What is the purpose of the paper?
The purpose of the paper is for you to reflect on the story of Jack Abramoff and apply what you’ve learned throughout the course. Demonstrate that you comprehend and can apply key concepts from Business Ethics.
The only source needed is https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/series/in-it-to-win
Below you will find a short introduction, links to the videos, and the questions you will need to answer in your paper.
What is the structure of the paper?
After you watch each video on the website, you’ll write a paper that addresses several questions. There are 7 videos to watch and 8 sections of the paper.
You’ll submit one paper that includes 8 sections. The sections do not need transitions between them. Instead, the paper should include sub-headings for the various sections.
Within each section, you’ll answer a few questions. Do not number these. Instead, you should use transitions so that your answers (within the specific section) cohere with one another.
Section A will function as the introduction to your paper. Section H will function as the conclusion.
The result should be one paper of 3,900 – 4,200 words (not including quotes). The formatting should follow these guidelines: 12pt, Times New Roman, 1in margins, and double-spaced. At the top of your paper, write a creative title and state the word count twice (1: the count of your words only; 2: the count of your words and the quotes).
Section A: 800 – 1,000 words
Section B: 400 – 500 words
Section C: 400 – 500 words
Section D: 400 – 500 words
Section E: 500 – 600 words
Section F: 400 – 500 words
Section G: 400 – 500 words
Section H: 300 – 400 words
Total: 3,600 – 4,500 words (n.b.: 3,900 – 4,200 is required, exclusive of quotes)
Should I use quotes?
Yes, this only makes your essay stronger. Using quotes shows evidence or support for claims that you’re making. Be sure that you only use quotes from Shaw’s Business Ethics (particularly the first two chapters) and the videos. You do not need to use outside sources.
Whenever you provide quotes, you should first introduce the quote. This means telling the reader who is speaking and why the speaker is important to your essay. For example, you might write something akin to the following: [According to Charles Mills, a leading political philosopher, “Kant held that xxxx” (p?)]
Another way of using quotes is to embed them within a sentence of your own. For example, you might write something like the following: [Although Thomas Hobbes argued that our natural condition is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” many contemporary anthropologists, social psychologists, and cognitive scientists have pushed back against the idea that humanity is naturally amoral (p??).]
Once you’ve written the quote, be sure to unpack the ideas. Write a few sentences explaining what the quote means. Remember, your task is to teach the material. A good tip for doing this well is to read your paper and skip the quotes. Yes, it will sound funny. But the point is to ascertain whether the main ideas are still being explained with the quotes missing. If something necessary to your argument gets left out, then that means you’ve relied too much on a quote. Go back and write a few more sentences in your own voice.
How many quotes do I need?
There is no precise number of quotes needed. Moreover, sometimes quotes will appear as short phrases. Other times, quotes might be a few lines. It really depends on your writing style.
I recommend using two or three quotes for every 300 words of your voice. However, I strongly discourage using block quotes, that is, quotes that take up more than four lines of text. Remember, the word count applies to your own voice—quotes don’t factor in the word count.
Is there a citation format that I need to follow for the bibliography?
You can simply put the page numbers or time stamps in parentheses at the end of the sentence.
You do not need to include a title page or bibliography for this assignment.
ABRAMOFF – IN IT TO WIN
Introduction:
On March 29, 2006, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to six years in federal prison after pleading guilty to mail fraud, tax evasion, and conspiracy to bribe public officials. Key to Abramoff’s conviction were his lobbying efforts that began in the 1990s on behalf of Native American tribes seeking to establish gambling on reservations.
In 1996, Abramoff began working for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. With the help of Republican tax reform advocate Grover Norquist, and his political advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, Abramoff defeated a Congressional bill that would have taxed Native American casinos. Texas Representative and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay also played a major role in the bill’s defeat. DeLay pushed the agenda of Abramoff’s lobbying clients in exchange for favors from Abramoff.
In 1999, Abramoff similarly lobbied to defeat a bill in the Alabama State Legislature that would have allowed casino-style games on dog racing tracks. This bill would have created competition for his clients’ casino businesses. Republican political activist Ralph Reed, and his political consulting firm Century Strategies, aided the effort by leading a grassroots campaign that rallied Alabama-based Christian organizations to oppose the bill.
