Teaching philosophy, l6:2, Jwne 1993 123rsophy moved to ,,center lry'' was that it absorbed 'nd" (Moral phitosophy, 8. Hartford, Connecticut tA[. NCE f Seicncc ntemotionol lhod, ond ol sciencos I nes€orch ond methods :dirciplinas , Chomistry, ciology, sues) rda keting ft, From Classroom to Boardroorn: Teacriing Fracticar Ethics cutside the Acaderny ELLEN R. KLEIN University of North Flarido Socrates had it righ.t ailarong. philosophy cannot be taught, at least not:il:il:::jJ:J;1t: +*:r'";;;l ,, nor rnerery a roo' where inand srudenr .",r" lt^:lYoen t,.bu t a prace, indero unypiui*,-Jn"r* reacher r*r1:,:;{;,f;:1,':,,'#,i+1{1trtIii.#,,.jfil*j*tr*itT? :: jff cr a s s ro o m, b u t i n n " i 0,.. #*fi J1:"ffi :,?lr,l; l1:J;:liJ: Ts"l:: Not Business as usttal Much progress has been made introdur. t h e a r t o r p h' o s o p h i z i n g ; i' ;. ;;;::1": xff ill"" j*ff : L1,,1 : i;role-playing. on"-11,srr' ii1, nr1*"""r,'*nf srop rhere? Why limit theopporrunirv for detra.re and discussion-io activirt;: ;;; de *a's of theacademy? whv nor rea". rh" ;i;iroi uno give stucrenrs a chance ro"do" ph'osophv i',the ',ur *rriJr orii*rrun.", instead of simpry form-ing debare teims -1,1::li:k+;;il, ji. cons of eurhunuriu orhabitardestruction, why not ler srudents purii"ipur, ln u.t"ui-J""x,lr_,nru,", 1'1jffiT ; : :-i:f '*"#;'J| ::Jj :n:',:kr, : r ;u "'iv, i", i* uT o,, i, u. i n t o t h e " o * *, n lty r o p a r r i c i p a r " il ; ; ;.:ffi l?";,XiJrl"ii: ; : ;, " o " ",, re-class prepartttiorc rn preparation' I appealed to the chambers of commerce of two coun_ :iliF :il I# :x ff.1:'1',:l:::*:li:',' n d a n a dj a ce ;; ;;il, i n c, u s.which ran in their bur .c,assrhep,i,i,iti,]lr,m*hli;*$i':.::"1'_,iiff ff i,'J"'#, j; to my project. x askecr ,r,r,-,i,.y p";i;"#:::1T'"rilJJ::l"jiir:Ti: assisr in the on_going operarion;f.r;;^;;;eany,s erhics commi*ee or. if @Teaching phitosoplry,1993. All rights reserved .0745_57gglg3/1d02-0123$1.00 tEss I24 ELLEN R. KLEIN the company had no ethics committee' to allow us to participate in the i""""ii;ii"n and development of o,1l'^-.,-o favorably to the appeal. Six -itii:t:llii""ff llJ'iln.";fi 'f:!iil;;;'"*i!o'lo*""wi'ih'[he head of the ethics "o-*iit"" it uLu'g"po*"' Companys (which emp r o y e d o v e r 2, 0o 0 dil;' i; " 9 0 ":' l,i X: a:: ""1 [,H,'J,'$ T I il?ff: ill[H.:"l'? J TffiHi ;T l"J :il;i""# ; ; ioo p " o pr " 1 D u r in g these meeting" t *u'";;lt" i" t"""i"tt boih companies to participate' By the time classeJ U"g^" t*t more larg" to'potutions had'signed on: a n I n te r n a t i tt u r crt J'iiiif ^'p'o J u t t i o n"C J' p u n y (wh ose I oc al p I a n t e moloved over 100 d;i;;';;i u s-uu"t"p6*"i bo-punv (rvhich empfoy.a 60 PeoPle)' In-Class PreParations Eight students signed on for the class?' I created four group^s'and paired the student' t'p *oirr'u"n'l^'nut' at'O philosophy major/non-major' so as to Hli[l;":,:g,rult?;:$:]''.:"i*ir*t:ti]'1512;";;weeksor normative ethics" j"a il"tt""ts-etttics"zf Three *:"It examininq casestudies in business "ii#;1"0,:) r,,gtri *""t, of alternating oi-site" visits with "tuSS pr"r""rr't^Jtio* uuo"t thi visits by each of the four groups' Thein-classp'";;;;;i;anddiscussiuon'*Lt"tofocusonwhatwas rearned at the ""-;;;t ;"d11n11iy: **1;;1ft[:1;;:::Ji";]":l ;:t**'":#f ;: :'1ii:1"::'l:fi ;j;,;;;' " "'u " i' r'h e cr a s s w a s "-p*"a to particioate in all discusstons' -'t^ D uring tt'"'" "'i5i"iJiJ'" "iuttt"om sessions (betwe e n'comp any vrsits), my role was ;;iil;;t;f tooeratoi' t helped maintain philosophicat rocus a'd rem,Jsiudents tl:"1::iiîb-v;v *:'l:t::lmethod or analvsisandthep;;;;useoftheoreticaiconstiuctsthatrationaldecisioni are '"u"h"d'''I-5;;;;";;J the students to question'and challenge management,'n"iJ t*"""i"ti1 !"a li t;;'nutiul ethical theories thev were attempting to apply: *t'itt ma'niui;i;; "^ eye '?n the students' goals for change, thei, pr"tu'io*' q9ti1i"". "1;:outli-â"-1',rund the psycholosical unO ""oro*]" t'u",ott p".iliut to their company"The Teacher On-Site Iviewedmyrolewhileon-siteasthatofnurturer.Iremindedthestudents prior t" "*il t"-'it" ""it that Lworked for th ''and that I was available ir tney ieeiaei -"-u. teacher, senior