About mmjdiary
Professor Marianne Jennings is an emeritus professor of legal and ethical studies from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, retiring in 2011 after 35 years of teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in ethics and the legal environment of business. During her tenure at ASU, she served as director of the Joan and David Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics from 1995-1999. In 2006, she was appointed faculty director for the W.P. Carey Executive MBA Program. She has done consulting work for businesses and professional groups including AICPA, Boeing, Dial Corporation, Edward Jones, Mattel, Motorola, CFA Institute, Southern California Edison, the Institute of Internal Auditors, AIMR, DuPont, AES, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Motorola, Hy-Vee Foods, IBM, Bell Helicopter, Amgen, Raytheon, and VIAD.
The sixth edition of her textbook, Case Studies in Business Ethics, was published in February 2011. The ninth edition of her textbook, Business: lts Legal, Ethical and Global Environment was published in January 2011. The 23rd edition of her book, Business Law: Principles and Cases, will be published in January 2013. The tenth edition of her book, Real Estate Law, will also be published in January 2013. Her book, A Business Tale: A Story of Ethics, Choices, Success, and a Very Large Rabbit, a fable about business ethics, was chosen by Library Journal in 2004 as its business book of the year. A Business Tale was also a finalist for two other literary awards for 2004. In 2000 her book on corporate governance was published by the New York Times MBA Pocket Series. Her book on long-term success, Building a Business Through Good Times and Bad: Lessons from Fifteen Companies, Each With a Century of Dividends, was published in October 2002 and has been used by Booz, Allen, Hamilton for its work on business longevity. Her latest book, The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse was published by St. Martin’s Press in July 2006 and has been a finalist for two book awards.
Her weekly columns are syndicated around the country, and her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Reader's Digest. A collection of her essays, Nobody Fixes Real Carrot Sticks Anymore, first published in 1994 is still being published. She has been a commentator on business issues on All Things Considered for National Public Radio.
She has served on four boards of directors, including Arizona Public Service (1987-2000), Zealous Capital Corporation, and the Center for Children with Chronic Illness and Disability at the University of Minnesota. She was appointed to the board of advisors for the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators in 2004 and served on the board of trustees for Think Arizona, a public policy think tank. She has appeared on CNBC, CBS This Morning, the Today Show, and CBS Evening News.
In 2010 she was named one of the Top 100 Thought Leaders in Business Ethics by Trust Across America. Her books have been translated into four different languages. She received the British Emerald award for authoring one of their top 50 articles in management publications, chosen from over 15,000 articles.
Personal: Married since 1976 to Terry H. Jennings, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Deputy County Attorney; five children: Sarah, Sam, and John, and the late Claire and Hannah Jennings.
I agree. Why did the republicans and their tea partiers decline to constructively participate in any of the healthcare reform discussions/debates? Saying “No!” to everything isn’t exactly a cooperative strategy. And how ethical is it to spread outlandish lies such as Ms. Palin’s “your grandmother is going to be sentenced to death by President Obama if we get healthcare reform”? Taking advantage of the weak and uneducated like this is ethical? Is Marianne Jennings correct when she postulates above that everying is ethical if it supports your political position/party?
Not sure I follow the comment posted on Republicans and tea partiers. It is as if the reader is venting without reading. The advice from my post was “Fight the good fight,” which means honoring the process and, from an ethical perspective, hopes for good, honest debate. Political battles being what they are means that in the health care debate BOTH sides have had their moments of, “Now, that may be a stretch . . . ” There is, however, a purpose to having such exchanges — the process is open to any and all. That political speech requires a filter is not news. However, political speech later discredited affects the credibility of the speaker AND the process, which was my point. Clean process enhances the quality of the debate, the credibility of the speakers, and the willingness of the public to accept the legislation. On that last aspect, the health care bill has not done so well.
It is not unethical to offer your take on a proposed piece of legislation, however wrong the other side feels you may be. If you cross into misrepresentation then the penalty is a loss of credibility. And BOTH sides lost ground on their interpretations and characterizations when they did so. Truth does percolate and when it does, the misrepresentation resentment survives, and there’s that process issue again.
The comment reads as if legislation and proposed legislation are crystal clear and opponents and proponents must be faulted for what our dear commenter believes are mischaracterizations or, he seems to hint worse, fraud. He attributes negative attributes to those who differ with his views. That’s a tough standard for ethics — to censor discussion or disagreement that we believe is incorrect. As noted, there is a remedy in democracy for those who deceive. He should worry more about a system that disallows opining on what proposed legislation will do. Statutory interpretation is a tough slog and reasonable minds do differ.
We still haven’t figured out insider trading parameters, and we are some 76 years out from that 1934 Act. Lots of folks have been very wrong on their intepretation of what that statute did or did not cover. Some opposed to regulating insider trading predicted the failure of the markets. Perhaps the jury is still out on that, but we did make it 76 years after insider trading constraints took hold. We listened to those who see insider trading as an efficient way to run the market all along the way on this statutory debate, even when they were slinging mud at others. As a result, the court decisions are more detailed and the law is refined. Passionate arguments did that, however wrong they seemed at the time to those with differing views.
The good fight is one that wins hearts and minds through reason,even when there are underlying philosophical differences. We hope folks hold to the ethical standards of truth and avoiding false impressions. But, imposing censorship in the name of ethics because we believe someone is just plain wrong is darn dangerous.