This document provides a critique of Milton Friedman's famous essay arguing that the social responsibility of business is to increase profits. The author summarizes Friedman's main arguments, then proposes an alternative paradigm where social responsibility is determined collaboratively rather than by individual executives. The author argues Friedman's paradigm is flawed, some of his premises do not logically imply his conclusions, and his definition of socialism is too broad. In conclusion, the author aims to show businesses can pursue social responsibility without the negative effects Friedman claimed.
Scanned with CamScannerScanned with CamScannerIN.docxtodd331
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
INSTRUCTIONS
Write a brief case study (ALZHIEMER DISEASE) of a real or hypothetical issue or problem that needs investigation (approx. 200-250 words max).
Discussion 3.2: Hypothesis Test Tag Team
Corporate Responsibility 8;
The Social Responsibility of Business Is
to Increase Its Profits
Milton Friedman
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently
about the “social responsibilities of business
in a free-enterprise system,” I am reminded
of the wonderful line about the Frenchman
who discovered at the age of 70 that he had
been speaking prose all his life. The busi
nessmen believe that they are defending free
enterprise when they declaim that business
is not concerned “merely” with profit but
also with promoting desirable “social” ends;
that business has a “social conscience” and
takes seriously its responsibilities for provid
ing employment, eliminating discrimina
tion, avoiding pollution and whatever else
may be the catchwords of the contemporary
crop of reformers. In fact they are—or
would be if they or anyone else took them
seriously—preaching pure and unadulter
ated socialism. Businessmen who talk this
way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual
forces that have been undermining the basis
of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the “social responsibil
ities of business” are notable for their analyt
ical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it
mean to say that “business” has responsibili
ties? Only people can have responsibilities.
A corporation is an artificial person and in
this sense may have artificial responsibili
ties, but “business” as a whole cannot be said
to have responsibilities, even in this vague
sense. The first step toward clarity in ex
amining the doctrine of the social responsi
bility of business is to ask precisely what it
implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be
responsible are businessmen, which means
individual proprietors or corporate execu
tives. Most of the discussion of social respon
sibility is directed at corporations, so in what
follows I shall mostly neglect the individual
proprietors and speak of corporate execu
tives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property sys
tem, a corporate executive is an employee of
the owners of the business. He has direct re
sponsibility to his employers. That responsi
bility is to conduct the business in accord
ance with their desires, which generally will
be to make as much money as possible while
conforming to the basic rules of the society,
both those embodied in law and those em
bodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some
cases his employers may have a different ob
jective. A group of persons might establish a
corporation for an eleemosynary purpose—
for example, a hospital or a school. The
manager of such a corporation will not have
money profit as his objectives but the ren
dering of certain services.
In either case,.
Scanned with CamScannerScanned with CamScannerIN.docxtodd331
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
INSTRUCTIONS
Write a brief case study (ALZHIEMER DISEASE) of a real or hypothetical issue or problem that needs investigation (approx. 200-250 words max).
Discussion 3.2: Hypothesis Test Tag Team
Corporate Responsibility 8;
The Social Responsibility of Business Is
to Increase Its Profits
Milton Friedman
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently
about the “social responsibilities of business
in a free-enterprise system,” I am reminded
of the wonderful line about the Frenchman
who discovered at the age of 70 that he had
been speaking prose all his life. The busi
nessmen believe that they are defending free
enterprise when they declaim that business
is not concerned “merely” with profit but
also with promoting desirable “social” ends;
that business has a “social conscience” and
takes seriously its responsibilities for provid
ing employment, eliminating discrimina
tion, avoiding pollution and whatever else
may be the catchwords of the contemporary
crop of reformers. In fact they are—or
would be if they or anyone else took them
seriously—preaching pure and unadulter
ated socialism. Businessmen who talk this
way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual
forces that have been undermining the basis
of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the “social responsibil
ities of business” are notable for their analyt
ical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it
mean to say that “business” has responsibili
ties? Only people can have responsibilities.
