Business Ethics Project: College Admissions Scandal Analysis

This project is a thorough analysis of the ethical issues surrounding the college admissions scandal, focusing on ethical decision-making in a business context. The student identifies the scandal as a case of bribery, where parents paid to falsify their children's test scores and gain admission into prestigious universities. The project delves into various ethical theories such as utilitarianism and egoism, applying them to the actions of parents, education consultants, and the universities involved. The analysis uses a six-step decision-making model, including identifying the ethical problem, collecting information, analyzing the situation, applying ethical principles (particularly Kantian philosophy), making a decision, and implementing the solution. The project concludes that all parties involved are unethical and suggests equal punishment for the accused, along with changes to admission policies based on merit. The project emphasizes the importance of understanding ethical concepts and decision-making processes to address ethical dilemmas in business.

Running head: BUSINESS ETHICS
Business Ethics
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1BUSINESS ETHICS
Topic: Ethical issue and decision making
Ethics is necessary in every business. Most companies follow certain ethical standard
in order to foster positive practice. Conforming to certain ethical standards also ensure the
company retain their image and increase consumer trust (Herschel, Richard, and Virginia M.
Miori, pp.31-36). In most cases, ethical decision making is making the choice between two
alternatives that are equally unpleasant. One such issue came to my knowledge from the
recent newspaper and media channel news. The news circulates that the well-known actress
Felicity Huffman and 50 other parents were charged by the US court for paying bribe to
education counselors for creating false or influenced results for their children ("College
Admissions Scandal". Nytimes.Com). When the news came into focus the reason became
quite clear. In most prestigious universities, the authority prefers the candidates who have
family history with that college. This makes it difficult for emerging rich to get their children
admitted to a reputable university. Still, their dream and desire to get their children into a
reputable institution so that they are able to achieve better in future is indomitable within all
parents. The education counselors take the advantage of these situation and falsify tests, help
the students cheat and in many ways ensure that their paper is leniently checked so that the
student’s admission gets confirmed.
The problem here has many layers. The very first ethical issue that appears is the
bribery (Crossan, Mazutis and Seijts, pp. 567-581). Paying money in order to falsify exam
results and outcome is extremely unethical. These parents that have been accused of the deed
have money as most of them are rich. There is no hope for the middle class or the poorer
section of the society to get their children into these colleges even if they want to. On the
other hand are the counselor that take the money are also committing an unethical act. They
are serving their own money making purpose and in the process, corrupting the education
system. Due to this practice, many deserving candidates do not get the chance to read in those

2BUSINESS ETHICS
institutions. The colleges that are in question are also to be blamed. The admission process
should be based on purely merit, though, in this case, the institutions are showing favoritism
towards their former students. This cycle is a vicious cycle and is unlikely to and. When the
case went to court, most accused were fined a large sum of money and only a symbolic time
in jail. In case of Felicity Huffman, it seemed as if she would receive a harsher sentence. Due
to her notoriety, the decision was becoming biased. In this regard, the judiciary was also
performing their responsibility unethically. They are supposed to be just and fair, devoid of
any discrimination, which in this case did not happen. The lawyer of the actress had to plead
her case severely before she was given the same punishment as others.
In this whole issue, there are several ethical theories that can explain the situation.
These theories and other counter theories can also be used to reach to possible solutions. The
most important is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism concerns itself with the concept suggested by
its name, utility. In this theory, the believers do things based on the outcome only (Mill,
pp.337-383). It does not matter for them about the long term impact of their decision. It is a
relatively new concept that has emerged due to postmodern culture and the recent popularity
of self-serving mentality of the millennial. Another concept that is related to this situation is
egoism. Egoism is the bass of this self-serving mentality. It speaks of taking decisions that
benefit the self (Burgess-Jackson, pp.529-542). In this case, both the parents and the
education consultants followed a mix of utilitarian as well as egoistic ethics. The parents
wanted to fulfill their one desire to see their children in renowned universities. They had the
means to afford and thus, they paid large sums of money to achieve their end. The
educationists too, saw huge monetary gain and fueled the whole fiasco. This ordeal is
considered as extremely unethical and destroys the idea of educational integrity. The
universities involved in this scam have refused to take blame though they are not completely