philosopher' person unabletobeintimidatedby*u"ug"*"n-''";;'i";""er'Ialsoinstilledin them the u"ri"r t'nl1 t]r]rlu, it "ii "o.r"uiiin uno that, in the f al analvsis' they were t"'pt'n'iUf" for their projects'13 I In addition to just b' opportunitY to cast a ( Although I never corre notes during each visit ward (usuallY at a rest' sion. I told them what about their Performan Practical accomPlishl Power ComPanY, this t the ethics committee t form and content. These changes requ committee-emPloYe' were not being rePre which the comPanY s areas of serious ethica indirectlY affected the aeenda and that certe n-ut.d. FinallY. and m determined bY the cli by the CE,O (who c' committee was imPol committee members ParentheticallY, wl demarcate ethical de responded bY claimi sions and offering cr from their colleague In the end, all men were needed and in UnderstandablY, s committees, the stuc jects and successes'. The students work gestions:1) A comPl was essentiallY a one behave in certain wi The develoPment o document and then tions were taken se ethical code. as we committee to overs participate in the to the appeal. Six i to meet with the ranys (which emiscuss my project rctors) of a Large people). During to participate. ns had signed on: ;e local plant empanv (which emroups and paired n-major, so as to 1) Four weeks of examining case- :rnating on-site11 f the four groups. )cus on what was t during the next ugh each pair of :r of the class was ren company visntain philosophi- :ritical method of rat rational decirn and chalienge cal theories they on the students' " and the psycho- :minded the stua, and that I was pher, person unI also instilled in the final analysis, FROM CLASSROOMTO BOARDROOM I25 In addition to just being there for the students, I also saw this as an opportunity to cast a critical eye on their philosophical performances. Although I never corrected the students while on-site I did take careful notes during each visitla and met with each group informally soon afterward (usualiy at a restaurant somewhere on the route home) for discussion. tr told them what I thought was good (or could have been better) about their performances. P ractical A cco mp lis hments Practical accomplishments were achieved. In the case of the Large Po,wer Company, this translated into the students convincing the head of the ethics committee that his organization must undergo changes, both in form and content. These changes required the inclusion of two additional groups to the committee**employees from sections of the company whose interests were not being represented and non-ernployees from the community which the company served. Furthermore, it was suggested that certain areas of serious ethical concern (for exampie, decisions which directly or indirectly affected the environment) be incorporated into the committee agenda and that certain questions of a purely legalistic nature be eliminated. Finally, and much to the r-lismay of the committee head, it was determined by the class that insofar as the committee was not attended by the CEO (who could override any and all decisions it made), the committee was impr:tent and mere window dressing. The students urged committee members to fight for ernpowerment. Farenthetically, when challenged by the ethics committee officer to demarcate ethical decisions from other kinds of decisions, the students responded by claiming that there was an ethical component to all decisions and offering case studies learned in the classroom and examples from their colleagues' experiences on-site to back up their position. In the end, all members of the committee concurred that these changes were needed and in the brest interest of the company" Understandabiy, since none of the other companies had existing ethics committees, the students working at those three sites had different projects and successes" The students working at the Small Power Company made two bold suggestions: 1) A complete revamping of the existing "Code of Ethics" (which was essentially a one-sided legal document in which employees promised to behave in certain ways, regardless of the eonduet of management) and,2) The