A corporation is an artificial person and in
this sense may have artificial responsibili
ties, but “business” as a whole cannot be said
to have responsibilities, even in this vague
sense. The first step toward clarity in ex
amining the doctrine of the social responsi
bility of business is to ask precisely what it
implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be
responsible are businessmen, which means
individual proprietors or corporate execu
tives. Most of the discussion of social respon
sibility is directed at corporations, so in what
follows I shall mostly neglect the individual
proprietors and speak of corporate execu
tives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property sys
tem, a corporate executive is an employee of
the owners of the business. He has direct re
sponsibility to his employers. That responsi
bility is to conduct the business in accord
ance with their desires, which generally will
be to make as much money as possible while
conforming to the basic rules of the society,
both those embodied in law and those em
bodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some
cases his employers may have a different ob
jective. A group of persons might establish a
corporation for an eleemosynary purpose—
for example, a hospital or a school. The
manager of such a corporation will not have
money profit as his objectives but the ren
dering of certain services.
In either case,.
Different people have very different ideas about the general sociamackulaytoni
Different people have very different ideas about the general social obligations of business.
On the one side, Milton Friedman argued that the most important social obligation of business was simply to be profitable. He maintained that all other goals had to be considered secondary. As Friedman saw it, businesses are set up specifically by their owners to achieve business goals which cannot be achieved without profits. A business that loses money cannot meet its obligations to its owners, to its employees, or even to the government in terms of taxes. While Friedman felt that philanthropy and social goals were fine for businesses, he argued that those could never be achieved anyway unless the business was first profitable. On the other side, some proponents of the stakeholder view of business argue that businesses have equal obligations to all stakeholders, including bystanders and society at large, and thus that profits should not be the primary goal of business.
Those kinds of underlying differences in attitudes towards the social obligations of business notwithstanding, it is certainly true that many businesses see the prepping up of their social reputations as an important aspect of their marketing strategies. Touting specific charities and other forms of philanthropy, espousing environmental concerns, or supporting social outreach programs can affect good will and sales. Thus, the businesses who most promote their philanthropy and social responsibilities may also just be trying to maximize their profits using all the tools at their disposal. Indeed, it seems that the businesses who are the most likely to be affected by their social reputations are often also the ones most likely to tout their social responsibilities.
In this context, is first to identify some specific recent business philanthropic and social endeavors (including charity support, environmental actions, social outreach and/or community support, etc.) Next, your task is to carefully consider the full motivations of these efforts and their likely impact on the bottom line for the businesses in question and for society at large.
...
Business Ethic Chap 5: Corporate Social ResponsibilityShandy Aditya
Berdasarkan buku Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & Macdonald, C. (2014). Business Ethic Decision Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility. United State of America: McGraw Hill Education.
kali ini kita akan membahas chapter 5: Corporate Social Responsibility.
Video Presentation Link:
https://youtu.be/yfVirdn4YMM
Learning Activity #1Organizations must clearly articulate a Mi.docxsmile790243
Learning Activity #1
Organizations must clearly articulate a Mission Statement and Vision Statement in order to strategically plan. Failing to understand that initial step of the Strategic Planning process often leads an organization away from, instead of towards, effective strategic planning.
Below are four (4) Mission Statements and four (4)Vision Statements; select ONE Mission Statement and ONE Vision Statement. Clearly explain why the select Mission Statement and Vision Statement is effective or ineffective; offer supporting rationale for your explanation and be sure to reference your statements using proper APA formatting.
Mission Statements
McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness, and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile.
The American Cancer Society is the nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service.
To enhance quality of life for all as we age. We lead positive social change and deliver value to members through information, advocacy and service.
To create a shopping experience that pleases our customers; a workplace that creates opportunities and a great working environment for our associates; and a business that achieves financial success.
