DO THE RIGHT THING: A PRACTICAL DISCUSSION ON ENGINEERING

ETHICS, RESPONSIBILITY, AND LEADERSHIP

by

David Alexandar Johnson

B.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 2005

A thesis submitted to the

University of Colorado Denver

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Civil Engineering

2010
 This thesis for the Master of Science

degree by

David Alexandar Johnson

has been approved

by

_________________________________________
Kevin L. Rens

_______________________________________
Bruce Janson

______________________________________
Cheng Yu Li

______________________________________
Stephan Durham

_________________________
Date
Johnson, David, A. (M.S., Civil Engineering)

Do The Right Thing: A Practical Discussion On Engineering Ethics,

Responsibility, And Leadership

Thesis directed by Professor Kevin L. Rens

ABSTRACT

Following many generations of structural failures, the American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE) adopted it's first code of ethics in 1914. That same year, the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
was created, along with the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 7
years later. While not directly related to any specific structural failures, many
organizations similar to these were created and/or adopted similar ethical
provisions in response to an engineering community that was suffering from a
collective lack of ethics—not so much per the traditional definition in which one is
corrupt, deceitful, and cunning, but more so in the modern sense of complacency,
apathy, carelessness, and most relative to engineers, having a general lack of
respect for the violent forces of nature.

This thesis will address the topics of ethics, personal and professional
responsibility, and leadership as applicable within the engineering industry,
specifically focusing on the role of the individual engineer. Professional opinion
polls were conducted on all levels of the engineering industry—undergraduate
students, graduate students, and experienced engineering professionals. The results
of these studies illustrate the perception of ethics as viewed from within the
engineering community. Concurrently, extensive research was completed on
ethics, responsibility and leadership from other sectors of society, including
philosophy, politics, exploration and religion. An analysis of this research offers a
perspective on ethics from outside the engineering community. Finally, numerous
engineering case studies, both structural failures and their successful counterparts,
were thoroughly analyzed with special attention given to ethical issues, in order to
bring each and every one of these views together such that the work herein would
be applicable to structural engineers and the construction industry as a whole.

In an attempt to assist the individual engineer develop ethical stamina, the intent of
this thesis was to create a thought-provoking and introspective resource, that
outlines ethical concepts, scenarios, and misconceptions, while promoting
characteristics such as mindfulness, compassion and empathy. Ultimately, through
reflection and practice, this thesis should help one Do The Right Thing more
consistently and more naturally, thereby increasing the probability of ethical
decision-making in daily situations.

This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate’s thesis. I

recommend its publication.

Signed_______________________________
Kevin L. Rens
 DEDICATION PAGE

I would be remiss if I didn't dedicate this work to my nieces, Myla Mae and
Brookelynn Star. At just one and four years old, respectively, they have inspired
and motivated many of my actions thus far in my brief adult life. To Brookelynn,
for helping me learn how to live, love, and trust again. To Myla, for encouraging
me to enjoy the simple things, while instilling in me a new sense of responsibility
—all because of a simple smile. In all honesty and sincerity, I hope my life, my
work, and the many things that I still hope to accomplish, have a positive impact
on society so that these innocent little girls may live richer, fuller and happier
lives. Furthermore, I think I must also dedicate this to the children of the world.
This is certainly not a revolutionary thought, but I have come to realize that
children are the only hope for our future—the children are our future. Without
them, no less can we alter the transgressions of our past. Yet, if desired to improve
our future, we must positively cultivate the impressionable minds of the children.
The road ahead is all but paved in gold, if we will but see it through. Let us Do the
Right—albeit generally the most difficult—Thing. –Uncle Dave

“Leaders say follow me and we follow them. We follow a boy or a girl.”

– Brookelynn Star Johnson, 4 years old and counting
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This thesis, written entirely by myself, was inspired largely in part by my professor
and adviser, Dr. Kevin L. Rens, and a paper co-written by him and his wife, and
published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in 2009, entitled
“Leading, Learning, and Living the Shackleton Way: Education and Practice.”
Many of Dr. Rens' concepts and ideas have been incorporated into this paper and,
while it can be read as a stand alone document, independent of outside sources, I
recommend reading this document in concert with with Dr. Rens' paper for a better
understanding of the history behind it's creation and transformation from his ideas
to mine.

I also would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to the Structural Engineers

Association of Colorado (SEAC), and particularly my good friend and colleague
Robert Leberer, for their unequivocal support throughout both my career and the
time I spent on this thesis. SEAC was kind enough to allow me to post an
announcement of an online ethics survey in their quarterly newsletter. I worked
many hours on this and I am very grateful to Robert and the rest of SEAC for
seeing it through, as well as offering me some excellent advice along the way.
Robert, who is also a personal adviser of mine—not only on this thesis, but
throughout my career—has truly been a blessing to my life. Thank you.

Last but never forgotten, I must also thank my thesis committee—Dr. Kevin Rens,
Dr. Bruce Janson, Dr. Stephan Durham, and Dr. Cheng Yu Li. Each of these
intellectuals are wonderful persons and instructors, whom I now also consider my
colleagues and friends. Thank you for challenging me and supporting my growth.
Finally, a special thanks goes to Dr. Durham who epitomizes the concept of
leading by example. Somehow he instilled in me a passion for concrete that I was
unaware I had the capacity for. Though I cannot recall ever asking for it, the
“damage” has already been done. Thank you.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface .................................................................................................................xiv
1. Introduction.................................................................................................1
1.1 Thesis Overview – Main Character Synopsis.............................................2
1.2 Literature Review – Thesis Content...........................................................4
1.2.1 Philosophy..................................................................................................4
1.2.1.1 Socrates and Plato.......................................................................................5
1.2.1.2 Aristotle......................................................................................................6
1.2.1.3 The Stoics.................................................................................................10
1.2.1.4 John Stewart Mill......................................................................................12
1.2.2 Religion.....................................................................................................13
1.2.2.1 Islam.........................................................................................................17
1.2.2.2 Hinduism...................................................................................................19
1.2.2.3 Buddhism..................................................................................................21
1.2.2.4 Judaism.....................................................................................................28
1.2.2.5 Christianity...............................................................................................32
1.2.2.6 Mormonism...............................................................................................36
1.2.3 Exploration...............................................................................................38
1.2.3.1 Ernest Henry Shackleton..........................................................................39
1.2.3.2 Robert Falcon Scott..................................................................................44
1.2.3.3 Roald Amundsen.......................................................................................45
1.2.3.4 Vilhjalmur Stefansson...............................................................................48
1.2.3.5 Summary...................................................................................................50
1.2.4 Politics......................................................................................................52
1.2.4.1 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi...............................................................52

viii
1.2.4.2 Nelson Mandela........................................................................................56
1.2.4.3 Martin Luther King, Jr..............................................................................60
1.2.5 Presidents..................................................................................................65
1.2.5.1 George Washington...................................................................................65
1.2.5.2 Thomas Jefferson......................................................................................66
1.2.5.3 Abraham Lincoln......................................................................................71
1.2.5.4 Franklin Delano Roosevelt.......................................................................76
1.2.6 Military Leaders........................................................................................77
1.3 Relevance to Structural Engineering........................................................79
1.3.1 Engineering Community Feedback..........................................................80
1.3.2 Engineering Ethics....................................................................................80
1.3.3 Engineering Case Studies.........................................................................81
1.4 Summary...................................................................................................81
2. Structural Engineering Community..........................................................83
2.1 Research....................................................................................................83
2.1.1 Engineering Undergraduate Students.......................................................83
2.1.2 Engineering Graduate Students................................................................83
2.1.3 Engineering Professionals........................................................................84
2.2 Engineers on Ethics..................................................................................84
2.3 Engineers on Responsibility.....................................................................87
2.4 Engineers on Leadership...........................................................................88
3. Ethics and the Engineer............................................................................90
3.1 Distinction – Ethics in Engineering vs Ethics of Engineering.................91
3.2 Discussion – Professional Engineering Ethics (PEE)...............................94
3.3 Discussion – Individual Engineering Ethics (IEE).................................108
3.4 Discussion – Engineering Education Ethics (EEE)................................114
3.5 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................120

ix
4. Engineering Case Studies.......................................................................122
4.1 Failures...................................................................................................127
4.1.1 Colorado Highway 470 (C-470) Girder Failure During Construction. . .131
4.1.1.1 Facts........................................................................................................131
4.1.1.2 Technical Issues......................................................................................131
4.1.1.3 Ethical Issues..........................................................................................133
4.1.1.4 Conclusions and Changes Made.............................................................135
4.1.2 Interstate-35 West (I-35W) Bridge Collapse..........................................136
4.1.2.1 Facts........................................................................................................136
4.1.2.2 Technical Issues......................................................................................138
4.1.2.3 Ethical Issues..........................................................................................141
4.1.2.4 Conclusions and Changes Made.............................................................144
4.1.3 Galileo's Cantilevered Column: A Design Change for the Worse..........145
4.1.4 Hyatt Regency Walkways Collapse........................................................147
4.1.4.1 Facts........................................................................................................148
4.1.4.2 Technical Issues......................................................................................149
4.1.4.3 Ethical Issues..........................................................................................151
4.1.4.4 Conclusions and Changes Made.............................................................157
4.1.5 Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse..........................................................162
4.1.5.1 Facts........................................................................................................162
4.1.5.2 Technical Issues......................................................................................163
4.1.5.3 Ethical Issues..........................................................................................164
4.1.5.4 Conclusions and Changes Made.............................................................167
4.1.6 Other Cases.............................................................................................169
4.1.6.1 L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse....................................................................170
4.1.6.2 Kemper Arena Roof Collapse.................................................................171
4.1.6.3 Mianus River Bridge Collapse................................................................172

x
4.2 Successes................................................................................................173
4.2.1 16th Street Pedestrian Bridge Over Interstate 25 (I-25).........................174
4.2.2 William LeMessurier Doing The Right Thing........................................175
4.2.3 Cleaning up the Johnstown Flood of 1889.............................................178
4.3 Discussion...............................................................................................181
4.4 Summary and Conclusions.....................................................................183
5. Conclusions.............................................................................................186
5.1 Ethics......................................................................................................188
5.1.1 Personal Happiness.................................................................................188
5.1.2 “Do the Right Thing”..............................................................................190
5.1.3 Empathy and Compassion......................................................................195
5.1.4 Mindfulness............................................................................................198
5.2 Responsibility.........................................................................................199
5.2.1 Personal Responsibility..........................................................................199
5.2.2 Professional Responsibility....................................................................200
5.3 Leadership...............................................................................................202
5.3.1 Talent and Obligation.............................................................................203
5.3.2 Leading by Example...............................................................................205
5.3.3 Vision and Action...................................................................................206
5.3.4 Faith and Risk.........................................................................................208
5.3.5 Servitude.................................................................................................209
5.3.6 Persuasion and Inspiration......................................................................210
5.3.7 Perseverance and Dedication..................................................................212
5.4 Recommendations...................................................................................212
5.4.1 Individual Engineering...........................................................................212
5.4.2 Engineering Education............................................................................213
5.4.3 Professional Engineering........................................................................213

xi
5.5 Engineering Lessons...............................................................................214
5.5.1 Failure.....................................................................................................214
5.5.2 Confidence..............................................................................................215
5.5.3 Judgment.................................................................................................215
5.6 Other Helpful Resources on Ethics, Responsibility, and Leadership.....218
5.6.1 Internet....................................................................................................218
5.6.1.1 Ethics, Responsibility, and Leadership...................................................218
5.6.1.2 Engineering – Ethics, Professionalism, and Case Studies......................219
5.6.2 Books......................................................................................................220
5.6.3 Journals and Articles...............................................................................220
5.6.4 Institutions, Professional Societies and Organizations...........................221

Appendices
A. ................................................................................................................222
B. ................................................................................................................241

References..............................................................................................................334

xii
 FIGURES

Figure 4.1 Bridge View Looking South (NTSB 2008b).......................................129

Figure 4.2 Overhead View Looking North (NTSB 2008b)...................................137
Figure 4.3 Gusset Plate Connection Detail (Holt and Hartmann 2008)................140
Figure 4.4 Demand-to-Capacity: Gusset Plate U10 (Holt and Hartmann 2008).. 141

xiii
 PREFACE

Like many engineers, I am always thinking analytically about something—how to

optimize efficiency in my daily schedule, the physics of a fastball versus a curve
ball, or why mozzarella string cheese tastes so much better when you actually peel
the strings than it does when you eagerly take a bite off the stick. If these were the
basis for this thesis, it wouldn't be much longer than a page, as my conclusions
would be “inconclusive,” “centripetal acceleration and polar moments of inertia,”
and “surface area to mass ratio,” respectively. While these questions do provide me
with good insight and help me develop a better understanding of the world in which
I live, they do not offer much to my comprehension of the variables of life that I
truly care about; those variables that comprise the sole purpose for which I live:
People.

Why do the people for whom I care so deeply—and even those whom I've never
even met—suffer and what can I do to ease their collective pain? Furthermore,
what is my role in their pain? A lifetime—a meager 27 years—of heartfelt inquiries
such as this, and a year of diligent graduate study and research, and I'm starting to
figure out that I still know very little on the matter. While this may hardly seem an
adequate conclusion for a master's thesis, it is exactly the conclusion that I have
long sought after.

When I first mention that my thesis for a degree in structural engineering is

centered on the topic of ethics, most generally offer back a curious, but confused
look. For a few awkward moments, I believe they must be asking themselves the
seemingly obvious question: “What's left to debunk? Isn't ethics simply using

xiv
common sense?” Certainly, a reasonable question, albeit one that given my
engineering tendencies, I have never been able to justify. To me, ethical behavior is
far from common knowledge. Sure, ethical theory has been invented and reinvented
a thousand times over, but the practical application of such ideas and concepts are
still relatively infant. Yet, as engineers shouldn't this be the ultimate find—how to
actually implement ethics into general society? Any engineer can design a structure,
but can someone else realistically build it? Many people over time have
conceptualized brilliant business plans, but how many of them have actually
become successful entrepreneurs? We all have different political views, many
centered on problems of corruption, deception, transparency, and so on; but how
many of us are actually willing to do something about it? The basic question
engineers ask themselves in most situations is can we, and how do we implement
our ideas. I wonder then, why we stop there only on the discussion of ethics. The
only policies and procedures available for such are merely comprised of retroactive
repercussions which, as I will also argue herein, only serves to promote paranoia,
bitterness, and a collective sense of exhaustion, eventually leading to apathy.

I agree that logic and sound reasoning are the best methods for reaching a solution
that benefits everyone—in most circumstances. However, ethics is an entirely
different animal. This is exactly why human beings have been contemplating it
since the beginning of time, why many in the current age believe it is as simple as
basic human instincts, yet society, as a whole, is no less corrupt than it was two
thousand years ago—because ethics is not tangible, it is not a physical entity and
therefore cannot be tested, analyzed or measured. Simply, the only way to police
unethical behavior is to punish the guilty parties after the fact; and then we get
caught up in finger-pointing and name-calling. This thing that once again appeared
to finally contained has fooled us yet again; and our only response is to find fault in

xv
others. I don't have a systematic alternative for retroactively dealing with such
ethical failures. However, I propose that we start over; let us literally brainstorm by
starting at the root of the problem—the human mind—for as much of a blessing it
can be when it comes to engineering, it most certainly can also be a curse when
facing ethical decisions.

I believe that the solution lies, not within black and white limitations, or labels of
right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and corrupt; for these only assist us in
analysis after-the-fact; but in a collective effort to promote understanding instead of
judgment and encouragement instead of blame. I propose a collective effort to take
responsibility and stop passing the buck, to give credit and stop pointing the finger,
to question ourselves rather than each other. I will not lie and say this is an easy
task; there is no new technology to stop unethical behavior before it happens. My
only suggestions come from my ideas and my research—those ideas from brilliant
minds before me and the even more brilliant minds alongside me. I implore you to
read on; read on with an open mind and an open conscience; read on with
convictions of donation and servitude; read on with with any permutation of the
following mindset: Love like Jesus, live like Gandhi, learn like Jefferson, think like
Buddha, march like Martin, and lead like Abe.

xvi
1. Introduction

While the research required for this thesis was incredibly time consuming, nothing
new has been discovered. No new solutions have been found, and unfortunately
therefore, no new ideas are presented herein. The fact remains that the collective
knowledge and available resources on ethics are vastly impressive, and have been
for a very long time. The only aspect that has not been as impressive is the research
and collective knowledge regarding the implementation of such ethical knowledge.
Once again, any ideas or theories for doing this would still be entirely unoriginal
when considering individual concepts. Rather, the only new material that can be
documented is that of one's unique compilation and perspective of already proven
concepts. Accordingly, no more than this is presented herein. The following quote
from Jewish Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Brown 2008) regarding his work
named Mesilas Yesharim (Path of the Just), parallels these ideas and effectively
expresses the intent for this thesis.
I have written this work not to teach men what they do not
know, but to remind them of what they already know and is
very evident to them, for you will find in most of my words
only things which most people know, and concerning which
they entertain no doubts. But to the extent that they are well
known and their truths revealed to all, so is forgetfulness in
relation to them extremely prevalent. It follows, then, that the
benefit to be obtained from this work is not derived from a
single reading; for it is possible that the reader will find that he
has learned little after having read it that he did not know
before. Its benefit is to be derived, rather, through review and
persistent study, by which one is reminded of those things
which, by nature, he is prone to forget and through which he is
caused to take to heart the duty that he tends to overlook.

Thomas Jefferson, had similar intents when he wrote the Declaration of

1
Independence, as described by Barefoot (2008) below:
He would later recall that in writing the declaration he had not
tried to find out new principles, or new arguments never before
thought of, nor merely to say things which had never been said
before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the
subject in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent,
and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are
compelled to take.” (Barefoot 2008)

1.1 Thesis Overview – Main Character Synopsis

Ethics—humankind has been researching this seemingly simple topic for a few
thousand years at least. Yet, many people still remain divided on it's basic
principles and mandates. Some say ethics is no more than the practice of using
common sense. Contrarily, many philosophers—Aristotle, John Stewart Mill, the
Stoics, and Friedrich Nietzsche to name a few—have taken the opposing view,
dedicating much of their life to defining ethics as they understood it. Still others
associate ethics with spirituality and/or religion—whether Islam, Buddhism,
Christianity or any one of the innumerable religions recognized throughout the
world.

The objective of this research project was to analyze ethics—a topic that has
plagued humankind for many millennia—focusing on the role of the individual.
Hopefully to present a new perspective, and clarification on this very complicated
topic. Those who can handle the change of scenery will find that some of the best
explanations and solutions to the ethical dilemmas confronting the engineering
industry actually come from outside the engineering community. Particularly from
the writings and stories of many brilliant minds including Mahatma Gandhi,
Aristotle, Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), the fourteenth (and current) Dalai Lama,

2
among many others; and by drawing parallels between their teachings and the
characteristics of the engineering industry.

Your personal ethical beliefs play a major role in determining how you will respond
to even the most miniscule situations that can arise on a daily basis. For instance, a
politician's personal ethics and morality largely dictates the perception of the
general public regarding his or her professional leadership abilities—though some
argue they have no effect on one another. Additionally, decisions made by leaders
in exploration, education, religion, and entertainment illustrate not only how critical
ethics are in modern society, but also how easy it is for even the most respectable
people to make unethical decisions.

To understand this better, one should examine the gradual change of priorities of
society as a whole over time. For instance, industrialized nations, by definition seek
increasing production, whether economically, technologically, medically, and so on.
Even the many who champion such societies—including most of the modern world
—could be convinced that there is a reasonable upper limit to everything, even
advances such as these. While the advancements themselves can, and should be
commended, the byproducts of such could certainly benefit from a more thorough
analysis. Consider the following rhetorical discussion.
What are the most important characteristics of a young and
developing engineer – or any young professional for that
matter? A high grade point average? Sure. A long list of
extracurricular activities, internships and personal
recommendation letters? Definitely. How about a passion for
science and mathematics? Yes! Communication skills?
Certainly.

Unquestionably, these are all very good qualities to have, and should proffer the
beholder rapid advancement in any organization. But what about a passion for

3
people? Not just technical communication skills, or leadership skills that emphasize
efficiency and productivity, but an inherent passion for people, their happiness, and
their general welfare. Has this personal characteristic become irrelevant in modern
society? Does true empathy exist, or is it simply an idealistic sentiment? This is the
question that is posed, and hopefully answered in this thesis. What is presented in
this chapter is a brief overview of the lives and stories of many individuals who had
great influence on ethics, and thus will be referenced frequently throughout this
thesis.

1.2 Literature Review – Thesis Content

1.2.1 Philosophy

Taylor (1985) tells of two distinct forms of ethics—The Ethics of Duty and the
Ethics of Aspiration. According to Taylor, many assume that ethics is a debate of
morality, obligation, and right and wrong (e.g. ethics of duty). However, most
ancient philosophers didn't consider this the case at all. In fact, they didn't even
associate ethics with morality or social obligations. Their preoccupation with ethics
centered around the idea of personal upliftment or satisfaction (e.g. ethics of
aspiration).

Many ethical philosophies have emerged throughout time—beginning prior to the

birth of Christ and still new theories are regularly being proposed in modern
society. Some of these schools of thought include Ancient Greek philosophy
(Socratic Ethics, Platonism, and Aristotelian Ethics), Stoicism, Cynicism,
Hedonism, Egoism, Moral Obligation, Natural Law, Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism,
Moral Rights (Taylor 1985), and so on.

4
1.2.1.1 Socrates and Plato

The teachings and philosophies of Socrates and Plato are more abstract than those
of Aristotle, whom will be discussed in the following section. Centuries before
Christ, each of these three philosophers were born roughly forty years apart—
Socrates lived almost exclusively during the 5th century, Plato spanned across both
the 5th and 4th centuries, and Aristotle's life took up much of the 4th century. Socrates
was a mentor and master to Plato, and similarly Plato was a tutor and teacher to
Aristotle (Annas 2000). Plato and Socrates shared a deep bond, such that many of
the works attributed to Plato were written in the first person from Socrates
viewpoint. To this day, many scholars still disagree on the true ownership,
authenticity and voice of Plato's writings. One mentionable philosophy however is
the careful distinction made by both Plato and Socrates between physicality and
reality. In essence they considered the physical world as an abstract representation
of one that is perfect in every form. The analogy they use is that of a shadow—
where the shadow is only instantaneous and far from a detailed representation of a
physical object, so too are physical objects only momentary and imperfect
representations of their perfect versions.

What can be taken from this is that nothing is ever exactly as it seems and, despite
the rational ability of human beings, perfection is unattainable. Situations will
always appear differently with the alteration of any one aspect. Even with the
passing of one second the shadow cast by a physical object has changed form, and
though unnoticeable to the human eye, this change is no less finite. This is evident
when the same shadow is examined hours later—it is then noticeably different, not
even resembling a similar shape. However, the confusing nature of situations
becomes evident when again the same shadow is observed the next day at the same

5
time—it may look exactly the same as the previous day, yet every physical
molecule is one day older, every fiery solar flame anew, and every observer one
day wiser.

1.2.1.2 Aristotle

At this point, it still may not be apparent what ethical philosophy, particularly that
derived in ancient Greek—which to many is so difficult to comprehend that they
perceive it to be erroneous in modern society—has to do with engineering. The
answer to this is not a dime-a-dozen cliché about how Aristotle was a philosopher
of ethics—though indeed this is true—and since ethics and morality apply to all
walks of life, the teachings of ancient Greek philosophy are inapplicable to none—
however true this may also be. Rather, Aristotle—as well as his colleagues, Plato
and Socrates—was in a sense one of the very first engineers. Petroski (1994), in
one of his many books on engineering, also hints at a similar theory when he notes
that:
Some of the earliest recorded thought about design shows an
awareness of a scale effect in natural and fabricated things.
Among the minor works of Aristotle is a collection of questions
and answers known as Mechanical Problems, in which queries
about the physical world are posed and solutions offered in the
context of fourth century B.C.E. knowledge of physics,
mathematics, and engineering.

Aristotle, who studied under the tutelage of Plato, whom similarly studied under
Socrates a generation prior (Annas 2000)—all three during the 4th and 5th century
B.C.—was certainly one of the most influential people in the development of
modern day understanding of ethics and morality. Accordingly, he is famous for a
number of his works including many on the topic of ethics. The most famous of

6
these are his Nicomachean Ethics which begin by arguing that the ability to reason
—logos—is the purpose or proper function of all human beings since, among all
living things, we alone possess such abilities (Aristotle 2004). Arguably, Aristotle
focused his work on the precepts of common sense more so than any other
philosopher of his time, if not of all time (Annas 2000). This is illustrated by his
discussion of happiness below (Aristotle 2004).
Well, happiness more than anything else is thought to be just
such an end, because we always choose it for itself, and never
for any other reason. It is different with honour, pleasure,
intelligence and good qualities generally. We do choose them
partly for themselves (because we should choose each one of
the irrespectively of any consequences); but we choose them
also for the sake of our happiness, in the belief that they will be
instrumental in promoting it. On the other hand nobody chooses
happiness for their sake, or in general for any other reason.

Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, using common sense and logic.
But what is happiness? If we consider what the function of man
is, we find that happiness is a virtuous activity of the soul.

Using this same thought process in an attempt to expand this definition, he came to
regard every virtuous act as an intermediary between excess and deficiency. In
other words, a truly virtuous act was one not only defined by one quality but
several in fact. For instance, courage is the perfectly precise blend of confidence
and fear, to avoid not only cowardice but also irrational decision making. By
searching for answers in this manner, Aristotle was essentially utilizing the concept
of empathy, which is defined as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious
experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another” (Reference.com
2010). But, instead of utilizing it for interaction with some other person or living
creature, he employed it's concepts to understand the basic nature of human beings.
Using empathy, Aristotle questioned what motivated people to “Do the Right

7
Thing,” instead of asking why they do the wrong thing. Essentially, he studied why
people do what they do, instead of attempting to understand why they don't do,
what he himself understood to be the right thing. When one asks why a wrong has
been done, they subconsciously teach themselves that such a thing is factually
wrong, when in reality it may simply be a matter of personal preference. This in
turn, is a precursor to judgment, whereas the latter is a precursor to empathy and
understanding. By allowing himself to withdraw from his own bias—setting aside
his beliefs and pride—Aristotle was able to comprehend and understand the actions
of others, rather than unintentionally condemning them. What he found, as already
mentioned, was that such actions—as with all actions—are a blend of individual
perceptions of “right,” as opposed to pervasive and evil deeds.

