Judges
October 16, 2010
Oklahoma Student Ethics Bowl
JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS
We are very excited about our 2010 Statewide Student Ethics Challenge! In fact, this will be the largest one ever since we began sponsoring these events six years ago. It is inspiring to see so many young people care about doing the right thing and we are delighted that you will be an important part of this process.
About the Ethical Cases:
Copies of all of the cases were included the packet that we sent earlier. You will note that many of these are “hot-button issues” and are intentionally designed to be somewhat provocative – as ethical dilemmas often tend to be. You will also notice that many of these cases go beyond typical business scenarios. Others may fall heavily within your area of expertise. That’s okay – the same principles of evaluating these various situations still apply.
Ethical Theories:
Some of the vernacular the students may use could be a bit unfamiliar, so to help you with that, we are also providing a summary from a program that attorney and founding member Jim Priest conducted for OK Ethics a year ago. In it, you will find some handy, simple reference questions that may be useful to you in evaluating the students’ responses related to ethical theories.
Purpose & Intent:
The primary purpose of your involvement is to encourage these students in their pursuit of ethical knowledge. We also want to help prepare them, not only for the Regional Ethics Bowl in San Antonio, but for handling the ethical conflicts that they will inevitably face in life. To that end, you will be asked to make notes on each presentation during the judging process and to share your feedback with them in a constructive and caring manner. Whether we agree with their stance or not, we want to be sure that the students identify as many ethical issues as possible and that they present their arguments in clear, concise ways.(See judging criteria.) In some cases, you may be asked to judge, at other times, you might be asked to moderate a session to ensure the rules are followed. All are important jobs.
1
PRIZES & REWARDS
- The top three scoring teams will receive funding from the OK Ethics Foundation to travel to San Antonio, TX for the November 13, 2010 Regional Student Ethics Bowl as follows:
Team Ranking / Travel Funding / Scholarship for s business ethics certification will be awarded to
university advisors.
1st Place / $2500 / $800
2nd Place / $1500 / $800
3rd Place / $500 / N/A
- The Foundation will host the students and advisors of these three teams at dinner on the River Walk on Saturday evening, November 13
Conflict of Interest?
Do you have a personal tie with any of the competing universities that could potentially compromise your position as a judge? If so, please advise Pam Fountain.
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Excerpts are provided from a program conducted in 2009 by one of our Founding Members, Jim Priest of the law firm Whitten, Burrage, Priest, Fulmer, Anderson & Eisel. This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O. Hanson.This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics, V. 1, N. 2 (Winter 1988). It was last revised in May 2009.
Recognize an Ethical Issue
- Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?
- Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?
Get the Facts
- What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?
- What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why?
- What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?
Evaluate Alternative Actions
- Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:
- Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)
- Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)
- Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach)
- Which option best serves the community
as a whole, not just some members?
(The Common Good Approach) - Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)
Make a Decision and Test It
- Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation?
- If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would they say?
Act and Reflect on the Outcome
- How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?
- How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?
Scoring Instructions for Judges
You should have three tally sheets, one for each hour-long match (or round). Each match will consist of two cases. Each team will be the main presenter for one case and the rebuttal for the other case. When you ask questions, you should ask them only of the main presenter (i.e., not the rebuttal team). After your questions, the main presenter will get one rejoinder in which they have the final word.
The First Team (on the left side of the sheet) is the first team to present the case for the round. All of The First Team’s scores will be on the left side of your tally sheet. Your addition will be checked by the Moderator and by the Master Scorekeeper, but please do your best to ensure that the scores are accurate and be sure to assign the points to the team you intend them for.
1. After the coin toss, fill in the names of each team on your tally sheet.
2. At some point after each team has spoken, enter scores for them on your tally sheet.
a. For the main presenting team, enter four scores between 0 and 10 for each of the four criteria.
b. Subtotal these for a score of no more than 40 points.
c. For the responding team’s rebuttal, enter a score between 0 and 10.
d. For the main presenting team’s rejoinders, enter a score between 0 and 10. This rejoinder covers the responses to the opposing team and to the judges’ questions.
3. After both cases are complete, sum the scores for a grand total for each team, not to exceed 60 points, and enter these scores on your tally sheet.
4. When the moderator asks for the scores, sign and turn in your tally sheets.
Criteria for judging
Main presentation. As judges, you are asked to evaluate student presentations along the following guidelines, which were drawn from the materials of the National Ethics Bowl. In judging the presenting team you should try to base your scoring solely on the following factors (score between 0 and 40 points, allocating no more than 10 points for each factor).