Vision Statements
GM’s vision is to be the world leader in transportation products and related services. We will earn our customers’ enthusiasm through continuous improvement driven by the integrity, teamwork, and innovation of GM people.
Develop, deploy, and manage a diverse set of scalable and strategic knowledge management tools to serve our customers, improving the possibility of overall satisfaction among our diverse customer profiles
To build the largest and most complete Amateur Radio community site on the Internet.
We intend to provide our customers with the best online shopping experience from beginning to end, with a smart, searchable website, easy-to-follow instructions, clear and secure payment methods, and fast, quality delivery.
Learning Activity #2
The “5 P’s of Strategy” capture the complexity of defining Strategic Management. Select ONE of the “5 P’s” – (1) explain why you selected that particular concept, i.e., why do you believe it is important to the overall strategic management process and (2) explain whether that particular concept requires more of a perspective of art or science from the strategic leaders point of view.
Clearly explain your position; offer supporting rationale for your explanation and be sure to reference your statements using proper APA formatting.
2/20/2017 The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, by Milton Friedman
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-s ...
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Pro.docxchristalgrieg
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
by Milton Friedman
The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.
In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.
Needless to say, this does not mean that it is ea ...
RESPOND TO THE FOR FURTHER REFLECTION” QUESTIONS .docxronak56
RESPOND TO THE “FOR FURTHER REFLECTION”
QUESTIONS FOUND IN THE GREY SHADED
STUDY CORNER SECTION AT THE END OF EACH
CHAPTER.
A MINIMUM OF 800 WORDS (12 pt type, 1.5
line spacing) OF Reflection RESPONSE TO
THE QUESTIONS IS NEEDED TO BE ELIGIBLE
FOR FULL CREDIT FOR THE ASSIGNMENT.
BE PREPARED TO SHARE YOUR VIEWS DURING
CLASS DISCUSSIONS.
MANAGEMENT ETHICS
BUMGT 235 – UW-STOUT
This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law:
• any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network;
• preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images;
• any rental, lease, or lending of the program.
Chapter Five:
Corporations
*
*
OverviewChapter Five examines the following topics: Corporations as moral agents and individual responsibility The narrow view and the broader view of corporate responsibility Corporate responsibility and the invisible-hand argument, the let-government-do-it argument, and the business-can’t-handle-it argument Institutionalizing ethics within corporations, ethical codes, and corporate culture
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
IntroductionThe chapter discusses the application of moral standards to corporate organizations and the concept of corporate social responsibility.Corporations yield awesome economic clout.The five hundred largest U.S. corporations make up at three-quarters of the American economy. The best-run systems employ highly structured and impersonal management systems. What are the moral implications of such systems?
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
The CorporationA corporation is a three-part organization made up of:Stockholders, who provide the capital, own the corporation, and enjoy liability limited to the amount of their investmentsManagers, who run the business operationsEmployees, who produce the goods and services
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
The Limited Liability CompanyThe concept of limited liability: Members of a corporation are financially responsible for the debts of the organization only up to the extent of their investments.Differences between corporations and other business partnerships:A corporation requires a public registration or acknowledgment by the law.The shareholder is entitled to a dividend from the company’s profits only when it has been “declared” by the corporation’s directors.
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
The Limited Liability CompanyKinds of corporations: For-profit, nonprofit; privately owned or owned wholly or in part by the government; privately or publicly held.Evolution of the corporation: The modern business corporation has evolved over several centuries. The corporate form developed during the Middle Ages.The first corporations were towns, universities, and ecclesiastical orders, chartered by government and regulated by public statut ...
In the second of a series of reports commissioned by HSBC, we consider the extent to which businesses are incorporating responsibility in their business operations.
Different people have very different ideas about the general sociamackulaytoni
Different people have very different ideas about the general social obligations of business.