development of a committee first to oversee the reworking of the documeirt and then to continue to play a role in its evolution. tsoth suggestions were taken seriously and the students were asked to develop a more ethical code, as weli as a proposal for the development of an ethics crimmittee to oversee incclrporation into company policy.ts 1.26 ELLEN R. KLErN The students working with the Large Manufacturing Company andthose working with the International chemical prodriction companystarted with existing mechanisms for employee/employer relations (for example, employee grievance committees) and attempied to expand thescope of employee representation and the types .f ;pi.r; concernswhich could be addressed. Here the students iound u g."ui "t,uuenge inconvincing management that it was not only ethicalry firpo.J.rt but also"businesswise" to allow workers to play i larg". rore in the decision-making process of the company. The success of the students working with the Internationar chemicalProduction.company wa-s marked uy-tne fact that they were asked tomoderate discussions at the company,s monthly employee/_u.rug"_"nt meetings. Management agreed t-o thir change i'prl."ou.e after it wasconvinced_that employees were more frank-and open with the students Prel!.n!t workers agreed because they felt that student involvement lentcredibility to their comments and complaints. The two sides viewed thestudents, appropriately, as impartial advocates for better relati'ns. The last pair of students (who worked with the Large t runuru"turing company) met with more difficulties than the studen-ts working at theother three sites' And, in the final analysis, their contribution to thecompany's amelioration was minimal. At'best it can be saio ttre studentsshowed management tha-t.it was unjustly elitist and that the presentcommittees were hierarchicar and tyrannicar.16 This, ho;;;;;, did notprevent the students from learning iomething. Although utiioo ott"r,when the students approached -unug"n'"nt *it' ideai for giving theworkers more freedom and autonomylhey were met with comments tothe effect that if these rights were exiended they would be abused, thestudents pressed on undaunted. By using theii philosophical toolr-offering competing scenarios, in wirich ,ilgnt, uni pri"il;;;;;ere ex_tended to the workers resulting in greater pioductiviiy unJfr-rit-ron'" progress was made. What the Students Learned Although there were days in which I spent many hours meeting cEosand plant managers for lunch and diicussing personal tensions withtop-management and students, the overall feelLg from the stuoents anothe members of the business community was positive.rt For a teacher, however' success is ultimaiely measured by studentlearning' Judging from the performances both in and out of the class-room, I believe the students did indeed learn. upon reading each stu-dent's personal testimony, I grew even more convinced. All eight students rearned the varue of philosophy, in terms of gaining a background in ethical rheoryr8 and in deveroping criti.at thinking skills.Here are a few comments which attest to tnir''on" philos;;ht major FI claimed to have discove pursuit but has real, pri business major stated, ") vocative questions that r process." Another businc in every part of the life major (a returning stud claimed to have learnec debate and analyze ever learned "to defend my b the other philosophy maj only an oxymoron, but th the hypocritical propagar socialisml"le Evd At the beginning of the ative weight as the follo, mined by the quantity an additional 20o/" of" the fin ism, creativity, and philo projects (5% each) follou students were to offer a were attempting to carry and any philosophical co ethics or business ethics I analysis. The final 60% c quality of their written w paper on any topic in bus This heavy emphasis o for it did not specify that company they worked w their papers focus on the have a successful experi, ethics. I should have real on-site experience would up with a good topic or w Further, not placing grt mistake, given the dynami< the students were so excil respective company that unimportant and the qual It would have been bett