1

A Student's Experience of Sexual Harassment from a Teaching Assistant

This is a case written by a student after reviewing materials on harassment. It is exactly as the student wrote it, except that I have removed a few details about one of

her friends that might prove identifying.

- Caroline Whitbeck

What actions, other than those she took, were open to this student (and her two friends)? What discouraged her from taking those actions? Consider the professor's action. Did he fulfill the duties of a complaint handler?

August 23, 1991 Dear Caroline, This is an actual account of a situation that occurred at MIT to myself and two female friends. I thought you might find it interesting or could perhaps use it as a scenario for your class.

In the Spring of my sophomore year, I was taking a class at Sloan. The course had a final project that was to be developed by groups of two to five students. The students in the class were allowed to form their own groups and would attend recitations as a group. My group consisted of two female classmates, Ms. X and Ms. Y, who are both quite attractive. Our group was one of the smallest, and was also the only group that was solely female. We started attending recitations. During the first recitation I noticed that the recitation instructor seemed to be staring at me or one of my two group members. While discussing the class material, he rarely looked away from where we were seated. I thought perhaps I imagined this, but my two friends said that they had felt the same way. At first it did not bother us, but later, in conjunction with other events, it became quite disturbing.

Our first real assignment was a proposal of our group project. We each were to do an individual proposal. We spent many hours researching and writing our proposals at library facilities around Boston and Cambridge. Since we knew several people in the class had not written their proposals until the night before, we felt that our proposals were well researched and written. To our dismay, we soon discovered that we had received the lowest grade on our proposals in our recitation. This could be true for one member of the group, but since the proposals were written and graded individually, we felt it odd that all three of us received the same low mark. Before this had happened, Ms. X had missed a couple of classes due to illness. Therefore, some of her assignments were late or overdue. It was at this point, I feel, that we really began to noticed how our TA's treatment of us compared to his treatment of other groups. He spoke to us individually, at times when the other group members weren't present. He consistently gave my group member the lowest grades on every assignment. If the work deserved a low mark, we could have accepted this, but we knew it did not. Our belief was confirmed by the TA's next actions. He would schedule meetings with us to "discuss this assignment," and "see what we could do about this grade." The meetings he scheduled were always after normal hours and always in a secluded room that had big couches as seats.

During the first of these private meetings, which all groups were doing to discuss their project topic and which occurred before we had turned in any assignments, I was supposed to meet with him in my group, but Ms. X was unable to be there, so Ms. Y. and I met with him alone. He made use both feel very uncomfortable by staring at us

2

and putting his chair in a position that was inches away from ours or sitting very closely next to us. He would lean forward and speak almost nose to nose with us. I thought perhaps, since he was not from the US, that it was just a cultural difference about speaking distance and personal space. But he spent approximately five minutes discussing our topic, which he approved, and 25 minutes asking us personal questions. After this initial private meeting, we both felt a bit awkward, because we were unsure if we were just imaging his treatment of us. After this meeting we always tried to get chairs with arms so that he could not sit so closely to us or touch us.

Because she had missed the group meeting, Ms. X had to meet with him alone. This was after she had been ill and had turned in an assignment late. He held the meeting in the same room with the big couches at 6:30 P.M.. He told Ms. X, (who has an impressive record as a professional writer) that her writing was substandard and ask if she "did not understand the assignment." Ms. X said that she felt that she had understood the assignment, but that she would be happy to rewrite it. The TA told her that that would not be acceptable because it would be too late, and then asked her "what can we do about this assignment?" She replied that since she would not be allowed to rewrite it, she really didn't know. He again asked her, in an insinuating tone, "what can you do to get a better grade on this assignment?" Ms. X, feeling very disturbed at this point, replied as she had the first time. He pushed this question several more times before he decided to give her time to think of something she could do. Immediately after this meeting with our TA, Ms. X called Ms. Y and myself (we lived in the same dorm suite) and told us how upset she was and how uncomfortable he made her feel. We discussed it , but agreed that it was too late to switch TA's.