On the one side, Milton Friedman argued that the most important social obligation of business was simply to be profitable. He maintained that all other goals had to be considered secondary. As Friedman saw it, businesses are set up specifically by their owners to achieve business goals which cannot be achieved without profits. A business that loses money cannot meet its obligations to its owners, to its employees, or even to the government in terms of taxes. While Friedman felt that philanthropy and social goals were fine for businesses, he argued that those could never be achieved anyway unless the business was first profitable. On the other side, some proponents of the stakeholder view of business argue that businesses have equal obligations to all stakeholders, including bystanders and society at large, and thus that profits should not be the primary goal of business.
Those kinds of underlying differences in attitudes towards the social obligations of business notwithstanding, it is certainly true that many businesses see the prepping up of their social reputations as an important aspect of their marketing strategies. Touting specific charities and other forms of philanthropy, espousing environmental concerns, or supporting social outreach programs can affect good will and sales. Thus, the businesses who most promote their philanthropy and social responsibilities may also just be trying to maximize their profits using all the tools at their disposal. Indeed, it seems that the businesses who are the most likely to be affected by their social reputations are often also the ones most likely to tout their social responsibilities.
In this context, is first to identify some specific recent business philanthropic and social endeavors (including charity support, environmental actions, social outreach and/or community support, etc.) Next, your task is to carefully consider the full motivations of these efforts and their likely impact on the bottom line for the businesses in question and for society at large.
...
Business Ethic Chap 5: Corporate Social ResponsibilityShandy Aditya
Berdasarkan buku Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & Macdonald, C. (2014). Business Ethic Decision Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility. United State of America: McGraw Hill Education.
kali ini kita akan membahas chapter 5: Corporate Social Responsibility.
Video Presentation Link:
https://youtu.be/yfVirdn4YMM
Learning Activity #1Organizations must clearly articulate a Mi.docxsmile790243
Learning Activity #1
Organizations must clearly articulate a Mission Statement and Vision Statement in order to strategically plan. Failing to understand that initial step of the Strategic Planning process often leads an organization away from, instead of towards, effective strategic planning.
Below are four (4) Mission Statements and four (4)Vision Statements; select ONE Mission Statement and ONE Vision Statement. Clearly explain why the select Mission Statement and Vision Statement is effective or ineffective; offer supporting rationale for your explanation and be sure to reference your statements using proper APA formatting.
Mission Statements
McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness, and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile.
The American Cancer Society is the nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service.
To enhance quality of life for all as we age. We lead positive social change and deliver value to members through information, advocacy and service.
To create a shopping experience that pleases our customers; a workplace that creates opportunities and a great working environment for our associates; and a business that achieves financial success.
Vision Statements
GM’s vision is to be the world leader in transportation products and related services. We will earn our customers’ enthusiasm through continuous improvement driven by the integrity, teamwork, and innovation of GM people.
Develop, deploy, and manage a diverse set of scalable and strategic knowledge management tools to serve our customers, improving the possibility of overall satisfaction among our diverse customer profiles
To build the largest and most complete Amateur Radio community site on the Internet.
We intend to provide our customers with the best online shopping experience from beginning to end, with a smart, searchable website, easy-to-follow instructions, clear and secure payment methods, and fast, quality delivery.
Learning Activity #2
The “5 P’s of Strategy” capture the complexity of defining Strategic Management. Select ONE of the “5 P’s” – (1) explain why you selected that particular concept, i.e., why do you believe it is important to the overall strategic management process and (2) explain whether that particular concept requires more of a perspective of art or science from the strategic leaders point of view.
Clearly explain your position; offer supporting rationale for your explanation and be sure to reference your statements using proper APA formatting.
2/20/2017 The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, by Milton Friedman
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-s ...
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Pro.docxchristalgrieg
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
by Milton Friedman
The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose–for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objective but the rendering of certain services.
In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.
Needless to say, this does not mean that it is ea ...