1)Clarity and Intelligibility:
Was the presentation clear and systematic? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, did the team give a coherent argument in a clear and succinct manner?
2)Avoidance of Ethical Irrelevance:
Did the team avoid ethically irrelevant issues? Or, was the team preoccupied with issues that are not ethically relevant or are of minor ethical relevance to the case?
3)Identification and discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions
Did the team’s presentation clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central ethical dimensions of the case?
4)Deliberative Thoughtfulness
Did the team’s presentation indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that could loom large in the reasoning of individuals who might disagree with the team’s position?
Rebuttal. The opposing team has only half the time of the presenting team, and the presenting team will have a rejoinder. Scoring of the opposing team should address the following question (score between 0 and 10 points).
To what extent has the Team effectively dealt with the presenting Team’s arguments?
Rejoinders. In scoring the Presenting Team’s rejoinder, you should consider two performances. First, their five-minute response to the opposing team, and second, their interaction with you and with the other judges. Then, with these performances in mind, address this question (score between 0 and 10 points).
How effectively did the Team respond to the opposing Team’s commentary and to the Judges’ questions?
Examples of a tally sheet in two stages of completion are on the next two pages.
Example 1
After case 1. Suppose Bad-Apple presents for the first case and Goodman responds. You thought Goodman was perfect, but Bad-Apple was not as good as it could have been. However, Bad-Apple did a great job of responding to the judges’ questions and to the other team. You might score them as follows.
Judge’s Tally Sheet: Round 1
FirstTeam: Bad-Apple U / Score / Second
Team: GoodmanCollege / Score
After the coin toss, please write the names of the teams in the spaces above.
First
Case / 1 / Clarity
(max=10) / 5
2 / Avoidance of Irrelevance
(max=10) / 7
3 / Discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions
(max=10) / 3
4 / Thoughtfulness
(max=10) / 7
5 / Subtotal of lines 1-4
(max=40) / 22
6 / Rejoinder
(max=10) / 10
7 / Subtotal of lines 5 and 6
(max=50) / 32 / 8 / Rebuttal
(max=10) / 10
Second
Case / 9 / Clarity
(max=10)
10 / Avoidance of Irrelevance
(max=10)
11 / Discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions
(max=10)
12 / Thoughtfulness
(max=10)
13 / Subtotal of lines 9-12
(max=40)
14 / Rejoinder
(max=10)
16 / Rebuttal
(max=10) / 15 / Subtotal of line 13 and 14
(max=50)
Grand Total for Team A: lines 7 + 16
(max=60) / Grand Total for Team B: lines 8 + 15
(max=60)
Example 2
After case 2. Suppose that after the second case, you thought Goodman was almost perfect and Bad-Apple’s response was pretty good, too. Your tally sheet might then look like this.
FirstTeam: Bad-Apple U / Score / Second
Team: GoodmanCollege / Score
After the coin toss, please write the names of the teams in the spaces above.
First
Case / 1 / Clarity
(max=10) / 5
2 / Avoidance of Irrelevance
(max=10) / 7
3 / Discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions
(max=10) / 3
4 / Thoughtfulness
(max=10) / 7
5 / Subtotal of lines 1-4
(max=40) / 22
6 / Rejoinder
(max=10) / 10
7 / Subtotal of lines 5 and 6
(max=50) / 32 / 8 / Rebuttal
(max=10) / 10
Second
Case / 9 / Clarity
(max=10) / 9
10 / Avoidance of Irrelevance
(max=10) / 10
11 / Discussion of Central Ethical Dimensions
(max=10) / 10
12 / Thoughtfulness
(max=10) / 10
13 / Subtotal of lines 9-12
(max=40) / 39
14 / Rejoinder
(max=10) / 8
16 / Rebuttal
(max=10) / 10 / 15 / Subtotal of line 13 and 14
(max=50) / 47
Grand Total for Team A: lines 7 + 16
(max=60) / 42 / Grand Total for Team B: lines 8 + 15
(max=60) / 57
Schedule and Rules
October 16, 2010
Oklahoma Student Ethics Bowl
Schedule
8:00 Students pick up packet at check-in desk
8:30Orientation talk and review of rules (Students Rm. 113;
Judges/Moderators start at 8:00, Rm. 121)
9:00Round One
10:10Round Two
11:20Round Three
12:30Lunch
1:00Awards
The following is an exact breakdown of an ideal round.
Minutes
Past theDuration
Start(minutes)Activity
0:00:00Flip coin, announce case, read question.