In modern society, a similar misconception is present; it seems commonplace for

21st century humans to deduce everything into finite categories, considering one's
actions and beliefs to either be black or white, right or wrong, good or bad, left or
right, and so on. When such extremes are considered to be the only possibilities,
hatred, judgment and discrimination have the potential to develop, even with regard
to the most trivial of topics. Furthermore, with the dominance of this “extreme”
thought-process that entirely disregards the “shades of gray”—or the regions
between the extremes—the logic of such also has a tendency to be pushed aside.
For, is it not true that the dividing region—which encompasses all shades of gray—
is not only infinitesimally larger than the regions of extreme that it separates, but
that the occurrence of such pure extremes are rare, if they even exist at all? Is not
every engineering calculation based on at least one assumption? So, can a “correct”
or “incorrect” answer ever truly exist? Can it be proven that any piece of grade
A992 steel has a yield strength of exactly 50 ksi, without the slightest bit of
variation, or that within that piece of steel, no matter how small, the nearer end has

8
exactly the same physical properties as the far end? Is an inverse function ever
equal to zero? Or, considering nontechnical subjects, is a white piece of paper not
actually off-white in color. Is it not true that the same piece of paper, even if
considered pure white in sunlight, may appear slightly beige, yellow, or some other
shade under artificial light? The limit to these inquiries are infinite—or at least
beyond one's comprehension.

Assuming the preceding argument is true, shouldn't criminals be judged based on a

comparison of their level of guilt to that of their innocence, rather than proclaiming
them guilty or not guilty? Considering a topic a little closer to home for structural
engineers, shouldn't failures be reviewed not for determination of the guilty parties,
but rather the obstacles that obstructed their path toward ethical conduct, so that
such obstacles can be removed? For instance, many engineers are overworked,
underpaid and pressured to complete work expediently. The downfall to this is that
they lose interest and passion because they are forced to work in a way that they do
not enjoy. Then, if happiness is the ultimate objective, when such is reduced or
eliminated, so too will the results. Additionally, not only does one lose interest and
therefore attentiveness, but the engineering profession loses what Levy and
Salvadori (2002) call “…a needed characteristic” in structural engineering—
redundancy. Nearly ever structural engineering book has at least one reference to
this concept and the necessity for it in structural design. Yet, when engineers are
pressured to work faster, but still paid the same or less, redundancy in design is
nearly impossible. To be discussed in more detail in the following chapters, one can
ask themselves, if redundancy is such a necessity for structures, why they indirectly
remove it from the design process by permitting themselves to be pressured and
underpaid?

9
1.2.1.3 The Stoics

Stoicism, a school of philosophy that arose in the 3rd century B.C., following on
the heels of the collective groundbreaking work of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates,
was a Greek philosophical school championed by Zeno of Citium. The Stoics
derive their name from the Stoa (e.g. Porch) where Zeno Lectured (Radical
Academy 2003). While many of the specifics of this particular belief system are
certainly debatable, it's fundamental premise, being sophisticated, logical, and
elementary all at the same time, is difficult to intellectually challenge. The Stoics
believed that destructive thoughts and emotions themselves—not the outcomes or
events that spurred such reactions—were the source of sorrow, unhappiness, and
human err. Conversely, positive emotions and thoughts produce happiness,
satisfaction, and so on. By controlling one's thoughts and emotions the Stoics
believed they could control not only their mentality and outlook on life, but also the
irrational decisions made when influenced by such destructive emotions. As
explained by the Dalai Lama, “emotions and thoughts cannot ultimately be
separated” (Lama 2001). The fundamental idea is this: humans are born with a
clean slate (e.g. a blank mind), which records one's life as it occurs. The
development of thoughts, patterns, beliefs, and so on, are simply formed by
repetition of such activities. In other words, practice makes perfect. The unfortunate
thing is that practice does not necessarily make perfect good. If you practice evil,
you will become perfectly evil; if you practice self loathing, you will become
clinically depressed. Oscar Wilde described it best when he wrote that “[two] men
looked out from the prison bars. One saw only mud, the other saw stars. (Kalungu-
Banda 2006). Kalungu-Banda (2006) then goes on to observe that “[we] create our
own reality by choosing the lenses through which we see the world around us.”

10
The Stoic school of thought is particularly useful in situations where one tends to
act impulsively, often resulting in regret. This concept helps one develop a mindset
capable of immediately detecting the presence of such situations so that they will
respond proactively instead of instinctively reacting.

The Stoic philosophy is similar to a modern day practice called Mindfulness, which
is exactly what it sounds like—being aware and mindful of one's thoughts,
emotions, feelings and sensations (Williams, et al. 2007). Simplistically, when one
allows their mind to wander, it's similar to releasing a wolf on a farm—there truly
is no limit to what this beast will do to seek immediate happiness. Elaborating on
Aristotle's claim that human's beings are the only living organism capable of logic
and reasoning, an untamed mind that is no longer restrained by logic can be very
detrimental. When left unmonitored for too long, the human mind eventually
becomes accustomed to immediate satisfaction. Then, when the resources that were
feeding such cravings are exhausted, the mind ventures out of itself seeking
satisfaction. Though not referring directly to it, the general concept of mindfulness
is concisely and effectively explained by Lama (2001), for “…on the one hand,
[we're] acting out of concern for others' well-being.” and on the other hand, he
continues “… [we are] transforming ourselves so that we become more readily
disposed to do so.”

Stoic doctrine was very popular for many centuries, beginning with Zeno, but it,
like all philosophical schools suffered a certain fate, unfortunately similar to many
organizations throughout the history of man. Sedley (1998) describes the
unfortunate fate:
‘Ancient’ philosophy is that of classical antiquity, which not
only inaugurated the entire European philosophical tradition but
has exercised an unparalleled influence on its style and content.

11
 It is conventionally considered to start with Thales in the mid
sixth century bc, although the Greeks themselves frequently
made Homer (c.700 bc) its true originator. Officially it is often
regarded as ending in 529 ad, when the Christian emperor
Justinian is believed to have banned the teaching of pagan
philosophy at Athens.

1.2.1.4 John Stewart Mill

The following passage from John Stuart Mill (Mill 2010a), a nineteenth century
English philosopher, explains just how evasive ethics truly can be.
There are few circumstances among those which make up the
present condition of human knowledge, more unlike what might
have been expected, or more significant of the backward state in
which speculation on the most important subjects still lingers,
than the little progress which has been made in the decision of
the controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong.

This quote by Mill, from his book, Utilitarianism, purports a very simple yet
astonishingly accurate claim—that the progress made by man on the issue of right
and wrong over the millions of years of our existence is actually quite insignificant
compared to topics that have been allotted much less time, yet have still
accomplished much more. As discussed earlier, many think of ethics as common
sense and end the discussion, which may be the reason behind the reality of Mill's
claim. The reality of the situation is that ethics, right and wrong, morality, or
whatever you want to call it, is a very complicated topic. It is not simply one
similar to basic mathematics or riding a bicycle, such that once you learn the
concept, forgetting it is difficult. For ethics is not only a concept that is very
difficult—if at all possible—to fully understand, but even if you do feel like you
have it down, the slightest distraction or most miniscule lapse in time can
contribute to the dissipation of such knowledge. Furthermore, once again unlike

12
riding a bicycle or adding two numbers, ethics requires intense, persistent and
continual concentration. Otherwise, situations will undoubtedly arise such to test
one's patience and cause them to react instinctively. This almost always results in
regret as ethics and empathy are founded in understanding of one another, whereas
reactions are the result of instinctual brain impulses, which are available to humans
merely as a survival instinct.

John Stuart Mill, who leaned towards the political realm of ethics, focused his
works on individual liberty and the reduction of government control (Mill 2010b).
However his writings on Utilitarianism contribute greatly to the topic of individual
ethics. Utilitarianism itself is founded on the principle that ethical value of any
action is based on it's utility, or the benefit received by all sentient beings.
Essentially, regardless of the benefit a certain action provides to one person, five
persons, or even an entire community, the ethical implications are governed by the
overall impact imposed to all living creatures. Similar to the teachings of the Dalai
Lama, which will be discussed in the following section, every decision one makes
can and will have an impact on every other person, regardless of location, age, etc.
By recognizing this, one can minimize the detrimental effects of their actions on the
global community, and likewise maximize the beneficial effects to the global
community and themselves as well.

1.2.2 Religion

While ancient philosophers focus on self-betterment, called ethics of aspiration, and

modern-age philosophers preach varying permutations of the ethics of duty, many
religions attempt to put the puzzle pieces together with a blend of various
philosophies. These include both the ethics of aspiration and the ethics of duty—

13
different names are used of course. In addition to these however, many religions
promote a few different types of ethics that the author calls the ethics of
providence, the ethics of fear, and the ethics of works. The ethics of providence
concern those ethical characteristics that concern God (or Allah, Providence, the
Truth, etc.) himself, and one's thoughts and feelings towards this God—some
religious institutions promote loving and worshiping God, while others warn that
the wrath of God should be feared, and still many others promote a blend of such
ideologies. The ethics of fear is almost a supplement to the ethics of providence,
except that the ethics of fear incorporates not just a fear of God and his wrath, but
also a fear of the devil, a fear of demons, a fear of hell, and so on. Finally, the ethics
of works promotes the idea of obtaining God's favor or blessings through one's
righteous actions.

Countless books have been written about religious and spiritual ties to modern
leadership and management principals (Beekun and Badawi 1999; Witten and
Rinpoche 1999; Brown 2008; Nair 1997; Willis 2002; Mandair 2000; Cotterell,
2006; Kumarsamy 2006; Manz 2005; Briner and Pritchard 1998; Jones 1996;
Maxwell 2006). Examples can be drawn from each of these publications that are
germane to doing the right thing in a leadership sense. These will be presented in
more detail in the following sections and chapters.

Human beings are not merely flesh and bone, but rather heavenly angels beneath a
bleak exterior. One must rise above their “best;” give more than 100%; offer
everything they have, as well as that which is already proportioned for them, if they
are to utilize their full potential as a soulful being. It is common for many to seek
such through organized religion. Granted, the controversial matter of religion has
led some of the most evil human beings to do great things, yet at the same time

14
many of the most honest and compassionate beings have done evil in the name of
religion. Many find it difficult to resolve the many apparent conflicts and
hypocrisies of organized religion with the eternal-minded joy it has unarguably
hired in the hearts, minds, and souls of many. It is difficult to find evil or malice in
the common view that one can overcome the hardships of life, taking consolidation
in the fact that it is bigger than themselves—time keeps going with or without each
and every person. It then becomes even more difficult to argue against religion as
many have the ability to instill such a mindset in their congregations more
effectively than any other organization, school of thought, or way of life. However,
it is not so difficult to argue that the discrepancy between what a local Christian
preacher believes and that of the majority of his congregation, is no bigger a gap
than that between the very same preacher and a Hindu, or Muslim, or Sikh, or
Buddhist, and so on. For if every single person on earth, when shown a flower can
have an entirely different description of that flower, depending on one's experiences
and beliefs; why is it difficult to agree that no two Christians, or Hindus, or
Mormons, worship the same God. For instance, one person's friends and family are
who they perceive them to be based on their experiences with them, but to outsiders
those same people can be, and often are quite different people. The claim here is
that God is no different. If anything God is even more complicated due to his or her
inherently mystic nature. For how does one know that the God their priest,
preacher, or rabbi worships does not have similar qualities as the same entity that
they perceive as Lucifer himself. Accordingly, using this logic, it can be argued that
since no two people perceive God in exactly the same way, regardless of religious
preference, then there is only one religion and one God with many different
individual perceptions; or conversely that there is no God and in fact religion is a
hoax. Yet, as one arrives at this point, realization that they have potentially shown
something to be false, which they previously had shown to promote hope, faith,

15
love and compassion. Thence is the dilemma commonly encountered with the
debate of religion, and also why many people avoid the use of logic on such an
inconceivable topic.

It is common for atheists, agnostics, deists to place much faith in facts, research,
science, and the like. Conversely, theists hold that scriptures, prophets and biblical
texts hold the ultimate post of authority and authenticity on all things. Furthermore,
many times each of these groups have been known to criticize one another as
having a closed mind—one that is unwilling to except other possibilities. Yet, can it
not be agreed upon that neither can be entirely certain of their conclusions—that
neither argument can be proven without the use of assumptions. Is it not true that
some aspects of time have not been proven, and as such time, when considered
universally with respect to other planets, stars, black holes, 4th dimensions, and so
on, time could actually be drastically variable, thereby nullifying science which has
based its every conclusion on the exact opposite assumption? Conversely, is it too
difficult to imagine that every miracle performed or witnessed in the name of one
god or another were nothing more than mere coincidence; or that they were the
masterful and successful orchestration of sleight of hand by one deceitful person?
Even more, could it not be true that everyone is inaccurate on the matter, that the
truth lies in some other explanation that has not yet even been conceived? Religion
is a complicated subject indeed.

This thesis strives neither to prove nor disprove any religion. The point being made
is that the debate surrounding the black and whites of religion is a tireless and
hopeless debate that can never be won. More appropriate however is to restrict the
discussion of religion to that which is agreeably good and agreeably bad, such that
one can omit the bad and focus on the good. The gray areas in between, which are

16
the topics that are debated ad nauseum in modern society can then be left to the
logic of each individual, while still a global set of good and bad is agreed upon by
all. Thus, is ethics. And, thus is also the distinction between ethics and religion.

1.2.2.1 Islam

The core principles of Islamic leadership are acting ethically, doing good deeds,
and protecting one's followers, which is similar to ethics of duty. The Muslim faith
is founded on the teachings and life of the prophet Muhammad. Beekun and
Badawi (1999) emphasize the importance of honesty and integrity to Muslims:
“Muslim leaders should be honest not only because it makes them better leaders,
but also because they are accountable for their deeds to Allah both in this world and
in the hereafter.” The Qur’an further solidifies “right thing” thinking:
Do you enjoin right conduct on the people and forget (to
practice it) yourselves and yet you study the Scripture? Will you
not understand? (Al Baqarah 2:44)

Beekun and Badawi (1999) add later on that “Good deeds preceded by evil
intentions are not meritorious,” which affirms that doing seemingly good things
whilst one's true motive is self-promotion or self benefit, actually is in fact the
wrong thing to do. Furthermore, rather than gaining merit, such selfish actions will
only proffer one an abominable reputation. On the other hand, one could also make
the argument that if doing good with bad motives is wrong, then conversely doing
bad with good motives should also be wrong. Through deduction, it is clear that
doing good—or doing the right thing—can only be achieved by acting righteously
with righteous intent. Then, the claim can be made that no one would honestly ever
say that their every action is founded with evil intent. And, if you can agree that it
is impossible to know factually of another person's true intent—one may presume

17
or assume such things, but to know with certainty is impossible; this is why the
judicial system in the United States adopted the phrase “beyond a reasonable
doubt” for determining guilt—then it should not come as a surprise that only
method for ensuring that one does the right thing is for each and every person to
employ continual and constant introspection.

Common responses for Americans is that they will stick to their beliefs, or always
do what they feel is right, or always follow their heart, and so on. While all of these
sound wonderfully inspiring and worthy of praise, they actually mean nothing if
your beliefs are corrupted or if your heart is broken and bitter. Nobody does
something while in the moment believing it to be wrong, for even if what Person A
is doing may be wrong in the eyes of Person B, Person A no less believes it to be
justifiably right in the context in which it occurs. This then is where empathy can
be very helpful. When you see someone doing something unethical or immoral, it
does no one any good to condemn them for it, for this only creates animosity and
retaliation. Rather, if one can attempt to understand why this person believes what
they are doing to be right, there are a few likely outcomes:
1. The observer, while seeking to understand the motives of the culprit,
actually realizes that they in fact are wrong. Maybe they did not have all of
necessary information to legitimately analyze the situation. Or, maybe they
were just caught up in the moment and thus unable to assemble the proper
logic. Still, maybe they were persuaded and convinced by the logic of the
culprit.
2. The culprit, maybe after some time of defending themselves, realizes that in
fact his or her intentions were misled and, even though some damage may
have already been done, the observer is able to convince them that they can
still salvage some merit (and possibly even gain merit, for many people are

18
 attracted more so to those who can admit they're wrongs than those who
rarely do wrong) by simply walking away from the situation.
3. Nothing is accomplished and the situation is back at square one.

From this layout of scenarios, it is clear that as long as you approach every
situation with empathy, the only possible outcomes are that of bettering the
situation, or of leaving it unchanged.

1.2.2.2 Hinduism

The primary texts in Hinduism that guide ethical conduct are the Upanishads,
Bhagavad-Gita and Brahma Sutra (Hebbar 2002). From these three scriptures,
namely the latter two—the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita—ancient Hindus
derived a system of ethics for practical application that all Hindus are obligated to
follow. Hebbar (2002) explains the primary ideology of Hinduism in that salvation
is attained “…by knowledge and realization, rather than by faith and works.”
Continuing on, he says that selfish desires are obstacles to the seekers of Truth (the
Higher-Self, also called Brahman).” Brahman, essentially equivalent to God of
other religions, is actually a personal mind state rather than physical or spiritual
entity. In this quest for Braham, honesty is highly praised. There are six sayings
that illustrate the meaning of the Upanishads, which are listed below (Hebbar
2002).
1. “I am Brahman”: The Truth is within us, in our own heart.
2. “The Self is Brahman”: All beings are identified with the Absolute Truth.
3. “That art thou”: Whatever one thinks about his or herself, then that they are.
4. “Knowledge is Brahman”: Our current understanding of the truth is the
Truth itself.

19
 5. “The whole universe is Brahman”: The entire universe is Divine.
6. “Here am I”: Identifying the Divinity in our Self in something that happens
naturally like breathing.

Of these, five of them concern the “self”, in one way or another. If one examines
the first and third of these sayings in conjunction, a reoccurring theme is once again
evident. According to the first, the Truth is within everyone. The third then claims
that you are, or will become, whatever you think about yourself. Therefore, if you
think bad of yourself, then indeed you will be bad. And again, the Truth is within
everyone, so the Truth is within you; and if you are bad, the Truth within you must
also be bad. If the Truth within you is bad (or wrong), your reasoning in situations
will be misguided. This, once again vindicates how easy it is for people to think
they are doing the right thing when in fact their actions are fundamentally evil.

Hebbar (2002) tells of the evolution of Hindu thought. Purportedly, throughout

history, certain Hindus were not allowed to come in contact with other Hindus that
were known as the untouchables. However, the more intelligent Hindus, aware of
the taboo nature of such rules and restrictions were able to change common
thought. One of the more instrumental Hindus leading this movement was
Mohandas Gandhi (Nair 1997). Hebbar (2002) then explains that “Rules were not
rigid and there was always a way to circumvent the most stringent of the rules.”
Similar to the Stoic philosophy pioneered by Zeno, Hindus are aware of the
importance of controlling negative emotions, as they are supposed to control
emotions such as lust, anger, pride and jealousy. Hebbar (2002) does not
underestimate the capacity for destruction that is inherent to such thoughts:
The moral codes of various texts repeatedly emphasize the
importance of being aware of these ordinary but strong human
emotions.

20
Hinduism is a truly admirable religion. One of the few religions that abstains from
claiming it is the one and only true religion. Not only do Hindus not claim this, but
one of their nine beliefs states that no single religion presents the only path to
finding God. The Hindu beliefs go even further, saying that “all genuine religious
paths are facets of God's Light and Love, deserving tolerance and understanding.”
Hebbar (2002) goes on to further exemplify this characteristic as being innate to
Hinduism:
Earnest kindliness and tolerance to all human relations along
with non-violence had real effect on Hindu life. Desire for the
well being of all beings and benevolence in the form of
almsgiving were encouraged especially when done with no
expectation of rewards at least in this life.

1.2.2.3 Buddhism

The 14th Dalai Lama, the ultimate authority on Buddhism, argues that all human
beings share a common disposition in that “…we all desire to be happy and to
avoid suffering” (Lama 2001). His holiness then goes on to prove through rhetoric
that everything humans do, they do in an effort to improve their level of happiness.
This should be starting to sound eerily familiar and/or repetitive to the reader as
this concept is almost identical to that of Aristotle (Aristotle 2004):
A self-sufficient thing, then, we take to be one which by itself
makes life desirable and in no way deficient; and we believe
that happiness is such a thing. What is more, we regard it as the
most desirable of all things, not reckoned as one item among
many; if it were so reckoned, happiness would obviously be
more desirable by the addition of even the least good, because
the addition makes the of goods greater, and the greater of two
goods is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is found to be
something perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to which
our actions are directed.

21
After convincingly reasoning that one's own happiness is interdependent on the
happiness of others, Lama (2001) then calls for “…a radical reorientation away
from our habitual preoccupation with self,” and to also “…turn toward the wider
community of beings with whom we are connected, and for conduct which
recognizes others' interests alongside our own.” He doesn't say that one must
consider the interests of others above their own, for indeed that would contradict
natural human instincts. However, his choice of wording is still very important as
he says the interests of others should be considered “…alongside our own.” This
undoubtedly in itself would improve the ethical situation of modern society a great
deal. For, it is debatable if even the greatest of people of the day hold the needs of
others parallel with their own. This is not to say that some people are not making a
great difference, but the general trend is that these are typically the same people
who have inordinate amounts of wealth. Surely, it can't be hard to argue that the
majority of these people do not contribute relatively anymore of their estate than
does the single mother who works two or three jobs, just to make ends meet. Then,
it comes to fact that either the people with the available resources to give are by
nature unethical, or they simply do not know how to be ethical. Granted, it would
not take much to find a local or global charity and make a donation, but this would
be sidestepping the point being made. Certainly most anyone can figure out how to
donate money to a good cause, but the reference made was that many don't know
how, or have never learned/been taught how to to live and think ethically—to be
empathetic by nature. Contrary to common belief, this is indeed something that one
must learn one way or another—it is not simply pre-programmed at birth as many
take for granted.

The Dalai Lama explains how easily misperceptions of reality can cause someone
to over- or under-react to a given situation (Lama 2001):

22
 The problem of misperception, which, of course, varies in
degree, usually arises because of our tendency to isolate
particular aspects of an event or experience and see them as
constituting its totality. This leads to a narrowing of perspective
and from there to false expectations.

Generally, I think most would agree that knowingly harming to others, be it

physical, verbal, psychological or emotional harm, regardless of the benefits to
those of it's aftermath, is acting with evil intentions. Using this logic, destructive
means and honorable intentions cannot coexist, indifferent to the ends achieved.
This concept is further explained by Lama (2001).
…it is also not hard to think of acts which, though they may
appear somewhat forceful and aggressive and likely to cause
hurt, could yet contribute to others' happiness in the long run….
On the other hand, the fact that our actions may appear to be
gentle does not mean that they are positive or ethical if our
intentions are selfish.

Lama (2001) goes on to say:

When the driving force of our actions is wholesome, our actions
will tend automatically to contribute to others' well-being. They
will thus automatically be ethical. Further, the more this is our
habitual state, the less likely we are to react badly when
provoked.

The last sentence of this quote is a key factor to making ethical decisions
consistently—the basic premise is “practice.” A professional athlete, or an actor or
entertainer doesn't simply show up the morning of an audition (or evening of a
performance or game) just hoping they will achieve stardom. Many people criticize
the payroll of modern sports teams and the extreme costs of film-making and
entertainment, but the simple truth to the madness therein is that no one else is
willing to do it. Most sports icons and entertainers spend nearly every waking
moment of their lives preparing for their next game or performance. Some actors

23
and actresses completely take on new identities to play certain roles—Christian
Bale literally starved himself to lose 63 pounds from his already skinny figure of 6'-
0”, 185 pounds to play the lead role in The Machinist (Elliott 2006). This is
certainly not a suggestion that one should become anorexic, but rather a dramatic
illustration of why “superstars” are paid so extravagantly—because they work for
it.

For millennia, people have learned and been guided in their ethical walk by
religious doctrines and the mandates set forth therein—merely an observation of
fact opposed to an endorsement, or condemnation of such policies. Now then, the
trend that can easily be seen in modern times, as human rights, democracy, and
individual preference become more and more common, is that many are straying
from ethics simply because it has been linked solely with religion for the longest
time.

Historically, since religion has held the post on ethical authority, and through
coercion the masses had little to no choice but to practice the local religious
traditions—and thus they were also required to practice ethical behavior—
resentment towards ethics has been developed in the minds of the people. And, now
that the opportunity presents itself, many are rushing toward the exits. Certainly,
somebody must have known what George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma
Gandhi, and Thomas Jefferson all held to be fact—that appealing to the spirit,
through emotion and passion, was often more effective than reason and logic (Rees
and Spignesi 2007). As modern day society presents the decline of religion, the
Dalai Lama, says that:
In replacing religion as the final source of knowledge in popular
estimation, science begins to look a bit like another religion
itself. With this comes a similar danger on the part of some of

24
 its adherents of blind faith in its principles and, correspondingly,
to intolerance of alternative views.

Essentially, the Dalai Lama is saying that while science has indeed made massive
strides in development in recent times, such remarkable advancements are
deceiving the masses into believing that science is the resource of truth that human
beings have been searching for since the beginning of time. Actually, this is exactly
the same thing that occurred with many religions in the past forcing many
constituents to practice local religions regardless of their personal beliefs.
Continuing with his claim, Lama (2001) observes:
For while both science and the law can help us forecast the
likely consequence of our actions, neither can tell us how we
ought to act in a moral sense.

He continues:
Now, many people, believing that science has "dis-proven"
religion, make the further assumption that because there appears
to be no final evidence for any spiritual authority, morality itself
must be a matter of individual preference.”

The fact that often goes overlooked however is that ethics, morality, and spirituality
are not equivalent to religion, nor is one vindicated by the other. To illustrate this
concept, one can consider the theory of deduction frequently encountered in
modern sports when a tie-breaker is required to determine which team—when
multiple teams share identical win-loss records—moves on in the post-season.
Some claim that since team A defeated Team B, and Team C lost to Team B during
the regular season, Team A will automatically beat Team C in a tie-breaker.
However, the logic herein is flawed as the situations have drastically changed.
Whereas Team C may have been severely riddled by injuries when they played
team B in the regular season, all of their players may be perfectly healthy for the

25
tie-breaker game; or now that they have an imminent opportunity to make it to the
playoffs, they may play much better than during the season when the playoffs were
but a distant consideration. Therefore, the fact that religion has historically held
authority over the constituents in certain areas to enforce ethical mandates does not
imply that ethics are dependent upon religion. In fact, one could argue the exact
opposite—that religion is in fact dependent on ethics—considering that many
ethical theories and philosophies existed existed prior to Christianity and
Mormonism; and may well have also existed prior to other religions as well.
Moving on, if it is true that science has “dis-proven” religion, then the only
conclusion to be made would be that religion in and of itself was the sole
perpetrator of deception. As the Dalai Lama says:
…consciousness belongs to that category of phenomena without
form, substance, or color. It is not susceptible to investigation
by external means. But this does not mean such things do not
exist, merely that science cannot find them.