3BUSINESS ETHICS
innocent. They give admissions to people that are less than deserved on the basis that their
parents had been the students of the same university.
The solution to this problem can be reached if one takes time to analyze the situation
and follow an ethical decision making process. The decision making model has six steps. The
first step is to identify the ethical problem (Valentine, S., Nam, S.H., Hollingworth, D. and
Hall, pp.509-526). In this scenario, the main ethical problem is the loss of integrity in
education system and gaining favor through money. The second step os to collect information
about the scenario. This ensures that the decision maker is aware of all the perspective and is
equipped with knowledge that will lead him to an efficient decision making. In the education
fiasco, after collecting all the information, it was found that not only the parents but also the
education consultants are to be blamed. Moreover, the institutions that were mentioned in the
incident practiced unjust rule of admission procedure. The next step is to analyze the situation
and state the options. In this case there are many options. The offenders could be punished
depending on the severity of their crime. The judge could also decide to give equal
punishment to all to show that that the involvement in this matter is enough to solicit
punishment. The institutions should also consider improving their ethical stance when it
comes to admission procedure so that such incidents do not occur in future. The next step is
to apply ethical principles to the options. Applying Kantian philosophy of categorical
imperative reaching the solution becomes easier. All the three parties involved here, the
parents, the counselors and the institutions are in the wrong some way or the other. Giving
bribe, taking bribe and admitting on the basis of favor are all unethical and go against the
Kantian Philosophy (Timmermann, pp.36-64). This leads to the decision making. I this
scenario, all the accused should be given equal punishment. The institutions should be
decreed to change their admission policy to include students on the basis of talent. The
counselors should be intimidated that their role in the admission process should remain

4BUSINESS ETHICS
limited to aiding the students or coaching the students so that they perform better rather than
manipulating test results. After this comes the implementation process. The government
should create group that will oversee the implementation and monitor its progress and
success.
The most important decision regarding this issue falls on the government. They need
to improve the ethical condition of the education sector. The institutions too have certain
ethical decisions to make. Other than improving their admission and institutional policies hay
also need to start investigating the individuals that were involved in this ordeal. They should
ensure that in future, these kinds of incident do not take place. The parents too, need to
improve their ethical standpoint. It is natural to want to admit one’s children into god
institution to ensure their success, but it should not come at the price where they have to
compromise their moral standards. The fact that the parents had pleaded guilty, proves that
they are willing to take responsibility for their deed which again shows ethical character. It is
unlikely that similar incidents will arise where they are involved.
From the above discussion it can be concluded that the understanding the ethical
concepts and theories and decision making process allows one to take efficient decisions in
ethical dilemma.

5BUSINESS ETHICS
Bibliography
"College Admissions Scandal". Nytimes.Com, 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/college-admissions-scandal. Accessed 15 Sept
2019.
Burgess-Jackson, Keith. "Taking egoism seriously." Ethical theory and moral practice 16.3
(2013): 529-542.
Crossan, Mary, Daina Mazutis, and Gerard Seijts. "In search of virtue: The role of virtues,
values and character strengths in ethical decision making." Journal of Business
Ethics 113.4 (2013): 567-581.
Herschel, Richard, and Virginia M. Miori. "Ethics & big data." Technology in Society 49
(2017): 31-36.
Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Seven masterpieces of philosophy. Routledge, 2016. 337-
383.
Timmermann, Jens. "Kantian dilemmas? Moral conflict in Kant’s ethical theory." (2013): 36-
64.
Valentine, Sean, et al. "Ethical context and ethical decision making: Examination of an
alternative statistical approach for identifying variable relationships." Journal of
Business Ethics 124.3 (2014): 509-526.