Accelerated Adolescence

Authority and Invective Epithets

I have been pondering the use of authority, lately. It seems to me that there is an ethical dilemma with granting one individual authority over another. A fabulous example of such an ethical dilemma can be seen over at Kristen's blog. Unfortunately, our entire justice system is organized around the semantics of Judeo-Christian Authoritarianism. That is, contrition is, ex post facto, relevant to previous actions that violated a stated (or unstated) code of conduct.

Let's consider Kristen's case as an example. She was returned a paper by her instructor and was accused of perpatrating a heinous academic crime. As a course instructor her instructor was granted several responisibilities as well as powers.
Responsibility
1. The responsibility that students are provided with a particular level of education that justifies the University's and the student's expenditures
2. The responsibility to engage the students with material relevant to the topic of the class
3. The responsibility to monitor students potentially committing violations of the University Code of Conduct
4. The responsibility to effectively evaluate the degree to which students have engaged the material, understand it, and are capable of expanding their learning or generalizing the knowledge in a constructive and critical manner

Powers
1. The power to, relatively arbitrarily, assign grades to each individual student regardless of merit or effort
2. The power to grant or deny access to the class to any student
3. The power to organize the course content in almost any way, provided that the content meets curricular criteria and does not violate vague ethical standards
4. The power to evaluate students in any manner that does not violate ethical standards
5. The power to lodge a complaint against a student for violating the University Code of Conduct

If we consider the nature of regarding, ex post facto, contrition then the instructor is also granted a sixth power which would be:
6. The power to coerce, deceive, and manipulate students through any method.

In Kristen's case, she was offered a reprieve for her crime if she displayed the proper contrition (determined by the authority figure). There are two ethical issues that I see here. The first being that the authority figure takes in to account present remorse for an action taken in the past. Thus the authority figure is matching two points in time that are irrelevant to one another. The past event, a violation of the code, and a present condition, remorse elicited, probably, by being caught or revealed. One who violates the code, without remorse, is subject to its harshest sanctions because enforcement of the code is seen as enforcement of conformity. The ethical conflict, of course, is that the power of the authority figure is threatened if people are defiant and unflagging in their disregard for that power. However, because conformity expresses the consolidation of power, the authority figure is likely to be generous with the violater of the code who swears that they've seen the error of their nonconformist ways. Essentially, the authority figure is biased in favor of those who express similar views and value the same cultural structure. Ultimately, the authority figure cannot be, remotely, objective under this system because they are given, also, the freedom to curb or exacerbate punishments. The justice system that values ex post facto contrition gives favor to the actor, charlatan, and knave, while punishing those who stand stalwartly and steadfastly in their beliefs, despite violating the norms of the code. Does it surprise anyone that women who assert that they have been raped are punished for violating an unspoken code while men who are accused, by playing the role of the actor by denying, lieing, and blaming the victims are infrequently are brought to justice?

The second ethical problem is that, considering that authority figures are swayed by the power that they wield, the system can be abused as much by them as by a falsely contrite but charismatic and convincing code breaker. Essentially, because the authoritarian has the ability to alter the nature of the executive response to code violations, he or she is able to place the individual accused of violating the code under duress by offering to reduce or threatening to increase the punishment for the infraction. This abuse can be manifested in several ways, but I'm tired so I won't discuss many of them tonight. In the event that an authority decides that they desire a specific action, that individual may grant a light punishment (i.e. docking 10% off of the final grade) but threaten to impose much harsher sanctions (i.e. a failing grade) if a desired expression of contrition is not displayed (i.e. rewriting the paper within a time frame). This abuse of authority serves several purposes. The authority figure can concoct whatever charge desired (i.e. if all of the students accused chose to comply with 10% offer) in order to obtain personal gain of some sort from those accused without consequence. The authority appears to be generous, by not inflicting the totality of the punishment, and merciful while equally being an agent of justice. However, the accused, who are being bribed by the authority figure (reduced consequences at the cost of compliance), risk greater and harsher consequences for announcing the corruptioin of the authority. The system reinforces compliance through the age old use of threat, the fear of what would be. There is no recourse for the abused because they will be subjected to much harsher sanctions if they choose to question the authority.

It is possible to understand, then, that the present Judeo-Christian justice/authority system, while founded on high ideals, is structured to; consolidate power in the hands of the mainstream, exclude minority groups from authority positions (because those wielding authority are also those who grant it), and foster the corruption of those in power and those who are able to manipulate those in power by playing the called for tune. Such a system asserts that justice is equivalent to conformity not to a higher standard of behavior. It should be noted that the Judeo-Christian justice system was not altered in structure, only slightly in function, in order to justify the Holocaust and Second World War. The more I ponder the obnoxious question that I frequently ask, "What is Justice?" The more I realize that there are assertions, explicit and implicit, made about the what a culture values as the ideal expression of justice.

On another note, leveling the charge of plagiarism against an academic is, possibly, the most serious charge one can bring in that field. It is an effective black-list. When falsely asserted, the effect can be as ruinous as breaking the knees of a professional skater. In the event that such a acrime occurs, be sure to have powerful evidence to back up your claims.