b. to explore the range of options that would be acceptable to various
groups;
c. to identify any areas of common ground shared by the various positions
on this issue;
d. to gather facts about proposed software solutions, including software
that already exists or could be developed;
e. to gather other useful written background materials;
f. to seek new ways of thinking about the issue or its possible solutions
from, at the least, the key stakeholder groups and business leaders;
g. to develop recommendations about any next steps we saw to move the
issue toward resolution in the county; these will be primarily recommendations
about process.
Independence, Neutrality, and the Markkula Center
The Center was established in 1985 as a non-advocacy organization whose
mission is to raise awareness of ethical issues and to help people on
Santa Clara University's campus and in the community at large devise practical
strategies to resolve the ethical issues they confront. The Center is
comprised of staff with expertise in ethics and technology, health-care,
international human rights, business, and various social and public policy
areas. Some forty faculty from all of SCU's schools serve as elected Scholars
of the Center; a smaller cross-disciplinary group serves as the Center's
Steering Committee to
set policy, with the help of a diverse community Advisory
Board.
Though it is part of a religiously-affiliated institution, the Center
has a long-term policy that it does not take positions on issues, except
to advocate the importance of ethics. The Center does not tell people
what to think; rather it suggests what to think about and how to think
it through. (Of course, because the Center is part of a university committed
to academic freedom in the pursuit of knowledge, individuals affiliated
with the Center are free to hold whatever positions they wish as individuals.)
Though the library hired the Center, its Executive Director, Thomas E.
Shanks, S.J., Ph.D., as the principal investigator, had the sole decision
making authority on individuals to invite to participate, material to
include in the report, and recommendations for next steps. In other words,
in every important respect concerning the process of gathering facts and
opinion, the Center was free to reach its own conclusions independent
of the library or anyone else's position.
Some have raised questions about the appropriateness of involving an
ethics center in this issue. Fundamentally, the philosophical discipline
of ethics presents a set of moral standards that cut across time and culture;
these standards raise questions for us about how we should act and how
we should live as individuals of high character.
In short, at the heart of ethics is a concern for human relationships
of the highest quality and a challenge to us to be everyday the
way we are when we are at our best in relationships. When we find
that positive values are in conflict in a particular decision-making situation,
as we believe they are in this case, ethics is the only hope we have of
reaching a conclusion short of the courts or the ballot box.
Specifically, we refer readers to the method for ethical decision-making
contained in An Approach
to Ethical Decision-Making and Approaching
Ethics (Appendix 3) and Thinking
Ethically (Appendix 4). This method begins by focusing on the facts
of the case; the interests at stake; and the various available actions.
It then asks a set of questions for each option, based on well-grounded
ethical standards; presents criteria for weighing the various options;
and identifies ways to reflect on any action taken. This report focuses
only on the first steps in this model: facts, interests, and available
actions. However, at the end of this report we will suggest that the questions
for making an ethical decision have particular use in this situation.
Back to the Table of Contents or voice
your opinion.
