The Case of Professor Ben Levin

Dominika Polakovic, Erica Bayley, Kara Douville, Alison Baker

Education 525
 The following document relays the opinions of the committee on two topics;

allowing Dr. Levin’s works as references, and allowing him to speak at our University.

Note that due to his previous actions Levin not only broke the Professional Code of

Conduct as an educator by violating Article 19: “The teacher does not engage in

activities which adversely affect the quality of the teacher’s professional service”,

(Alberta Teachers Association, 2018) but he also broke the criminal code since he was

found guilty of child pornography. These are the facts on which we made our ethical

analysis. First, our arguments for and against the use of Dr. Levin’s writing.

Using postmodern ethics, we can argue against the books being used based on

our ethical urge not to use Dr. Levin’s material. In terms of virtue ethics, choosing to use

the book demonstrates support for an individual who has been found criminally

responsible for their actions. This action would suggest the committee’s virtues align

with those they support. Students taking a course with his material as a reading may not

want to financially support the individual due to their virtues and would be forced to

choose between ensuring they are successful in the class and not backing down on

their virtues. This places students in a compromising position. According to our virtues

we do not want to put students in this predicament and restrict their education.

While our ethical urge is to not include the books, postmodern ethics asks that

we have no preconceptions before following this urge. While we would refuse his writing

related to sexual education, his other works are still researched by an expert, edited by

peers, and contribute to the varied perspectives of education. It is only due to our

preconceptions that we want to invalidate his opinion on education. Once we dismiss

these preconceptions, it is our intuitive reaction to continue to allow faculty members to

use and reference his works. From a deontological perspective we argue that his work

can be used as reference, not as mandatory reading. Students would not have to

directly interact with his material, but anyone could make their own decision to use his

works in their own research. We agreed that as Levin has served his time it is not up to

us to provide an ongoing punishment, refusing the use of his previous work. It is our

virtue to supply a high standard of education. By banning Dr. Levin’s work students

would be deprived of the expertise he can provide. Using the utilitarian framework in

conjunction with the use of Levin’s scholarly works, we feel as though his research can

still be referenced. His work is still appropriately peer-reviewed within the community. In

terms of the greater good, we feel as though students and educators can still benefit

from his work, and should individuals wish to not condone his literature they can choose

to do so on their own merits. As a committee it is our fundamental value to not limit

student education. As such it is our final opinion that members of the University,

students and staff, are not banned from using his works for readings. But, they may not

be a required reading for any class which the school offers.

Next, the committee addresses allowing Ben Levin to speak at our school. The

postmodern school of ethics asks us to ensure we are free of preconceptions before we

make our decision. In this case, the criminal history of Ben Levin imposes

preconceptions about his expertise and hinders our ability to make a clear ethical

decision about his ability to present in a lecture. When assessing why it would be

important to allow Dr. Levin to speak in consideration of virtue ethics, the committee

must consider how their virtues restrict the professional and daily life of an individual.

When taking into consideration that Dr. Levin did go to prison and served the time
deemed sensible for the crimes committed, the panel must evaluate if they have the

right to keep compromising the career of Dr. Levin. To not allow him to speak would

further penalize an individual who is to be considered to have served their punishment.

Even while considering the above paragraph, it is still our opinion that Dr Levin

should be barred from speaking at the University. Firstly, refer to postmodern ethics. As

a committee our immediate feeling is that Levin should not be allowed to speak due to

the magnitude of his crimes and the effect this will have on the culture of the lecture. We

acknowledge his expertise regardless of his criminal history and our preconceptions

stemming from his crimes, but it is still our moral urge to ban him from speaking as

preconceptions will affect the audiences experience with his content. As humans, the

audience will struggle to separate his expertise knowledge from the crimes he

committed. In order to separate these two parts of him, students will need to participate

in an I-It relationship, which may interfere with their own ethics. When reviewing the

decision considering virtue ethics, the committee must consider how the decision may

impact the character and fundamental beliefs of the parties involved. By allowing him to

speak we are forcing students to address their own virtues and they may miss out on

their education if they choose to not attend the lecture. In addition, students who do

attend the lecture will be impacted by the culture Ben Levin’s criminal history creates.

From a deontological perspective as members of a faculty have a duty to our students

to not bring in someone who has violated both teacher and criminal codes. When

putting ourselves in the position of the students we find that that we would most likely

feel very uncomfortable knowing that our speaker had committed such extreme crimes.

Child pornography is a disturbing offense and despite his previous strengths in

education students may be distracted and uninterested in his lecture. As educators it is

our opinion that our responsibility is to ensure a comfortable and safe space for all

learners, and allowing Ben Levin to speak violates this duty. From a Utilitarian approach

we as a committee feel as though Ben Levin should not be permitted to speak within our

educational programming. We have come to this conclusion in reference to the ideals

behind cultural relativism, viewing the pre-service and in-service teacher population as a

culture. (Walker K. W. & Donlevy, J.K., 2006) We feel as though it is safe to assume

that this cultural group’s duty is to protect and nurture children. Within Levin’s case,

knowing the breadth of his crimes, the audience will likely not wish to take scholarly

advice from a sadistic pedophile, which is inherently an opposing viewpoint to the

ethical and moral implications of being an educator. In addition, as the leaders of

education we understand that this particular crime is arguably one of the worst offences,

and we do not want to deliver the message that there is leniency with regards to this

offence. Thus, in terms of the greater good and in pleasing the majority of the audience

in question, we do not feel as though Ben Levin would be an appropriate guest lecturer.

In conclusion, as a committee determining the ethics of inviting Ben Levin into a

lecture, it is our responsibility to understand our own ethics in this situation as well as

understand the position we would put our students in, especially in regards to their own

ethics. To ask our students to attend a lecture which they may fundamentally disagree

with as well as use a book which they would be required to financially support a person

they disagree with, would be placing faculty and students in a position to question their

own priorities in valuing their ethics or getting a good mark. By not including this text

and this lecture within the classroom we are protecting our student’s education. Those
that choose still have access to the material and may reference Dr Levin in their work.

Thus, education is not being withheld, and students can, without being forced, choose

to participate in Dr. Levin’s work.

 References:

Alberta Teachers Association. (2018). Code of Professional Conduct. Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-

Professionals/IM-4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf

Walker K. W. & Donlevy, J.K. (2006) Beyond Relativism to Ethical Decision-Making. Journal of

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