Dr. Angi Dirks is the chair of the state university’s organizational psychology department, which has four teaching assistants (TAs). Angi has just found out that she has received a grant for research work over the summer and that it includes money to fund one of the TAs as her research assistant. In Angi’s mind, the top two candidates are Roberto and Michelle, who are both available to work over the summer. Roberto, a foreign student from Venezuela, has gotten very high teaching evaluations and is well-liked by the faculty. Roberto needs a summer job to help pay for school since it is too expensive for him to return home for the summer to work. Michelle is also an exceptional graduate student; she is married and doesn’t necessarily need the extra income, but she is going to pursue a Ph.D., so the extra experience would be beneficial to her future endeavors.

A third teaching assistant, Carson, commutes to school from a town an hour away, where he is helping to take care of his aging grandparents. Carson manages to juggle school, teaching, and his home responsibilities well, carrying a 4.0 GPA in his classwork. Angi knows Carson could use the money, but she is afraid that he has too many other responsibilities to take on the research project over the summer.

As Angi weighs which TA to offer the position, a faculty member approaches her about considering the fourth TA, Analisa. It’s been a tough year with Analisa as a TA. She has complained numerous times to her faculty mentor and to Angi that the other TAs treat her differently, and she thinks it’s because of her race. The student newspaper printed a column she wrote about “being a speck of brown in a campus of white,” in which she expressed her frustration with the predominantly white faculty’s inability to understand the unique perspectives and experiences of minority students. After the column came out, the faculty in the department became wary of working with Analisa, fearing becoming part of the controversy. Their lack of interaction with her made Analisa feel further alienated.

Angi knows that Analisa is a very good researcher and writer, and her skills would be an asset to the project. Analisa’s faculty mentor says that giving the position to her would go a long way to “smooth things over” between faculty and Analisa and make Analisa feel included in the department. Analisa knows about the open position and has expressed interest in it to her faculty mentor, but hasn’t directly talked to Angi. Angi is afraid that by not giving it to Analisa, she may stir up more accusations of ill-treatment while at the same time facing accusations from others that she is giving Analisa preferential treatment.

1. Of the four options available to Angi, which is the most ethical?

2. Using the principles of distributive justice, who would Angi choose to become the research assistant?

3. From Heifetz’s perspective, can Angi use this decision to help her department and faculty face a difficult situation? Should she?

4. Do you agree with Burns’s perspective that it is Angi’s responsibility to help followers assess their own values and needs in order to raise them to a higher level that will stress values such as liberty, justice, and equality? If so, how can Angi do that through this situation?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 I think that Michelle is the most ethical option The other three candidates each have something go... View the full answer