RESPOND TO THE FOR FURTHER REFLECTION” QUESTIONS .docxronak56
RESPOND TO THE “FOR FURTHER REFLECTION”
QUESTIONS FOUND IN THE GREY SHADED
STUDY CORNER SECTION AT THE END OF EACH
CHAPTER.
A MINIMUM OF 800 WORDS (12 pt type, 1.5
line spacing) OF Reflection RESPONSE TO
THE QUESTIONS IS NEEDED TO BE ELIGIBLE
FOR FULL CREDIT FOR THE ASSIGNMENT.
BE PREPARED TO SHARE YOUR VIEWS DURING
CLASS DISCUSSIONS.
MANAGEMENT ETHICS
BUMGT 235 – UW-STOUT
This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law:
• any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network;
• preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images;
• any rental, lease, or lending of the program.
Chapter Five:
Corporations
*
*
OverviewChapter Five examines the following topics: Corporations as moral agents and individual responsibility The narrow view and the broader view of corporate responsibility Corporate responsibility and the invisible-hand argument, the let-government-do-it argument, and the business-can’t-handle-it argument Institutionalizing ethics within corporations, ethical codes, and corporate culture
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
IntroductionThe chapter discusses the application of moral standards to corporate organizations and the concept of corporate social responsibility.Corporations yield awesome economic clout.The five hundred largest U.S. corporations make up at three-quarters of the American economy. The best-run systems employ highly structured and impersonal management systems. What are the moral implications of such systems?
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
The CorporationA corporation is a three-part organization made up of:Stockholders, who provide the capital, own the corporation, and enjoy liability limited to the amount of their investmentsManagers, who run the business operationsEmployees, who produce the goods and services
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
The Limited Liability CompanyThe concept of limited liability: Members of a corporation are financially responsible for the debts of the organization only up to the extent of their investments.Differences between corporations and other business partnerships:A corporation requires a public registration or acknowledgment by the law.The shareholder is entitled to a dividend from the company’s profits only when it has been “declared” by the corporation’s directors.
Moral Issues in Business
Chapter 5
*
The Limited Liability CompanyKinds of corporations: For-profit, nonprofit; privately owned or owned wholly or in part by the government; privately or publicly held.Evolution of the corporation: The modern business corporation has evolved over several centuries. The corporate form developed during the Middle Ages.The first corporations were towns, universities, and ecclesiastical orders, chartered by government and regulated by public statut ...
In the second of a series of reports commissioned by HSBC, we consider the extent to which businesses are incorporating responsibility in their business operations.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasn’t one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
2. 266 ThomasMulligan
Is it true, then, that the executive who per-
forms socially responsible action "is in effect
imposing taxes ... and deciding how the tax
proceeds shall be spent"?
To make this case, Friedman argues by depict-
ing how a company executive would perform
such action.
He first introduces examples to illustrate that
exercising social responsibility in business typical-
ly costs money. He mentions refraining from a
price increase to help prevent inflation, reducing
pollution "beyond the amount that is in the best
interests of the corporation" to help improve
the environment, and "at the expense of cor-
porate profits" hiring 'hardcore' unemployed.
To establish that such costs are in effect taxes,
he argues:
be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist.
He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for
what purpose.
On this paradigm, the corporate executive does
not act with the counsel and participation of
the other stakeholders in the business. This is
the basis of Friedman's claim that the executive
is imposing something on those other stake-
holders- unfairly, undemocratically, unwisely,
and in violation of a trust.
But does Friedman's paradigm accurately
depict the socially responsible executive? Does it
capture the essential nature of socially respon-
sible action in business? Or has he drawn a cari-
cature, wrongly construed it as accurate, and
used it to discredit the doctrine it purportedly
illustrates?
1. In taking such action, the executive expends
"someone else's money"-the stockholders', the
customers', or the employees'.
2. The money is spent "for a general social interest".
3. "Rather than serving as an agent of the stock-
holders or the customers or the employees ... he
spends the money in a different way than they
would have spent it".