Wu (2008) reports that the three qualities of the Buddhist faith everyone aspires to
are "to have compassion towards others, the wisdom to overcome problems, and
having the courage to do the right thing when no one is looking." In fact, Garfinkle
(2009) indicated that the Fourth Noble Truth of Buddha is "eight ways to do the
right thing" which includes such effort as action, thought, livelihood, and speech.
Lama (2001) discusses many of the different types of problems modern society is
faced with, including unavoidable problems such as old age, natural disasters, and
disease; as well as the avoidable problems which include murder, theft, rape, and so
on. Distinguishing between these two types of problems, he observes that every
avoidable problem is a direct reflection of “…our understanding of what is right
and wrong, of what is positive and what is negative, of what is appropriate and
what is inappropriate.” In other words, the problems related to ethics and morality
are not “…inevitable,” or “…due to any lack of knowledge,” as are problems such

26
as disease, natural disaster, and old age. The confusing thing is that many still
attempt to treat these “ailments” in a similar manner they would the inevitable ones
—with rules, laws, regulations and so on. But this cannot work, for these
shortcomings are founded in the gray areas of life, not the black and whites. It is
not as simple as life and death. With ethics, instead of the extremes being
commonplace, and the middle area being the exception, the gray area is actually
where all situations reside, and the extremes are the exception to the rule. For
instance, it would be impossible to find a unanimous consensus amongst the
general public as to the ethical implications of a mother who steals a loaf of bread
to feed her starving children. Taking this one step further, it is even difficult to
reach agreement on such seemingly obvious topics such as murder. These examples
illustrate the fact that ethical and moral conduct, reside on a sliding scale that can
rarely—if ever—be entirely one extreme or the other. As humans, this makes little
sense as it is always easier to use logic to narrow the evidence down until a finite
conclusion is reached. Subconsciously however, this only leaves one more
confused, for while they are momentarily satisfied with such finite conclusions,
over time their logic will explore the situation a thousand times over in an attempt
to resolve the inevitable contradictions. Yet, as nothing will ever be entirely right or
wrong, this will never occur in the presence of finite extremes.

On the topic of religion, the Dalai Lama says what's more important than if one
believes in religion or not is “…that they be a good human being” (Lama 2001).
Indeed, he even says that religious belief “…does not matter much.” This is not to
imply that he is denouncing his faith or any other preposterous claim, but rather he
is making it clear that his “concern … is to try to reach beyond the formal
boundaries of [his] faith…” and to show that “…there are indeed some universal
ethical principles which could help everyone to achieve the happiness we all aspire

27
to.” However, he notes, it would be illogical for one to presume that they could
devise a set of ethical principles applicable to every conceivable situation.

1.2.2.4 Judaism

Founded by Moses—one of the central figures in many religions including

Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism—over 3500 years ago, Judaism is one of the
oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest out of those still being practiced (BBC
2009a). Even considering its age, Judaism still has over 13 million devoted
followers throughout the world. Like Christianity and Islam, the Jewish people
claim ties not only to Moses, but all the way back to Abraham as well. The primary
scripture referenced is the Torah, which illustrates the belief in one God with whom
all of the Jewish people share a covenant. The Jewish people are also one of tireless
traditions and customs such as circumcision eight days after birth, the Sabbath or
holy day, Passover, Hanukkah, among many others.

Having the benefit of so much history and culture, Jews celebrate with a central
focus on family. A good example of this is their gatherings for special occasions,
most notably the weekly gathering for the Sabbath, which is organized with strict
adherence to the laws and customs of the Torah. Leadership is a primary focus of
the Jewish faith, doctrine and scriptures thereof. The Torah, in Joel 3:1, says “Your
old shall dream dreams, and your youth shall see visions” (Brown 2008). However
it also speaks greatly toward the lack of leadership and the many problems that can
arise from such inadequacies. Judges 21:25 says that “Everyone did what was right
in his own eyes, since there was no king in Israel.” Brown goes further to
acknowledge how this, among many other issues encountered were due to the “…
astonishing lack of leadership.” Seeking to more clearly define or present the

28
essence of leadership, Brown defines the true ingredient behind it as “the power to
communicate hope and purpose and to inspire mutual responsibility, particularly at
times of crisis and vulnerability.” Another definition she gives is that leadership “…
is both a state of being and a condition of doing.” Both of these definitions are
excellent. Yet, one characteristic that she omits, even if inadvertently, is that of
one's desire and willingness to accept such leadership. When people feel pressured
or forced to do something they normally wouldn't do, they tend to perform with
either a sense of apathy or that of guilt in not meeting expectations.

Brown (2008) speaks to great lengths on the topic of guilt—from within oneself as
well as from outside. Explaining the level of responsibility assumed by Jewish
prophets and leaders due to their innate desire to change the world, she notes that
many also share a sense of personal inadequacy. She then presents the question of
why many of the greatest Jewish leaders are haunted by a sense of failure. Indeed,
she even goes as far as to say that “guilt” to a Jew “feels like home.” This she
explains is because “…[between] the ideal of who you should be and the reality of
who you are, lies guilt.” Certainly, it appears as if she believes guilt to be that of a
desirable or admirable characteristic to have. Should such guilt produce good
things such as empathy and compassion, one may be inclined to consider this
argument. Yet, the following quote by Brown (2008)—while entirely and
indisputably accurate—unfortunately illustrates the mindset of many people in the
world today.
A key distinction in personality between leaders and followers
is that leaders shape events through their active participation,
while followers are shaped by events through their passive
participation. At times of crisis or dysfunction, followers wait
for someone else to solve problems and are often satisfied
merely with complaining about their lot. Leaders, on the other
hand, view crises as problem-solving opportunities and
regularly put themselves in the center of that change.… All of

29
 these excuses are really a way of saying, “It's not my problem.”
But in actual fact, if an institutional dysfunction is affecting
you, your family, or your community, then it is your problem.

Several examples of Jewish leadership can be found in Old Testament leaders such
as Moses and King David (Rens and Rens 2007). The Old Testament is the
foundation for the Jewish faith and a good succinct leadership verse can be found in
Genesis 18:29 "Do what is just and right." The story of Joseph found in Genesis 39-
41 is another example of doing what is right no matter the circumstances. Joseph
was sold by his jealous brothers and ended up a slave in Egypt. He was successful
and placed in charge of the household of an Egyptian official, Potiphar. Potiphar's
wife falsely accused him of breaking a conduct law when he refused to follow her
wishes. Joseph did the right thing by continually refusing to succumb to the ill
behavior and conduct and ultimately ended up in prison. Again, even behind bars,
Joseph became successful and was eventually put in charge of all the prison
activities. He became an inmate who interpreted dreams— eventually translating
the dream of the Pharaoh who ultimately released him from prison and promoted
him to "vice president" with food distribution responsibilities during drought and
famine. Josephs life was all about doing the right thing and how God can turn "bad"
into "good" as a result of wise decisions.

Brown (2008) notes that many people who complain really don't even care much
for a solution, but that they just want to complain. While this may indeed be the
case, the more one focuses on this, especially when their attention is focused
outwardly on the faults of others, it tends to have the exact opposite effect that they
intended for it. One can better understand this concept at times when people get
angry with them. If one chooses to focus on the person that is angry instead of
themselves, they will typically find that they do not understand the other person's

30
anger. Because of this they may respond with “Why are you so angry?” At this
point, the person who is angry only become angrier due to the other person not
focusing on the issue at hand—the thing that they did to make the person angry.
Instead they are focusing on the faults of the angry person. When you study this
situation further, you will find that the disconnect lies in a lack of empathy. Instead
of empathizing and attempting to understand why the other person is angry, they
simply push the responsibility right back at them, by focusing on their madness
instead of what they did to make them mad. Whereas, if they employed empathy
and attempted to understand their anger—once again though, this is not suggesting
that one ever needs to be in agreement with the others anger, but simply to
understand it—one almost always is able to manage the situation more effectively.
When you empathize—opposed to sympathizing in which you indeed relate to
others for the sake of providing comfort—the benefit is more often received by
both parties. For, when you understand not only the situation that others are dealing
with but their mindset entering into such situations, it gives you a better idea of
their sensitive areas—the buttons that you should not push. You also gain an
understanding of what they are seeking—some people are simply looking for
someone else to solve their problems, others may just want to talk about something
so they can hear their own thoughts out loud without appearing to be crazy, and still
others just want to complain because they find satisfaction in it by itself.
Regardless, if you can identify another person's motives and desires, you can more
effectively reinforce the issues that benefit their motives, while at the same time
incorporating and promoting your own.

There is much truth in what Martin Luther King, Jr. says, when he objects that
“[we] must shun the very narrow-mindedness that in others has so long been the
source of our own afflictions” (Phillips 2000). Taking this statement slightly out of

31
context, one could reason that since the narrow-mindedness of others has long
afflicted everyone else, if those people can shun such mind states and adopt more
open minds for themselves, they can relieve, not only the afflictions of others , but
those of themselves as well. In the Pirkei Avot (2005), a classical Jewish text
which, when literally translated, means “The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,” it says
“[b]y three things is the world preserved; by truth, by judgment, and by peace, as it
is said, 'Judge ye the truth and the judgment of peace in your gates'”

1.2.2.5 Christianity

When St Francis was commissioning his disciples to go out into

the world to convert people to Christianity, he said to them, “Go
and preach the Gospel. Where necessary, use words” (Kalungu-
Banda 2006).

Jesus Christ of Nazareth—held by some as God himself in the flesh, the messiah,
the savior of the free world, the Son of Man, among many other connotations of
such titles. To others, he embodies the definitions of ethics, morality, leadership and
empathy. Still, to many individuals, Jesus Christ is no more than the fabricated,
mythical leader, and sole tangible vindication of a religion—Christianity.
Regardless of what one believes, the story of Jesus can no less be debated than the
theory of the Big Bang. By this, it is implied that the story of Jesus Christ is written
in black and white in much the same way that scientists write of the origins of the
universe; and similar to any other story or book, we can consider it on a level of the
emotions it produces and the principles it teaches, without debating its authenticity.
When doing this, it is clear that Jesus—the resurrected messiah, the mortal prophet,
a famous human being, or the main character in a fictional story that has been told
for millennia—lived a life of ethics and morality as flawlessly as any other

32
character—fictional or not—in the documented history of man.

The life of Jesus Christ as chronicled in the New Testament (NIV 2002) offers
multiple examples of doing the right thing from a Christian perspective. Several
leadership and management publications link the life of Jesus and Christianity to
“right thing” thinking (Briner and Pritchard 1998; Jones 1996; Manz 2005). Jesus
often taught through parables using allegories to facilitate deep thought and
meaning. One such parable is found in Luke:
Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them.
Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go
after the lost sheep until he finds it. And when he finds it, he
joyfully goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors
together and says, “Rejoice with me; I have found my lost
sheep” (Luke 15:4-6).

Jesus continues reinforcing this concept a few passages later in Luke.

Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one, does
she not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until
she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and
neighbors and says Rejoice with me, I have found my lost coin
(Luke 15:8-9).

Jesus also preached timeless philosophies such as “If any one of you is without sin,
let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7 NIV) when consulted about
the imminent stoning of a adulterous woman. In this short, but humble statement,
Jesus helps the crowd of people—whom are ready to stone this woman—realize
that each and every one of them are no less sinners than she. Therefore, if the
woman should be stoned for her sin, so should every other person present. That is
unless there truly was someone present who had never sinned, which according to
the Christian faith was a personal characteristic of Jesus Christ. Yet, when every
one leaves rather than to cast the first stone and be forced to confront their own

33
sins, Jesus tells the woman that he also will not condemn her. He tells her to go and
implores her to sin no more. This is one of the purest examples of empathy one can
find. Indeed, one should replay this in their mind before they confronting another
person's sins, prior to their own.

While it is debatable to some, Jesus was the first person to promote the ideology of
nonviolence. The reader will find in the coming sections that Mahatma Gandhi,
Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. each adopted this philosophy as well;
and all three were able to accomplish great things through it. One example of Jesus
championing this philosophy comes in Matthew:
…do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to
sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If
someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles”
(Matthew 5:39-41).

He continues later in Matthew, preaching to:

…love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… If
you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not
even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your
brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even
pagans do that (Matthew 5:44-47)?

This is a common concept for many to forget. Often times, human beings give too
much to the people they deeply care for, that they have little love left for anyone
else. Jesus, makes the point, if you deeply love your family, but go outside and
scorn your neighbor, can you really claim to be better than anyone else? From
everything written about Jesus, it was clearly his desire for man to put the needs
and even wants of others before those of self, and to consider one's personal faults
instead of the faults of others. Yet, he also intended for this to be a universal mind-
state in which one offers it to all sentient beings, regardless of race, heritage, age,

34
sex, and so on.

Jesus would often preach with seemingly repetitive and redundant phrases, such as
in Mark when he says “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mark 4:9). The
significance in this statement is in the wording. To many, it may seem obvious, or
elementary, but this statement says much more than just the nine words that it is
comprised of. First, Jesus says “He who has ears,” for it is true that metaphorically
many have cut off their ears so that they are unable to hear the cries of others. But,
he also says “He who has ears to hear,” which speaks to the people who do not use
their ears for the right purpose. Many have heard the phrase “selective hearing” in
which one listens to someone but only “hears” what they want to hear. This is
exactly the same concept. Similarly, many show up to self help conventions and the
like, looking for inspiration—which they may receive momentarily via the
environment that surrounds them—but their mindset remains unchanged once find
themselves once again unmotivated again the following day. The reason for this is
that they did not attend with the goal of learning and changing, but rather to attain
instantaneous happiness, and one can only receive what they search for. If you are
looking for the truth, you will find it; if you are looking simply for someone to
prove you right, you will find that instead. Finally, Jesus invites those persons who
have ear to ear, and says “let them hear.” It is essential to follow through and
actually hear, learn, change, grow, and so on; to actually do what you set out in the
beginning to accomplish. For even as hard as the first two steps may be in some
instances, it never fails that they will be the easiest when you get to the final stretch
and you are gasping for breath and stumbling towards the finish line.

It is true that for any one of these sections in this first chapter, one could comprise
an entire thesis on that topic alone. However, as stated in the introduction, the goal

35
herein is not to present material that the reader has never seen before, but rather to
remind them of the important concepts that they may have lost track of over time.
With that said, the final concept for this section is regarding pride. In the book of
John, Jesus says that “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who
hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (John 12:25). While many
interpret this passage quite differently—those who are religious interpret it literally
as saying give your life to God while on earth and you will spend eternity in
heaven, while many who are spiritual but not religious may interpret it to imply that
the only way to attain true happiness in life is to put others before self, and still the
faithless might consider it to be just another meaningless quote by a man who lived
thousands of years ago—when considered on the basis of ethics, it has universal
significance. To understand that your life and the happiness associated with it are
essentially zero in the absence of another human being, is invaluable to
understanding the form of ethics being presented here. When someone cares so
little for their own life that they give everything they have to others, they
remarkably attain the highest levels of satisfaction and accomplishment such that
happiness is inevitable.

1.2.2.6 Mormonism

Joseph Smith, and eventually Brigham Young as well, were both exceptional at the
art of persuasion. Some call this leadership and others call it coercion. Yet, despite
the controversy surrounding Mormonism, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were
able to build, and sustain a religion that is—superficially at least—based on
questionable evidence and stories. They also were able to accomplish this in the
face of great adversity, not much different to how most religions (e.g. Christianity,
Catholicism, Islam, etc) were founded. Some consider persuasion a very admirable

36
characteristic for leadership, and rightly so—the ability to encourage others to join
in agreement on one idea or another is at the heart and soul of leadership. However,
leadership is the essence of doing something for a just cause; when one's motives
become solely centered around personal benefit, the cause is no longer just, and
such persuasion is no longer leadership, but merely dictatorship. This is not to
suggest that this was the case with Mormonism, for the author knows that nothing
is certain in this life. Everyone has beliefs which they will stand by until they are
sufficiently convinced otherwise. The reader can form their own opinions on all
topics listed herein, as the intent of this thesis is to explain how certain things can
be viewed and the logic for and against such claims—not to place blame or
conviction anywhere or on anyone.

Regardless of whether one believes the Mormon faith to be that of pure leadership
or deception, one thing that is difficult to debate is that the religion, faith and
culture that Joseph Smith founded, and Brigham Young eventually sustained, is one
of the closest-knit communities with truly genuine intentions available in modern
society—whether or not misguided is not the point, but rather the intentions of the
actions of all Mormons seen from the viewpoint of a Mormon. The following quote
affirms this claim.
It has been said that Joseph Smith’s greatest creation was the
Mormon people. Even observers who have little use for Smith’s
doctrines applaud the Latter-day Saints’ unity and communality
… In support of their religious identity, Mormons… may work
ten or fifteen hours a week in unpaid church service, and go on
voluntary two-year missions without pay. They feel immense
loyalty to one another and to the organization they serve
(Bushman 2008).

According to the BBC (2009b), a fundamental belief of Mormonism is “…being

honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.” It goes on

37
to describe those things that Mormons strive for:
We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured
many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is
anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we
seek after these things” (BBC 2009b).

Once again, it is very difficult to argue with the fact that the intent with which
Mormons practice their religion is very noble. They strive to isolate no one, they
are empathetic and compassionate to all, and they are dedicated to their cause, as
shown in the previous statement. Honesty, is also very important to Mormons. And,
in modern times, when so many are deceitful and dishonest, it seems hardly
reasonable to condemn any group of people who hold the characteristic of honesty
in such high regard. Mark E. Petersen, who is a Mormon apostle, noted that
Honesty is a principle of salvation in the kingdom of God…
Just as no man or woman can be saved without baptism, so no
one can be saved without honesty (LDS 2010).

1.2.3 Exploration
Note: This section has been borrowed in many respects from an article written by Rens and
Rens (2010) – with permission from the author(s). Much of the structure has been re-
imagined, reformatted, and adapted to fit within the content of this text, however, the
general thoughts, ideas, and concepts are unchanged. While countless hours of research on
this topic was completed by the main author in preparation for this publication, the basic
content of this section should be attributed solely to Rens and Rens (2010). The main
author does, however, take full responsibility for any and all inadvertent omissions,
misrepresentations, typographical or other reproduction errors, should any be found.
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that the reader obtain a copy of said article –
Leading, Learning, And Living The Shackleton Way: Education And Practice, – to read in
concert with this thesis for a better understanding of the evolution of ideas and content.

At the turn of the twentieth century, explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott, Roald
Amundsen, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, and Ernest Shackleton were racing to discover
the South Pole, as it remained one of the last unexplored frontiers (Thomson 2002).

38
Scott and Shackleton together set the first mark when their Discovery expedition
paved the way in 1902–1903 (Scott 1905). Although they advanced 240 miles
further than anyone before them, they fell nearly 500 miles short of the South Pole
on December 31, 1902. Their route was later used by all as a starting point for
future polar explorations (Huntford et al. 2002). On January 9, 1909, British
explorer Ernest Shackleton set the record having to turn back a mere 97 miles from
the South Pole (Shackleton, 2002). Norwegian Amundsen was the winner on
December 15, 1911; he reached the pole literally days before yet another attempt by
the British Scott, who died on the return trip after coming in second.

1.2.3.1 Ernest Henry Shackleton

Throughout the last century, Ernest Shackleton—an early twentieth century

Antarctic explorer—has become famous for his Endurance expedition in which he
transformed a seemingly doomed attempt at reaching the South Pole into a
remarkable victory. The Endurance expedition, which had all the makings of
calamity at even the earliest stages, was seemingly destined to become a hallmark
lesson in what not to do, is now told as one of the greatest stories of perseverance,
endurance, and leadership in history. The expedition got its name from Shackleton's
family motto: “Fortudine Vincimus,” which means “By endurance we conquer.”
The survival story of the Endurance is a remarkable adventure that is simply hard
to believe—even with the spectacular documentation of still and video
photography. Such a story, at times, may even seem fictional—that of a child's
storybook or a 21st century box office film, that fantastically explores the paradox
of treacherous undertakings and heroic triumph. Fortunately for the crew of the
Endurance, it was not disastrous; and likewise for the general welfare of
humankind, that it was not just a fairy tale.

39
Having failed at the Pole discovery, Shackleton set his goal to make the first
transcontinental journey across Antarctica on foot. In 1913, Shackleton reportedly
placed the following ad in the local London newspapers (Perkins 2000):
Men wanted for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold,
long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return
doubtful, Honour and recognition in case of success.

As the profession of explorer had produced many heroes of the day, several
thousand people responded to the advertisement. In the end, Shackleton selected 26
men, 69 dogs, and one cat. Yet, relatively soon after setting sail, a stowaway was
discovered, bringing the total crew size to 28 (McKernan 2005). The Endurance
was scheduled to sail from London's East India docks on August 1, 1914 (Lansing,
1959) en route to South Georgia Island, and then continue on to the shores of
Antarctica where Shackleton and a select party from his crew were to trek on foot
across the frigid continent until they crossed over the Pole and reached the shore on
the other side of the frozen continent. They set sail from S. Georgia Island—their
last interaction with modern human civilization—on December 5, 1914. Yet,
doomed from the offset, the Endurance would never even reach the earthly shores
of Antarctica. Instead, it became trapped in the icy waters of the Weddell Sea, and
Shackleton and his crew would call those treacherous waters “home” for the next
497 days (Richards and Spijer, 2001).

In all, Shackleton headed south only four times. With the first two expeditions, he
attempted to reach the South Pole, however failing each time: Discovery (1901–
1903), and Nimrod (1907–1909). After losing this race, he set his sites even further
ahead. His objective with the Endurance expedition (1914–1917) was to trek across
the continent. His final, and fatal trip to the icy waters of the south, the Quest

40
(1921–1922), was more of a reunion for the crew of the Endurance than anything
else. Technically, the “mission” was to search for lost islands by sailing around the
continent (Huntford et al. 2002). However, Huntford et al. continues on to explain
the extent of such plans:
After South Georgia, however, he had no plans. When all was
said and done, what he was trying to make was a voyage back
in time.

Within days, the ship entered loose pack ice and for 40 days successfully navigated
the icy jigsaw puzzle in the Weddell Sea. On January 18, 1915, the Endurance was
beset and “frozen, like an almond in the middle of a chocolate bar” (Lansing 1959).
The ship and her crew would stay intact until October 27, 1915, when the ice floe
pressure finally crushed the ship forcing the crew to camp on the ice for nearly 150
days.

Shackleton’s only comment when the ship was crushed was “So now, we go home”
(Perkins 2000). On April 9, 1916, the salvaged life boats were launched and all 28
men sailed to Elephant Island where they landed on April 22, 1916—nearly 500
days since they had last been on solid land on South Georgia Island. But Elephant
Island was nothing more than a rock and not along any navigational routes used by
whaling or commerce ships. Shackleton, always hesitant about separating himself
from his crew, did the unthinkable. He selected five men and set sail on April 24,
1916, to South Georgia Island—some 700 miles from Elephant Island—over the
most hostile seas known to man. During the boat journey, Shackleton’s mind was
always on the men he left behind: “Skipper, if anything happens to me while those
fellas are waiting for me, I shall feel like a murderer.” Using only a sextant for
navigation, they would endure 50-foot waves and storms estimated at hurricane
strength to land on the west side of South Georgia Island on May 10, 1916. The

41
problem was that the west side was uninhabited; the whaling station they had set
sail from nearly 18 months earlier was on the east side. Shackleton would have to
cross several mountain ranges and glacier fields on foot and he chose not to wait.
Thirty-six hours later he was back at the whaling station where he began the
journey. It then took him four attempts and nearly four months to get back to
Elephant Island, but he was eventually successful in retrieving the 22 men he left
behind. On August 30, 1916, all 28 men were finally reunited. Although frostbite
and malnutrition had taken its toll on some of the men, Shackleton’s Endurance
crew was again intact without a single life being lost.

Successfully reaching the South Pole with the Endurance expedition would have
assured Shackleton fame and fortune after his two previous attempts—despite both
ultimately ending in failure—were widely considered major successes. In each
case, his team advanced nearer to the Pole than any of their predecessors. In spite
of this, Shackleton chose the life of his men, rather than the greed for the many
potential superficial rewards of success. Not to mention the financial woes—which
flooded his life after the Endurance expedition—he could have avoided by
carelessly proceeding with the suicidal mission. If Shackleton were selfish,
proceeding on heedlessly would have been a win-win scenario for him. But, as
should be obvious by now, this was not to be.

Shackleton would make one other South Pole trek attempt as part of the Quest
expedition in 1921—though he never made it off South Georgia Island as he
suffered a heart attack and died on January 5, 1922. At his funeral, the saga of the
Endurance was best summarized by Worsely (1977):
Six years later when looking at Shackleton’s grave and the cairn
which we, his comrades, erected to his memory on a wind-
swept hill of South Georgia, I meditated on his great

42
 achievements and triumphs, great as they were, his one failure
was the most glorious. By self-sacrifice and throwing his own
life into the balance he saved every one of his men—not a life
was lost—although at times it had looked unlikely that one
could be saved. His outstanding characteristics were his care of,
and anxiety for, the lives and well-being of all his men.

Shackleton’s care for his men was evident at many times throughout the two year
journey of the Endurance crew; some examples are cited below:
Shackleton pushed Frank Wild to take his breakfast biscuit,
insisting that his friend needed it more than he did. When Wild
refused, the boss (Shackleton) threatened to bury it in the snow
rather than to eat it himself. Wild took the biscuit. It was a
gesture he never forgot (Morrell and Capperal 2001).

When Hurley lost his mittens, Shackleton insisted that he take

his own. When Hurley objected, Shackleton was to the point of
throwing his gloves over and into the water rather than wear his
own when a crew member had to be without (Perkins 2000).