0:01:00(1:00)One minute for presenting team to confer
0:09:00(8:00)First presentation
0:10:00(1:00)One minute for opposing team to confer
0:14:00(4:00)Opposing team comments or rebuts
0:15:00(1:00)One minute for presenting team to confer
0:19:00(4:00) Presenting team responds (to opposing team)
0:25:00(6:00)Judges’ questions to presenters and team’s responses
0:25:30(0:30)Record secret vote (no conferring among judges)
------Midpoint (Presenting and opposing roles now reverse) ------
0:25:30Announce next case, read question
0:26:30(1:00)One minute for new presenting team to confer
0:34:30(8:00)Second presentation
0:35:30(1:00)Opposing team confers
0:39:30(4:00)Opposing team comments or rebuts
0:40:30(1:00)Presenting team confers
0:44:30(4:00) Presenting team responds (to opposing team)
0:50:30(6:00)Judges’ questions to presenters and team’s responses
0:51:00(0:30)Record secret vote (no conferring among judges)
0:51:30(0:30)Tally and announce scores
1:01:30(10:00)Debrief with judges
1:01:30 ------End of round ------
Eight minutes and thirty seconds between rounds
No cell phone use permitted during and between rounds. Emergency use may be supervised by a Moderator.
Rules and Sequence of Events
- Teams may not bring any notes or literature other than their registration packet with them to the table.
- MODERATORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMINDING ALL PARTICIPANTS TO TURN OFF CELL PHONES.
The envelope provided by the Moderator contains a copy of the cases to be discussed, along with the question to be addressed by the teams. This copy, without notes written on it, may remain on the table and teams may refer to it freely. Team members may bring blank paper, writing utensils, water, etc. They may begin writing notes only after the coin toss. Between cases, all notes must be removed, so the second team starts under the same conditions that the first team had.
Only one student may speak during the main presentation. During the main presentation, the presenter may confer or pass notes with other team members, but all such activity takes place on the clock. More than one student may contribute to the rebuttal and the response to the rebuttal; however, only one student may speak at a time. More than one student may respond to a judge (but only one person may speak at a time).
1. Coin Toss. The moderator will briefly introduce the judges and teams, and then will ask the team on the moderator’s left to call the toss. The moderator will toss a coin, and the winner of the coin toss declares which team will start (henceforth, the presenting team).
2. Reading of the question. The rules of the competition presume that teams and judges are already familiar with all the cases. After the presenting team has been determined, the moderator opens the appropriate envelop and announces, by number and title, which case is to be analyzed. The moderator then reads aloud the question for that case. The moderator distributes one copy of the question to each team, and one copy to each judge.
3. Main Presentation (8 minutes). The presenting team has one minute to confer. The spokesperson for the presenting team has ten minutes to state and defend the team’s answer to the question.
4. Comment or rebuttal (4 minutes). The opposing team has one minute to confer and four minutes to present a comment on (or rebuttal of) the presenting team’s answer. This comment need not take an opposing view, but rather its content is entirely up to the discretion of the opposing team. More than one student may contribute to the comment/rebuttal, though only one team member may speak at a time.
5. Response or rejoinder (4 minutes). The presenting team has one minute to confer and four minutes to present a response to the comment. More than one student may contribute to the response/rejoinder, though only one team member may speak at a time.
6. Questions from judges (6 minutes). Each judge may now ask one question (and, if necessary, a brief follow-up question) of the presenting team only. Judges may confer briefly with one another to discuss the areas that they would like to cover during this phase. Team members may confer briefly for each question asked. The team should make every effort to keep their answers short enough that all judges will have a chance to participate. The same applies to judges. Altogether, the question-and-answer phase must take no longer than ten minutes. Once each judge has had a chance to ask one question, any remaining time may be used by any judge for further questions of the presenting team. Any team member may respond to any judge. Multiple team members may respond to any judge, but only by turns.
7. Evaluation. Without conferring, the judges will secretly record their numerical evaluation of both teams. These evaluations will remain secret until both halves of the round are complete. The recording of the evaluations completes the first half of the round.
8. Teams switch roles and repeat steps 2-7 with a new case and question.
9. Scoring. The moderator will then ask the judges to complete their score sheets and hand them over.
10. Declaration of scores. The moderator will fill out the moderator’s score sheet, complete the addition, and announce the results. Each moderator may prefer to announce more information, but a reasonable announcement might sound like this: “The totals for Bad-AppleUniversity are 42, 38, and 44, bringing Bad-Apple’s score to 124. The totals for GoodmanCollege are 57, 55, and 34, bringing Goodman’s score to 146. The winner of this round is GoodmanCollege.” If a team member wishes to copy the complete set of numbers, the moderator should try to comply with this request.