From this point on, he would try and arrange this "private meeting" with him on an individual basis and make leading inquiries about how we could better our grades. We had decided that none of us would met with him alone. He kept giving us low grades, and would want to " meet to discuss" an assignment with him. We asked around and it seemed we were the only ones getting this special treatment. Finally, Ms. X was forced to meet with him again. When she showed up, he told her he forgot that he had a prior arrangement, and rescheduled the appointment for 6:30 P.M. on the day before spring break, which was a time that Sloan was very deserted. I'd also like to note that his office hours always ended at 4:00 P.M. and his meetings always occurred at times when the area we met in was very deserted. He also told Ms. X that he expected her to have thought of what she could do about her grades. Ms. X immediately called us and told us about this and wanted us to go with her. Before this occurred, we would receive telephone calls and messages from our TA at 7:00 in the morning. He would call if we missed recitation, which we did more often now since we felt uncomfortable being anywhere near him. He would call us about insignificant things.

Because of this, we felt that we had to change recitations. To do this, we had to meet with the professor. We realized that even though we felt that we were being single out and sexually harassed, we really didn't have any substantial proof. There were many occurrences that I haven't related here. We told our professor how we felt and the things that had happened. I'd like to note that our professor was one of the best instructor that I've have had, and we felt at ease, or as much at ease as we could, discussing this with him. He agreed that we did have reason to change recitation and was upset because our TA had been with him for several years and was married. We did not present this as "Our TA is sexually harassing us," because we did not want to bias our professor's reaction to what we told him. However, he did feel that we were being sexually harassed. He immediately changed our recitation instructor and told us that something would be done about this. He also told us that our TA had a good past history and that he had a bright future. It was up to us if we wanted to bring our TA

3

before the school's harassment board. Our professor ended up having a discussion with all the TA's about what sexual harassment is and had each of them discuss it with their recitations.

All this happened (and our assignments were re-graded by our new TA, who was not supposed to know why he was doing this), a few weeks after spring break. About two weeks later, both Ms. X and I received calls before 7:30 A.M. from our old TA. He said he had some old assignments of ours and that we could pick them up from him. He also kept asking us why we changed recitations. After his repeated questions and offers to re-grading our assignments, he said to me, (this is a quote) "If you return to my class, you will have A's." I had told him we had changed recitations due to a time conflict and I now told him to give our assignments to our new TA. Both Ms. X and myself were very upset.

I never told my professor about the last conversation that I had with the TA where he offered us guaranteed A's. Ms. X ended up dropping the class because she could not deal with this anymore. Ms. Y and I finished the class and both received good grades, ones that we had earned. We still don't know if we should have reported him to the harassment board. We discussed it at the time and decided not to for several reasons. I believe the harassment board had just been established at that time. Frankly, part of the reason we didn't want to take official action is because we knew that it would hurt our academic career at MIT. We thought we would be branded by non-sympathetic faculty and students. We were aware that our new TA thought that we were just complaining because of the grades we received, and we were afraid that others of the community would think the same thing too. (Our new TA had discussed it with a close friend of ours, who was also our 2nd TA's roommate, and who didn't know that our TA was talking about us at the time.) I am concerned that our first TA may do something like this to other female students. As Ms. X said at the time, what if the women he did this to were not as strong-willed and were more submissive than she was. We did find out that a number of his past female students also felt very uncomfortable around him.

I really don't know what more to write about this. I haven't thought about this in a while, but one of the articles I read reminded me of it. This is a somewhat sketchy version of it. If you would like to discuss it further, I am very willing to do so. I didn't use my two friends names because I am unsure how they feel about this at the moment.

http://temp.onlineethics.org/div/cases/har.html

4

he following cases are composites of actual Asian-American experiences. There are discussion questions at the end of each case and overall questions after the last case.

Charles Tang: Background

Personal History: First-generation Chinese-American, born in Taiwan and raised in San Francisco. Came over from Taiwan when he was six, and now he and his parents and his younger sister are all citizens. His father is a staff physician at a local hospital, and his mother teaches Mandarin Chinese at the local community college. Their social life centers around a Chinese immigrant community in San Francisco.

High School Accomplishments: Graduated in the top 10 percent of his senior class, an accomplished tennis player, National Merit finalist, second-chair violinist in the San Francisco Youth Symphony.

College/University: Graduated from the University of Chicago with B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering. Dated one Asian woman, but the relationship ended badly. Has not dated since.