very least, insist that the p îtl:rr'lr Company and.ar _rroductlon Companyeremployer rela tions (tbr arrempred to expand ihe es ot employee concerns ).und a.greal challenge in ucaily lmportant buialso 3er role in the decision_ Inrernational Chemical Inat they were asked lo employee/managemen t r procedure after it was open with the sludents uoent involvement lent re, rwo sides viewed the I Defter relations. : I.arge Manufacturing uoents working at th! rr contribution to the ln be said the students ,and. that the present nrs, however, did not tt,nough all too often r ldeas for giving the ret with.orrn"nt, tovould be abused. the nrrosophicai tools_ . privileges were ex_ tty and profit.-some FROM CLASSROOM TO BOARDR.OOM 727 ciairned to have discovered that, "phitrosophy is not just some abstractpursuit but has real,.practicut uppiirutrrns outside the ciassroom.,, Abusi'ess rnajor stated, "I learned'irr, ,orr".t technique for asking pro-vocative quesrions that would facilitate the "c,mpanit ,;;_;r"rtioningprocess'" Anothertrus.iness major clairneel to have learned that .,ethics isin every parr of rhe .life/wort';;;;;;.e.,, And yet another businessmajor (a returning student *fro il u prrtner in.an engineering firm)clairned to have rearned "never il "Jr.p, the first uni*", question,debate and analyze everything." rne one. psychology major in the crasslearned "to defend my beriefs"wrlr*onoirtion and-confiience.,, Lastly,the other philosophy major l"rr;;;;;;; ,,the term ,business ethics, is noronly an oxymoron, but the fact that ,h" ,ot ""p, exists at all is a tribute to :::,lilffi:lltical propaganda that is the cauing eard of lrr" ,'"* u"rrgeois Evaluation of Stwdent Work 1:.'^n: beginning of the course, I announced the ctistribution of evalu_atrve weight as the.followlng: 2Q% oftire final grade was to tre creter_mined by the quantity a.na qiotiiy of. ,l;;. crassroom parricipation.ro Anadditional 20% of the final graa" tr i* J"termined by the professional-ism' creariviry, and philosoihical u.;;;" shown in rheir four in-crassprojecrs (5 % each) fo'owing "."rr oitr,"i, five on-site activities. Here thestudents were to offer a dJscription oi rf," :ompany, what plans theywere attempting to carry out inihe future, what results were actualizedand any phirosophical commentt "on.".nrng the nature of phiiosophy,ethics or business ethics that trr"y ttt"rgi-,t need further investigation oranalysis' The finar 60'h af trre rinaig.;e.was to be deterrninJo uy tr,"quality of their written w.ork_an luipro*lrnutely) ten page phitosophypaper on any topic in business ethics. ' This heavy emphasis ?1,,h" final paper. in rerrospect, was misguidedfor it did nor spe;ify that the studeni f6cus their final paper only on thecompany they worke!, wjttr The original reason for not insisting thattheir papers focus on their compa;ffi;,, allow students who did nothave a successful experience to *orr. ln'ro-" other area of businessethics' I should have realized that trr" ,u.."ru (or lack or ,u."..rr; .r unon-site experience *^r_"lo.have no t";; on ih" p.orprrt, to, comingup with a good ropic or writing u *".;;t;i"ce of philosophy.Further' not piacing greater emphasis tn tne practical projects was a il::ffi"XI;l* i:;".ics of the.ru,,. eri". theii firsr .;-si;""nerience. :"-:ry:!,:.:*r,;:j:;',:i*X#'#i"T;: j::i",;'j:'Jili,.l;;unrmportant and the quarity of work on it reflected lack of interest.2rIt would have been U"ttri to forgo ttre finuf pup". altogether, or, at thevery least, insist that the paper periain to the on-site experience an.have rurs meeting CEOs onal tensions with 11; the students and asured by stuclent q out of the class_ d:.udinC each stu_ n terms of gainina cai.thinking skiliJ pnrrosophy major L28 ELLEN R. KLEIN its weight toward the final grade drastically reduced. In either case, the remaining percentage of weight should have been distributed unequally amongst th-e projects presented in class (the first project weighing the least, etc.)22 Conclusion Conveying the richness that is philosophy is no simple mission. When the subject is practical ethics, the task becomes all the more arduous. For while the theory behind ethics may come alive in a classroom, even a seasoned pedagogue finds relating the practical application of that theory difficult using only chalk and blackboard. Perhaps the practical ethics teacher can do more justice to both students and subject by holding class in the boardroom, or wherever the praxis of ethics resides. Notes I give special thanks to the students who participated in my Business Ethics Class: Josh Buchman, Heather Donovan, Alex Heintz, George Holm, Jim Luff, Kate Pynn, Kristen Schneeloch, and Dianna Zaring. 