementioned, which implies that regardless of the stance, including pro or anti-current administration, it has to promote diverse opinions, and the meetings will go on as scheduled and in accordance with the institution’s policies for such. The Kantian theory is relevant as it does not focus on the consequences of the impending actions; rather it covers, the motivation, which is intolerance to controversial national figures. This implies that the theory is highly deontological and does not advocate for the right outcomes; instead, the focus is on the right actions, which in this case, would be increasing tolerance to diversity. The theory’s strengths, including autonomy and universality, indicates that they are morally right, irrespective of the differences, including culture. Kant’s theory is ethically applicable as it observes the rules of respect and universality (Bjorndahl et al. 4). In this case, the focus is on upholding the importance of both factions, championing their wellbeing, and depicting behaviors and decisions that are deemed appropriate throughout, irrespective of the group diversity.
The decision to grant the students the permission to use the indoor arena aligns with Kant’s theory which holds that people deserve mutual respect and at the same time should refrain from exploiting other group’s course as a way to realize their own. Notably, the theory has some shortcomings. It disregards the consequences in favor of the motivation. The students have threatened to use every possible means to stop the other factions’ function, which the decision process will ignore, thus exposing the arbiter and university to impeded alumni relations and institutional reputation. Also, the theory is often abstract and does not offer room to choose from multiple ethical values. Lastly, in most cases, a single maxim cannot handle a situation, and the theory does not tolerate disregard for moral laws.
Works Cited
Bjorndahl, Adam, London, Alex J., and Kevin JS Zollman. “Kantian decision making under uncertainty: dignity, price, and consistency.” Philosopher’s Imprint, vol. 17, no. 7, 2017: 1-21.
Bowen, Shannon, A. “A practical model for ethical decision making in issues management and public relations.” Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 17, no. 3, 2005: 191-216.