Employment: Accepted offer as Design Engineer at Dynamo Disk Incorporated, the world's second-largest manufacturer of disk drives for personal computers. Moved in with a buddy (Caucasian) from his high school tennis team who works for another high-technology firm in the Boston area.

Case

Charles's first assignment was a project to cost-reduce Dynamo's popular but mature product, a 5 1/4-inch floppy disk drive. He had initial problems because his first supervisor was abusing alcohol. The supervisor's behavior finally resulted in his leaving the company. Unfortunately, Charles's career took a hit.With new supervisor, Charles got back on track and contributed well. He was a quick study and soon made suggestions which were later implemented. A year later, the project had exceeded its objective of a 20% cost reduction, largely due to Charles's ideas. However, his supervisor credited others more than Charles. His subsequent assignments were similar. He worked well on small teams with his contributions generally underestimated due to a perception that his quietness was a sign of a lack of understanding or confidence. Since he rarely complained, his supervisor thought that he was generally satisfied with his job. Having been at Dynamo for five years, Charles began to observe that many of the people who had started at the company with and after him were moving into managerial positions. His roommate was now a department head at his company. Charles felt that he was doing an excellent job and wondered why his opportunity to move up had not arisen. What Charles did not know was that his peers were effectively networking. They belonged to the same churches and outside organizations as their bosses. Their children played together, and many were active in various social groups.

Discussion Questions

In Charles's early years at Dynamo, what were some of the obstacles he faced?

What could Charles have done differently?

What could his supervisor have done differently?

Back to Top

5

Jessica Chang: Background

Personal History: Second-generation Chinese-American, born and raised in Storrs, Connecticut. Both parents are originally from Hong Kong and are now citizens. Her father is a physics professor at the University of Connecticut, and her mother teaches science at a local high school. Has one younger brother. Parents are not active in community affairs.

High School Accomplishments: Salutatorian of senior class, All-State chorus, flautist, gymnast, National Merit finalist, hospital candy-striper volunteer. Rejected for admission to Yale.

College/University: Graduated from Cornell with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering and computer science. Met and married fellow graduate student Barton Buchanan III.

Employment: Accepted offer as Design Engineer at Dynamo Disk Incorporated, the world's second-largest manufacturer of disk drives for personal computers. Husband works for another firm in the Boston area.

Case

Jessica worked for Dynamo for six years and began to notice that several people who started working at the company after her were becoming managers. She felt that she had been doing a good job and wondered why she had not been offered a managerial position also. After much consideration, Jessica scheduled a meeting with her supervisor and shared her feelings that time was running out on her in terms of keeping up with her peers, most of whom were one or two promotions ahead of her. Her supervisor expressed surprise that Jessica was interested in becoming a manager. He said that she always seemed to be cheerful and happy with her work. In fact, Jessica reminded him of the wife of one of his "closest" friends, Richard Wang. Apparently, Mrs. Wang was a wonderful cook and mother. When pressed, Jessica's supervisor said that she wasn't "leader-like" and needed to be more assertive.

This meeting angered Jessica, and she had a long discussion with her husband. After a period of soul-searching, Jessica selected Marge Ross, one of only two women managers at Dynamo, as a role model. Although Jessica was uncomfortable with some of Marge's behavior, which she considered "masculine", she learned and became more outspoken. She began to interrupt at meetings, learned to hold the floor when others tried to break in, and honed her presentation skills. She developed a thick skin when encountering sexual and racial jokes, especially during customer meetings and business trips. Two years later, she was offered a promotion.

Discussion Question

Should Jessica have selected Marge Ross as her role model?

Why or why not?

Back to Top

Belinda Liao: Background

Personal History: First-generation Chinese-American, born in Hong Kong and raised in a suburb of New York City. Came over from Hong Kong when she was three, and

6

now she and her parents are citizens. Her parents were professors before immigrating, and now they own and manage a small neighborhood grocery store. Their social life centers around a small neighborhood Chinese immigrant community. Gatherings with non-Chinese people are rare.

High School Accomplishments: One of three Valedictorians of her senior class, Academic Decathlon Team, cross-country team, Westinghouse finalist, president of the Math Club, an accomplished pianist. Admitted to every college where she applied.

College/University: Graduated from MIT with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering and computer science. Married a post-doc, Alex Epstein, and divorced two years later.

