Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Running head: THE CASE OF DR.

LEVIN 1

The Case of Dr. Levin

Sean Ko, Michelle Laing, Julia Oz, Rebecca Greig, Amy Weekes, Kessa Beddington

University of Calgary

EDUC 525

November 15th, 2018


THE CASE OF DR. LEVIN 2

Argument for the continued use of Dr. Levin’s works and lectures at the school:

To disregard all of Dr. Benjamin Levin’s previous academic work in the field due to
his child pornography charge would not be an ethical decision. As Walker and Donlevy (2006)
share “when the rationale for ethical decision-making is reduced to, or limited to, social opinion
or subjected preferences, as the best measures of right and wrong, then the school leader’s
integrity is at risk” (224-225). While some members of the committee are adamant in refusing to
use Dr. Levin’s works, their decision seemingly comes from an emotionally-based argument. To
base the decision on whether or not to use a previously academically respected professor on the
emotional arguments of several peers would lessen the integrity of the committee. To “[act] with
personal integrity means that there is an alignment of what one knows, with what one believes,
and what one does” (Walker & Donlevy, 2006, p. 225). If the committee were to act solely on
their personal beliefs that child pornography charges rescind the previous accountability of Dr.
Levin’s work, then their ethical decision-making lacks “the moral compass necessary for
fundamental fairness” (Walker & Donlevy, 2006, p. 227). To be an ethical decision maker for
the committee, one would have to separate their personal beliefs from their knowledge and their
actions. In this case, separating their beliefs regarding Dr. Levin’s child pornography charges
from his previous academic work and their decision to continue using his works and utilize him
and his experience as an academic guest.

Argument for discontinuing the use of Dr. Levin’s works and lectures at the school:

Dr. Levin not being invited to speak at the school first suggests the assumption that what
he did is in fact morally wrong, which is the case when looked at through moral objectivism or a
moral relativism lens. Under the moral objectivism framework, certain things are simply right or
wrong regardless of opinion, so given the consequences of Dr. Levin’s actions on the child
victims, it is fair to say that his actions were morally wrong. When applying the moral relativism
framework, we can see that Dr. Levin’s actions were morally wrong, as David Copp (1995, cited
in Gowans, 2018) states, “it is true that something is morally wrong only if it is wrong in relation
to the justified moral code of some society, and a code is justified in a society only if the society
would be rationally required to select it” (para. 77). Since Dr. Levin went to prison for his
actions, we can establish that his actions were morally wrong in the context of our society.
Having established that Dr. Levin’s actions were morally wrong, from an objective or
relative standpoint, there is also the matter of leadership to consider. If the school were to invite
Dr. Levin to speak, it would be implied that he is a figure to be respected and listened to.
Therefore, the school must consider his moral character when debating if he should speak, and
not just the fact that he has paid his legal debt to society through his imprisonment. Choosing not
to invite Dr. Levin to speak would clarify that the contributions he has made to education do not
erase his moral wrongs; ultimately, inviting Dr. would be more harmful than good.

Analyzing the arguments through cultural relativism:

When discussing whether ABC University should allow Ben Levin to speak, one must
look at the situation through the lens of cultural relativism. His actions must be considered
“relative to the moral norms of the society…” (Velasquez, M., et. at., 1992) in which he lives. In
Dr. Levin’s case, we must look at how society generally views crimes as well as how society
THE CASE OF DR. LEVIN 3

punishes them. In general there is a “Unconditional acceptance...” that engaging in child


pornography is morally evil and therefore “...encourages people to respect the values held by
others” (Noddings, N. 1992). Educators work to better the lives of their students intellectually
and socially through teaching and the relationships built with their students. This is a contrast to
Dr. Levin’s actions, who not only broke the trust of innocent and impressionable children but
also caused them emotional damage. Society has determined that anyone causing emotional
damage should be punished for those actions based on their severity. It is for these reasons that
the committee should not allow Dr. Levin to speak and should discontinue his teachings.