In between meals, if Shackleton thought we needed gingering

up in any way, he would suddenly issue a ‘snack.’ It was due
solely to Shackleton’s care of his men that no one died during
the boat journey. Two of the party at least were very close to
death. Indeed it might be said that he kept a finger on each
man’s pulse. Whenever he noticed that a man seemed extra
cold, he would immediately order another hot drink to be
prepared and served to all. He never let the man know that it
was on his account lest he become nervous about himself, and
while we all participated, it was the coldest, naturally, who got
the greatest advantage (Worsely 1931).

The night was a blur. Once Perce fell asleep while holding a
board in place on the dam. He found a mug of soup in his hand
and didn’t know how it got there. The strangest thing was how
the boss was everywhere all the time. When a shift was finished
on the pumps, there he was with mugs of chocolate (McKernan

43
 2005).

Leaders like Ernest Shackleton do not come around very often, and when they do,
it can be easy to brush them off as another crazy person. But lucky for the world,
the story of Shackleton was not lost in the history books, nor did it turn out to be
just another tragic story. It survived to become one of the great leadership stories of
modern day. The last quote above is especially remarkable for Shackleton never
was thinking of himself, but rather was always thinking of his men. In the
following quote, Phillips (2000) was speaking of Martin Luther King Jr.—another
extraordinary leader whom will be presented in a few sections—but he easily could
have been referring to Ernest Shackleton:
Leaders are always providing people regular reminders to act.
They are continually giving a little encouragement when things
are going well—and a lot of encouragement when things are not
going well.

The review of Shackleton's incredible story certainly supports the following

statement from James Dobson (Lansing 1959):
Let me simply dedicate this edition of Endurance to every
reader who has faced impossible challenges and gales of grief.
Perhaps you are such a person who has encountered perilous
mountains too high to scale. I hope this book will encourage
you not to give up. It was through the indomitable courage and
perseverance of the explorers that they overcame terrible
obstacles and lived to tell their story. There’s a message here for
all of us (Lansing 1959).

1.2.3.2 Robert Falcon Scott

Having captained the expedition that paved the way for Shackleton from 1907–
1909, in which his team was forced to retreat less than 500 miles short of reaching

44
their goal (Scott 2001), Robert Falcon Scott was no doubt the star explorer of his
day. He served in the British Navy, and when it came to the South Pole, the Navy
endorsed his expeditions, along with the British government. With every desirable
resource at his fingertips, Scott had the path to the South Pole all but paved in
heated granite lying ahead of him. Yet, when it came time to perform, he failed
begrudgingly, irresponsibly and bitterly. For the Discovery expedition, Scott chose
Ernest Shackleton—then a third officer—and one other shipmate to attempt the trek
towards the pole. One the hike, Shackleton developed a sever case of scurvy.
Returning to the Discovery after failing to reach the pole, Scott decided to send
Shackleton home for “medical reasons.” However, it has been suggested that the
real reason was that he blamed Shackleton's illness for the failure.

Unlike Shackleton, Scott did eventually reach the South Pole, but not only did
another explorer, Roald Amundsen, beat him there by a matter of days, but his
semi-victorious expedition ended in bitter irony when he and his crew died on the
return trip from the pole.

1.2.3.3 Roald Amundsen

Roald Amundsen was a Norwegian polar explorer at the turn of the 20th century.
Despite being the first to reach the South Pole in the age of Ernest Shackleton and
Robert Falcon Scott, his legacy somewhat tends to be hidden in records of history.
While certainly famous and regarded by many as one of the greatest explorers in
history, Amundsen is not as memorable as Shackleton and Scott. This can be
attributed largely in part to the ethics of his decision making. The methods and
tactics that he employed to achieve his objectives were deceptive to say the least, if
not outright wrong. For example, in his expedition that succeeded in reaching the

45
South Pole, he told no one of his true plans—not his financiers, not his crew, not
Robert Scott who's concurrent expedition he secretly planned to undermine—until
after he was well on his way in the other direction. His ship, the Fram, and it's third
expedition was “in every way a scientific expedition, and would have nothing to do
with record-breaking” (Amundsen 1976), as he would deceitfully ensure his
financial sponsors. However, he had no intentions of studying the North Pole which
was the official objective of this expedition. Rather, his plan all along was to turn
around and head south in an attempt to discover the South Pole before Scott did.
Amundsen openly admitted that he felt absolutely no shame in deceiving his
sponsors, “who had so warmly supported [him],” and “had done so with the
original plan before them.” As he saw it, his decision would “at once put the whole
enterprise on its feet, retrieve the heavy expenses that the expedition had already
incurred, and save the contributions from being wasted.” Indeed this was how
Amundsen viewed life and decision making—similar to many people in modern
society as well—through a lens in which only the rewards of the “now” were
important. Certainly, a scientific expedition would bring back very rewarding
information for the future of humanity, possibly even rewarding enough to engrave
his legacy—a commendable one—in the history books. Yet, as he saw it, the
possibility of this was minimal, and the chances of it occurring during his lifetime,
thereby proffering him fame and fortune, were even slimmer. To Amundsen, he
cared not to leave the world with a timeless legacy; he simply wanted to regain his
losses and become a hero.

When it came to his crew, Amundsen sailed with them to the North Pole, before
breaking the news that their stay on the frozen pole would be short, as his original
intentions would be to turn around and sail to the other end of the world and
attempt a discovery of the South Pole. He asked each member of his crew

46
individually if they would like to join him. Their options; join his new expedition,
or go ashore onto the frigid, uncertain iceberg known as the Arctic and make their
way back home. Ultimately, he even abandoned his brother, Leon, asking him to
stay behind so that he could notify Scott of his new plans—but only after he had
made it past the “point of recall” (Amundsen 2010). This maneuver was basically a
formality to salvage any good remaining in his name.

As mentioned, Amundsen's gesture to notify Scott of his new intentions was no

more than a deceitful tactic to salvage what was left of his reputation without
foiling his selfish and devious plans. Despite the technicalities that spoke counter
this, most of the crew on Scott's ship the Terra Nova saw Roald's tactics as being
underhanded (Amundsen 2010). Speaking on his lack of remorse in his treatment of
Scott's expedition and his apparent lack of professionalism, Amundsen comments:
Scott's plan and equipment were so widely different from my
own that I regarded the telegram that I sent him later, with the
information that we were bound for the Antarctic regions, rather
as a mark of courtesy than as a communication which might
cause him to alter his programme in the slightest degree. The
British expedition was designed entirely for scientific research.
The Pole was only a side-issue, whereas in my extended plan it
was the main object.

Were this indeed the case, Amundsen's legacy may have have evolved differently
over the years, but any honest person remotely familiar with polar exploration of
the times would have known that this was a fallacy—Scott's intentions for
discovering the Pole were well known to all interested parties, including his
financial contributors. In fact, one may argue that Scott's professionalism is what
doomed his expedition, as he had every intent of completing the scientific research
that he had promised he would conduct, whereas Amundsen packed minimally and
efficiently with one goal in mind—personal success. Amundsen did not have to

47
worry about unnecessary cargo slowing down his ship, nor did he need to conduct
scientific research, thereby delaying his trek to the Pole; he did not even worry
about coordinating his plans and schedule. He simply decided that he was going to
the South and did it, whereas Scott took all necessary precautions and notified
everyone of his true intentions prior to the fact. While Scott may have had some
leadership downfalls, he was in most respects, an honorable sailor—he kept his
word to those who entrusted their resources in him, and acted professionally
throughout each of his endeavors. Simply, only the opposite could be said of
Amundsen.

1.2.3.4 Vilhjalmur Stefansson

Contrasting Shackleton's leadership with that of another explorer of his time,

Vilhjalmur Stefansson, one could say that they were polar opposites, both literally
and figuratively. Stefansson was a North Pole explorer and the leader of the Karluk,
a vessel that was similarly trapped in the Arctic Ocean in 1913 (Berton 2004).
Unlike Shackleton however, it was only a matter of time before Stefansson could
no longer handle the responsibility. The waiting game soon got the better of him,
and he deserted his crew. He told his crew that he was going on a hunting trip. Yet,
he organized a hunting party comprised of the most ill-suited members for such a
trip. Stefansson was never again seen back at the Karluk. Many of his crew did not
survive. Though somehow Stefansson did, and his decision to leave reportedly
haunted him for the rest of his life (Berton 2004).

Vilhjalmur Stefansson was an independent person, and to ensure that he would

have to answer to no one, he chose to be unpaid. He was always convinced that his
way was the right way and did not like to listen to the advice of any of his crew,

48
often responding to suggestions or questions, “that the questioner had no right to
ask” or that the “question was impertinent.”
Stefansson preferred to plunge ahead, heedless of detailed
planning, confident everything would work out. His friend
Richard Finnie described him as ‘really a lone wolf explorer…
at best when traveling by himself or with a few congenial
followers’ (Berton 2004).

His crew of scientists had little praise for him as a cohesive leader:
There was practically no confidence in the leader and little
assurance of getting good work done (Berton 2004).

His choice of crew was suspect as well. His chief magnetition/meteorologist

McKinlay commented on Stefansson’s choice of crew and in general the overall
expedition:
They were good enough seamen but lacked the other qualities
which would be necessary for harmonious living in the kind of
circumstances which might face us in the north (Berton 2004).

The expedition was ill-conceived, carelessly planned, badly

organized, haphazardly manned, and almost totally lacking in
leadership (Berton 2004).

On August 12, 1913, Bartlett, the captain of the Karluk, followed an open lead of
water though the Arctic pack ice near the North Pole, disregarding Stefansson's
orders. The decision proved to be ill fated as the ship never was to see open water
again and was frozen fast. After about 30 days of inactivity, Stefansson’s
restlessness, as previously mentioned, got the best of him and he declared an
intention to go foraging for meat. The debate goes on and on as to Stefansson’s true
intention—was the hunt to be a short-term expedition or abandonment?
No fewer than four published books have dealt with the
question of Stefansson’s judgment and the fate of those he left

49
 behind (Berton 2004).

Stefansson had not gone on any hunting party. Bartlett (Captain)

knew it in his gut. Stefansson had abandoned ship. He had been
anxious to be on his way, to continue his grand expedition. He
could not sit still any longer. Whatever his motives, McConnell,
Wilkins, Jenness, Jimmy, and Jerry (accompanying Stefansson)
were probably unaware. As far as any of them knew, they were
on a hunting trip, and it didn’t seem to occur to any of them that
a secretary, a photographer, and an anthropologist made a
strange hunting party. If it truly was a hunting trip, why was
Hadley, the great trapper, not included? Or Chafe, the expert
marksman? Why did Kuraluk, the best by far of the Eskimo
hunters, remain on the Karluk while two other lesser hunters
went in his place? If Stefansson were planning a simple hunting
trip, surely he would have taken Kuraluk, who could of stood to
be separated from his family for that short period of time. But if
his intentions were indeed to be gone longer, better to take the
two single Eskimos, knowing as he did the native tradition of
families staying together when hired (Niven 2000).

McKinlay goes on to comment on the general moral of the crew after Stefansson’s
departure: “There was a feeling of every man for himself in the air” (Berton 2004).
Rather than hold his crew together, Stefansson abandoned them as they struggled
for survival. He left behind 22 men, 1 woman, and 2 children; ultimately 11 of the
25 would not survive (Niven 2000).

1.2.3.5 Summary

Ernest Shackleton was warned to not enter the Weddell Sea in 1914: the whalers at
South Georgia told him that the pack ice had never been worse. Shackleton
disregarded the advice, after waiting a month for the ice to open up, and pushed
forward. He would never enter his “promised land,” the South Pole. Stefansson too

50
warned Captain Bartlett to not go north but to stick close to the Alaskan land for
many miles waiting for open water. But Bartlett became impatient—he disregarded
the advice and turned the ship north when Stefansson was asleep. As a result, the
Karluk was also beset. One can consider the following hypothetical situation:
Imagine if Stefansson considered this one action by Bartlett to be what doomed the
Karluk. He likely would have become very upset with Bartlett, and started to hone
in too closely on this one event. Surely, he could have come to the conclusion that
the besetting of the Karluk was not his fault—that in fact it was Barlett's fault for
his costly decision—and thereby concluded that he was no longer responsible for
the lives of the crew. Ultimately, Stefansson could have presented this argument to
himself so convincingly that he completely forgot about the mistakes that he made
to influence the fate of the Karluk—was he not the one who hired Bartlett as
Captain in the first place? While this is merely a hypothetical situation, the truth of
the matter is that it is quite a feasible scenario. In modern times, this type of self-
deception happens all too often. Such misrepresentation or minimization of truth to
oneself is best illustrated through a classic cartoon described by Jones (1996):
A famous cartoonist illustrates a creature “face to face with the
second step.” The creature's face is pressed against the step so
closely it is unable to move up, backward, sideways, or forward
without falling off. The creature is completely stuck.”

Shackleton encountered many situations like this, but every time, he took full
responsibility to lead his crew out of the trouble they were in—regardless of who's
“fault” it was. He made a point to do whatever was necessary to finish the race,
even if it meant personally supervising the trouble makers so they couldn't
influence the other members of the crew. How people respond to ill fated choices
tends to be very revealing of inner standards and character. Shackleton chose to
accept responsibility for disregarding the whalers’ advice and did everything he
could to ensure the lives of his men. He placed highest priority on the safety of his

51
crew. In fact, because he took his job so seriously, many claim that it eventually
cost him his life, as he died of a heart attack at the relatively young age of 47
(Lansing 1959). Stefansson, however, felt that the objective of the expedition, its
overall goal, was more important than any crew member’s life. He once said that
“lives were secondary to the success of the exploration.” In the end he chose to run
rather than accept responsibility. He justified his decision by choosing not to be
paid, but in the end it cost the Karluk crew 11 lives, and Stefansson had to live with
that for the remainder of his 83 years on earth (Berton 2004).

1.2.4 Politics

1.2.4.1 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a popular Hindu religious figure, an early

twentieth century Indian civil rights activist, and universally one of the most
beloved figures of all time. Additionally, Gandhi was arguably the most influential
person in the construction of modern society in many respects. He is commonly
known as Mahatma Gandhi, in which Mahatma is an honorary title given to him by
Rabindranath Tagore (Bhattacharya 1997). He not only directly influenced political
policies in India, but he was also indirectly influential in American politics, African
politics, as well as many other countries. Additionally, he has had great influence
on religion; not only Hinduism—which was the religion that he chose to practice—
but also modern Christianity, Buddhism, and many others (Phillips 2000; Kalungu-
Banda 2006; Lama 2001; Nair 1997).

Gandhi is most famous for developing and implementing a massive, yet nonviolent
revolt in India to separate India from Great Britain. In developing his strategies and
doctrines that were based on concepts of love, compassion, and nonviolence,

52
Gandhi had been inspired by Henry David Thoreau. In his essay on civil
disobedience, Thoreau says that “[w]e can no longer lend our cooperation to an evil
system” (Phillips 2000). Borrowing this concept and incorporating it into his own
ideas and standards of nonviolence, Gandhi developed what he called
“Satyagraha.” The literal translation of this Indian word is “truth-force” or “love-
force,” which illustrates Gandhi's kind yet aggressive approach toward seeking
redemption. Gandhi's methods of nonviolent revolt against oppressive powers has
been borrowed and utilized many times since he implemented it in India almost a
century ago. Martin Luther King Jr., whom was one of such leaders to take after
Gandhi's teachings, explains the method's effectiveness:
I had come to see early that the Christian doctrine of love
operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one
of the most potent weapons available to an oppressed people in
their struggle for freedom. …nonviolence became more than a
method to which I gave intellectual assent, it became a way of
life. Many issues I had not cleared up intellectually were now
solved in the sphere of practical action (Phillips 2000).

The concept of nonviolent revolt can, and in fact to many it does, seem almost
elementary. Yet, the fact remains that it is very effective. It worked for Gandhi;
African Americans whom had been oppressed for centuries used it under the
leadership of Dr. King, to gain equal rights in America; and South Africans, under
the leadership of Nelson Mandela employed it to rid their country of segregation
and discrimination. One cannot be misled by the seemingly simple doctrines of
nonviolence. Even Dr. King, who became one of its greatest advocates, before
researching it had firmly believed that an armed revolt would be required to bring
an end to racial segregation in America. The key to its effectiveness is that it attacks
the one thing that is a vulnerability in every single human being: the mind. It has
already been presented that happiness is highly dependent on one's mental state.
Likewise, the only way to change centuries old ways is to appeal to one's mind; not

53
their wallet, or their family, or their personal safety. Simply enough, human beings
are subconsciously very protective of their minds, so much that, similar to how they
take on what some call survival mode when in physical danger, they similarly
retreat into a mental survival mode when they are attacked mentally. And again,
since happiness can be defined as the ultimate good, people will almost always
relinquish any other power they may have in order to maintain control over their
own mind—and in essence to protect their happiness.

Taking the concept of personal happiness that has been discussed throughout the
preceding chapters, Gandhi attempts to illustrate his concepts for ethics and
leadership by defining happiness as when you reach the point such that “…what
you think, what you say, and what you do is in harmony” (Gandhi 2007). Simply,
he's saying that consistency, not merely the exterior actions that others perceive as
being consistent, but the interior thoughts and beliefs that guide one's actions daily,
are what produce true happiness in human beings. Placed in context, one can
clearly see that this is indeed the case, for when you build something yourself, the
satisfaction and personal reward of accomplishment are infinitely greater than when
the same purchased at no effort of the purchaser. Further, telling friends and family
of how one succeeded in their education or career proffers them great joy when
such claims are the truth, yet only serves to prevent disappointment or scorn when
they are not. In other words, deception can only prevent bad things, whereas
honesty can directly produce happiness. Deception cannot produce good things;
only honesty and integrity can.

Continuing with this point, it should be clear that since honesty and integrity, not
achievement or the perception of achievement can directly produce happiness all
human beings should seek such traits. Then, if these characteristics are a direct

54
manufacturer of happiness, which according to Aristotle is the “supreme good,” as
it is “perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to which our actions are directed”
(Aristotle 2004), does it not infer that they should be sought above physical
achievements and the like? The path to happiness through such superficial means is
indirect by nature, whereas the path through honesty and integrity is direct and
therefore shorter. Furthermore, honesty and other such virtues will inherently
produce such “ends” (e.g. happiness) more reliably. Stone (2002) quotes Mahatma
Gandhi as he argues a philosophy very similar to this:
It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You
have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not
be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean
you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what
results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will
be no result.

Taking Gandhi slightly out of context, one could also argue the inverse of this
statement and say that you cannot do the wrong thing, simply because a fruitful
outcome is the likely result. With regards to acting ethically, what you do depends
not on the future implications of such actions, but rather the current ones. Finally,
as Gandhi states that one “may never know what results come” from their actions,
he is continuing the debate that ethics have no relevance to one's personal gain—or
loss—and as such, the current implications for consideration are those which have
the littlest effect on oneself.

As mentioned, Gandhi was and still is adored and respected by nearly everyone,
including the people and nations he rebelled against. He was able to maintain this
respect and adoration even after directly opposing incumbent institutions because,
as explained by Martin Luther King Jr., “Gandhi's goal, was not to defeat the
British in India, but to redeem them through love, so as to avoid a legacy of

55
bitterness” (Phillips 2000). And, redeem them through love was exactly what
Mahatma accomplished. Comparatively, one downfall to his achievements is that it
took him his entire life—nearly forty years—to achieve all that he did. Abraham
Lincoln on the other hand was able to accomplish his goals in only four years.
Nevertheless, Gandhi's persistence gained him a legacy of compassion and love
matched by no one, except for maybe that of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Speaking of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. amazingly said “[i]t is ironic, yet
inescapably true that the greatest Christian of the modern world was a man who
never embraced Christianity” (Phillips 2000). Nair (1997) says that Gandhi “…
reminded the world that the human spirit is indomitable and that courage and love
are more powerful than force.” Gandhi's only message to the world: “My life is its
own message.”

1.2.4.2 Nelson Mandela

Towering like a moral colossus over the late twentieth century,

his voice carries an ethical weight like no other. He rode to
power on a global wave of goodwill…

This quote is how Kalungu-Banda (2006) chose to describe Nelson Mandela; and a
very appropriate description at that. Next to Gandhi, Mr. Mandela comes in a close
second, if not tied for first, when it comes to self-sacrifice for a common good.
Throughout the 20th century, Nelson Rolihlahla (his birth name) Mandela, anti-
apartheid activist and former president of South-Africa, spent much of his life with
an “unquenchable passion to spend himself for the wellbeing of others” (Kalunga-
Banda, 2006). Indeed he did just that, as the majority of his adult life—27 years to
be exact—was spent behind bars. Mandela spent most of his time on Robben Island

56
imprisoned for crimes of conspiracy against the then incumbent apartheid
government (Stengel 2008). Indeed, his devotion to the betterment of others wasn't
just a glamorous motto or fictitious campaign; he sacrificed his life and freedom so
that the following generations could one day live a life without segregation and
discrimination. According to Baldwin (1999), the Apartheid government enacted
policies of blatant racial segregation, sometimes forcefully removing certain races
—mainly black Africans as the Apartheid was comprised mostly of white Africans
—from areas of the country.

Following his release in prison, Mandela picked up right where he left off by
leading the efforts to bring democracy to South Africa. In return for his sacrifice
and efforts, he was rewarded by the citizens of South Africa, who elected him as
their president—in fact, he was the first president in the new, fully-democratic
South African government. Upon his inauguration, he surprised everyone by
making only minimal changes to the personnel structure for his administration.
After some time, his employees, certain of their doom and no longer willing to wait
in fear of the day when it would come, bluntly asked him when he was planning on
letting them go to bring in his own “people.” His response was simple:
But you are my people. Since I came into this office, everything
has been managed extremely well. I am pleased with the way
you are all working. (Kalungu-Banda 2006).

Unlike many politicians today, especially in the United States where newly elected
politicians are often ridiculed if they retain too many, let alone all of the previous
administration's staff, Mandela was not one to jump to conclusions. Simply, he
would stand by anything and anyone, until it/they proved to be wrong. Yet, many in
modern society require something to be proven before they will stand behind it.
Mandela gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. In return for his compassion, love

57
and forgiveness that he openly offered to everyone, he earned praise and adoration.
Similar to Gandhi, Mandela is often referred by his nickname—Madiba—which is
the name of the clan from which he descended from. In South Africa, it is
considered polite and complimentary to refer to someone by their clan name
(Nelson Mandela Foundation 2010).

A human being is not book; they are not 2 dimensional words written in black
letters onto a white page. In fact, Human beings cannot even be explained in three
dimensions, for that only has enough power to illustrate one's physical
characteristics. Furthermore, that can only describe the dimensions of a person. To
describe the color of their skin, or their hair or eyes, or their composure or gait, or
their speech or accent, and so on, it would take an entirely new dimension for each
one of these categories. This why many people are stumped when they attempt to
reduce someone else to an abstract summary. Kalungu-Banda (2006) describes this
attempt to define another by saying “…when you feel the pressure to describe
someone in general categories, you are most likely passing an unfair judgment on
that person…” Further clarifying, he goes on to suggest that , similar to anything
else that has many dimensions, “…we should not arrogantly attempt to 'read' people
but continuously seek to understand them as they choose to unfold themselves to
us.”

This doesn't have to be a chore either. When you take the time to understand
someone, you learn new things, not only about them but about yourself; about who
you are or why you are the way you are. With such a mindset, seeking to truly
know people and befriend them—not merely requesting friendship on Facebook or
following someone's twitter account—you sincerely begin to enjoy it. Just as one
may look forward to going fishing or shopping, it becomes something you long for;

58
you want to get the opinions of others on every little thing that life offers. You
already know your own opinion, and so you desire to compare your logic with that
of the human beings that complete your life. This quote from Kalungu-Banda
(2006) expresses these sentiments in amazing detail:
Each person is special, and beyond measure. We may learn
certain things about them but it would be folly to imagine that
we know everything. Even the fact that we can trace a pattern in
someone's behaviour does not entitle us to think we know the
lot. The pattern we may have noticed is not hard information: it
can be negated at any time by the choices of that person we
think we know inside out. This is what makes any human being
a mystery.

Many people underestimate the magnitude that even the smallest act of kindness
can impress upon one's heart The boxer 'Baby Jake Matlala,' who lived near
Madiba when he was president, had just beaten one of the top boxers of the era to
bring honor to South Africa. As Madiba was an avid boxing fan, he was very
excited to hear this. In fact, Kalungu-Banda (2006) claims that one day as
president, he sneaked out unbeknownst to his bodyguards so that he could go visit
Baby Jake. In a moment of mutual astonishment, they both felt blessed to be in the
others presence. Madiba was excited to meet this star athlete, but Baby Jake was
stunned that Madiba made such a personal effort to visit him and congratulate him
on his victory. In fact, he was almost walking on air. Afterward, he said:
When I am in the ring nothing can stop me. Not even a wall of
steel can stand between victory and me. All I need is to
remember that Madiba is watching me fight for honour. He
came and drank tea in my home and I am simply invincible
(Kalungu-Banda 2006).

Even Bill Clinton, the President of the United States at the time, and very seldom a
man with little to say, simply could not find the words to introduce Madiba when he
visited the White House. Bill Clinton, who has talked himself out of some of the

59
trickiest predicaments, could only muster this in the presence of Madiba:
I do not know what to say. I just cannot bring myself to believe
that I am standing next to the greatest man of our time…. I am
so struck by President Mandela's presence that I cannot find the
right words with which to address you…. May I simply invite
the President to address us.

1.2.4.3 Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., born in 1929 (Phillips 2000), is one of the greatest
leaders America has been blessed with. He not only achieved much in his short
lifetime, but he did it with empathy for all. The level of empathy that he offered to
everyone, including his oppressors, has arguably been surpassed by none. When
you read how Dr. King spoke of concepts such as empathy, humility, love and
forgiveness, one cannot help but be inspired to change their outlook on such
concepts along with him. After the conclusion the Montgomery boycott, in which
he and the entire town of African Americans boycotted riding the local buses until
they ended their practice of racial segregation, he made the following comments to
his audience of dedicated followers:
As we go back to the buses let us be loving enough to turn an
enemy into a friend. We must now move from protest to
reconciliation. . . . With this dedication we will be able to
emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man's
inhumanity to man to the bright and glittering daybreak of
freedom and justice. … [but] I would be terribly disappointed, if
any of you go back to the buses bragging.… we must take this
not as a victory over the white man but as a victory for justice
and democracy. . . . Let us go back to the buses in all humility
and with gratitude to Almighty God for making this decision
possible (Phillips 2000).