Employment: Accepted offer as Design Engineer at Dynamo Disk Incorporated, the world's second-largest manufacturer of disk drives for personal computers. Recently promoted to a managerial position after working at Dynamo for 11 years.

Case

Belinda encountered difficulty as a first-line manager. Lacking a sympathetic mentor, she encountered unexpected opposition from her subordinates, who viewed her entry as an affirmative action appointment. It seemed that her people were constantly testing her, no matter how small the incident. With great determination, Belinda found ways to support her people, cards on their birthdays, congratulatory notes, and uncommon listening skills. Slowly, she won them over and her group was soon developing an excellent reputation. She also quieted her management peers by being better prepared for meetings, underrunning her budget, and delivering her key commitments ahead of schedule. Belinda's success was occasionally tempered by self-doubt. Many of her high school friends were raising families, and her parents often hinted about their desire to have grandchildren. Her life also seemed a little out of balance, since she worked an average of over 60 hours per week and rarely took vacations.

Nevertheless, Belinda's reputation and good work caught the attention of a sympathetic sales director. He valued her strong technical background and her Chinese heritage. Would she be interested in leading Dynamo's negotiation team with a key personal computer maker based in Hong Kong? Her social life took a back seat, and Belinda jumped at the chance, approaching this new task with the same enthusiasm as she did her previous assignments. She studied the history of the Chinese firm, talked to other suppliers, and knew their buying habits and idiosyncrasies. She reviewed her Mandarin Chinese in a night-school class.

Her first customer meeting turned out to be less than she had expected. The customer, while polite, seemed strangely distant. Subsequent meetings resulted in little progress. Belinda befriended an engineer in the Hong Kong company, who confided in her. He indicated that Dynamo had lost credibility by sending a woman, since senior management was more comfortable negotiating with a man. Her heritage presented them with another problem because they expected that her loyalty would first be to the Chinese people and then towards Dynamo. Thus, when she opened the talks with a strong pro-Dynamo position, they were upset.

However, they were impressed with her technical depth and felt that Dynamo's offer was a technically superior one. Unfortunately, it also had the highest price. This engineer felt that if Belinda sweetened the offer with red envelopes (containing money) given to the right decision makers, Dynamo would win the disk-supply

7

contract. He offered to help and even indicated that the amounts need not be large, but that the respect this gesture showed was important.

Belinda realized that the contract was critical to Dynamo's survival. A recession in the United States had significantly hurt earnings, and rumors of more layoffs were rampant. She knew that such practices were commonplace in many parts of the world and that other firms had found ways to hide the payment of these funds. After many sleepless nights, Belinda decided to maintain her integrity and quietly informed her friend in Hong Kong that "red envelopes" were not forthcoming. The firm awarded the contract to Dynamo's chief American competitor two weeks later.

The result of this loss was felt quickly. Dynamo announced major staff cuts. Belinda, unable to deal with the guilt and resultant stress, resigned.

Discussion Questions

In many of the incidents, Charles/Jessica/Belinda was the victim.

What responsibility did Dynamo, as a corporation, have, if any, to help him/her?

Some sociologists and psychologists have observed that the failure of some Asian-Americans in business results from factors in upbringing and environment. Select a few of these and discuss them (e.g., lack of role models at home, emphasis on scholarship, racism, sexism).

http://temp.onlineethics.org/div/cases/asian.html

8

Introduction

Subtle discrimination does exist in the professional workplace, whether we want to accept it or not. Recognizing this fact seems to be the key to overcoming the obstacles of cultural differences and to successfully integrating at all levels of the corporate world. Despite efforts to diversify corporate America, there is still a disturbing shortage of minorities at the upper level positions of all professions.

I am personally concerned about this issue because I am a Mexican-American with a distinct cultural identity. I want to understand the issues I will face in the future, and I want to be prepared to do what is necessary to overcome these barriers to professional success. I am also concerned about the problem from the point of view of human rights and equality. The essence of the problem is that discrimination, in any sense of the word, is unfair and may infringe on the right of individuals to pursue their own goals and their own way of life.