The first two premises suggest a similarity be-
tween this money and tax revenues, with respect
to their sources and to the purposes for which
they are used. However, an expense is not yet
a tax unless it is imposed on the contributor,
irrespective of his desire to pay. Only Friedman's
third premise includes this crucial element of
imposition.
This third premise reveals the essential charac-
ter of the paradigm on which Friedman bases
his whole case.
Friedman's paradigm
In the above examples of socially responsible
action and throughout his essay, Friedman
depicts the corporate executive who performs
such action as a sort of Lone Ranger, deciding
entirely by himself what good deeds to do, when
to act, how much to spend:
Here, the businessman- self-selected or appointed
directly or indirectly by the stockholders-is to
A counter-paradigm
Friedman's paradigm is valid in the sense that it
is certainly possible for a corporate executive to
try to exercise social responsibility without the
counsel or participation of the other stakeholders
in the business.
Friedman is also correct in characterizing
such conduct as unfair and as likely to resuk in
the withdrawal of the support of those other
stakeholders.
Yet Friedman insists, at least with respect to
the executive's employers, that the socially
responsible executive "must" do it alone, must
act in opposition to the interests of the other
stakeholders:
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive
has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as a busi-
nessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it
must mean that he is to act in some way that is not
in the interest of his employers.
There is no good reason why this remarkable
claim must be true. The exercise of social
responsibility in business suffers no diminish-
ment in meaning or merit if the executive and
his employers both understand their mutual
interest to include a proactive social role and
cooperate in undertaking that role.
I propose a different paradigm for the exer-
3. Milton Friedman on Social Responsibility 267
cise of social responsibility in business- one
very much in keeping with sound management
practice.
A business normally defines its course and
commits itself to action by conceiving a mis-
sion, then proceeding to a set of objectives, then
determining quantified and time-bound goals,
and then developing a full strategic plan which is
implemented by appropriate top-level staffing,
operating procedures, budgeted expenditures,
and daily management control.
Many stakeholders in the business participate
in this far-reaching process.
Founders, board members, major stock-
holders, and senior executives may all participate
in defining a mission and in setting objectives
based on that mission. In so doing, these people
serve as "legislators" for the company.
Top management's translation of these broad
directions into goals, strategic plans, operating
procedures, budgets, and daily work direction
brings middle management, first-line manage-
ment and, in some cdmpanies, employee rep-
resentatives into the process. This is the "execu-
tive branch" of the business.
When the time comes to judge progress and
success, the board members and stockholders
serve as "jurists" at the highest level, and when
necessary can take decisive, sometimes dramatic,
corrective measures. However, the grass-roots
judgment of the court of employee opinion can
also be a powerful force. More than one com-
pany has failed or faltered because it did not
keep a course which inspired and held its talented
people.
In sum, a business is a collaborative enterprise
among the stakeholders, with some checks and
balances. In general, this system allows to any
one stakeholder a degree of participation com-
mensurate with the size of his or her stake.
For a business to define a socially responsible
course and commit to socially responsible ac-
tion, it needs to follow no other process than
the familiar one described in the preceding
paragraphs.
On this paradigm, if socially responsible
action is on the corporate executive's agenda,
then it is there because the company's mission,
objectives, and goals - developed collaboratively
by the major stakeholders- gave him license
to put it there and provided parameters for his
program. Lone Ranger executives are no more
necessary and no more welcome in a socially
responsible business than in one devoted ex-
clusively to the maximization of profit.
This paradigm conforms more accurately
than Friedman's to the reality of how action
programs- socially responsible ones or other-
wise - are conceived and enacted in a strategical-
ly managed business. The corporate executive
in this process, in contradistinction to Friedman's
corporate executive, does not impose unauthor-
ized costs, or "taxes", on anyone. On this ac-
count, he usurps no governmental function,
violates no trust, and runs no special risk of losing
the support of the other stakehoiders.