Dr. King was the combination of inspiration, humility and leadership, such that he

60
could arise passion out of the apathetic, talk sense into the most insensible, and
empathize with the evilest of deeds, all within the context of a single speech. It was
as if Dr. King took Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Ernest Shackleton, and molded
them into a composite leader to which he aspired to, and eventually succeeded in
becoming. With that, he is a perfect example of learning from the mistakes of one's
predecessors. Never once did Martin make the same mistake twice, and never did
he make the same mistake that someone else had previously made. He did this by
employing continual self-introspection, always listening, and never assuming he
was supremely correct on any matter. All in all, one could agree with Phillips'
(2000) claim that Dr. King's legacy is one founded with “…genuinely unselfish,
compassionate, and action oriented leadership.” He goes on to say that “Although
inexperienced, unpolished, and impulsive, he learned rapidly and turned out to be
not only a great leader, but a true leader—one whom most people followed easily,
willingly, and passionately”

Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the most quoted political figures of the modern
day. He gained such status by accepting a task that was involuntary and
unexpectedly set before him. Regardless of the circumstances, Dr. King was not the
type of person to decline one's request for his leadership. Given the benefit of
hindsight, he turned out to be exactly the person the United States of America
needed in the middle of the 20th century. The United States of America was a
disheartened nation, coming off the heels of the great depression which presented
mass economic hardships with the potential to collapse the American union—and
would have had it not been for the leadership of President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. Additionally, after having already fought war after war, and soon to
embark upon yet another, the last thing that the United States wanted was a civil
rights revolution; one that had been delayed over a decade since Abraham Lincoln

61
issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 (Phillips 1982). However, that is
exactly what they got from Martin King who knew that the time had come and that
the revolution could not be put on hold any longer if the country was to remain in
tact. A leader who advocated a non-violent civil revolution, in a conflict as ugly and
seemingly headed for violence as any in history, Dr. King lead this nation through
one of it's darkest times in history on the concepts of empathy and persuasion—two
characteristics possessed by most of the greatest leaders in world history. Some of
his most inspirational moments are documented below (Phillips 2000):
Montgomery is known as the Cradle of the Confederacy. It has
been a quiet cradle for a long, long time. But now the cradle is
rocking. Dixie has a heart all right, but it's having a little heart
trouble right now.

Give us the ballot and we will transform the salient misdeeds of

mobs into the good deeds of orderly citizens, …Give us the
ballot…Give us the ballot…Give us the ballot…

The burning of our churches will not deter us. We are on the
move now. The bombing of our homes will not dissuade us. We
are on the move now. The beating and killing of our clergymen
and young people will not divert us. We are on the move now.

Through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can't

murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar but
you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a
hater, but you can't murder hate. Darkness cannot put out
darkness. Only light can do that.

[Human beings] must make mistakes and learn from them,

make more mistakes and learn anew. They must taste defeat as
well as success. Time and action are teachers.

As illustrated with the preceding quotes, Dr. King used repetition, symbolism and

62
metaphorical imagery better than any other leader. He would address a person's
logic to get them listening, speak to their conscience to get them inspired, and
continue to hammer at that nail until they were ready to follow him. He truly was a
brilliant example of leadership by persuasion and inspiration. Yet, at the same time
he was able flip the switch, exhibiting an almost father-like serious but mellow tone
as he would speak to crowds in some of the darkest times. On one occasion, after
his house was bombed, he spoke to a group of civil rights protestors gathered
outside of his home—who were ready to commence a riot—and calmly just said:
I want you to go home and put down your weapons. We cannot
solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must love
our white brothers, no matter what they do to us. We must make
them know that we love them…. This is what we must live by.
We must meet hate with love (Phillips 2000).

Agape love was what Martin called it. It was about understanding good will. A
selfless love such that you “[love] the person who does the evil deed, while hating
the deed that the person does,” but, he said “in order to love your enemies, you
must begin by analyzing yourself.” This is the key to it all. Many times people get
caught up in analyzing others that they forget about themselves. In all reality, there
should be no reason for anyone to ever judge someone else, for if everyone simply
examined and attempted to better themselves, no human being would have the time
to judge other people. It is not difficult to see this kind of continual introspection in
Martin Luther King. Everything he did; and everything he said, one could tell that
he was concurrently playing everything out in his mind as to make sure that he was
responding to life and not simply reacting to it. On one occasion in a diner where
the law required that “colored people” sit in the back, obstructed from view, to get
service, he didn't get mad or angry. He simply told the manager:
I just don't like sitting back there…. It makes me almost angry,
and I know that I shouldn't be … but when you put me back
there something happens to my soul so that I confront inequality

63
 in the sense that I have a greater potential of the accumulation
of bitterness (Phillips 2000).

Martin recognized his thoughts and feelings for exactly what they were—invisible
demons that one can control or become controlled by, depending on how they look
at it. As Martin was telling the manager this, certainly he didn't expect him to just
change his mind and serve Martin in front of a room full of angry white customers.
Martin was simply expressing his thoughts and emotions so that he himself could
hear and understand them; and to let them escape his brain so that they could no
longer control him from within.

Finally, Martin Luther King Jr. led by example, and he was only able to do this
because he practiced controlling his emotions such that they wouldn't get the better
of him in the heat of the moment. On two separate occasions, Martin was
physically attacked—well, more than two, but this discussion will focus on these
two. The first was during a book signing when a 42 year old lady came up to the
front of the line and stabbed him in the chest with a letter opener she kept in her
purse. Having control over his thoughts and emotions gave Martin peace of mind in
this situation to not panic. He simply sat up straight with the dagger in his chest and
waited for the ambulance to arrive. Knowing that someone had just tried to murder
him, it would have been easy let the situation gain momentum and to let his
instincts take control, but he didn't. He didn't allow this to happen because he had
practiced; he practiced for that exact situation. The second situation was at a rally
where he was giving a speech. In the first few rows of the crowd there was a
member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), and at one point during Martin's speech, the
man jumped out of his seat, onto the platform, tackled Martin and proceeded to
punch him in the face repeatedly. Martin never reacted. He just threw his arms
down and turned the other cheek, until the guards came and wrestled the man away.

64
To further illustrate the almost robotic demeanor with which Martin handled these
situations, his only response was basically to say “let them go.” In the first
situation, when asked if he would like to press charges on the woman, he responded
that he felt “no ill-will.… Don't do anything to her…Get her healed.” In the
situation with the KKK member, martin once again responded honorably:
This system that we live under creates people such as this
youth. I'm not interested in pressing charges. I'm interested in
changing the kind of system that produces this kind of man.

1.2.5 Presidents

1.2.5.1 George Washington

No two words could better describe George Washington than honest and ambitious.
Indeed, this was something that Washington actively worked towards and pushed
himself to achieve every minute of his existence. According to Rees and Spignesi
(2007), he sincerely wrote:
I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private
affairs … that honesty is always the best policy.… I hope I shall
always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I
consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an
honest man.

Many examples of Washington's character and integrity can found in the many
writings of his colleagues, and even his adversaries, that speak to his
incomprehensibly noble characteristics:
…no one dared to question his honesty. He could not be
corrupted, and his standards could not be compromised (Rees
and Spignesi 2007).

65
After George Washington had made the announcement that he would not seek
election for a third term as president of the United States, King George III is
reported to have suggested that if he indeed followed through with this
relinquishment of power, he would be “the greatest man in the world” (Rees and
Spignesi 2007). Furthermore, the French dictator, Napoleon, on the brink of death
after being forcefully sent into exile, spoke to the magnitude of temptations which
Washington was able to resist. Napoleon observed that the citizens of France
expected him “…to be another Washington.”

One aspect that stands out when reading of the man of George Washington is his
personal conviction to live a good and decent life, driven not by a desire to impress
others or to improve his own personal social status, but rather to improve the lives
of others and to impress his standards upon those he led. This wasn't just a talent
that Washington was divinely blessed with. This aspect of Washington's character
must have been something that he was always cognizant of, for he himself on more
than one occasion spoke to the amount of effort he placed in ensuring that he
remained an honest and just man.
…no man, that ever was employed in a public capacity, has
endeavored to discharge the trust reposed in him with greater
honesty, and more zeal for the country's interest, than I have
done; and if there is any person living, who can say with justice,
that I have offered any intentional wrong to the public, I will
cheerfully submit to the most ignominious punishment, that an
injured people ought to inflict (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

1.2.5.2 Thomas Jefferson

Socially, Thomas Jefferson was uncharismatic, sensitive, moody, emotional,

paranoid at times, he disliked public speaking, he was plagued with self-doubt, and

66
most of the time he just wanted to be left alone (Barefoot 2008). His character
suffered many downfalls as well, including adultery, large amounts of debt,
hypocrisy, and deception. Nevertheless, Thomas Jefferson, a man of many
weaknesses, was indisputably one of the most intelligent men to set foot on
American soil, if not earthly soil entirely. As author of the Declaration of
Independence and many other revolutionary documents, philosopher on everything
from religion to architecture, and lifelong student of many of life's wonders, he
portrayed one quality of leadership that often goes overlooked—education and self-
discipline. After inviting forty-nine Nobel Prize winners to the white house, John F.
Kennedy is quoted as proclaiming that it was “the most extraordinary collection of
talent and of human knowledge that [had] ever been gathered together at the White
House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone”
(Jefferson 2008).

Considering every person mentioned herein, Thomas Jefferson was by far the
greatest champion of knowledge. He started his collegiate level education at the
young age of 14 studying topics such as mathematics, philosophy, and ethics. His
mentor at the time, Dr. William Small—whom he formed a special bond with
because of their mutual respect for religious freedom—also educated Thomas in the
principles of the Enlightenment—a radical philosophical school of thought popular
at the time. Among what he learned from Dr. Small and the ways of the
Enlightenment were that “…knowledge could redeem humankind from the
centuries-old chains of ignorance to which it had been sentenced…” and that “…
blind allegiance to authority was no virtue” (Barefoot 2008). Until his death, he
considered formal schooling merely as the beginning of a lifetime of continual
learning. So passionate about education and the ability of every human being to
have an opportunity to learn, that on multiple occasions, he took advantage of his

67
powerful political position to submit laws, bills, or other regulations calling for the
installment of publicly-funded education systems. In fact, he is known to have
presented a bill known as “The Bill for the General Diffusion of Knowledge,”
which Barefoot (2008) called “…one of the most radical proposals he ever made as
a legislator.” In this bill he proposed a three tiered public educational system
similar to that which is commonplace in modern society. Over his lifetime,
Jefferson has been quoted to have made many statements regarding education and
his opinions on it. The following illustrate his level of passion on the topic.
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man (Barefoot 2008).

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are
the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty (Tucker
2010).

Kalunga-Banda (2006) certainly agrees with Jefferson's passionate views on

learning. He even goes as far as to say that:
When you feel so knowledgeable that all you want to do is
impart what you know, it is a sign that you have stopped
learning. But there is no such thing as standing still in learning.
You are either learning or you are regressing.

Not only a scholar of the mind, Jefferson developed what he called a “habit of
industry” (Barefoot 2008). This basic precept drove him to take excellent care of
his body through exercise, diet and purposeful activity. Writing to his daughter, he
taught that “Exercise and application produce order in our affairs, health of body
and cheerfulness of mind, and these make us precious to our friends.” He later
reaffirms his stance on this matter by saying that “exercise and recreation are as
necessary as reading; I will say rather more necessary, because health is worth more
than learning. A strong body makes the mind strong.” Indeed, as anyone who has

68
developed a similar “habit of industry” knows, staying in shape and keeping one's
body healthy refreshes the mind by allowing it to process information more
efficiently, thereby allowing one to think more clearly.

Jefferson realized, not only the power in knowledge, but the improbability of
obtaining one's goals without it. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a
state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” It would do
modern society well if all citizens could take the same stance that Jefferson took on
knowledge: “…I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow
truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which
stood in their way” (Barefoot 2008). Certainly, the educational opportunities that
were offered him due to his family's wealth were of great personal benefit. Yet,
contrary to the actions of many privileged enough to be born into the upper class—
both in Jefferson's day and in modern times—who squander such opportunities, he
took full advantage of them. He accepted everything he was given with great
responsibility, even proposing at one point that the cost of his education be
deducted from his share of his father's estate that he inherited upon his father's
death when he was only 14 years old.

Thomas Jefferson was a great man; not perfect by any means, but in many ways far
greater than most. One thing that particularly stands out amongst his leadership
qualities was his ability to get back up and keep moving. For instance, after a bitter
political feud with John Adams that lasted throughout his career, Thomas Jefferson
mustered the humility after he was retired to set aside his pride and write a letter to
Mr Adams. Jefferson hoped to rekindle their lifelong friendship which commenced
even before the revolutionary war (Barefoot 2008). Barefoot then asks the
introspective question “Who is Your Adams?” which is relevant to the discussion

69
herein. This should not be taken as an inspirational question, of which dramatic
effect is its single purpose. Instead, the reader should be persuaded to search their
heart and soul for an answer to this question, for no one is so decent to have lived a
life entirely absent of pain, both that which has been inflicted by others and that
which one has inflicted. Once understood, one can forgive themselves for such
relationships and the roles they played therein. Only after such introspection can
one truly live in happiness.

Jefferson never said or implied that he would be naively steadfast in his beliefs or
always do what he felt was right. The fact remained that he did not know
everything and the only way to consistently Do the Right Thing was to study and
search for it. When he found what he thought might be such a thing, he searched
further. Not just with intent to prove his initial conclusions to be correct, but to seek
out any and all ways it was incorrect. The truth is always available, just waiting to
be found, but so are the lies and untruths. If one goes searching for the truth with
knowledge of what they already believe to be the truth, these lies and untruths will
manifest themselves as truths to the untrained eye; and only those who are
disciplined and diligent in their pursuit of the truth will be able to distinguish
between the two.

Thomas Jefferson is frequently misunderstood on a number of different topics. The

first being religion. Some say that he was a devout Christian; others say that he was
an atheist; and still many others believe that he was somewhere in between. If one
carefully studies his writings and the writings of him by historians, they will find
that he is actually somewhere in between. He was known to be a very spiritual
person, and considered himself a genuine Christian. Yet, his definition of a
Christian was much different than that of most people in modern America. He was

70
a Christian in the sense that he learned from Jesus' teachings and tried to be as
Christ-like as possible. He was a devout believer in what he called the moral
philosophy of Jesus. However, he passionately believed that “church leaders had
corrupted [Jesus'] teachings with superstition and mysticism” (Barefoot 2008).
Regarding the matter of religion and personal beliefs, he says:
I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God
and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him and
not to the priests.… It does me no injury, for my neighbor to say
that there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket
nor breaks my leg.

The other topic that he was often misrepresented on is that of government. While
government policies change so frequently—Republicans in Jefferson's day are
similar to Democrats of the 20th century, the Federalists who are no longer a
political party could be considered similar to the Republicans of the modern day,
and so on—it can be very difficult to align one's political views properly. Many say
that Jefferson was similar to modern day Republicans in that he desired minimal
government control, while others say he was similar to Democrats such that he
supported a lot of control by the government. Once again, the truth lies somewhere
in the middle. Well, not exactly; one could say that he was both of these extremes.
He favored big government when it would do good things such as provide public
education, and he supported small government when he believed the power it
wielded was trampling on the rights of the American citizens (Barefoot 2008).

1.2.5.3 Abraham Lincoln

His birth mother died when he was nine years old; his sister died when he was only
nineteen; and since he was more of an intellectual than a laborer, he never
developed a close bond with his father; he lost more often than he won; his voice

71
was “…high-pitched” and “…penetrating and far-reaching” (Phillips 1982). Yet, he
has been consistently ranked as the greatest leader the United States of America has
ever seen. Abraham Lincoln did indeed have an incredibly tough childhood. As a
popular fable goes, Honest Abe even helped build the log cabin that he was born in
(Loewen 2010). Despite the many myths and fables, the majority of stories told of
Abe Lincoln are actually true. Phillips (1982) notes that “qualities… such as
honesty and integrity, empathy for the common man, and devotion to the rights of
individuals were products of his upbringing.” The story of Lincoln's life is not a
case in which the myths turn one into a legend, but rather a case in which the myths
turn a legend into a god. Regardless of the hoopla surrounding certain claims, his
story is one that inspires nearly all who have the opportunity to hear it.
There is little debate that Lincoln was the greatest leader this
country, and perhaps this world, has ever known. (Phillips
1982).

Born two centuries ago, Abraham Lincoln was not only the greatest leader the
United States has ever seen, but quite possibly the world as well. Against almost
impossible odds, he managed to hold a country together to achieve a goal in which
many people had become apathetic toward. James Buchanan, the fifteenth president
of the United States preceding Abraham Lincoln, left office boasting that he was
“…the last President of the United States” (Phillips 1982). Certainly a preposterous
claim, but not erroneous by any means. After the transition from Buchanan to
Lincoln, a total of seven states had seceded from the union. Lincoln had been
president for a mere six months, before another four followed suit, bringing the
total up to eleven states (Phillips 2000). Another interesting fact is that Honest Abe
also inherited a dire financial crisis, similar to the one currently—circa 2008—
being experienced in many areas of the world. Prior to his inauguration, a severe
recession hit the nation, leading to the failure of thousands of banks. Yet, somewhat

72
similar to Ernest Shackleton, Lincoln never once even considered throwing in the
towel and giving up—as James Buchanan had done. As long as he was still in
charge, Abe was determined to do anything and everything he could possibly think
of to achieve victory. Throughout his first three years, Lincoln made more than ten
changes to the command structure of the army in an attempt to find the best
combination of leadership and strategy to win the civil war. Eventually, he
discovered Ulysses S. Grant who he described as a man who “fights,” and named
him the General-In-Chief of the entire army.

What's more is that nearly everyone had a good word for Lincoln, including those
who at one time or another marked him as their adversary. Two men in particular
came to hold Lincoln in very high regards, giving him their “loyalty and
admiration,” even though both had nothing but “skepticism and mistrust” for him
when he was first elected president (Phillips 1982). These two men were his
Secretary of State, William H. Seward, and his Secretary of War, Edwin M.
Stanton. Indeed, Lincoln had a way of winning the hardest of heart over to his
corner, using wit, dedication, and enthusiasm. The following quotes show the
extent of the impression Lincoln left on the people who were fortunate enough to
meet him (Phillips 1982).
Executive force and vigor are rare qualities…. The President is
the best of us. —William H. Seward, Secretary of State

If ever there was an honest man on the face of the earth it was
Abraham Lincoln. —General Ambrose Burnside

Plain common sense, a kindly disposition, a straight forward

purpose, and a shrewd perception of the ins and outs of poor,
weak human nature, have enabled him to master difficulties
which would have swamped any other man. —The New York
Herald

73
Lincoln did not demand respect or authority. He simply remained confident, and
empathetic, and eventually nearly everyone developed great respect for him.
Phillips (1982) notes that even the war hero, Ulysses S. Grant, refused to run for
president as long as Lincoln was interested in it.

Ronald Reagan was nicknamed the “Great Communicator” (Greenstein 2004),

partly due to his career in movies, and also partly due to his and his administration's
organization and strategy. Even with such effective management however, Reagan's
communication skills are trumped by those of Abe Lincoln, especially when one
considers the fact that Lincoln essentially managed his entire administration—he
controlled policies and strategies, and did not let others dictate his leadership. In
spite of this, he still managed to “…tell a great many stories” (Phillips 1982) that
inspired a nation, made people laugh, and still effectively illustrated the concepts
and philosophies that he intended to communicate. The following are a few
excellent examples of Lincoln's poetic yet systematic ability to tell a story with
great conviction and effectiveness (Phillips 1982).

This story tells a parable of a lion and a woodman, who's daughter the lion wishes
to marry (originally told by Aesop):
A lion was very much in love with a woodman's daughter. The
fair maid referred him to her father and the lion applied for the
girl. The father replied: “Your teeth are too long.” So the lion
went to a dentist and had them extracted. Returning, he asked
for his bride. “No,” said the woodman, “your claws are too
long.” Going back to the dentist, he had them drawn. Then he
returned to claim his bride, and the woodman, seeing that he
was unarmed, beat out his brains.

The moral to the preceding story, is that you should never surrender your every line
of defense without a guarantee of something in return. The following tale, a

74
favorite of Lincoln's, illustrates the concept of mind over matter in a humorous
way:
A man… had a small bull-terrier that could whip all the dogs of
the neighborhood. The owner of a large dog which the terrier
had whipped asked the owner of the terrier how it happened that
the terrier whipped every dog he encountered. “That,” said the
owner of the terrier, “is no mystery to me; your dog and other
dogs get half through a fight before they are ready; now, my dog
is always mad!”

While many people use large words and authoritative speech to get their messages
across, Lincoln did not. He knew that, though people often times sound powerful
and momentarily appear to inspire, disappointment lurks after the crowds are
dispersed, as many leaders often proceed to enact the exact opposite policies that
they endorsed in their speech. Here, Lincoln tells the story of two dogs with very
intimidating barks:
I remember when I was a lad, there were two fields behind our
house separated by a fence. In each field there was a big
bulldog, and these dogs spent the whole day racing up and
down, snarling and yelping at each other through that fence.
One day they both came at the same moment to a hole in it, big
enough to let either of them through. Well, gentlemen, what do
you think they did? They just turned tail and scampered away as
fast as they could in opposite directions.

Finally, in an excellent display of Abraham's knowledge and understanding of the

human mind and the logic of its workings, he describes the hypocrisy which many
employ, yet still most remain oblivious to, by narrating an encounter between a
thief and his victim:
The criminal drew his revolver, but the assaulted party made a
sudden spring and wrested the weapon from the hands of the
would-be assassin. “Stop!” said the attacker. “Give me back that
pistol; you have no right to my property.”

75
Similar to Martin Luther King Jr., Lincoln developed a very skillful and intelligent
understanding of not just the nature of human beings, but of himself as well. He
developed great control over his mind and his thoughts through practice and
discipline. At one point when the press was saying very bad things of him, someone
asked him if he had read the latest news story. Lincoln calmly said “[as] a general
rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be
provoked by that to which I can not properly offer an answer.” Lincoln didn't bring
it up again for he knew that thoughts are the origin of anger and, in sequence, regret
as well.

1.2.5.4 Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Each one of the American presidents listed herein were great leaders, and carried
the country on their back through some very trying times. However, this is not
suggesting that every other president has had minimal impact on the path taken by
this great country. In fact, there were many other presidents who have done
wonderful things as commander-in-chief of the United States. Franklin Delano
Roosevelt (FDR) is one of such presidents, and should not be omitted from any
discussion on the greatest American presidential leaders.

A man who, at the young age of thirty-nine, was struck with paralysis from a severe
attack of poliomyelitis, FDR was incorrigible in his pursuit of greatness, and
regained enough strength to walk with the assistance of a cane (Greenstein 2004).
Twelve years later, he was elected as the United States President, and remained
such until he died of natural causes three months into his unprecedented fourth term
as President. FDR marched into office full of confidence and determination to lead
the country through the Great Depression, calling for what he called a “New Deal”

76
for American citizens.

Now regarded by most as one the saviors of America, he did not simply accept the
role of president but he took it forcefully saying that if government would not work
with him to expediently get the country back in the right direction, he would use his
Presidential power equivalent to what he would have “if we were in fact invaded by
a foreign foe” (Greenstein 2004). Ultimately, he led the U.S. out of the Great
Depression; on the heels of this recovery, the U.S. was indeed attacked by a foreign
foe—when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor—marking the beginning of U.S.
involvement in World War II. FDR then led the nation through what would be
called the “deadliest conflict in human history” (Sommerville 2009).

FDR is known for making the modern political term “the first hundred days”
famous from his brilliant execution—sometimes called manipulation—of congress
throughout his first one hundred days in office. He was also well liked by the
American public for his accessibility and openness, which he exhibited through
programs such as his fireside chats. While sometimes criticized for his
manipulative style in which he never allowed anyone to know the full story on any
matter except for himself, it certainly worked for him and America at the time.

1.2.6 Military Leaders

While this thesis is not intended to be an all-inclusive reference to all things related
to ethics, responsibility, and leadership, it seems prudent to at least touch on the
topic of leadership from the viewpoint history's greatest military leaders. A short
list of such leaders might include George Washington, Alexander the Great, George
Patton, Ulysses S. Grant, and Douglas MacArthur. Once again, there are many

77
others that could be included in this list, but this discussion will barely skim the
surface on the topic military leaders.

George Washington, a leader that has already been introduced herein for his
incredible leadership skills as President of the United States of America, is also
widely recognized as one of the greatest military leaders of all time. As commander
of the American Continental Army, Washington led American troops to victory in
some of the most trying situations ever known. It is acknowledged that considering
the greatest military strategists, Washington was far from one of the most skilled.
Yet, he skillfully mastered characteristics such as honesty, integrity, perseverance,
inspiration, and encouragement, which gave him the edge in the specific moment of
time in which he was asked to serve. The American troops that he led were, as he
described, “sometimes half-starved; always in rages, without pay and experiencing,
at times, every species of distress which human nature is capable of undergoing”
(CarpeNoctem 2000). Indeed, when it comes to one's ability to command an
ensemble of troops under the least likely conditions to inspire and motivate, George
Washington wins the gold metal for his understanding of human nature,
indisputable affability, and unequivocal integrity. It was because of these
characteristics that made it almost impossible for anyone not to offer Washington
their unconditional loyalty.

Having never lost a battle in eleven years, against the dominant powers of the time
who almost always won the numbers game, Alexander the Great was truly that;
Great. CarpeNoctem (2000) claims that he “integrated infantry, cavalry, and
engineers with logistics and intelligence support in a manner never before seen or
experienced.” Certainly, Alexander was far ahead of his time; born in the 4th
century B.C. He utilized technology and intelligence unprecedented for the time,

78
proffering him one of the greatest legacies of all time.

George Patton innovated the use of armored warfare in the United States Army of
the early 20th century. Throughout World War I and World War II, General Patton
slowly, but steadily, developed his capabilities as a commander of armed military
forces. By World War II, he had effectively implemented armored doctrine as well
as armory training programs for military personnel (CarpeNoctem 2000). In
collaboration with Patton, was Douglas MacArthur, who commanded significant
portions of the U.S. Army in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War.
While designated as one of America's greatest military generals, CarpeNoctem
(2000) points out that he was also one of the most controversial generals of record.
A man whom people either loved or hated, still no one questioned his strategic
abilities.