Back to Top

Interviewees

To investigate the issues presented in the hypothetical scenario, I conducted interviews with people who have experience with the problem of subtle discrimination. Within the M.I.T. community, the best qualified people in this field are the two ombudsmen (complaint handlers), Mary Rowe and Clarence Williams, and I interviewed both of them. The fact that one is a white female and that the other is a black man ensures a rather broad perspective on the issue. I also interviewed a minority engineer who has a good deal of experience, having worked for both small and large engineering companies. His view, as opposed to the other characters of the scenario, was most important because, from my interviews with the ombudsmen, it seemed that the ultimate solution to the problem must come from the person being discriminated against. This is not to say that the other factors of subtle discrimination are insubstantial. However, I felt that the minority's perspective was the most relevant if it is expected that he ultimately remedy the situation. A summary of the interviews is given.

Questions

The following set of questions was used to guide the interviews.

Is this scenario realistic? If it is, do you feel that it presents an ethical issue?

Who is responsible for finding a solution to Pepe's problem, and what do these responsibilities involve?

Are there programs or policies in technical companies which are aimed at dealing with subtle discrimination?

Are these programs or policies effective and/or necessary?

Back to Top

Scenario

Casper and Pepe started working for the same company at the same time and under the same supervisor, Mr. Harmless. Casper and Mr. Harmless are both European-Americans, while Pepe is a Mexican-American. Soon after they started working, Mr.

9

Harmless invited both of them to his traditional Sunday afternoon barbecue, an event which was held biweekly and attended by many of the other professionals in the company. Both Casper and Pepe attended the event.

While Casper seemed to have a great time, Pepe felt uncomfortable because he was the only minority present out of about six employees and their families. His cultural expectations of the event had proven to differ from those of the others. For example, he prepared a dish to share with everyone and then realized that the families had each brought their own food and drinks. He also felt that it was difficult to find common ground with his co-workers outside the world of their profession.

Pepe decided not to attend any future barbecues, not because he disliked the other employees but simply because he felt uncomfortable. For the next several months, the event continued and the supervisor continued to invite both subordinates. Casper attended every time; however, Pepe never did, and he consistently struggled to come up with reasons why he could not do so. He certainly did not want the supervisor and other employees to either take his rejections personally or develop negative feelings towards him.

As time went on, Pepe sensed the personal relationship between Casper and Mr. Harmless developing into a strong one. Eventually, a year after they had both joined the company, Casper had been promoted to a high-level position, mainly as a result of a fine recommendation from Mr. Harmless. Pepe had occasionally thought that Mr. Harmless exhibited favoritism for Casper due to their personal relationship, and he believed this was the main reason for the recommendation. Pepe felt that he had been doing superior work and that his contributions to the company had been at least as significant as, if not more so than, Casper's. Pepe became even more concerned about the situation when the new subordinate, hired to replace Casper, turned out to be another European-American. A month after this, the new subordinate seemed to be following in Casper's footsteps, by developing a strong personal relationship with Mr. Harmless. What should Pepe do?

http://temp.onlineethics.org/div/problems/sub.html

10

ENGINEERING ETHICS

The Aberdeen Three Department of Philosophy and Department of Mechanical Engineering Texas A&M University NSF Grant Number DIR-9012252

Introduction To The Case

The Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland is a U.S. Army facility where, among other things, chemical weapons were developed. The "Aberdeen Three" Case involved three high-level civilian managers at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. All three managers were chemical engineers in charge of the development of chemical weapons. In 1989, the three engineers were indicted for a criminal felony, tried and convicted of illegally handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The violations occurred between 1983 and 1986.

Instructor Guidelines

The issues covered in the student handout include the importance of an engineer's responsibility to public welfare, and the need for this responsibility to hold precedence over any other responsibilities the engineer might have. Also discussed are the responsibilities of a manager/engineer to look after the safety and well being of his/her subordinates. A final point is the fact that no matter how far removed an engineer may feel from society and the environment, all of our actions have an impact and are subject to the same guidelines that affect others in our field. This point is especially important in this case because of the criminal violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

A videotape presentation of the case by Jane Barrett, the prosecuting attorney, is available from

Geo-Centers, Inc.1220 12th SE, #300Washington, DC 2003-3723Phone 202-544-7277

A suggested method of presenting this case to the class involves giving the students the handout a day or two before showing the videotape. After showing the videotape, the next class period could be spent discussing the case, using the enclosed overheads to review the roles of the people involved, the key dates, and the key issues. Listed below are some sample questions to stimulate class discussion

Questions for Class Discussion

1) What could the three engineers have done differently? 2) What, if anything, could their subordinates have done differently? 3) What, if anything, could their superiors (i.e., the Army command) have done differently? 4) Should the Justice department have done anything differently? 5) Do you think the judge's sentencing of the "Aberdeen Three" was too lenient or too harsh? Why? 6) What do you (the students) see as your future engineering professional responsibilities in relation to preserving or protecting the environment?