The problem of knowing future consequences
The preceding argument addresses most of
Friedman's objections to a corporate executive's
attempts to exercise social responsibility.
Friedman, however, provides one objection
which does not rest on his paradigm of the
Lone Ranger executive. This is the objection
that it is futile to attempt socially responsible
action because the future social consequences
of today's actions are very difficult to know.
Suppose, he writes, that the executive decides
to fight inflation:
How is he to know what action of his will contribute
to that end? He is presumably an expert in running
his company - in producing a product or sellingit or
financing it. But nothing about his selectionmakes
him an expert on inflation. Will holdingdown the
price of his product reduce inflationary pressure?
Or, by leavingmore spending power in the hands of
his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or by
forcing him to produce less because of the lower
price, willit simply contribute to shortages?
The difficulty of determining the future con-
sequences of one's intended good acts has re-
ceived attention in the literature of philosophical
ethics. G. E. Moore, in his early twentieth century
classic Principia Ethica, writes of "the hopeless
task of finding duties" 2 since, to act with per-
fect certainty, we would need to know "all the
events which will be in any way affected by our
4. 268 Thomas Mulligan
action throughout an infinite future")
Human life, however, requires action in the
absence of certainty, and business people in
particular have a bias toward action. They do
not wait for perfect foreknowledge of conse-
quences, but instead set a decision date, gather
the best information available, contemplate
alternatives, assess risks, and then decide what
to do.
Decisions about socially responsible actions,
no less than decisions about new products or
marketing campaigns, can be made using this
"business-like" approach. The business person,
therefore, has even less cause than most moral
agents to abstain from social responsibility out
of a sense of the futility of knowing conse-
quences, since he is more practiced than most
in the techniques for making action decisions
in the absence of certainty.
Social responsibility and socialism
Some of Friedman's most emphatic language is
devoted to his position that the advocates of
social responsibility in a free-enterprise system
are "preaching pure and unadultered socialism".
He asserts this view in the first and last
paragraphs of the essay, and concludes:
The doctrine of "social responsibility" ... does not
differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collec-
tivist doctrine.
Friedman's argument for this conclusion is
located roughly midway through his essay,
and it too rests on his paradigm of the social-
ly responsible executive "imposing taxes" on
others and thereby assuming governmental
functions:
He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil
servant .... It is intolerable that such civil servants
... should be selected as they are now. If they are to
be civil servants, then they must be elected through
a political process. If they are to impose taxes and
make expenditures to foster "social" objectives, then
political machinery must be set up to make the
assessment of taxes and to determine through a
political process the objectives to be served.
This is the basic reason why the doctrine of
"social responsibility" involves the acceptance of
the socialist view that political mechanisms, not
market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to
determine the allocation of scarce resources to
alternative uses.
I shall raise three objections to this line of
reasoning.
First, this argument rests on the paradigm
which has already been called into question.
If we accept the counter-paradigm proposed
above as truer to the nature of a socially respon-
sible corporate executive, then there is no basis
for saying that such an individual "imposes
taxes", becoming "in effect" a civil servant.
Second, it is not apparent how the proposi-
tions that, under the doctrine of social reponsi-
bility, a corporate executive is "in effect" im-
posing taxes and "in effect" a civil servant
logically imply that this doctrine upholds the
view that political mechanisms should deter-
mine the allocation of scarce resources.
To the contrary, as Friedman points out, his
paradigmatic executive is not a true political
entity, since he is not elected and since his
program of "taxation" and social expenditure
is not implemented through a political process.
Paradoxically, it is Friedman who finds it
"intolerable" that this agent who allocates
scarce resources is not part of a political mecha-
nism. Nowhere, however, does he show that
acceptance of such a political mechanism is
intrinsic to the view of his opponent, the advo-
cate of social responsibility.
Third, in order to show that the doctrine of
social responsibility is a socialist doctrine,
Friedman must invoke a criterion for what
constitutes socialism. As we have seen, his
criterion is "acceptance of the ... view that
political mechanisms, not market mechanisms,
are the appropriate way to determine the allo-
cation of scarce resources to alternative uses".