Ulysses S. Grant, also already mentioned herein, was the army general who in
effect took back the civil war for the American Union. During a time when
President Abraham Lincoln was searching for anyone who would be aggressive
enough to forcefully go after the forces of the Confederacy, Grant turned out to be
exactly that leader. On the brink of defeat, the American Union Army had already
gone through more than a dozen military leaders, and defeat seemed inevitable. Yet,
General Patton brilliantly utilized his tactical and strategic knowledge and
intelligence to dominate the Confederacy in the latter part of the civil war
(CarpeNoctem 2000).

79
1.3 Relevance to Structural Engineering

For those engineers who have successfully navigated the dangerous and
complicated waters of ancient philosophy, religion, and historical leadership, you
may be starting to wonder how this all relates to structural engineering. This section
should serve as a transition, explaining the topics still to be discussed and
illustrating how everything should start coming together and hopefully making
sense.

1.3.1 Engineering Community Feedback

Three distinct research projects were conducted in relation to the content of this
thesis: (1) an open-ended poll of undergraduate students on leadership; (2) weekly
discussion boards from a recent graduate level course in which students openly
discussed the topics of engineering, ethics, responsibility, and leadership; and (3) an
online survey of engineering professionals on the topics of engineering, ethics,
responsibility, and leadership. Each of these studies involves at least one of the
topics already presented and/or those still to be discussed. Chapter two will present
an overview and analysis of these research studies as relative to the main topics of
ethics, responsibility, and leadership.

1.3.2 Engineering Ethics

In an attempt to tie these topics in to engineering, a thorough analysis of the state of

ethics within the industry of engineering was completed and will be presented in
chapter three. This analysis includes, but is not limited to the following topics: (1)
engineering society's code of ethics; (2) literature review on various topics of
engineering ethics; and (3) ethics programs in higher education. These topics will

80
be discussed both objectively and subjectively, and then conclusions will be made.
Following this, there will be comments and recommendations presented based on
the research performed.

1.3.3 Engineering Case Studies

Chapter four includes a number of case studies that were reviewed and analyzed in
great detail, with a focus on ethics, particularly the ethics of the individual. These
will be presented including case-specific factual information, technical analysis,
ethical analysis—both personal and professional aspects—and conclusions and
recommendations to prevent future occurrences of such failures and/or increase the
likelihood of success. These case studies will also tie in to, and reference the
subjects discussed in the first three chapters of this thesis.

1.4 Summary

In this chapter, the topics of ethics, responsibility and leadership were presented
and discussed from the perspective of ancient Greek philosophy, religion, and
historical leadership. From this discussion, the following conclusions were made
and for the sake of discussion, will thus be considered as truth throughout the
remainder of this thesis, lest the same arguments and logic be presented ad
nauseum.
– Happiness—specifically personal happiness—in and of itself, is a supreme
good. In other words, happiness is an end to which every action, or means,
is performed.
– The happiness of others is not separate from one's own happiness. In fact,
each is contingent on the other, without exception, only varying in

81
 magnitude of influence.
– Honesty and integrity—in the sense that internal acknowledgments (e.g.
personal satisfaction) are rewarded at a higher level than external
acknowledgments (e.g. blessings or vindication of rightness or success from
others)—are unique characteristics such that they have direct influence on
one's happiness and are therefore considered to be more desirable than those
characteristics such as deception and dishonesty, which only produce
happiness indirectly by avoidance of pain and suffering.
– Empathy, as distinguished from sympathy, is a characteristic on which the
measurement of one's ethical conduct is highly dependent. In this text,
empathy is also taken to encompass all favorable feelings towards others,
including but not limited to compassion, love, forgiveness, and so on.
– Religion and ethics, though very much intertwined, are not the same thing,
nor is one dependent upon the other.

82
2. Structural Engineering Community

2.1 Research

2.1.1 Engineering Undergraduate Students

A 4l-minute IMAX film (Richards and Spijer 2001) on Ernest Shackleton and his
amazing Endurance expedition was presented to a class of 17 third-year civil
engineering students. The documentary was presented about three-fourths of the
way through the semester—a time when student stress is usually quite intense. The
poll, including a comprehensive account of the students' comments was included in
a recent ASCE publication of the article written by Rens and Rens (2010), entitled
Leading, Learning, and Living the Shackleton Way: Education and Practice. All
student comments are not included herein, but will be referenced as applicable. It is
recommended that the reader obtain a copy of said article for reference. See the
references section for additional information regarding this publication.

2.1.2 Engineering Graduate Students

A recent online graduate level structural analysis course incorporated weekly

discussion boards on the topics of ethics, responsibility and leadership. The
educational background of students ranged from advanced undergraduate students
preempting graduate level engineering curriculum, to experienced professional
structural engineers. The diversity among discussion topics and student
backgrounds provides a comprehensive representation of the structural engineering
community on these matters. A complete record of the discussion topics and student
comments can be found in Appendix B. Select comments will be referenced as they

83
apply to the following chapters. This will provide a link between the opinions of
those involved with engineering academia, and those involved in engineering
practice.

2.1.3 Engineering Professionals

In May and June of 2010, an anonymous survey of engineering professionals was

conducted online using tools from Google Docs and Google Sites. This survey,
along with a tally of the results can be found in Appendix B. Many of the topics
already discussed, including South Pole explorer, Ernest Shackleton, and those of
the following chapters were addressed in this survey. There were also a number of
topics addressed that will not be referenced herein other than in the Appendices.
This survey, and the results thereof will be referenced, where applicable.

2.2 Engineers on Ethics

The saying “Do the Right Thing” has many different interpretations. The online
survey introduced in the previous section included an open-ended question asking
survey participants to explain what “Do the Right Thing” meant to them. Eight of
the eleven respondents had entirely different answers; three of the respondents did
not provide an answer; therefore, no two respondents had the same answer. Many
had similar answers, but non were identical. A select few of these responses are
listed below:
• “I think it means something different to each individual. To me it means
doing the things that you have been raised to believe are "right". [note:
this response has been shortened, see Appendix B for the full response]

• “Everyone has a sense of what is right and what is wrong. The phrase is
a directive to do what one knows to be right when faced with

84
 decisions.”

• “choose the most ethically appropriate path considering all direct and
indirectly affected circumstances.”

• “We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. I try to treat all
as I would like to be treated and proceed with one's life accordingly.”

When asked if they thought it was still possible to live ethically in modern society,
a surprisingly high eight respondents answered yes. Five of those admitted that it is
more difficult than it used to be, but nonetheless believe it is possible. Regarding
the topic of empathy, three respondents thought that living one's life fully
committed to the concept creates a social disadvantage, whereas eight said that it
did not.

Out of the same group of respondents, only two could confidently say that their
company had an established ethics program to assist their employees in such
situations; another two were unsure; yet six respondents confidently said that their
company did not have an ethics program. These engineers were then asked if they
could recite the first fundamental canon of the National Society of Professional
Engineers' (NSPE) code of ethics. As could be expected only one person could;
nine said no; and one marked “Huh?” indicating they did not know what the
question was referring to.

Four stories that presented situations in which the ethics of one's conduct was
questionable, were included in this survey. The tally of results for all four questions
reveals that the respondents found the actions to be unethical nearly twice as often
as they believed them to be ethical.

85
Regarding a hypothetical situation in which an engineer on a project site notices
something dangerous, then informs the contractor, but the contractor refuses to stop
construction; there were eight different answers for what the respondent would do.
This affirms how vague of a topic ethics truly is, and why people disagree so
frequently. On the surface many think that other people have the same definitions
of ethics, but the reality is that everyone thinks very differently on the matter.
People tend to agree on basic concepts and theory, but regarding the practicality
and implementation of such opinions start to diverge.

A common statement by structural engineering consultants is that “means and

methods are the contractor's responsibility.” This implies that the structural
engineer is only responsible to design the permanent structure. The question was
posed if it was possible to subconsciously train one's mind to pay less attention to
such things. The survey asked if they agreed with the idea that thinking a certain
thought can train one's brain to subconsciously believe it over time, and five
respondents agreed. Only two disagreed.

The participants were give an opportunity to elaborate on the ways they thought
ethics could be improved in the engineering industry. The following is a
comprehensive account of their responses.
• “interpersonal relationships between disciplines, more concern for young
engineers to provide them with more direction, more responsibility needs to
be accepted across the board.”

• “One way is to publish more accounts of crucial situations and decisions that
prominent engineers have faced during their careers.”

• “There's no reward for having ethics. It's too easy for someone to get away
with being unethical. Those are two ways it can be changed. Award those
who practice good ethics, and punish those who don't.”

86
 • “require periodic minimum continuing education credits in ethics as does the
state of NM.”

• “Have projects be awarded based on criterion other than money.”

• “That ethics be taken more seriously and encouraged in the engineering

profession instead of ignored or enforcing items based on schedule, money or
other influences.”

Five of the respondents said they would support a shift in the industry, such that the
structural engineer would be more involved throughout the entire process of
construction. Another four respondents said they would support this they were paid
more to do it. Only 2 respondents said they would not be in support of it.

2.3 Engineers on Responsibility

A story regarding personal responsibility was presented to the participants of the

online survey mentioned previously. The story involved a person who admits that
many years prior he had cheated on a take home exam. After allowing this to eat at
him from for some time, he decided to go back to the school and confess. Upon
doing such, it was decided, between the adviser and the former student, that no
harm had been caused and that Peace could be accomplished internally between the
two by retaking the course. He did so and passed the course with an A. The survey
participants were asked if they agreed with this decision to allow the former student
to retake the course and keep his degree; eight respondents said yes, two were
undecided, and yet there was one respondent who did not agree with the empathetic
ruling.

87
2.4 Engineers on Leadership

Rens and Rens (2010), conducted an open-ended survey of 17, third-year

undergraduate students, regarding their thoughts on an IMAX film about Ernest
Shackleton produced in 2001 (Richards and Spijer 2001). The movie and student
poll were presented near the end of the semester when term projects and final
exams tend to produce a lot of stress for students. A select few of these comments
on leadership and perseverance are shown below.
• “… Very few would have been able to keep up morale and hope under such
conditions. The story is one to be told and remembered both for the
catastrophic failure and translation into triumph.”

• “… His mentality was incredible, no matter what he ran into or how big of a
challenge he came across, he just kept going.”

• “… it truly shows what the human body is capable of. If he can survive a
situation like that, he obviously pushed himself to the extreme limits of
human ability.… Whatever the situation is, just keep going.”

• “This story shows the power of mind over matter.… if you want to be a good
leader, you have to be strong minded.”

• “… It was a great experience learning leadership from a great person and to

see how important it is to care about the people that you are working with.”

• “… The idea of keeping a positive attitude even in difficult times is a much

needed attribute in all of us. As a leader, it is especially important to inspire
…during stressful times…”

• “… Determination and sheer will made it possible for these men to live on in
life and return home safely to their families.

• “… I learned that your attitude is more important than circumstances—good

attitude and determination can get you through the worst of times.… a good
leader brings out the strengths in his followers…”

• “…the movie shows the benefits of perseverance…”

88
Four out of the eleven engineers from the previously mentioned survey had ever
heard of Ernest Shackleton's story.

The survey participants were then asked why they thought so many engineers forgo
the opportunity to earn their professional engineering license. Four of them said the
main reason was that the industry does not provide enough incentives for them to;
one person thought that most would consider it too much responsibility; another
person thought that engineers simply find it to be too much of a hassle; and three
other respondents had entirely different opinions.

89
3. Ethics and the Engineer

Ethics can be, and is often misconstrued as applying only to individual beliefs and
actions, which explains much of the debate over the incorporation of ethics into
business practices, judicial systems, and other apparently unrelated sectors of
society. However, it is important to understand that a global, or community-wide
code of ethics is essential to improving ethics in society. Professional codes of
conduct and ethics contribute significantly to not only the ethical state of society,
but the general happiness of people within that society. If one needs proof, they
should study the history of the United States, or whatever country they live in.
From this, most would agree that the level of hatred and selfishness that once
plagued humankind, is not conducive to the general happiness of the people. Most
importantly though, the ridding of such hatred should be attributed largely in part to
the societies, governments, and organizations that assemble for the common good,
with the objective of producing, and effectively enforcing ethical guidelines and
regulations throughout society.

It seems that many in the engineering industry hear the word ethics and
automatically think of bribes, conflicts of interest, insider trading, and so on. Yet,
relative to the number of projects that are completed each year, the millions of
practicing engineers, and the number of opportunities for such activities, how often
do these things actually occur? And what percentage of those cases are thoughtfully
planned or truly devious in nature? One percent maybe, if even that? The point is
that the large majority of ethical cases, especially those related to engineering, are
inadvertent and unplanned. In other words, no malice or harm was ever intended.
Furthermore, many of these situations are produced from situations where the only

90
culprit or suspect is time itself, or the lack thereof.

In modern society, as ethical knowledge and the mandates that come from such
have advanced to an undoubtedly commendable level, the thought process of the
individual engineer has not—certainly not attributable to a lack of effort, so much
as a collective lack of resources. It would be very difficult to argue that engineers a
century ago were any more skilled than those of modern day. However, this
improvement in collective knowledge has been unable to keep up with the pace set
by the ethical policies and procedures of the industry. Just as every structure—
bridge, dam, building, etc.—can only support the addition of so much load before it
either fails, gets torn down and rebuilt, or requires renovation, the human mind can
only handle so much before it suffers a similar fate. Fortunately, the human mind
does not have to be demolished to be rebuilt—all that is required is a will and a
way.

3.1 Distinction – Ethics in Engineering vs Ethics of Engineering

The following explanation from Roddis (1993) shows the variability in ethics as it
pertains to engineering:
When examining ethics in engineering practice, it is useful to
make the distinction between ethics in engineering and ethics of
engineering. Ethics in engineering deals with the ethics of
actions of individual engineers. Ethics of engineering deals with
ethical issues that involve the role of engineers in industry, the
ethics of the organizations in which they work and of
professional engineering societies, and the ethical
responsibilities of the profession.

Roddis is basically making the distinction between individual ethics and communal
ethics, which is a very important distinction to understand. One who reads this

91
thesis is sure to find that it deals primarily with engineering ethics as it pertains to
individuals, or ethics in engineering. While both types of ethics are presented and
discussed herein, the essential charge given to the engineering industry applies
almost exclusively to the individual engineers. Certainly, you will find that there
are many suggestions and recommendations made seemingly toward the
engineering industry. Yet, in all of these cases, one must understand that the
engineering industry is nothing but a professional community comprised of
engineers much similar to oneself. Many people who assume, possibly just like
yourself, that the “industry” is something similar to the president, or a supreme
court justice – someone who can make a ruling and thereby interject change into
society. This is an illusion however, because the engineering industry, which is
comprised of engineering professionals and governed by the same, can only change
as much as these engineers are willing to make personal change. Accordingly,
though industrial change is discussed herein, it is done so from the perspective that
engineers as individuals need to start making personal changes, and standing up for
what they—as individuals—believe, and want, and need; in order to properly lead
this generation safely into the new millennium.

Roddis (1993), speaking on the topic of structural failures with regard to

engineering ethics says that “[just] the fact that a failure occurs does not
automatically mean that anything will be learned from it.” As will be shown in the
following chapter, this is a very accurate statement. Many structural failures
throughout history, though the lessons learned were heeded temporarily by the
engineering community, seem to be on a reoccurring cycle. Every time it seems like
engineers are starting to get things right, another failure mimicking that of one 40,
60, 80, or 100 years past occurs, and the engineering community is once again
surprised. Certainly, a few coincidental failures do not imply a pattern, but when

92
this trend is so commonplace that nearly every single modern day failure can be
related to another one prior, one has to think that the conspiracy theories hold a
little more weight than mere speculation. As engineers, these lessons need to be
taught and learned—not just the tangible failures, but the failure to learn from such
failures needs to remain in the hearts and minds of engineers at all times. In other
words, a collective step back needs to be taken, and the question asked: “What are
we doing wrong, such that we keep making the same mistakes?” It is hardly a
matter of investing more resources to study the wind effects that sucked the Tacoma
Narrows bridge into the water. It is about questioning why the previous suspension
bridge failures were ignored, and why not one person in an entire community of
engineers took a stand to stop it. Indeed, it is about why the exact same procedural
and communication failures that led to the deaths of 114 people in 1981 still exist
today; why individual engineers have allowed the hurried construction schedules
that helped provoke those communication problems that remain in full force today;
why individual engineers still allow themselves to be talked in to accepting too
much work, too little compensation, and significantly too little time allotted for
either; how many more failures are needed before it is realized that the current
methods are inadequate?

Thomas Jefferson knew that change never just happened, and that the people being
affected by the non-changes need to force those changes:
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and
as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. It is
a medicine necessary for the sound health of government…
(Barefoot 2008).

The government Jefferson is referring to is not simply the American government,

but any explicit or implicit government wielding control of any group of people so
as to force them to do what they know to be wrong. Martin Luther King knew that

93
speaking of change can only take you as far up as the daily newspaper headline:
“This is no time for romantic illusions and empty philosophical debates… This is a
time for action” (Phillips 2000). Abraham Lincoln could see when an opportunity
to act was quickly fading:
And, once more, let me tell you, it is indispensable to you that
you strike a blow… I beg to assure you that I have never written
you, or spoken to you, in greater kindness of feeling than now,
nor with a fuller purpose to sustain you, so far as in my most
anxious judgment, I consistently can. But you must act”
(Phillips 1982).

The time has come—and indeed it is quickly passing as well—for engineers to act.
The “industry” can only do so much, and can only go so far, until it requires a
nudge from the people to get it moving again. Roddis (1993) states that
“[improving] the standards of ethics in engineering must answer the question of
how to get individual engineers to act more ethically.” Yet, at this point in time it is
evident that the ability for structural engineers to act in such a manner has been
stripped away, and more gets stripped away every day. The only solution is to take
back that ability; take back the right to act ethically. The time has come to take a
personal stand and say “regardless of the personal costs, I will not accept another
project delivered on a fast track schedule;” “I will not accept three project in which
I am only compensated sufficiently for two;” “I will contact my local universities
and promote case study review in engineering education, and until such changes are
made my support for these organizations will cease;” “I will do whatever it takes,
whenever it is required, to ensure a safer world for the following generations.”

94
3.2 Discussion – Professional Engineering Ethics (PEE)

It is certainly true that many engineering organizations and professional societies—

as well as across many other industries, such health care, technology, banking, etc.,
—have developed, and are effectively implementing some form of an industry
standard code of ethics. This is a magnificent achievement for humankind, no doubt
—especially when one compares the engineering and construction environment
today to that of a century ago. With government agencies such as the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ensuring employee health and safety
rights, and professional societies such as the National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE) publishing a standard code of ethics, which places the “health
and welfare of the public” (NSPE 2010a) at the forefront of the ethical revolution,
one would be hard-pressed to find a single argument against such progress.
However, with natural evolution comes change through the maximization of
efficiency—the realization that, while something has improved it is still imperfect;
and as such it can, and should, be regularly updated until such modifications begin
to halt or reverse human progress. Abraham Lincoln words this concept brilliantly
when he says:
I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts
the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing
more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when
shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
shall appear to be true views (Phillips 1982).

Almost all modern day engineering societies have adopted a code of ethics in one
form or another. However, it will be shown that these codes, while effective when it
comes to worst offenders, leave out a very important aspect that affects many more
engineers—the human aspect. Specific rules and regulations are very necessary to a
code of ethics to protect against people who intend to act unethically. Yet for the
people who wish to act ethically, but simply get overwhelmed with the rules and

95
regulations, it can be seen that said rules and regulations are nothing more than a
hindrance to these engineers.

The preamble to the NSPE code of ethics (NSPE 2010a) states that:
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As
members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit
the highest standards of honesty and integrity…. the services
provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness,
and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public
health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a
standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the
highest principles of ethical conduct.

The code continues on to include a list of 6 fundamental canons, which are

basically guidelines for every engineer to adhere to when performing their duties as
an engineer. These canons are listed below.
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

It is true that many engineers, regardless of the societies of which they are
members, strive to maintain the highest levels of integrity. It is also true that most
of the major professional engineering societies, be they discipline-focused (e.g.
mechanical, structural, electrical), specialty-focused (e.g. structural, civil,
geotechnical), or any number of other engineering sub-categories, have a code of
ethics such that they charge their members to follow. Furthermore, many of these

96
codes are eerily similar in content, forming almost a carbon-copy of that published
by the NSPE. This all but assures that any engineer who is a member of one society
or another will be morally bound to a predefined code of ethics. Legality however,
is an entirely different story. The NSPE—just like any other society or organization
—is officially just a professional society and the canons and creeds that it prints
extend no further than it's list of voluntary members. Any ability to enforce such
regulations depends primarily on the clout it wields over it's members. Yet, the
extent of this is no more than the revocation of one's membership—among other
expendable novelties such as forfeiting one's membership dues—and since every
member voluntarily associates with such organizations, these codes in turn, have
very little influence over engineers other than to encourage them to act ethically.

Taking a closer look at these canons, while deserving of praise in many respects,
one could argue that they simply are too matter-of-fact and direct to really persuade
anyone to follow them. For instance, each of these canons are preceded with the
phrase “…engineer shall…” The legal implications in modern society are very well
understood—language of this sort is generally necessary to avoid confusion, and in
turn, lawsuits. However, having just proven the disconnect between these
organizations and societies from much of any legal clout at all, this language then
becomes questionable. Certainly, the engineering community can adapt with the
times and write a code that draws interest from the younger generations, who may
find this dialect similar to the demands of a professor or grandparent. If one has
made it through the arguments presented thus far on philosophy, religion, and so
on, it shouldn't be difficult to see how a few simple words can greatly impact a
person based on their past experiences. The brain is more powerful than many give
it credit for. Dr. King portrays this concept beautifully:
One anonymous phone caller, whose voice I have come to
recognize, has been calling me for months to insult and threaten

97
 me and then slam down the receiver. Recently he stayed on the
phone for half an hour, giving me the opportunity to discuss the
whole underlying problem with him. At the end of the call he
said: “Reverend King, I have enjoyed talking with you, and I
am beginning to think that you may be right” (Phillips 2000).

Engineering societies and their respective ethics codes, by no stretch of the

imagination, have done wonderful things for the engineering profession as a whole.
However, the fact remains that there will always be a group of people—albeit
generally fairly small—who do not agree with the majority. They don't like “rules”
and “codes” and “standards. Indeed, there will always be a few “bad apples” that
are so annoyed with the presence of such boundaries and limitations, that they
disagree without even considering the information at hand. This becomes even
more apparent when one refers back to the online survey discussed previously.
When asked if they would support a shift in the industry from the current
environment to one in which the structural engineer would be more involved
throughout the entire life of the project, only two individuals out of eleven
respondents to the survey were absolutely opposed to the idea. There were five who
were in support of it, and four who were undecided. The proposal herein is that the
industry focus, not on convincing the two that are already in opposition, but rather
on the four that just need a little persuasion to join the other five who are
supportive. Once these four have been persuaded to change, it may then be easier to
change the minds of the final two, for “[the] willingness to change deeply ingrained
attitudes buoys us up and challenges us to be open to growth also” (Phillips 2000).

Considering the two survey participants mentioned above, just because they were
completely opposed to such an idea does not imply that they are bad people in the
slightest. Nor does it mean that they will never be supportive of the idea. It simply
means that in the current construction environment, given what they currently

98
know, they cannot see any situation where it would be advantageous to support
such a shift. Ultimately, there are two plausible reasons for their responses to that
question on the survey: (1) they have become numb to change due to the current
engineering environment, and in many respects, are similar to groups 3 and 4—
described in the following paragraph—and because of such they don't immediately
see the benefits of making such changes, or; (2) they actually are just a “bad apple”
trying to cause controversy, or skew the results of the survey. Nonetheless, the fact
still remains that if one was able to engage them in heartfelt discussion on the
matter, they may find that they don't disagree at all. In fact, it may be more than
probable that they have had a few bad experiences, such that they may have
convinced themselves that they no longer agree with the majority.

Assuming it were possible to group engineers into 4 or 5 groups on the matter of

ethics, those groups might look something like this.
1. Engineers who make every effort possible to avoid disaster, deception,
manipulation and every other less than ethical act, but still falter
occasionally, because at the end of the day, they are still human beings.
2. Engineers who are overworked, underpaid, and often under-appreciated.
They are down-to-earth, hard-working, genuinely good people, who have
every intent to always do the right thing, but the resources are just not
available, for there is only a limited supply of hours in a given day—no
more nor less than such can be allotted to anyone; nor sold or purchased, at
any price.
3. Engineers who are simply apathetic towards the issue. They are numb to life
and all of it's unrealistic expectations. They don't disagree nor do they agree
with any ethical theories or proposals; to them, it's just not worth their time.
4. Engineers that have lived a stressful and hard-fought life. They have

99
 become bitter, aggressive, and generally non-agreeable, but only because
that's the only way they have been trained. This group may overlap, or even
coincide with group 3 in many respects, but they will be considered
separately for the time being.
5. Finally, there are the few who simply never grow up—while some of them
may be incredibly gifted, they are careless, selfish, and all-together reckless
with anything and everything.

An analysis of these groups makes a few things clear. Group 1 does not present any
issues—as fallible beings alike, the powers that be can only expect people to give
their best. Group 2 however is severely limited in resources. Therefore, if ethics is
to improve through the efforts of this group, they need more time and more respect
from the communities they serve. This has been common knowledge for decades;
unfortunately it doesn't show much hope for change in the near future. Even still, if
it were to change tomorrow, there are no assurances that the majority of engineers
wouldn't use their extra time and compensation frivolously, and leave the state of
ethics basically unchanged. Jumping to group 5—as previously mentioned, this
group does exist, they do impact the ethical state of engineering, albeit minimally
in relation to their quantity, but there is really not much the general engineering
community can do about them—indeed, it is better if this group is left in the hands
of law enforcement agencies.