11

Essay #7, "Engineers and the Environment," appended at the end of the case listings will be found directly pertinent in preparing to discuss these issues. Also, essays #1 through #4 will have relevant background information for the instructor preparing to lead classroom discussions. Their titles are, respectively: "Ethics and Professionalism in Engineering: Why the Interest in Engineering Ethics?;" "Basic Concepts and Methods in Ethics;" "Moral Concepts and Theories;" and "Engineering Design: Literature on Social Responsibilities Versus Legal Liability."

Recommended Overheads

1) Organizations/People Involved 2) Key Dates 3) Key Issues

The Aberdeen Three Overheads

1) Organizations/People Involved 2) Key Dates 3) Key Issues

ORGANIZATIONS/PEOPLE INVOLVED

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND - U.S. Army facility, which employed the following three civilians: CARL GEPP - Manager at the Pilot plant. He answered to Dee and Lentz. WILLIAM DEE - Developed the binary chemical weapon. He headed the chemical weapons development team. ROBERT LENTZ - In charge of developing the processes that would be used to manufacture chemical weapons. U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT JANE BARRETT - Prosecuting attorney

KEY DATES

1976 - Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. September 17, 1985 - Acid tank leaks into Canal Creek. March 26, 1986 - Pilot Plant shut down. June 28, 1988 - Gepp, Dee, and Lentz indicted. January - February 1989 - Trial of the "Aberdeen Three" May 11, 1989 - "Aberdeen Three" each sentenced to 1000 hours of community service and three years probation.

KEY ISSUES

HOW DOES THE IMPLIED SOCIAL CONTRACT OF PROFESSIONALS APPLY TO THIS CASE? WHAT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES DID THE THREE ENGINEERS NEGLECT, IF ANY?

The Aberdeen Three - Environmental Issues

Student Handout  -  June, 1992

Synopsis

12

The "Aberdeen Three" Case involved three high level civilian managers at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. All three managers were chemical engineers in charge of the development of chemical weapons. In 1989, the three engineers were indicted for a criminal felony, tried and convicted of illegally handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The violations occurred between 1983 and 1986.

Organizations and People Involved

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND - U.S. Army facility, which employed the following three civilians:  CARL GEPP - Manager at the Pilot plant. He answered to Dee and Lentz. WILLIAM DEE - Developed the binary chemical weapon. He headed the chemical weapons development team. ROBERT LENTZ - In charge of developing the processes that would be used to manufacture chemical weapons.

U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT JANE BARRETT - Prosecuting attorney

Key Dates 1976 - Congress passes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. September 17, 1985 - Acid tank leaks into Canal Creek. March 26, 1986 - Pilot Plant shut down. June 28, 1988 - Gepp, Dee, and Lentz indicted. January - February 1989 - Trial of the "Aberdeen Three." May 11, 1989 - "Aberdeen Three" each sentenced to 1000 hours community service and three years probation.

Details of the Case

In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The purpose of the act was to provide technical and financial assistance for the development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regulate the management of hazardous waste.1

This 1976 act expanded the Solid Waste Disposal Act thereby authorizing state program-and-implementation grants for providing incentives for recovery of resources from solid wastes, resource conservation, and control of hazardous waste disposal. In addition to establishing the EPA Office of Solid Waste, requiring state planning and a ban on open dumping of solid hazardous wastes, RCRA also implemented criminal fines for violations of the open dumping or hazardous waste disposal guidelines.