1. what follows is a case study of my business ethics course, "Business Ethics 401," but I believe a similar format could be used for any practical ethics course. 2. Sometimes these are acted out and sometimes they are played out on a computer with the help of programs likeBRIBES, SCARCITY and TRANSPLANT: or in conjunction with videodisc technology likeTHEoRIA. For more extensive comments on the usefulness of such software see Pieter Mostert, Fokke Fernhout and rheo van willingenburg's article "computer Assisted Instruction in Ethical Decision Making," The Computers and Philosophy Newsletter,4:! + 4:2, July 1989 and The Chronicle of Higher Education,March 4, 1992,pp. A2Z-A24. 3. For an excellent account of the usefulness of this technique see Morton E. Winston's "Ethics Committee Simulations," Teaching philosophy 13:2, June, 1.990. _ 4. only businesses with more than fifty employees were approached because these are more indicative of corporate America. _ 5. I a_pologize f.or the use of cumbersome definite descriptions like .Large Power C.ompany,' but the.use of proper names would violate our (my and the students') promise of confidentiality. .6. The meetings took quite a long time and certainly tested my ability to argue with non-academic types. T.rrealize this is a small number of students and not at all indicative of the numbers usually enrolled in such courses. I do think, however, that this format, without modification, can be used with courses which enroll up to thirty students. I would recommend, though, that the teacher not attempt io work with more than six businesses in any one semester and have no more than five students working with any particular business. If the class has more than thirty students' modifications will be needed. . 8. I offered this part of the first section primarily for the non-philosophy(mostly business) majors in the class. Fortunately, thephilosophy mijors found the review helpful. The Philosophy. The format with discussion. 9. This, too, was pure) The difference between that the normative ethit ethics. (Only business el The text I used was Bow 10. In this second sectr decision-making procesr popular collection, Doni in the future that I wor School collection of case 11. "On-site" always four companies which pi 12. For some helpful Kamm's, "The Philosop mise, and Criticize," Bus Kamm's article is directr article very helpful. In a< relationship between "in philosophers in similar r philosophers sit on ethicr The Role of Philosooher tion, it seems, is viewed r more way to facilitate tI get "inside." 13. Although I truly br myself was often very dil student faltered or devel perfected the valuable te 14. It was impossible t< of course, one of the drar attend most meetings w meetings when the stude students thought it impc difficulty presenting a pa about their progress and 15. Copies of the cod students responsible for t group. Their final produ addition, the two student oflice where similar chan 16. I am speculating, t difficulty with this corpor run (the CEO was the them, and change was n< students in this group di' members. The two stude less planning and less three groups. This, of cor mismatched students. (F< feduced. In either case. the been distribu ted unequally Irrst project weighing the FROM CLASSROOMTO BOARDROOM I2g the review helpful. The text I used was James Rache rs,, The Erements of Morar if,{r;,::fl;,H: formar was that or u ,.nio. seminar,;;;iiyl;;;;;e combined 9' This, too, was ourelytheoretical work and was tackled in seminar fashion.The difference between ir,itputi oiii" iiriti".tion ""0l-r* rîi-rruii'*u, simplythat the normative ethicar di:tr;;;;;;;l;;r*"d wirh an eye roward businessethics. (only business ettrics eiampr"r ri"i" trought to beaiLn it "lrgu_"ntr.)The texr I used was Bowie and t;;k;;r;;; iness Ethics. L0' In this second section, the students were asked to actively participate in thedecision-making process. cases were e;";i*d ";;;;;;;;;:riiiloigh r ur"a upopular coilection. Donaldson and cini's, ca", s iiiti, t" it-,iril""ttrr", r ,r,intin the future that I wourd w" ;;.;iii; ;j!.rion, from the Harvard BusinessSchool collection of case studies. 