As Abramoff’s successes grew, his clients, political contacts, and influence expanded. He hired aides and former staff of members of Congress. In 2001, Abramoff began working with Congressman DeLay’s former communications director, Michael Scanlon, who had formed his own public affairs consulting firm, Capitol Campaign Strategies. The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana hired Abramoff and Capitol Campaign Strategies to help them renegotiate their gambling agreement with the State of Louisiana. Abramoff, however, did not disclose to the tribe that, in addition to his own consulting fees, he also received a portion of the fees paid to Scanlon’s firm.
To protect his Coushatta clients in Louisiana from competition by a new casino near Houston, Texas, Abramoff successfully lobbied for a state gambling ban in Texas between 2001 and 2002. Incidental to this ban was the closure of a casino in El Paso, Texas, owned by the Tigua Tribal Nation. The Tigua were another one of Abramoff’s casino clients.
Later in 2002, Abramoff made a pitch to the Tigua to work to oppose the ban for which he had previously lobbied successfully. With the Tigua’s money, Abramoff took Ohio Representative Bob Ney and his staff on a golfing trip to Scotland. Abramoff hoped to convince Ney and his colleagues to slip a provision into an election-reform bill that would grant the Tigua gaming rights. Abramoff’s efforts did not pay off, and the deal he sought fell through, but he did not inform the Tigua of this outcome. Rather, Abramoff continued to give the Tigua hope for the provision’s success, while also continuing to charge them for his and Scanlon’s services. And, in their email exchanges, Abramoff and Scanlon often mocked their tribal clients as “morons” and “monkeys.”
Throughout the course of their work with Native American tribes, Abramoff and Scanlon charged upwards of $66 million. The Coushatta paid over $30 million to protect their casino and to stop competing casinos in Texas. The Tigua paid $4.2 million to try to continue operating their casino in Texas. Abramoff has stated that he donated much of the money he made to charities, schools, and causes he believed in. But he also spent millions of dollars on activities or contributions in connection with politicians and campaigns he sought to influence. Furthermore, he evaded taxes by funneling money through nonprofit organizations with which he partnered.
After his conviction in 2006, Abramoff cooperated in the investigation of his relationships with Congress members, including aides, business associates, government officials, and lawmakers. Representatives DeLay and Ney both stepped down from their positions in Congress. DeLay, who had risen to the rank of House Majority Leader, was charged with money laundering and conspiracy of funneling corporate contributions to state candidates. Ney plead guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and making false statements. In exchange for gifts, lavish trips, and political donations from Abramoff, DeLay and Ney had used their positions in Congress to grant favors to Abramoff’s clients and lobbying team. Abramoff served three and a half years of a six-year prison term. He was released on December 3, 2010.
Since his release, Abramoff has spoken out against corruption in politics. He has stated that he believed himself to be a “moral lobbyist” and has apologized for his actions. In a 2011 interview, he said, “What’s legal in this system is the problem,” and in his memoir, he wrote, “Unfortunately, I was a miniature version of that system.” But not everyone perceived his redemption as a genuine effort. Tigua tribal leaders said his apologies were too little, too late. Rick Hill, former chairman of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, stated, “You look at Jack—though he took money from my elders and our kids, and now he comes here, and he gets to prop himself up, and it’s an acceptable part of [Washington] D.C. culture. He wouldn’t stand a minute on the reservation.”
Others point to the American political system and see Abramoff as a symptom of broader corruption. Investigative journalist Susan Schmidt stated, “Abramoff couldn’t have flourished if this system, itself, was not corrupt, where the need for money—the members of Congress and their need for money—is so voracious and so huge that they don’t have their guard up.” California Representative Dana Rohrabacher said, “What Jack had been doing was what had been done before. People should pay more attention to the fact that we have got some enormous special interests in this country who are having incredible influences on policy.”
In his memoir, Abramoff reflected on personal and professional reform: “Regardless of my rationalizations, I was the one who didn’t disclose to my clients that there was a conflict of interest… I wasn’t the devil that the media were so quick to create, but neither was I the saint I always hoped to become. …I decided that, in order to move myself close to the angels, I would take what happened in my life, try to learn from it, and use it to educate others.”