Aberdeen is a U.S. Army facility where, among other things, chemical weapons are developed. All three engineers involved in the case were experts in the chemical weapons field, and Dee was responsible for developing the binary chemical weapon. The U.S. Army has used the Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at the facility, known as the Pilot Plant, where these engineers worked. These problems included

flammable and cancer-causing substances left in the open chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room

13

drums of toxic substances were leaking. There were chemicals everywhere - misplaced, unlabeled or poorly contained. When part of the roof collapsed, smashing several chemical drums stored below, no one cleaned up or moved the spilled substance and broken containers for weeks.2

The funds for the cleanup would not have even come out of the engineers' budget. The Army would have paid for the cost of the cleanup. All the managers had to do was make a request for the Army clean-up funds, but they made no effort to resolve the situation.

When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river, state and federal investigators arrived and discovered that the chemical retaining dikes were unfit, and the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corroded and leaking chemicals into the ground. The three engineers maintained that they did not believe the plant's storage practices were illegal, and that their job description did not include responsibility for specific environmental rules. They were chemical engineers, they practiced good "engineering sense," and had never had an incident. They were just doing things the way they had always been done at the Pilot Plant.

On June 28, 1988, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were criminally indicted for storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland after about two years of investigation. Six months following the indictment, the Federal Government took the case of the "Aberdeen Three" to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste. In 1989, the three chemical engineers were tried and convicted of illegally storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste. William Dee was found guilty on one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on three counts each of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Although they were not the ones who were actually performing the illegal acts, they were the managers and allowed the improper handling of the chemicals. No one above them knew about the extent of the problems at the Pilot Plant. They each faced up to 15 years in prison and up to $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three years probation and 1000 hours of community service. The judge based his decision on the high standing of the defendants in the community, and the fact they had already incurred enormous court costs. Since this was a criminal indictment, the U.S. Army could not assist in their legal defense. This case marked the first time that individual federal employees were convicted of a criminal act under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Discussion of the Ethical Issues

The actions of the three engineers bring to mind an important question. These engineers were knowledgeable about the effects of hazardous chemicals on people and the environment (they developed chemical weapons), so why were they so seemingly unconcerned about the disposal of hazardous chemicals? It is interesting to note that even after they were convicted the three engineers showed no apparent remorse for their wrongdoing. They kept insisting that the whole case was blown out of proportion, and that they had done nothing wrong. All containers of hazardous chemical have labels which state that the chemicals must be disposed of according to RCRA requirements, yet the three engineers maintained that they had no knowledge of RCRA. Perhaps the best answer to this question is that they did not hold their responsibilities to the public as engineers as high on their list of priorities as other responsibilities they held.

14

To better understand the responsibility of the engineer, some key elements of the professional responsibilities of an engineer should be examined. This will be done from two perspectives: the implicit social contract between engineers and society, and the guidance of the codes of ethics of professional societies.

As engineers test designs for ever-increasing speeds, loads, capacities and the like, they must always be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare. After all, the public has provided engineers, through the tax base, the means for obtaining an education and, through legislation, the means to license and regulate themselves. In return, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of the public in all of their professional efforts. This is part of the implicit social contract all engineers have agreed to when they accepted admission to an engineering college. According to the prosecution, the three engineers involved in the Aberdeen case placed a low priority on this responsibility to society, and instead emphasized the importance of their military mission.3 The first canon in the ASME Code of Ethics urges engineers to "hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties." Every major engineering code of ethics reminds engineers of the importance of their responsibility to keep the safety and well being of the public at the top of their list of priorities. Although company loyalty is important, it can, in some circumstances be damaging to the company, if the employee does not think about the long-term effects of his actions on the company.

It is a sad fact about loyalty that it invites...single-mindedness. Single-minded pursuit of a goal is sometimes delightfully romantic, even a real inspiration. But it is hardly something to advocate to engineers, whose impact on the safety of the public is so very significant. Irresponsibility, whether caused by selfishness or by magnificently unselfish loyalty, can have most unfortunate consequences.4

The engineers were also unaware that their experiments and their handling of waste products had social impact, even though they considered themselves to be far removed from the outside world. The leaking of sulfuric acid into Canal Creek quickly disproved their claim of being removed from the outside world. No matter how far an engineer feels removed from society, he still has an effect on it, even if it is an indirect one. Even though the Pilot Plant was located on a military base, it still had to follow the RCRA guidelines, regardless of its military mission.