The doctrine of social responsibility, he
bolds, does accept this view. Therefore the
doctrine is a socialist doctrine. 4
However, this criterion is hardly definitive
of socialism. The criterion is so broad that it
holds for virtually any politically totalitarian
or authoritarian system - including feudal mon-
archies and dictatorships of the political right.
Further, depending on the nature of a resource
5. Milton Friedman on Social Responsibility 269
and the degree of its scarcity, the political leader-
ship in any system, including American democ-
racy, is liable to assert its right to determine the
allocation of that resource. Who doubts that it
is appropriate for our political institutions,
rather than market mechanisms, to ensure the
equitable availability of breathable air and drink-
able water, or to allocate food and fuel in times
of war and critical shortage ?
Therefore, Friedman has not provided a
necessary element for his argument -a definitive
criterion for what constitutes socialism.
In summary, Friedman's argument is unsound:
first, because it rests on an arbitrary and suspect
paradigm; second, because certain of his premises
do not imply their stated conclusion; and, third,
because a crucial premise, his criterion for
what constitutes socialism, is not true.
Although he complains of the "analytical
looseness" and "lack of rigor" of his opponents,
Friedman's argument has on close examination
betrayed its own instances of looseness and lack
of rigor.
Conclusion
ment, budgetary limitations, reasonable em-
ployee remuneration, or competitive pricing.
My purpose has been to provide a critique
of the major lines of argument presented in a
famous and influential essay. The thrust has
been to show that Friedman misrepresents the
nature of social responsibility in business and
that business people can pursue a socially
responsible course without the objectionable
results claimed by Friedman. It would be an-
other step to produce positive arguments to
demonstrate why business people should pursue
such a course. That is an undertaking for an-
other occasion.
For now, I shall only observe that Friedman's
own concluding statement contains a moral
exhortation to business people. Business, he
says, should engage in "open and free competi-
tion without deception or fraud". If Friedman
does not recognize that even these restrained
words lay open a broad range of moral obliga-
tion and social responsibility for business, which
is after all one of the largest areas of human
interaction in our society, then the oversight is
his.
I have considered Friedman's principal objec-
tions to socially responsible action in business
and argued that at the bottom of most of his
objections is an inaccurate paradigm. In response,
I have given an account of a more appropriate
paradigm to show how business can exercise
social responsibility.
Friedman is right in pointing out that exer-
cising social responsibility costs money. If
nothing else, a company incurs expense when
it invests the manhours needed to contemplate
the possible social consequences of alternative
actions and to consider the merit or demerit
of each set of consequences.
But Friedman is wrong in holding that such
costs must be imposed by one business stake-
holder on the others, outside of the whole
collaborative process of strategic and opera-
tional business management. He presumes too
much in intimating through his imagined ex-
anaples that the business person who pursues
a socially responsible course inevitably acts
without due attention to return on invest-
Notes
1 Milton Friedman, 'The Social Responsibility of
Business Is to Increase Its Profits', New York Times
Magazine, 13 September 1970, 32 ft. Unless otherwise
noted, all quotations are from this essay.
2 G.E. Moore, I)rincipia Ethica, Cambridge, 1971, p.
150.
a Ibid., p. 149.
4 In the concluding paragraph of his essay, Friedman
states, "The doctrine of 'social responsibility' taken
seriously would extend the scope of the political mecha-
nism to every human activity". "Every human activity"
certainly seems at least one extra step beyond the set of
activities involved in "the allocation of scarce resources
to alternative uses". Unfortunately, Friedman's essay
contains no explication of the reasoning he used to make
the transition from the language of his argument midway
through the essay to the grander claim of this concluding
paragraph.
The Fuqua School of Business,
Duke University,
Durham, NC 2 7706,
U.S.A.