Ethical Dilemmas/Personal Dilemmas
This semester I wanted to interview three BBBS staff
members to find out what any moral/personal dilemmas they
had to overcome while working for BBBS.
Staff 1:
“ I would say that I haven’t had to face any moral dilemmas
but for sure some personal dilemmas. I would say that there
are some events that I feel shouldn’t serve alcohol when
there are children at the same event. “
We talked about personal standards and how I agreed that
there needs to be careful considerations about program
events when catering to adults and children. I brought up
the last bowl event and how interesting the lyrics were to
the songs that the dj was playing. There was one popular
hip hop song from the early 90s in particular that caught
my ear, “there’ no room for relationships there’s just room
to hit it.” I remembered that song was in reference to a
sexual innuendo. To me, someone who had knowledge of the
song, I found it hardly acceptable to be playing at an
event that represents children.
The conclusion of the discussion brought up some great
points about accountability and tact when throwing company
events. Partners must be aligned to the mission of the
organization. If the organization is geared towards adults
then the entertainment is not going to be a clown blowing
up balloons, etc.
We talked about what to do when faced with a personal
dilemma. The only thing that we came up with was just
quietly putting it to the side and not making a big deal
about it. I’m sure there is a balance and appropriate time
when something needs to be confronted but dicey lyrics and
alcohol at an event are probably not the two to be dogmatic
about.
Staff 2:
“We are constantly trying to be aware of the people we
partner with.’
I asked one of the staff about personal dilemmas that occur
when someone wants to donate money to the program when they
are a known controversy figure within the community.
We discussed when it’s ok to take money from those who may
be controversial figures and when it’s ok to step back from
them in order to maintain program values and reputation.
We talked about a recent figure Marcus Ray, who was a
corporate sponsor and how he was going to be used for a
radio spot but after hearing comments that he made about
Michael Sam, a gay sports figure, he was no longer
considered for the radio spot.
The conversation taught me the valuable lesson of screening
the type of people that give to the organization and how
careful consideration needs to be made when partnering with
organizations and corporations.
I asked if it mattered which groups gave money to the
organization. Monica didn’t seem overly concerned about
those who are donors versus those who are sponsors. I
agreed to disagree because of my own personal beliefs and
understanding that sometimes organizations can be
recognized for their high integrity by rejecting some
groups or individuals with conflicting beliefs.
A moral dilemma for me, in this area of receiving funding,
would have much strictly guidelines if I were head of the
program:
Scenario 1:
Hypothetical: What if an organization like Planned
Parenthood wanted to give a huge donation to BBBS?
Shouldn’t it be considered that their current reputation
has the potential to soil the BBBS name? Shouldn’t it be
considered that the values seem to be in conflict with BBBS
mission to serve disadvantaged children?
Staff #3
“ Parents sometimes have different beliefs than me.”
I enjoyed this conversation about ethical/personal
dilemmas. We discussed what happens when parents exercise
harsh discipline towards their children and what is the
role that the match support specialist plays when this is
pointed out by a Big?
Family styles of discipline, more pointedly, spanking and
yelling were the topics that we considered.
Crystal mentioned the guidelines she uses when a Big is
concerned that this form of authoritarian parenting is
considered abuse.
Although the match support specialist finds her personal
beliefs in conflict when it comes to the proper way to
discipline children, she realized the reality that there is
clear abuse and there is harsh discipline. There is a
difference under the law, which one can be prosecuted.
If a parent harshly disciplines their child and the Big is
concerned (due to cultural differences) what action should
the match support specialist take if brought to their
attention?
The guidelines have to follow what the state has defined as
abuse. It is not up to the Big or the BBBS staff to define
their view of what they feel is child abuse. The state
guidelines are the bottom line that must be taken into
consideration when alleging abuse.
According to Michigan, here are the criteria used to
determine if a child is being abused:
Child Abuse in the First Degree - MCL 750.136b(2) -
occurs when an individual knowingly or intentionally
causes serious physical or serious mental harm to a
child. Child Abuse in the First Degree is punishable by up
to 15 years in prison. Serious physical harm means any
physical injury to a child that seriously impairs
the child’s health or physical well being,
including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull
or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma,
dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning,
burn or scald, or severe cut. Serious mental harm means
an injury to a child’s mental condition or welfare that is
not necessarily permanent but results in visibly
demonstrable manifestations of a substantial disorder of
thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment,
behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope
with the ordinary demands of life.
Child Abuse in the Second Degree- MCL 750.136b(4) -
occurs if: the person’s omission causes serious physical
harm or serious mental harm to a child or if the person’s
reckless act causes serious physical harm or serious mental
harm to a child; the person knowingly or intentionally
commits an act likely to cause serious physical or mental
harm to a child regardless of whether harm results; or the
person knowingly or intentionally commits an act that is
cruel to a child regardless of whether harm results.
Child abuse in the Second Degree is a felony
punishable by up to 4 years in prison. An omission is the
willful failure to provide food, clothing, or
shelter necessary for a child’s welfare or the
willful abandonment of a child. Serious physical
harm means any physical injury to a child that seriously
impairs the child’s health or physical well being,
including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull or
bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma,
dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning, burn or
scald, or severe cut. Serious mental harm means an injury
to a child’s mental condition or welfare that is not
necessarily permanent but results in visibly demonstrable
manifestations of a substantial disorder of thought or mood
which significantly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to
recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary
demands of life.
Child Abuse in the Third Degree - MCL 750.136b(5) -
occurs if either a person knowingly or intentionally causes
physical harm to a child OR the person knowingly or
intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances
poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child,
and the act results in physical harm to a child. This
offense is a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in
prison. Physical harm means any injury to a child’s
physical condition.
Child Abuse in the Fourth Degree- MCL 750.136b(7) -
occurs when either the person’s omission or reckless act
causes physical harm to a child OR the person knowingly or
intentionally commits an act that under the circumstances
poses an unreasonable risk of harm or injury to a child,
regardless of whether physical harm results. This offense
is a misdemeanor, with possible incarceration of up to 1
year in jail. An omission is the willful failure to provide
food, clothing, or shelter necessary for a child’s welfare
or the willful abandonment of a child. Physical harm means
any injury to a child’s physical condition.
A Child is defined as a person under the age of 18
years. Defenses to the above referenced offenses
include reasonable parental discipline, including the
reasonable use of force. It is also an affirmative defense
that the Defendant’s conduct involving the child was a
reasonable response to an act of domestic violence in light
of all the facts and circumstances known to the Defendant
at that time. The Defendant has the burden of establishing
the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
**It is detrimental for the match support specialist
to understand when the appropriate actions need to be taken
and when a situation needs to be left to the privacy of
one’s home, especially when getting law enforcement
involved.
We discussed our different beliefs about disciplining
children. For me, growing up in home where spanking and
harsh discipline was used, I can see some of the benefits
of harsher discipline. I don’t necessarily exercise harsh
discipline towards my own children because of my experience
but at the same time can it be concluded that a parent is
abusive if they choose to spank and put children in a
corner? The experience for a child is humiliating without
question, but to raise red flags because a parent spanks
their child might be going too far.
This is the area that the match support specialist
felt like they dealt with a personal dilemma. Sometimes, in
certain cases, if the parent is harshly disciplining their
child but not abusing their child then there are grounds to
dismiss the incident and take a mental note of what was
brought to their attention.
Staff #4