In addition to their responsibilities to society in general, the "Aberdeen Three" also had responsibilities to their subordinates, which they also overlooked. It was one of these employees who originally went to the press and exposed what was going on at the Pilot Plant. Employees were working under conditions where chemicals were dripping down from leaky pipes above them, and in violation of RCRA rules. Employees who had no hazardous materials training were ordered to handle and dispose of chemicals about which they had little or no knowledge. Whether or not there were rules for the training of employees who would be handing hazardous materials, the three engineers had a responsibility to those employees to inform them of what they were dealing with and how to handle the waste materials properly.

The three engineers convicted in this case were well aware of the dangers the chemicals they worked with on a daily basis posed to society, yet they allowed their unfounded feelings of separation from the outside world and their misguided loyalty to their military mission to lessen the importance they placed on their responsibility to society as engineers. The prosecutor in the case had this to say about the Aberdeen Three: "These are experts in their field. If they can't be expected to enforce the law, then I'm not sure who can."5

15

Annotated Bibliography

Curd, Martin and May, Larry, "Professional Responsibility for Harmful Actions," Module Series in Applied Ethics, Center for the Studies of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1984.

This essay explores the grounds on which professionals should be held responsible for harms caused by their actions. Most examples used concern engineers, designers, and architects involved in real-life cases from tort law.

Davis, Michael, "Thinking Like An Engineer: The Place of a Code of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession," Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2, Spring 1991, pp. 150-167. (see also, "Explaining Wrongdoing," Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 20, Numbers 1&2, Spring/Fall 1989, pp. 74-90.

In these lucid essays, Davis argues that "a code of professional ethics is central to advising individual engineers how to conduct themselves, to judging their conduct, and ultimately to understanding engineering as a profession." Using the now infamous Challenger disaster as his model, Davis discusses both the evolution of engineering ethics as well as why engineers should obey their professional codes of ethics, from both a pragmatic and ethically-responsible point of view. Essential reading for any graduating engineering student.

Nesteruk, Jeffrey, "The Ethical Significance of Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 9, September 1991, pp. 723-727.

In this article, the focus is corporate decision-making structures, and conflicts regarding particular role obligations. Nesteruk argues that as laws change, so do the roles in the corporate hierarchy, thereby creating problems in the legal scholarship of corporate social responsibility.

Robinson, Carlton C., "Safety--An Important Responsibility," ITE Journal (Institute of Transportation Engineers), Vol. 61, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 21-24.

This article discusses safety as a critical ingredient for transport engineers and their managers.

Schapker, Dennis R., "Tort Reform and Design Professionals," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 116, July 1990, pp. 258-265.

Discusses the battle over tort reform and how it has affected the engineering profession since 1980. It is a call for engineers to get involved in the debate.

Stone, Christopher D., "Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behavior," New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

This book looks at corporate moral behavior; in particular, how law is a reaction to misdeeds in business behavior. Stone provides a thorough, albeit negative analysis of corporate ethics, and provides recommendations for promoting ethical behavior. Although written in 1975, the book still holds value for the student interested in social responsibility versus legal liability issues.

Tomlinson, Don E., "Choosing Social Responsibility Over Law: The Soldier of Fortune Classified Advertising Cases," Business and Professional Ethics, Vol. 9, Nos. 1&2, Spring-Summer 1990, pp. 79-96.

16

This article discusses the ethics of the Soldier of Fortune's guns-for-hire advertisements that resulted in several murders across the United States.

Notes

1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. P.L. 94-580. Abstract.

Lengthy congressional document which outlines the planning and implementation of stricter guidelines for the handling, treatment, storage and disposal of environmentally hazardous materials. Challenging to read.

2 Weisskoph, Steven. The Washington Post Magazine. "The Aberdeen Mess" January 15, 1989. p. 55.

Article that went to print just as the case was going to trial. Focuses on the personal side of the case, and comes across as being biased in favor of the defendants. 8 pages.

3 Videotape of prosecuting attorney Jane Barrett.

4 Baron, Marcia. The Moral Status of Loyalty. Illinois Institute of Technology: Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, 1984, p. 9.

One of a series of monographs on applied ethics that deal specifically with the engineering profession. Provides stimulating discussions both for and against loyalty. 28 pages with notes and an annotated bibliography.

5 Weisskoph, p. 57.