11. "On-site" always refers to the time students and/or I spent at one of thefour companies which purti.ipui"O i-n ih"ffi .",. 12' For some herpfurhints on how this can be-achieved see Frances MyrnaKamm's, "The phirosopher as tn.iJ., ani-6utrroer, rro* to aouiri, co_pro_mise, and criticize"' ni1iryy 'iîFiiy""i"i't E,iii, ii"its, ieei".'o,,n."enKamm's article is directed.ar p.of;*i;;;i;lilosoph"rr, my students found thearticle verv helpfur. In additio'n, c;;t;;ffifi';tudenrs was found to enhance rherelationship be lween "insiders'ianJ ;L",rioî".i"*.v,,t "irr""in! ii'or..rronulphilosophers in simirar _ror", .unnot. 1s._"'It .'.ol.ctlons to having professionalphitosophers sit on ethics committees in o* sroit'r,;i;"th;il'a?;r.qu"n""r,The Role of phirosophets in r"ri.ym"'nil;,;; "Ethics 97,1990.) Student interven-tion, it seems, is viewed as t"* i"ii-io"ii,ig -o hostire. I think it wourd be one il:1ifiil":9 racilitate the process or enauiin! pr'in'.pr'y'""i piirilopr,"., to 1'3' Althoush I trurv berieved this, I must admit that keeping my commenrs romyself was ofien verv difficult. r rt"oi.'*..i rt staying quiet, especia'y when astudenr falrered or deveroped u p;;; &;;; However, with practice,I betterperfected the valuable tealhing i""r,"iq-u" "iri,"n.". 14 . It was impossibre to attend every on-site meering. Scheduring confricts are,or course, one of ,h" or::l::ls of taking.ph;r"i"fi,y Ei"r, i?*"r""p,r".i,,sut I didattend most meetinss whenever I thoulit it ya; rm.lolgant (for example, themeetings when the s'ludenrs -"i *iiii tr,?'cnb, ro, the first time); or when thestudents thoueht it imporrant I be there fiorlxampte *t en t-r,#'Jere havingdirricultv pres6ntine a parlicurar "i";;;;i;; ir,.y ,,r"r" i..ii"g'.ipiii.rry goodabout their ptogreri und *unt.J ,. Jr* r. *hat they rrao acc6mptistreo.; 15' Copies of the code.were distributed and *oik"o on ry utt oJ ur. rr,"students responsibte "li.rli::-.-o.rt th;;i.,;;rporated the best ideas from rhegroup' Their final prod-uct was a more eq'itable and accessible document. Inaddition, the two students responsible tor tiis company were invited to the headoffice where similar changes were being "on.ij"r"O.l6' I am specuratine. but.I think the main reason the students had so muchdifficulty with this coiobration *;; th.t .tiurin"r, was still family owned andrun (the CEO was tt " .9n of the foundeif. Corrr".uutivism is.what madethem, and chanse was no_t welcomed. guiun';th", reason was simply that the 1:1r,"lr in this-group did not *o;[;; r,rro-iiir was tord to me bv one of themembers' The two srudents, I_was told, dia n;i g"t "r""g "ii'i-n[rrlrurt"o inIess planning and ress tranas-on wo;[';hu; *u. the case with the otherthree groups' This, of co-urse, is one or tr," piiiuilr "i *v ri"J"i'gri,ip *"rr.-mismatched students. (For other plti"fi, .5..on ro group work, and ways ro r simple mission. When the all the more arduous. For ve in a classroom, even a ral application of that the_ :d. Perhaps the practical students and subject by Le praxis of ethics resides. lted in my Business Ethics rtz, George Holm, Jim Luff. ics course, ..Business Ethics any practical ethics course. s they are ptayed out on a ,RCITY and TRANSPLANT; iORIA. For more extensive reter Mostert, Fokke Fern_ ter Assisted Instruction in sophy N^ew-sletter,4:l + 4:2, v ch 4, 1.992, pp. A2Z_ A24. s technique see Morton E. ng Philosophy I3:2, June. were approached because : descriptions like ,Laree I violate our (my and tf,e tested my ability to argue rot at all indicative of the rowever, that this format nroll up to tt itty,tuO"nis. empt to work with more more than five students rore than thirty students' for