The only two groups left are 3 and 4. In fact, there is very little difference between
these two groups, other than passive versus active attitudes. Group 3 is passively
against ethics simply because they don't have time to consider caring about it.
Engineers in group 4 on the other hand, for one reason or another, have become
bitter towards the state of ethics, such that they actively attempt to spite it. One

100
could argue that it is only a matter of time before engineers in group 3 float over
the spillway into group 4. It now should make sense that group 4 is the target group
for this analysis. Additionally, if one refers back to the survey discussed previously,
it should be apparent that the 5 “generally agreeable” engineers relate to groups 1
and 2; the 4 “undecided” engineers relate to groups 3 and 4; and finally, the 2
“generally disagreeable” engineers relate to group 5, and possible a portion of
group 4. As has already been suggested, the most hopeful scenario of improving
ethics is to focus on the 4 “undecided” engineers (e.g. groups 3 and 4). Anyone
who has ever held a sales position—especially that of telemarketing or automobiles
—knows the joyful feeling of hope when someone is undecided instead of
decisively saying no. The moment of hesitation to a salesman is essentially
equivalent to a response of yes. This is the mentality the engineering profession,
specifically the engineers in groups 1 and 2, must take, for the first step in winning
a battle is getting a majority over to your side.

Once a majority is achieved, the goal is to convince each and every single person to
take a stand and fight for ethics—fight contractors who try to push schedules; fight
clients who try to underpay and overwork; and fight uncooperative educational
systems that refuse to incorporate engineering case studies into their curricula.
Fight any way you know how—nonviolently of course—and refuse to back down.
No government or organizational system can refuse to acknowledge and
accommodate the demands of a majority that is unwilling to give in to coercion and
dictation.

Paired with each canon, NSPE has a list called rules of practice, which are intended
to clarify the aforementioned canons. They then also provide a list of an engineer's
“professional obligations” under the code of ethics. Each of these lists can be

101
found, in their entirety, in Appendix A. While these lists are very elaborate and
complete, they once again seem too complicated for the topic they attempt to
address. In addition, they present seemingly obvious commandments without
defining how to practically implement them. For instance, the second rule of
practice for how an engineer should hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare
of the public is that they “shall approve only those engineering documents that are
in conformity with applicable standards.” This is not exactly a challenge to
understand, nor however, is it very helpful in understanding methods for practical
implementation, and quality assurance. Another example is the second rule of
practice related to the canon “Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts,” which states:
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly
or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a
contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably
construed by the public as having the effect or intent of
influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any
gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work.
They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee
in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona
fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by
them.

When, throughout that explanation for how to avoid deception, do you break for
nap time? Once again, the legal implications are understood, but could they not at
least print a cliff notes version for those engineers who seek advice, but still have
no intentions of wasting inordinate amounts of time searching for loopholes. These
codes of ethics, so archaic in their wording, have basically become nothing more
than meaningless rigmarole symbolic of tradition, similar to the Star Spangled
Banner or the Pledge of Allegiance. As time passes, fewer and fewer can recite
these passages in their entirety, and the majority of those that can, do so almost
robotically without much comprehension of what the words truly mean. As
building codes and standards are updated on roughly a triannual basis to remain

102
current with society, why is it that ethical conduct codes are still using the same
ancient language comprised nearly a century ago, which even then preceded it's
time?

The code of ethics adopted by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is
much similar to the code utilized within the NSPE. This trend is fairly common in
the engineering industry, such that most codes for ethical conduct from the various
organizations and societies are structured, and even written, in an eerily similar
manner. The ASCE code of ethics canon number six charges engineers with the
responsibility to “act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor,
integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession….” Aside from a slightly
different structure, this is almost copied verbatim from the NSPE code. However,
one interesting addition that it goes on to further employ engineers to “…act with
zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.” While each of these acts are
agreeably intolerable, so too one could argue is the explicit condemnation of such
acts. Not that one would suggest that these acts be tolerated, but when it is
explicitly stated that they will not be tolerated, what incentive does someone, who
has committed such an act and wishes to confess, have to actually do so? The
wording of this statement almost encourages deception and the covering up of such
acts to avoid punishment, since it is already stated that no amount of understanding
will be offered to the proprietor.

The 4th canon of the NSPE code of ethics listed previously in this chapter states that
“engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.”
While this has an implicit ethical undertone, it seems more so that it is promoting
loyalty to one's company—which in no way at all is something to look down upon.
However, it would be reasonable to assume that an engineer might not read all of

103
the way into the ethical undertones, and in a certain situation misunderstand that
loyalty to his or her company/employer is more important than ethical conduct—
which indeed would be highly inaccurate. In addition to this canon—or even
instead of, for it seems obvious that one could come to the conclusion that acting as
a faithful trustee or agent will benefit their job security and not doing so conversely
would compromise such—it is suggested that the code make it clear that ethical
conduct, above all else is the most important quality for an engineer to possess.

You may question how is it that one may affect the work and pay scales in the
industry. While there are many things one can do, the primary way is to support
qualifications based selection instead of lowest bid selection of engineering
companies. The concept here is that construction design teams—engineers,
architects, contractors, and so on—will be hired for a project based on the
qualifications of the firm—portfolio of successful projects, awards and
recognitions, cumulative staff experience level and education level, etc. The Illinois
Society of Professional Engineers (ISPE) defines QBS as:
Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) is a process for the
selection of design professionals, including engineers, architects
and land surveyors. It is a negotiated procurement process for
selection based on qualifications and competence in relation to
the work to be performed (ISPE 2010).

According to ISPE (2010), the QBS process is required for all public projects in the
state of Illinois. The steps comprising the QBS process for Illinois is:
1. Establish evaluation criteria and select the best qualified firm.
a) Establish evaluation criteria.
b) Solicit statements of qualifications.
c) Develop a short list of firms.
d) Interview and rank the firms.

104
 2. Jointly define scope and contract terms.
a) Selected firm assists in defining scope of work.
b) Establish contract terms.
c) If both parties are in agreement, the process continues to step 3. If not,
then the process starts over at step 1 with the next most qualified firm.
3. Retain the firm on the basis of an acceptable proposal.
a) Ask for fee proposal.
b) If both parties are in agreement, the process is complete and a contract
signed. If not, then the process starts over at step 1 with the next most
qualified firm.

ISPE (2010) provides a section of testimonials that promote QBS by means of

stories and professional experience. One of these testimonials is from Kaye
Henderson, a former Secretary for the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT). Kaye explains how she came to leave the private sector of construction
when the governor at the time wished to revamp the state-wide selection process of
construction professionals, and sought out Kaye for the position. As an appendage
to her tale, Kaye provides a list of fallacies and guarantees regarding the
procurement of engineering services. These are shown below.

Fallacies:
1. “That better technology has reduced the need for engineering expertise.”
False. But, it has freed up the best engineers for more creative and
productive tasks (i.e. project management).
2. “That innovation cannot be achieved with Q.B.S.” False. Actually the best
innovations are produced by the best brains, and they are not to be bought
for the lowest price.

105
 3. “That cost of service (price) and qualifications to serve (value) can be
discussed simultaneously.” False. Once price is mentioned then selection is
always based on the cheapest proposal offered. And, why not? All
contenders have already been found “qualified.”
4. “That price considerations can be overridden by other considerations such
as superior project management, availability to serve, past record of
performance (good or bad).” False. It never happens!

Guarantees:
1. If a public agency selects on a “lowest” price basis, more money will be
spent on trying to insure adequate quality in the design documents than
would have been spent to secure a negotiated fair price from the most
highly qualified source.
2. Prior to selection, check a firm’s mission statement. If you find a
declaration to “offer our clients the lowest possible price,” then “run, not
walk to the nearest exit.” On the other hand, if the mission statement
mentions “core values” such as, integrity, quality service, and valuing
employees, then proceed with confidence.

The important points to take from Kaye Henderson's testimonial are as follows.
First, project costs and the procurement of professional services are two entirely
separate commodities, and should be treated as such. One cannot discuss project
quality while simultaneously discussing its cost or pay scales. When the two are
allowed to mix, a lack of quality will be produced. Second, low-bid based selection
does not necessarily mean lowest total cost. As Kaye describes, change orders and
add services go up significantly when a low-bid process is utilized. The reason for
this is that one desires to give themselves the greatest advantage for the item

106
currently being discussed. When this item is project cost, they will purge their bids
of anything and everything not explicitly defined to be their responsibility. They
will do this to reduce initial cost, knowing that they can later submit a change order
for, or request additional services for such items. By doing this, they increase their
probability of “winning” the contract, without sacrificing potential profits. While
change orders and add services will still exist with a QBS process, they should be
significantly less in most cases. Certain items that have accidentally been omitted
from the contract documents will still get overlooked due to the fact that
construction professionals are human and therefore make mistakes. Yet, all parties
involved will have absolutely no reason to be deceitful as previously described,
since everyone will be on the same level of respect at the time costs are discussed.
The third point that Kaye presents is that only a QBS process can guarantee
innovation and quality, because core values such as integrity, honesty, empathy,
quality, and respect are fundamental byproducts of such. When people are given the
opportunity AND the incentives to be honest, ninety-nine times out of a hundred,
they will. No one in their right mind will act deceptively knowing full well that
honesty and respect offer them potentially higher gains.

The final discussion regarding professional engineering ethics involves the

dedication and commitment to ethical conduct within companies and organizations.
The key to this is that changes and implementation of programs beyond superficial
efforts be employed from the top-down in every single organization. In other
words, how exactly do organizations instill a culture of ethics throughout their
workplace and their working environments? Many large firms have implemented
programs that include mandatory ethical training for employees, ethics hotlines for
employees to call for advice should they encounter a situation where they are
unsure of the right course of action, and still many encourage each of their

107
employees to come forward on any ethical matter—design, construction, legal,
financial, and so on. Employees are encouraged to do so by talking with their
supervisor or by calling some sort of call center such as the hotlines mentioned
above. Nearly all organizations who have implemented such programs and policies
also provide employees with the option of speaking up anonymously to avoid any
sort of retaliation, blackmail, punishment, etc.

Ethics have certainly come a long way in the past few decades with regards to large
corporations. However, many small firms have struggled to implement such
systematic programs—mainly due to a lack of resources. As large corporations may
have thousands of employees, there are plenty of incentives for implementing such
programs. These programs ensure public safety—which can significantly reduce
legal fees and insurance premiums in large firms— but they also prevent internal
crimes such as insider trading, embezzlement, and so on. For smaller firms that
may have as little as 10-20 employees though, the incentives are not nearly as great
—if there are any incentives at all. Certainly, these programs can put small local
firms severely into the red financially since they can not recover such costs as
quickly. Generally, smaller firms find it more economical to preach their ethical
culture through word of mouth, and by doing as they teach. This can, and does
work in many situations. However, it would help significantly if there were an
industry standard program that could be distributed on a mass scale to reduce
implementation costs. This would still allow small firms—and other firms that
struggle implementing effective ethics programs—to incorporate ethics training
courses into their workplace, as well as add their own policies and procedures if
they so chose.

108
3.3 Discussion – Individual Engineering Ethics (IEE)

Life is full of decisions. Whether they are big or small, they all
have ethical implications if you are thoughtful and careful
enough to look at them through an ethics lens. You may think
that ethics only concerns the big societal questions of our day
such as euthanasia, abortion, corporate greed, cloning, and
capital punishment. Ethics is also involved with many life
decisions that we routinely face (Plante 2004).

The preceding statement is simple in speech, yet profound in content. Every single
step one takes in a given day is moment for ethics; every moment is an opportunity
for change; and every opportunity that presents itself is chance to improve—not
only the world of those surrounding you, but your own world as well. Many people
are totally oblivious to these moments that implore one to look at the universe
surrounding them in a more realistic, more honest way; such that nothing is finite,
every situation is new in that moment and can never be duplicated. In reality, one
needs to question everything in every situation; large or small. Introspective
questions need to be honestly asked, in order to determine if you are looking at a
situation from an ethical perspective. This is needed to train one's mind to respond
ethically when larger situations arise. These questions need to be asked in the
moment—not afterward—so that one does not let their emotions get the better of
them. Hindsight is only helpful when used to help prevent future failures, otherwise
it is no more than detrimental rumination. Indeed, engineers need to ask themselves
the same questions they ponder when designing a structure—how can this fail; why
will it fail; what can I do to prevent this failure? These questions, though they
require a significant amount of concentration and mental energy—especially when
one employs them at all times—will eventually lead to a life that is more fulfilling.
This is because the more you know, especially about yourself, the easier it becomes
to act accordingly. Indeed it becomes almost second nature. Plante (2004) affirms

109
this claim:
The attempt to address these questions will result in you being
better equipped to navigate a life that is ultimately more
satisfying…

Just as a sports player, or entertainer, or movie star can make their jobs look so
simple, so can anyone make ethical and moral conduct look simple—all this takes;
all it has ever taken is practice. It's questionable if there is one concept that humans
understand better than the need for continual practice to achieve greatness, yet for
one reason or another this concept gets lost in the madness over the debate on
ethics. This can be especially difficult for structural engineers, who are often asked
to make finite conclusions. For instance, concrete can be cast-in-place, precast, or
post-tensioned; members and components can be prefabricated and post-installed;
connections can be field welded or shop welded; structural members are either
under-stressed or overloaded. As an engineer, situations can generally only be one
thing or the other. If not, one walks that tight rope between standard practice (e.g.
common knowledge) and failure—which almost always leads to tragedy. Yet, with
ethics, there is no finite conclusion for one to arrive at. Simply, one can only make
the best decision possible with the information provided, but without taking
anything for granted.

Though truly clear-cut and finite conclusions are rare, especially on the topic of
ethics, engineers have an inherent responsibility to ensure that the best decisions
are made—not merely based on one's beliefs or what one “knows to be right,” but
on the conclusions of an exhausting and extensive process of research and
deliberation. A good example of when this process is needed is regarding
environmental impact and sustainability. In 1996, the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) further dedicated their organization to ethics, responsibility, and

110
leadership by rewriting their code of ethics to included environmental
sustainability. While there still remains much debate politically regarding
environmental impact (e.g. global warming, pollution, contamination, and so on),
the concern must considered by the engineering community. Indeed, anytime a
concern for the “health, safety, and welfare, of the public” is expressed—regardless
of the apparent legitimacy of such claims—the construction industry—as well as all
industries that are affected—has the responsibility to consider those concerns, as
well as it's contribution to them.

While this is directed towards the industry as a whole, the fact remains that the
ethics of engineering related to sustainability has certainly already taken the
initiative and is making incredible strides towards such progress. In fact, ethics in
engineering is now lagging far behind; not only in relation to the engineering
industry, but to other disciplines as well, including architectural, mechanical, and so
on. Based on experience, one could imagine a decent majority of engineers who are
unaware of the environmental impacts of mineral admixtures in concrete, or the
relative environmental footprint—defined as a measurement of “how much land
and water area a human population requires to produce the resource it consumes
and to absorb its wastes, using prevailing technology” (Global Footprint Network
2009)—of a steel-framed building versus cast-in-place concrete, and so on. This is
not to say that engineers need to be aware of the exact answers to these questions in
all situations, but that they should at least be conscious of the fact that their job has
great effects on future generations; and as such, it is every engineer's responsibility
to seek out the answers to these questions before naively throwing numbers onto a
page. It is well understood that these decisions are many times the responsibility of
the architect, or some other consultant who specializes in such. However, in the
construction industry, it remains every person's responsibility to always keep an eye

111
open for ways to further the progress of, and bring honor to this industry.

As far back as one can remember, structural engineers have always had a number of
checks that they meticulously go through for structural design. The first is strength,
or resistance versus demand—basically the check to ensure that the anticipated
loads can safely be supported by the structure being designed. The second is cost. It
has always been true that he who can produce something less expensive than
anyone else will have the highest demand for their services. Accordingly, when
engineers design a structure, they have always been implicitly required to consider
the cost of their current design versus that of other possible designs. The third
would be constructability, which encompasses both speed and feasibility. Indirectly,
the engineer who can design the strongest, most inexpensive, and least complicated
structure will save their client a ton of money and thus, will be awarded the most
projects. However, in modern society, it is becoming clear that a sustainability
check needs to be added to this list. Again, one needs to be conscious of the effects
of their designs on the global community, and attempt to minimize the negative
effects thereof by utilizing all of their individual knowledge.

One final comment on sustainability is this: though sustaining the world's

environmental resources for future generations is a very high, if not one of the
highest priorities in this day and age and should not be casually considered, one
cannot mistake the fact that safety in the present time is the most important priority
—not only today, but should remain as such forever. In other words, the safety of
the public, construction workers, or anyone else should never be traded for any
amount of reduction in ecological footprint, or increase in sustainable resources. It
is, and should always be regarded as such, that an unsafe reduction of a steel beam
size to reduce the consumption of resources for steel production, is an unacceptable

112
practice for promoting sustainability. Instead, one should try to optimize design,
member shapes, admixtures, construction techniques, and so on, to minimize
resource consumption without sacrificing safety.

There is an important distinction to make between the following three situations,

with regards to individual engineering ethics. The first situation is when one makes
every reasonable effort to ensure that their design is safe, economical, sustainable,
and so on; yet because of entirely unforeseen circumstances, a failure—whether
structural, communicative, procedural, etc—occurs. In this case, no unethical
conduct is present, despite that in many situations, one's true intentions can be, and
often are, extensively debated. The basic concept is that in this situation, one is
solely regulated by and accountable to their own conscience.

The second situation involves an engineer who believes that their procedures,
methods, and analysis, are adequate per current industry standards, but since their
actions were merely passive and superficial, an error or failure resulted ultimately
from their inattentiveness. In other words, they did not actively seek sustainable,
safe, and economical solutions by asking the right questions, of the right people, at
the right times. In result, their efforts amounted not to ethical, moral, and
responsible conduct, but to convenience and personal gain. Unethical conduct in
this situation, albeit being inadvertent, is certainly present, and engineers guilty of
such should be no less accountable for their actions. The simple fact is that
engineering is not an ordinary profession, nor are ordinary people recruited for such
posts within society. While no special talents or gifts are required, an unquenchable
passion for increasing knowledge and the betterment of humanity through
sustainable, economical, and innovative technology is a mandatory quality for
individuals in all fields of engineering. Those responsible for enforcing the lawful

113
repercussions and ramifications of such inattentiveness should remember that
temporary lapses of judgment are inevitable when dealing with human beings;
because of this, empathy should be employed in all situations. Yet, under no
circumstances should one misconstrue this to suggest that habitual complacency
ever be tolerated.

The final situation occurs when people know factually that what they themselves—
or a colleague, design team, company, client, contractor, engineering industry, and
so on—are doing is unethical, that a failure can be avoided, or that better—
ethically, economically, environmentally, and so on—methods or procedures are
available. In effect, this scenario accounts for all situations where someone is
carelessly cutting corners and/or stretching the boundaries of common knowledge
and standard practice. When this is the case—regardless of the identity of the
perpetrator, the responsible person(s), or the witnesses—everyone involved is
guilty of unethical conduct. The truth herein is that regardless of one's role in such
situations, the instant an unethical, or potentially unethical act is known, all who are
aware of such acts deliberately respond in an unethical manner if they choose to a
remain silent. In any society, it should be made clear that responsibility is not
something that can be requested or declined, but most often given without one's
consent. Furthermore, once such responsibility has been awarded, the recipient
should make every effort possible to prevent, or make public the unethical acts in
question—regardless of one's authority to do so.

3.4 Discussion – Engineering Education Ethics (EEE)

Texas Tech University (TTU) became the official university for the headquarters of
the National Institute of Engineering Ethics (NIEE) in 2001. In addition to hosting

114
the official website for the NIEE, TTU has their own professionalism center called
the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism. While the NIEE is an
excellent resource for almost all things ethics related, the Murdough Center also
has enormous amounts of helpful information and resources. Every ten years, TTU
is required to develop a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), which basically explains
the mission of the center, as a requirement for reaffirmation of accreditation by the
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The primary goals of this
plan, as listed on the website for the Murdough Center, are (TTU 2005a):
Goal 1: An Ethical Institution. Strengthen Commitment to ethical behavior at
the institutional level, providing a model of inspiration for students.
Goal 2: Academic Integrity. Strengthen the campus culture of academic
integrity.
Goal 3: Ethics in the Curriculum. Raise the level of ethical reasoning
employed by students and faculty.
Goal 4: Diversity and Equity. Foster an ethical climate that values diversity in
its various forms.

The NIEE, as a slightly different entity than the Murdough Center has its own goals
and objectives. The institute calls this its strategic plan. The following is a brief list
of some of the aspects that comprise this strategic plan for the NIEE (TTU 2005b).

1. Mission Statement: To develop and foster education, training, and discourse in

engineering ethics
2. Vision Statement: To advance the understanding and practice of ethics within
the engineering profession
3. Core Values: Honesty, Trustworthiness, Cooperation, Communication,
Innovation, Creativity

115
4. Goals, Critical Success Factors and Objectives:
Goal 1. Program Excellence and Recognition: Enhance recognition of
programs in engineering ethics and professionalism at local, state,
regional, national and international levels.
Goal 2. Partnerships: Build strategic partnerships and interdisciplinary
alliances to enhance the mission of the Institute.
Goal 3. Resources and Infrastructure: Maintain a quality work force and
work environment and maximize the effective use of technology in the
delivery of service.
Goal 4. Institute Development and Marketing: Enhance the fiscal stability
through development activities.
Goal 5. Tradition and Pride: Enhance the regional, national and international
image of NIEE.

For each one of these goals, the NIEE also records a list of objectives which
describe the specific undertakings the institute will make in order to achieve these
goals. Then, for each of these objectives the NIEE further breaks down the process
they will utilize to measure their progress. This is presented as two lists: one of
strategies that they plan to implement, and another of assessment measures to
gauge the effectiveness of said strategies. The Murdough Center and the NIEE
show that the infrastructure for the implementation of ethics has already been set
up, is working, and simply needs to catch on with the industry. Individual engineers
need to start taking the initiative to get involved with programs such as this.
However, it still seems apparent that many of the goals and objectives championed
by the organizations, similar to many others, are overly vague, and superficial on a
number of levels. For instance, while self promotion is a necessity of any
organization, when it comes to ethics, statements such as goal number 5 for the

116
NIEE seem unnecessarily pompous. Especially for an institute such as the NIEE,
which is highly respected—not undeservedly either—in many engineering circles
throughout the community.

Organizations like the NIEE and the Murdough Center could benefit greatly to
coordinate and communicate more with other committees and such. Specifically,
collaboration with the ASCE Technical Council of Forensic Engineering (TCFE)
would be immensely beneficial for the engineering community in totality. Delatte
and Rens (2002) note that “…the ASCE Technical Council on Forensic Engineering
(TCFE) was established in 1982,” and one of it's purposes was to encourage “…
ethical conduct in forensic engineering practice.” Not only would this help promote
and bring awareness to ethics directly through simple word of mouth, it would also
greatly increase the probability and feasibility of incorporating case study analysis
into undergraduate level engineering education.

In addition to committees and professional councils, engineers need to make an

effort to infuse ethics into education, not only indirectly through those institutions
associated with universities and so on, but also through the regulatory institutions
that wield control over the basic structure and content of a university's curriculum.
Clearly, the most applicable of these would be the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET). ABET has widely been known as the
authority on accreditation “…for college and university programs in applied
science, computing, engineering, and technology” for decades (ABET 2010a). For
the 2010-2011 academic year, ABET has the following requirements for
accreditation of civil engineering programs at American colleges and universities
(ABET 2010b).
1. Curriculum: The program must demonstrate that graduates can: apply

117
 knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, calculus-based
physics, chemistry, and at least one additional area of science, consistent with
the program educational objectives; apply knowledge of four technical areas
appropriate to civil engineering; conduct civil engineering experiments and
analyze and interpret the resulting data; design a system, component, or process
in more than one civil engineering context; explain basic concepts in
management, business, public policy, and leadership; and explain the
importance of professional licensure.
2. Faculty: The program must demonstrate that faculty teaching courses that are
primarily design in content are qualified to teach the subject matter by virtue of
professional licensure, or by education and design experience. The program
must demonstrate that it is not critically dependent on one individual.

Considering the apparent brevity, the preceding criteria for ABET accreditation are
actually quite comprehensive, which explains why ABET has held the post on such
accreditation for so long. However, it has been mentioned numerous times already
in this thesis, and once again it holds true, that the engineering industry in general
has a collective lack of respect for history. Not once throughout either of these
requirements do they mention, imply, or even hint towards incorporation of case
study analysis in civil engineering programs, or any other programs for that matter;
nor is this addressed at the graduate level requirements! How can this be—that as a
professional community, engineers can completely disregard to even mention
something that is so prevalent in almost every other professional imaginable?
Literature, History, English, Political Science, Pre-law, Pre-med, Philosophy, and so
on each have, as a significant part of the undergraduate curriculum, a requirement
for review of historical cases relative to the area of study. How can engineers find
this so irrelevant when nature has slapped it across the engineering community's

118
face time after time? Furthermore, ABET accepts comments regularly on a number
of their curriculum criteria. There is a series of proposed changes to be made
following the 2010-2011 academic year (ABET 2010c). Yet, once again, this topic
is not addressed. For one reason or another, someone found it necessary to change
this sentence;
The program must have and enforce procedures to assure that
students who graduate meet all graduation requirements.

… to this sentence:
The program must have and enforce procedures to ensure and
document that students who graduate meet all graduation
requirements.

Indeed, it has been proposed to change the word “assure” to “ensure and
document.” This grammatical preference is apparently a very needed change;
certainly more needed than significant curriculum changes that could help prevent
the periodical structural failures that cause many civilian deaths each year. One
must excuse the blatant sarcasm of the previous sentence, but the conversation has
almost become comedic. This situation is no less than preposterous; such that one
can relate with Abraham Lincoln as he makes the following statement regarding a
debatable topic that similarly presents itself to Lincoln as no less than fact.
There has already been too much said about this falsehood. Let
the thing alone. If I have not established a character enough to
give the lie to this charge, I can only say that I am mistaken in
my own estimate of myself (Phillips 1982).

Accordingly, if truth has not been given to the claim that case study analysis in civil
engineering education is desperately needed, then the author must be mistaken in
his estimate of this work. If the preceding holds true, the following quote is
presented as a last ditch effort to persuade anyone still in disagreement with said

119
argument.
Exposure to landmark engineering failures and the subsequent
investigation reports gives students a better theoretical
understanding of the nature of materials. They become aware
of the manner in which engineering design strategies evolve
over time. They also gain a greater appreciation for the inherent
professional responsibilities of their chosen professions.” … as
the “classroom discussion of important nontechnical topics:
ethics, professional liability, human factors, and the critical
interpersonal skills and interdisciplinary relationships required
for the delivery of a successful project” (Delatte 2009).

3.5 Summary and Conclusions

In his book Do the Right Thing: Living Ethically in an Unethical World, Plante
(2004) says “The purpose of this book is to try and help you manage questions such
as these that emerge in daily living.” (Plante 2004). Similarly, the objective of this
thesis is to try to help engineers navigate and manage daily ethical situations that
may disguise themselves as innocent little sheep when in fact they are blood thirsty
wolves.