Analyzing the arguments through subjective relativism:

In the case of Dr. Levin, the committee believes that Levin should not be invited to
speak, nor should his publications be used in an educational context. When using subjective
relativism to examine the ethical decision that must be made by the board, the decision “centers
its morality in the individual’s preferences rather than that of community” (Walker & Donlevy,
2006, p. 223). As a committee, it is their “choice and...ability to choose which determines the
moral status of a given decision that produces action” (Walker & Donlevy, 2006, p. 223). Based
on their own internal moral compasses, the committee has determined that it would be immoral
to have Levin communicate his ideas with future students, as he himself has used immoral
judgement and had intentionally put children in positions of harm. Levin acted in a way that
disgraced the profession of teaching, and should have no opportunity to educate pre-service
teachers. He conducted himself in an unforgivable manner to the academic community and goes
against the professional code of conduct. Despite the successes of his career, Dr. Levin’s
indiscretions cannot be overlooked by the committee.

Tying emotivism to the article:

Emotivism focuses on the moral judgment or emotions tied to a statement of ethical fact.
It is the emotive force which, when uttered along with the statement, is meant to impress the
opinion of the speaker. In Mandel’s article, emotivism can be seen in the following excerpt, “In
one disgusting sampling read out in court, the depraved Levin told one London “mom” he’d like
to “f— all 3 (of her children) in front of you with your help…would they submit or would I need
to tie them?”” (Mandel, 2017). In this case the Emotive Aspects are “Disgusting”, “the
depraved”, and the “” around the word mom. These emotive terms and punctuations add nothing
to the statements of fact, they serve instead to communicate the authors moral judgements
against Levin in this case.

Similarly, in the Boesveld article, emotivism can be found particularly in this statement,
“With eyes downcast and left hand pressed to his forehead, a once well-respected leader in
education listened as the Crown characterized him instead as a “leader” in a depraved Internet
community in which he counselled undercover officers to sexually assault children”(Boesveld,
2015). Here, the emotive forces are “A one well-respected leader in education”, and “depraved”

These emotive phrases serve augment the moral impact of the statement, and do not add
anything to the statement of fact. The reader can interpret the moral opinion of the author in
regards to the statement through these phrases. Articles written in the wake of the Levin case
shows how authors are far from unclear or hesitant in expressing their judgement regarding
THE CASE OF DR. LEVIN 4

Levin’s actions; they each employ emotivism to augment the impact of their statements and
articles.

Conclusion + Group's opinion

As aspiring teachers who are committed to lifelong learning and creating a safe and warm
environment for our students, it is evident then that Mr. Levin’s actions does not bring safety or
create a warm environment for children. Mr. Levin’s actions not only disgraced and lowered the
status of the profession, but also unconsciously created a dangerous environment within the
school system with his presence. Old habits die hard and by placing him in an environment
where there are children even for just a speech is the same as placing the children at risk. As
such, our group agrees that Mr. Levin should not be welcome to speak in a setting where there
may be minors. As far as whether his articles should still be considered for academia, we think
that the writing of ideas within scholarly papers truly conveys a person’s innate nature, which,
has come to be exposed as that of the undutiful, indecent, and untrustworthy human being. These
ideas from his character can be intrinsically embedded into his writings, thus potentially lead
prospective students of learning astray. Additionally, his credibility as a scholar is now
questionable, which now warrants the credibility of his writing as a whole. The referencing of his
articles also poses a risk to individuals who may pick up on his teaching. To conclude, by
employing both the ideas of cultural relativism and subjective relativism, it is evident that Mr.
Levin should not only not be invited to do a talk, but also should not be further referenced
throughout academia. We as a group also feel that Levin is a dangerous individual and should
not be reintroduced into the profession.
THE CASE OF DR. LEVIN 5

References

Boesveld, S. (2015). Benjamin Levin was a ‘leader’ in a depraved Internet community: Crown,
National Post. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/benjamin-levin-was-a-
leader-in-a-depraved-internet-community-crown

Gowans, C. (2018). Moral relativism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#MixPosRapBetRelObj

Mandel, M. (2017). Depraved world view of Ben Levin continues on parole. Toronto Sun.
Retrieved from https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/depraved-world-view-of-ben-levin-
continues-on-parole

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education.


Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.

Velasquez, M., Andre C., Shanks T., S.J., Meyer M. J., (1992). Ethical Relativism. Retrieved
from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/

Walker, K. D., & Donlevy, J. K. (2006). Beyond relativism to ethical decision making.

Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 216-239.

Potrebbero piacerti anche