the.non-philosophy )nllosophy majors found 130 ELLEN R. KLEIN avoid them, see Neil rhomason's useful and insightful article, .,Making student Groups work: To Teach is to Learn Twic e," Teachinlg philosophy l3:2,lune, lslo.; 17. I handed out a questionnaire to the students and received responses from each. A similar l,restionnaire was sent to each of the four participating businesses, to date, only one has r_eplied in writing. It said that: ..Thb major uenEfit [orparticipating in this project] was to have input from unbiased ioutsiders'involved.in resolving. several conflict of intereit [ethical?] issues in Employees'committee discussions. Although we do not intind to eitublirh an ethics committee per se, we have mechaniims in place for resolution of ethical dilemmas. Participation in yourprogramheightened our awareness and will help ensure th-at existing mechanisms will funciion effectively.... In broadening the concept of an ethics committee, we are.considering establishing a .commu"nity advisoiypanel'to utilize input from unbiased outslder within ihe community on majoi expansion and other long term decisions-your students provided names of several good candidates for such a panel." iherefore, with such little written e.vidence, I base my belief of the success of the project (from the point of view of the businesses) primarily on informal discussion throughout tt " "igt,t weeks and on the fact that all four b,usinesses have requested thit a relationihip be main_ tained with the students for as long as they are in the area and with ihe college indefinitely. 18. Most of the non-majors claimed they would have benefitted from a richer theoretical background. one business student suggested the course be expanded to two semesters, the first semester devoted entirely to theoretical and case work, the second semester entirely for application bn-site. Another student suggested that philosophy cla,sses be incorporated into the primary and secondary. educational system, s9 tlr?t both the people in busineis and fhe academy will have had some theoretical backgroundfor-facilitating ethical discussions in a practical setting. one other student suggested that t"his kind of course be incorporated in colleges and universities (Js-pecially those with business schools or majors) throughout the country. 19. It may beimportant to note that this student was simultaneously attending a social policy class taught by a Marxist (and was working with the difiicult LargE Manufacturing Company). 20. Lmention quantity.so as to discourage. absenteeism,I emphasize quality so as to discourage any student from monopolizing the discussions. 21. There were those students who chose to write their final paper on some philosophical aspect of their on-s,ite experience. The writings proouced by these individuals were a bit better. B-ut,alas,only the work of one of tie philosophy majors was a legitimate piece of philosophy, i.e., a sustained focused urgu*"nt. 22'rt (and only if) a formal presentation is being made to the company at the gld ol the project should the teacher suggest thit on-site rime bd eviluated directly. This should be "played by ear" ind determined near the end of theterm-the syllabus should be open-ended enough to allow for such occasions. Forcing on-site evaluations can only hurt the stu?ent-philosopher/businessper1o.n rgla-tio19hip that this project is intended to develop. If such an evaluation isjointly decided upon, the grade can be substitute for one of the in-class project grades. Ellen R. Klein, Philosophy, university of North Froritla,lacksonville, Florida 32216, USA The Philoso A Model for ROBERT C. SCE University of Wa Walter Maner's' rience, proved i students to enga inquiry. At the r students invites r conveniently be essay is to descri lems as I have o teaching device., several contemp, terns which are ented, and/or adr In the mid-1970 guidelines for "a small-group inqu phy," the term-lo lating and critiq precisely definec writing a summal in a nutshell.In tl process, the acco but will, on some Students are e to identify an ar and to begin fo early in the seco the instructor, t groups of 3 or 4 @Teaching Philosophy