-https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/series/in-it-to-win
A. In It to Win: The Jack Abramoff Story (25min)
1. What are the key points that this documentary raises?
2. What did Abramoff do that was unethical, even if legal? Why were these actions unethical?
3. The documentary focuses on Abramoff’s role as a lobbyist within a system that is, he argues, more corrupt than ever. To what degree do individuals have a responsibility to act ethically within a morally corrupt system?
4. The documentary raises the point that white-collar crime is generally considered far less problematic than hard crime. Do you agree? Why or why not? What are the long-term consequences of white-collar crimes for individuals, families, society?
5. Do you think Abramoff’s success as a lobbyist supports the idea that politicians are corrupt or easily corruptible? Should we place blame on Abramoff and the politicians or the system in which they operate? If the system is fundamentally flawed, is it fair for individual lobbyists or politicians to pay the price?
B. In It to Win: Jack & Framing (4min)
1. Can you explain framing in your own words? How does it affect moral decision-making?
2. How does framing apply to Jack Abramoff? What examples from his story can you cite to support your argument?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where you or someone else fell victim to framing?
4. How might you anticipate and/or mitigate the effects of framing in your own life or decision-making?
C. In It to Win: Jack & Moral Equilibrium (2min)
1. Can you explain moral equilibrium in your own words? How does it affect moral decision-making?
2. How does moral equilibrium apply to Jack Abramoff? What examples from his story can you cite to support your argument?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where you or someone else fell victim to moral equilibrium?
4. How might you anticipate and/or mitigate the effects of moral equilibrium in your own life or decision-making?
D. In It to Win: Jack & Overconfidence Bias (3min)
1. Can you explain the overconfidence bias in your own words? How does it affect moral decision-making?
2. How does the overconfidence bias apply to Jack Abramoff? What examples from his story can you cite to support your argument?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where you or someone else fell victim to the overconfidence bias?
4. How might you anticipate and/or mitigate the effects of the overconfidence bias in your own life or decision-making?
E. In It to Win: Jack & Rationalizations (5min)
1. Can you explain in your own words how rationalizations work to facilitate unethical activity?
2. Can you give examples of common rationalizations that are used in the business world?
3. Can you give examples of rationalizations that Jack Abramoff used?
4. Can you think of situations where you have used rationalizations?
5. How can we guard against rationalizing our own wrongdoing?
6. Dan Ariely and colleagues ran an experiment where a clerk gave too much change to the subject of the experiment. In general, 45% of the subjects returned the extra change. However, when Ariely had the clerk annoy the subject by rudely ignoring them for just a bit, only 14% returned the extra change. How might the rationalization process have played a role in the outcome of these experiments?
7. Murphy and Mayhew ran a study in which they learned that, when people misreport numbers, they generally feel bad, but they don’t feel as bad if they were instructed to do so by superiors. How might the rationalization process play a role in this outcome?
F. In It to Win: Jack & Self-Serving Bias (3min)
1. Can you explain the self-serving bias in your own words? How does it affect moral decision-making?
2. How does the self-serving bias apply to Jack Abramoff? What examples from his story can you cite to support your argument?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where you or someone else fell victim to the self-serving bias?
4. How might you anticipate and/or mitigate the effects of the self-serving bias in your own life or decision-making?
G. In It to Win: Jack & Role Morality (3min)
1. Can you explain role morality in your own words? How does it affect moral decision-making?
2. How does role morality apply to Jack Abramoff? What examples from his story can you cite to support your argument?
3. Can you think of an example from your own life where you or someone else fell victim to role morality?
4. How might you anticipate and/or mitigate the effects of role morality in your own life or decision-making?
H. Concluding Questions
1. Abramoff still owes the government $44 million in restitution. Some argue that he is only speaking out against corruption to get past this debt and regain his prior fame and fortune. Others believe his claim that he is in a unique position to expose the corruption of the system. Do you believe Abramoff genuinely regrets his prior actions and is now working hard at improving how our government operates? Or do you think he is just ‘out for himself’? Does it matter whether he’s sincere if his actions lead to important reforms?
2. Do you think you could survive in today’s world if you promised yourself that you would always act honorably? Do you think such a life is possible?
Please make this sound realistic and relateable to a college students life, does not have to have intricate words
