Author: Danielle Levy

–A trend among MBA’s looks beyond making money to ethical and human concerns–It’s easy to miss news items that allow us to see the importance of values. Though small they do signify how real progress in some areas does happen. In this instance the item relates to a pledge by some 20% of the graduating Harvard Business School, one which essentially says that greed is not good. The pledge is voluntary but its mere existence is significant particularly when seen in context of a similar trend in other schools. At Columbia Business School, for example, all students must pledge to an honor code. At the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, there are now seven professors teachings an array of ethics classes which are said to be very popular.
Following the practices of Enron and Bernie Madoff and in the wake of a recession triggered by the failure of financial institutions, the trend points to a generation, where some at least, are concerned about more than making money, and want to factor in the impact of their work on the community, the lives of the workers involved and the environment. Step by step, it does indicate that in the rather near future such concerns will be standard practice.

–We must find a way to reconcile national security and individual rights lest freedom as we know it be impaired–A recent survey says that 39% of the U.S. electorate believes that our legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights over national security. This means that individual rights, the cornerstone of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and a shining example of freedom to the world, can, according to almost 40% of voters, be trumped by national security. It makes one wonder if the Bill of Rights would be able to pass voters’ approval today. The concern over national security is real. We do live in an era where terrorism cannot be forgotten. To be more clear than simplistic, one must admit that there are some very bad people out there. We must recognize that issues of national security reach deep into our feeling of safety and feeling safe is an understood basic need. The psychologist Abraham Maslow ranked it right after food and shelter. But we must also be wise enough to see through the arguments of those who misuse national security to reinforce their own agendas or pre-conceived notions—a reminder of how the Taliban initially gains a foothold in an area, by promising safety. How pollsters phrase a question does influence how it is answered. But deeper than the use of words are the principles involved. National security without individual rights does not lead to the freedom that we hail, seek and strive for. We must think through how to preserve both strengthened by the knowledge that it is not only possible, it is necessary.

–We should decry that business interests are concerned over not being able to make money over Susan Boyle’s popularity–We all know about Susan Boyle and how she became a sensation with a singing voice that did not match the judges’ expectations given what many called her frumpy appearance. In April, YouTube videos of her performances were viewed 220 million times. Her popularity continues and now the businesses involved are concerned that it is difficult for that popularity to pay off. Freemantle Media Enterprises who owns the international digital rights to Britain’s Got Talent show, uploaded clips on YouTube, a unit of Google, but the clips do not appear to generate any advertising revenues. Despite arcane financial arrangements, Ms Boyle’s continued popularity and the number of hits the clips received, very little money has been generated by any of the parties involved. The concern was deep enough that the New York Times run a story about it.
When we expect every story and every success to be quantified by its monetary value or revenue potential, it is a fact of our culture that needs to be noticed. It needs to be noticed, decried and censured lest the hope of its redress be that far more removed.

–Former vice-President Dick Cheney is a lesson of someone who diggs in his heels—In his speech at the American Enterprise Institute former Vice-President Dick Cheney spoke from his heart, but apparently, what’s in his heart and what some of the facts are do not coincide. In his column the following day, David Brooks, the NYT’s commentator and a Republican explained how after 2003 the policies Mr. Cheney spoke about, policies Mr. Cheney was then advocating, were being slowly overruled by a group of Bush administration officials, including Condoleeza Rice. In a McClatchy newspaper article by Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel they cite the omissions and misstatements by Mr. Cheney. For example, Mr. Cheney quoted National Intelligence Adviser Adm. Dennis Blair in statements and positions he did not hold or which he later changed, amended or qualified. While the precise instances would make for a long and very dry piece, the point remains. Mr. Cheney’s speech is revealing of his stance on these issues, a stance that is so deeply ingrained, it flies in the face of facts, or of any truth that may contradict it. It is not a unique phenomenon, we often see it manifest itself in so many people around us. In that Mr. Cheney becomes an example of digging in your heels and helps us see is how sad it can be.