Plante (2004) observes that “it's important to look at small issues as well as big
issues” (Plante 2004). Going further, it's not only necessary to look at the small
issues in addition to the big ones, but also with a similar level of analysis and
concentration. Plante argues this by saying “How can we expect to make solid
ethical decisions about really difficult and challenging dilemmas if we can't make
good ethics decisions regarding small matters?” Indeed this is the case. Delatte
(2009) proposes definition of “design” which he calls “failure literacy.” The basic
precepts, as he says, are to “figure out everything that can possibly go wrong,” and
then to ensure that they never do. This concept, while derived mainly for design

120
engineering, can be equally applied to ethics, morality, and respect. A common
trend is to treat one's mind like one would remove a band-aid—very quickly and
without thinking about it. While this can be very helpful in social or other public
situations where one may get nervous, it is almost always hurtful in ethical
situations. The sad part is that many times, because of this mindset, the culprit of
unethical conduct doesn't even realize what they've done. When confronted about
it, these persons will attempt to deflect charges instead of absorbing the lessons
inherent within them.

121
4. Engineering Case Studies

All too often it seems in technical fields—business, science, medicine, and so on—
ethics has developed into a set of rules and regulations, similar to the latest building
codes, accounting procedures, or standard medical operating procedure. In other
words, there is essentially a list of things you can do, a list of things you should, or
must do, and a list of things you should not, or absolutely cannot do. As engineers,
this philosophy makes perfect sense—when something stops working or proves to
have never been effective in the first place, such as construction procedures or new
technologies, the industry in one way or another issues a directive to halt the
implementation of such, and everything goes back to normal. Feld and Carper
(1997) puts this in perspective by quoting H.L. Mencken when he explains the
magnitude of simplicity with which decisions present themselves: “There is always
an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” Indeed,
failures are complex problems; the clear, simple, and obvious answer may be—and
most often is—misguided, misinformed, erroneous, or simply incorrect. Feld and
Carper proceed to define the magic of structural engineering as:
…the art and science of molding Materials we do not fully
understand, into Shapes we cannot precisely analyze, to resist
Forces we cannot accurately predict—all in such a way that the
society at large is given no reason to suspect the extent of our
ignorance.

A review of engineering and construction cases studies shows that this ignorance,
in many instances—particularly regarding structural failures—can, and should be
avoided. Regarding the aforementioned reactive tendencies of the structural
community, not only is this very illogical and inefficient as it requires failure to
prompt policy change, but such changes only remain vivid for a generation or so.

122
After such a time, the engineers who were witness to said events, and have kept
them relevant for a generation or two, begin to pass on, retire, and/or move on to
other things. Again, while this is extremely effective for a generation or two, it
presents an unacceptable situation in that mistakes are often repeated after the
effected generations have moved on. This can, and will be illustrated in this chapter
through the use of case studies.

For structural engineering and design, the aforementioned system of checks and
balances, points and counterpoints, peer reviews and ethical codes certainly is
better than the seemingly archaic methods employed one hundred years ago.
However, the fact still remains that the only way to regulate ethical conduct is to
announce and enforce repercussions for unethical behavior retroactively. In other
words, the only effective solution for promoting ethics is to punish those guilty of
unethical conduct. As a technical industry, this makes the most sense, as placing
blame is what engineers are trained to do (e.g. determining failure modes,
performing forensic investigations, performing peer reviews to discover
breakdowns in another one's design logic, and so on). Yet, as syndicates of progress
in a society where citizens rely on engineers to protect their safety, this system of
reactive change—of failure preceding prevention, problem before solution, guilt
and repercussions—is entirely unacceptable.

Before one presumes that the argument herein consists of the development of a
crystal ball to predict future failures, let it be made clear that this is far from
accurate. Unforeseen occurrences are entirely different from cyclic repetition of
common design flaws. In other words, a 10.0 earthquake is hardly something that
can be accounted for nor economically designed to; but an engineering failure
caused by things such as inadequate construction procedures, careless design

123
negligence, and/or the overlooking of obvious design mistakes, are not something
that should, nor can be tolerated. Certainly, structural failure resulting in civilian
casualties, or even injuries, should never be considered the price to be paid for
human progress. Some may disagree with this claim and say that the majority
failures do indeed fall in the latter unpredictable category. It is true that this is
highly debatable. It is also true that no engineering failure can be attributed solely
to a single mistake here or there. However, it should also be unarguably true that,
should every potentially avoidable mistake be found and eliminated, the probability
of failure will be decreased to a certain degree. Certainly, in some cases this
decrease may be negligible and failure may therefore still be imminent. Yet, a
simple review of historical case studies shows that the avoidable mistakes are more
often significant than negligible; and if accounted for and eliminated, may have
prevented failure; since they were not addressed, they came to be the straw that
broke the camel's back. Indeed this is not simply the musing of a single engineer, as
this lapse in adequate engineering procedures has been discussed time and time
again. For instance, as described by Petroski (1994):
“…a considerable number of failures throughout engineering
history have been due to the errors in the same timeless design
logic and methodology that are used today, and so the root
causes of classic failures can and do have a continuing
relevance for current designs and design processes of the
greatest sophistication and complexity.”

Simply enough, if certain mistakes are reoccurring and able to be prevented, then
the engineering industry should ensure that all necessary measures be implemented.
The first way to ensure this is to promote a significant increase in the integration of
engineering case studies in both undergraduate and graduate level education—if not
also introducing students to such topics in the latter part of their general K-12
education. This is not a new concept by any means, as this has been suggested as

124
far back as Confucius, who noted that “[if] you wish to control the future, study the
past” (Levy and Salvadori 2002). Furthermore, as recent as this year it has even
been suggested—Rens and Rens (2010) observe that:
Present-day engineering case studies show the complexity and
results of being a leader—specifically a project manager—
taking responsibility and doing the right thing. Being a great
leader includes having the integrity to do the right thing and
taking responsibility for oneself and others.

Indeed this is a reoccurring theme that continually gets pushed to the side at the
priority of other procedural changes such as the vague and archaic codes of ethics
presented in the previous chapter. Making the case to incorporate engineering case
studies into civil engineering education, Delatte and Rens (2002) argue that
engineering case studies “…help students…[appreciate] the importance of ethical
considerations in the engineering decision-making process,” in addition to teaching
“…valuable lessons in engineering practice, ethics, and professionalism…”

This argument is vindicated by Benator and Thumann (2003) who simplify the
issue by claiming that "If one word could describe the essence of project
management it is responsibility.” The case studies and analysis thereof presented in
the following sections further exemplify this by examining not only the aspects of
engineering that relate to responsibility—personal and professional—and
leadership, but also those that cross over the boundaries of ethics, morality,
philosophy, empathy, and so on.

If there is any doubt whatsoever regarding design logic, constructability, and so on,
it should be mandated that such procedures not be undertaken until everyone is in
agreement. Even if this means that an engineer on vacation who sees something
worrisome and presents their case to the appropriate persons, all work should be

125
halted immediately, and indefinitely until everyone is in agreement.

Structural redundancy, the most common characteristic of failure found when

studying engineering case studies is described by (Levi and Salvadori 2002) as the
structural design concept that :
…allows the loads to be carried in more than one way—i.e.,
through more than one path through the structure—and must be
considered a needed characteristic in any large structure or any
structure whose failure may cause extensive damage or loss of
life

Kaminetsky (1991), in his recommendations for procedural changes following the

collapse of the Hyatt Regency walkways in 1981, goes a step further to generalize
the need for redundancy in all structures by saying that “[redundancy] must be
provided to prevent progressive or disproportionate collapse.”

This chapter will discuss a number of case studies, including many structural
failures, as well as some remarkable success stories. The first section presents the
review of engineering failures, including structural design failures, construction
failures, communication failures, philosophical failures, and so on. Some of the
highlighted cases include the hypothetical case of the cantilevered column
presented by Galileo, the 1940 collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in
Washington state, and the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi
River in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The following section makes an effort to
acknowledge a few engineering success stories and the noble engineers that made
them possible, including the successful construction of a pedestrian bridge over I-
25 in Denver, Colorado, and the amazing story of William LeMessurier and his
1977 state of the art design for the Citicorp tower in New York City, New York.

126
4.1 Failures

Delatte and Rens (2002) say that “[the] study of failures can offer students valuable
insights into associated technical, ethical, and professional issues.” While Rens tells
of a course offered at the University of Colorado Denver that focuses on forensic
engineering, Delatte and Rens (2002) also say that the incorporation of case studies
into education could be presented in a manner such to teach ethics, professionalism,
lessons learned, and so on. They then discuss a course at Worcester Polytechnic
Institute (WPI) in Massachusetts in which students review failure case studies
focusing on exactly such lessons learned, as opposed to teaching and promoting the
practice of forensic engineering. Jennings and Mackinnon (2000) exclaimed that
“[it] has become clear how little students generally know about key disasters which
are common knowledge to their elders and which have had a profound effect on the
profession.” Certainly, it seems like teaching students about these cases would help
the industry. At the very least the number of construction deaths each year would
theoretically decrease. Feld and Carper (1997) claim that 2,200 such deaths were
recorded in 1997—a number that has most surely increased in the past 13 years. Of
those fatalities, “…insufficient bracing accounts for 25%…” of them.

An interesting trend appears when researching engineering failure case studies.

Nearly every major failure of a given period of time was inflicted with one of the
following two failure characteristics: (1) technology that was considered “…
standard for it's time” (History Channel 2008); or (2) the most state-of-the-art and
innovative technology for the time. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of a
gray area, leading one to make the following conclusions:
1. The engineering community became too comfortable and all together
complacent with the then current design standards, causing one to overlook
simple details.

127
 2. A select few engineers or other members of the design team on a give
project decided, or were pressured to carelessly pushed the limits of
industry standards beyond the limits of the community's collective
knowledge.
3. While stagnation of innovation and carelessly aggressive innovation
consistently lead to failure, moderate levels of innovation no only help
prevent failure, but also promote the most reliable and optimistic path for
engineering progress.

Nearly every technical industry (legal/judicial, medical, etc.) includes as a part of

it's education curriculum a segment on case study analysis and historical reviews.
Students studying to become lawyers, judges, paralegals, and so on, are required to
go through not only thorough undergraduate analysis of numerous case studies, but
also many are required to attain a graduate degree in which they spend numerous
amounts of time reviewing past cases, but also practicing and developing individual
readiness through live mock situations. Similarly, medical students who wish to
practice on living beings—human, animals, etc— require a masters degree or
equivalent, at a minimum. If these same students desire to become professional
medical doctors, a doctorate degree in the medicine field is required. Such curricula
require students to practice procedural techniques on human cadavers, complete
live mock situations to correctly diagnose patient symptoms, and thoroughly review
previous cases in which medical failures (e.g. death, paralysis, etc.) could, and
should have been avoided. This is the same process suggested herein for inclusion
into engineering curricula. When considered on a statistical basis, doctors are
responsible for many lives, but generally one at a time as they meet with patients
individually or work in emergency rooms. Engineers however are often responsible
for hundreds if not thousands of lives. Modern bridges can support at least one

128
Figure 4.1 Bridge View Looking South (NTSB 2008b).

hundred citizens (Billington 1985); some dams support enough water that can (and
have in the past) kill thousands and leave even more homeless (Levy and Salvadori
2002). Granted, engineers only design 10-100 structures per year, whereas doctors

129
see that many patients each week, but the only lives lawyers and judges are
responsible for are the potentially innocent people charged with crimes of murder,
rape and so on. Still, the legal industry requires more education and practice from
them than the engineering industry requests of its engineers. This comparison
hardly seems adequate.

The structural failure case studies that follow have been thoroughly researched and
evaluated in both terms of engineering and ethics. For each case the following
information will be presented to the reader to allow one to gain a complete
understanding of the individual characteristics of each case.
1. Facts: Dates, times, locations, people and/or organizations involved, details
of structural systems, witness reports, and so on.
2. Technical Issues: Characteristics of failure (mechanisms, locations,
movements, deflections, etc.); Project details (design and loading
characteristics, names of firms, engineers, etc.); Technical aspects that
directly or indirectly led to the failure.
3. Ethical Issues: A discussion of both Ethics in Engineering and Ethics of
Engineering—as defined by Roddis (1993); Personal decisions (engineers,
architects, owners, government officials, contractors, and so on); Ethical
aspects that directly or indirectly led to failure.
4. Conclusions and Changes Made: Ramifications (legal charges, lawsuits,
etc.); Project changes (design changes, construction changes, personnel/firm
changes), Industrial changes (changes to policies, procedures, regulations,
and so on); Reactions from the engineering community; Changes that
should still be implemented.

130
4.1.1 Colorado Highway 470 (C-470) Girder Failure During Construction
Note: This section has been borrowed in many respects from an article written by Rens and
Rens (2010) – with permission from the author(s). Much of the structure has been re-
imagined, reformatted, and adapted to fit within the content of this text, however, the
general thoughts, ideas, and concepts are unchanged. While countless hours of research on
this topic was completed by the main author in preparation for this publication, the basic
content of this section should be attributed solely to Rens and Rens (2010). The main
author does, however, take full responsibility for any and all inadvertent omissions,
misrepresentations, typographical or other reproduction errors, should any be found.
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that the reader obtain a copy of said article –
Leading, Learning, And Living The Shackleton Way: Education And Practice, – to read in
concert with this thesis for a better understanding of the evolution of ideas and content.

4.1.1.1 Facts

This case involves a girder failure on the C-470 bridge over Interstate 70 (I-70) in
Golden, Colorado. As the failure occurred during construction, it exposes many of
the issues with modern bridge construction in urban areas, and is an excellent case
for students in fields such as engineering and construction management to
familiarize themselves with. On May 15, 2004, a 204-foot, 40-ton girder rolled off
it's temporary construction bracing and hit an eastbound vehicle on the interstate
below. The four passengers in the vehicle, a young family, were killed instantly.
The construction project was an interchange reconfiguration and included the
bridge widening of Colorado C-470 over I-70. Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) owned the bridge.

4.1.1.2 Technical Issues

The girder was fabricated in two sections, and the intent was splice them together
in the field. Construction was limited however, since I-70 is a major highway and
would need to be temporarily closed. The contractor's plan was to erect the two
girders and splice them together during a nighttime closure of I-70 from 9:00 pm
on May 11 to 5:00 am on May 12. The two girders would then be braced as a single

131
unit. However, the erection of the first girder took longer than expected and only a
single girder was erected in the eight-hour period. The erected girder was
temporarily braced back to the existing concrete slab, and the erection of the second
girder was rescheduled for the following evening. Inclement weather however,
prevented erection of the second girder for more than three days, and during this
time, the bolts in the temporary bracing loosened from wind and temperature
effects. No longer adequately braced, the girder rotated off of its axis and into the
oncoming traffic below (NTSB 2006).

Feld and Carper (1997) observe that “[failure] may result from a single error. It is
more common, however, for a failure to be the result of several interrelated
contributing factors.” This was the situation in this case as a number of elements
contributed to the failure of this girder, including personal and procedural issues,
and construction fabrication errors. The construction fabrication errors included:
(1) initially setting the girder off-center by 2–5 degrees; (2) using a cutting torch to
shape the temporary braces, and; (3) improperly installing the temporary anchor
bolts (NTSB 2006). The procedural issues included (NSTB 2006):
• no stamped set of construction drawings for the temporary bracing;
• no structural engineer on site;
• no CDOT requirements for pre-qualifying subcontractors;
• CDOT's practice to allow the contractor to accomplish the work without
CDOT direction;
• inadequate time allotted for erection;
• no pre-erection meeting to discuss details; and
• given the weather conditions, no predefined inspection of the girder after
installation.

132
4.1.1.3 Ethical Issues

The contract plans and specifications did not require a professional engineer to
design the temporary bracing, nor did they require a structural engineer to oversee
the girder erection (NTSB 2006). Because of this no formal bracing plans were
developed; and to make matters worse, the bridge contractor did not feel it was
necessary to have an engineering consultant at hand. In a perfect world, such an
engineer would have spotted the likely occurrence of this chain of events, and
alerted the contractor to the well documented issue that is commonly encountered
during construction, as described by Feld and Carper (1997) below.
While erection is taking place, the assembly may have less
strength than the finished assembly. This condition is
unfortunate, particularly when the construction process often
introduces loads that are larger than those anticipated by the
designer.

If a structural engineer was on site supervising the workers, perhaps the

construction errors and the stability of the girder would have been questioned and
another course of action taken. Though one knows this theoretical outcome is not a
certainty—as will be illustrated in the following case studies—the fact remains that
the probability of preventing the incident would have improved.

At the time of construction, CDOT did not have a requirement to pre-qualify

subcontractors. In this project, the bridge contractor, a subcontractor to a roadway
contractor, had not completed bridge work for over 14 years (NTSB 2006). Pre-
qualification would have ensured the competency of the subcontractor. In addition,
CDOT, like most other state highway agencies, does not give direction to the
contractor on how to perform the work. Feld and Carper (1997) state:
The responsibility for developing construction sequence is

133
 currently the subject of some controversy. Some engineers
believe that the designer should be responsible for developing
and supervising construction sequence; others advocate making
this the responsibility of the contractor or construction manager.
Most contractors prefer to retain the freedom to be creative in
the development of a construction sequence…Sequencing has a
major influence on construction costs.

Despite being seven years old, the accuracy of this comment by Feld and Carper
was no less valid in 2004, nor is it anymore irrelevant in 2010. Indeed, this issue
still remains controversial. CDOT's policy to leave the sequencing entirely up to the
contractor creates little ownership in the process for CDOT engineers and
inspectors. However, these professionals can and should contribute in the
construction process. During construction, the lead CDOT inspector noticed that
the girder was fabricated backwards and did step up and inform the bridge
contractor. Although he reportedly had difficulty persuading the contractor, this
error was eventually corrected. Another CDOT bridge engineer (not associated with
the project), traveling through the area on the morning of the failure noticed the
rotated girder on the bridge, but did not notify anyone (NTSB 2006). A citizen did
call 911 that morning to report the twisted beam but the message got confused by
the time it reached CDOT and a maintenance crew was dispatched to look for a
twisted sign. While the lines of responsibility may get blurred, everyone involved
with a construction project has a personal responsibility to ensure the safety of both
the public and the construction workers. NTSB (2006) cited in this report that
government agencies need to take a lead role in safety critical work on their
facilities.

Construction closures of major freeways in urban areas are often restricted to

nighttime closures. These time constraints put additional stress on the construction
managers to ensure a smooth construction process, as planning the erection

134
sequence becomes much more important. Since no pre-erection meeting—other
than to discuss crane locations—was held, a number of problems arose that slowed
their schedule; and given the progress made with the first girder, it would have been
impossible to erect two girders in one nighttime closure. The contractor admitted
that the original intention of the bracing was to hold the one girder for only a short
period of time—for hours, not days (NTSB 2006). As noted in Feld and Carper
(1997), this attitude is common among contractors: “If we work fast enough,
bracing is not necessary.”

The weather forecast on the day of erection was calling for snow and windy
conditions. Considering the implications of such factors—additional wind loading
that would most certainly be applied to the girder—a predefined inspection
schedule for the girder would have been prudent. In fact, one supervisor for the
prime contractor was concerned, and checked the girder on the evening of May 12,
but noticed nothing wrong. If the supervisor had checked on the next day, he/she
may have noticed the girder starting to rotate. A traveler on westbound I-70 took a
digital picture of the girder on May 13, two days prior to the failure. The picture
was later analyzed and showed the girder rotating toward the existing bridge by
about 5 degrees (NTSB 2006).

4.1.1.4 Conclusions and Changes Made

Since this failure, CDOT has taken steps to ensure that a similar failure does not
occur. They have modified their pre-qualification rules to include subcontractors
performing certain types of critical work (CDOT 2006a). They modified their
specifications on falsework, formwork, and shoring; erection of steel structures;
and erection of precast concrete structures. However, the responsibility of the
falsework—or temporary bracing—is still the responsibility of the contractor.

135
Nonetheless, the contractor's engineer is responsible for determining the need for
falsework and designing it. The specification also added the need for a pre-erection
conference where the contractors engineer is present (CDOT 2006b).

Acting on the recommendations of the NTSB, CDOT has added two specifications
to define, and monitor the performance of safety critical work. The specification for
the performance of this work defines elements that are considered safety critical
and includes the requirement of a formal construction plan submittal for CDOT to
review prior to the beginning of construction. This plan must include:
• safety critical elements;
• the contractor responsible for work;
• names and qualifications for supervisors responsible for work;
• schedule, procedures, and sequence of operations; and plans for how the
contractor will handle unexpected events such as weather, structural elements
that don't line up, and work that cannot be completed in the specified time
frame.

This specification also requires a safety critical element conference to discuss the
plan before implementation, and empowers CDOT engineers to stop construction
on safety critical work that endangers the public or construction workers (CDOT
2006c).

4.1.2 Interstate-35 West (I-35W) Bridge Collapse

4.1.2.1 Facts

Around 6:00 P.M. on August 1, 2007, bridge number 9340 along I-35W in
Minneapolis, MN collapsed into the riverbed of the Mississippi River below (Holt

136
and Hartmann 2008). At that time of day, the bridge was packed with rush hour
traffic (Delatte 2009), and moving no faster than a crawl. The bridge, owned by the
state of Minnesota, had 14 spans supported on variable depth steel deck trusses for
a total bridge length of nearly 2000 feet (Holt and Hartmann 2008). Victims who
survived the incident, said it felt like they “…hit a bus,” like a “…train was going
under the bridge,” or “…like someone had a jack-hammer” nearby. (NTSB 2008a).
Still others heard loud sounds like “…pop[s]” and “…thud[s],” similar to a “…
traffic accident.” There were many reports of witnesses watching cars, trucks, and
portions of the bridge simply disappear from view as the entire structure twisted,
shifted, and started crumbling, until it finally crashed into the river and onto the
streets below. In what can only be attributed to an intervention from above, only 13
people lost their lives in this unfortunate event.

Figure 4.2 Overhead View Looking North (NTSB 2008b).

137
4.1.2.2 Technical Issues

Following the collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was
called upon to conduct an investigation into the cause of failure (Holt and
Hartmann 2008). Officials were able to deduce the location of the initial failure
using victim and witness testimony as well as video footage of the event (NTSB
2008a). One observer says they saw something shoot up into the air on the
Northeast side of the bridge. This evidence, along with reports that prior to the
collapse, the bridge's southern span shifted laterally, and the middle section of the
bridge was the first section to fall, were the critical clues. Investigators first on the
scene were able to piece this information together to determine that a connection on
the Northeast side of the bridge failed causing the bridge to shift laterally to the
South. As the bridge deck shifted, so did the members supporting it, which in turn
compromised the support just to the South of the river. Since the supports on either
side of the portion of the bridge that spanned across the river began to fail, this
section was dropped into the river. Further complicating the situation, the bridge
was designed as a continuous multi-span structure, meaning that each span relied
on the loads on the adjacent spans to offset some of the internal forces. So, once
the middle section no longer existed, the adjacent spans—which helped support the
spans next adjacent to them—began to collapse as well. This clearly was the
beginning of a domino type collapse that progressed rapidly until every one of the
14 spans lay either in the river or on the orthogonal streets below.

The Federal Highway Administration who has jurisdiction in such events

immediately called for a complete check of the bridges original design calculations.
Commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) back in
the 1960's, the bridge was required to be designed per Division I of the then current

138
“Standard Specification for Highway Bridges” published by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (Holt and
Hartmann 2008). The investigators used the forces shown on the design drawings
to check the design. This ensured that they would be performing the same design
calculations that should have been used for the original design. Per AASHTO
requirements, a H20-S16-44 live load model was used in conjunction with the
impact loadings specified in section 1.2.12 of the AASHTO specification. Delatte
(2009) describes the design philosophy of the H20-S16-44 live load model below.
This model consists of a placing either a single three axle
72,000 pound truck (truck load) or a uniform 640 pound/foot
load in combination with one or more concentrated loads (lane
load) in each lane of the bridge to produce the maximum force
effect for the component being designed.

It was soon determined that a design error lead to the failure of the connection on
the northeast side of the bridge—the gusset plate at joint U10 (See Figure 4.3). The,
a lack of redundancy in the overall bridge design triggered a complete collapse of
the entire structure. The design firm forty years prior to the collapse was Sverdrup
& Parcel who, now part of Jacobs Engineering Group, have designed many
prestigious structures, such as the St. Louis Cardinals' Busch Stadium, the New
Orleans Saints' Superdome, and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (Jaccarino, et
al. 2007). However, in this particular case, Sverdrup & Parcel must take the blame.
The final report issued by the NTSB determined that the gusset plate at joint U10
was half as thick as it needed to be to support the design loads per the AASHTO
specification (Holt and Hartmann 2008).

139
Figure 4.3 Gusset Plate Connection Detail (Holt and Hartmann 2008).

Design-to-capacity ratio, or D/C, is a comparison of the design loads to the capacity

of a given structural component, usually presented as a fraction; when this fraction
is greater than one, the member is not strong enough to support the applied loads
and is therefore inadequate. According to Holt and Hartmann (2008), there were
“… several gusset plates with D/C ratios so in excess of an efficient design for
which the only explanation can be an error in either the analysis or calculation of
the designer.” Holt and Hartmann (2008) go on to say that, while for some plates it
is difficult to say whether the gusset plates were misdesigned or simply designed
liberally (e.g. D/C very close to 1), “…the gussets at U4, U10 and L11 fail this
check considerably.” Indeed, this can be seen to be correct by reviewing Figure 4.4
which shows the D/C for U10 is in excess of 2.0.

140
Figure 4.4 Demand-to-Capacity: Gusset Plate U10 (Holt and Hartmann 2008).

Additionally, the plates at U8, L8 and U10 were all in violation of the slenderness
limits specified in the AASHTO specification, which says:
…gusset plates shall be of ample thickness to resist shear, direct
stress, and flexure, acting on the weakest or critical section of
maximum stress.… if the length of an unsupported edge of a
low-alloy steel gusset plate exceeds 48 times its thickness, the
edge shall be stiffened (Delatte 2009).

4.1.2.3 Ethical Issues

In this case, the detrimental decision was made by the gusset plate designer for
Sverdrup & Parcel. Though most likely inadvertent, his design of the gusset plates
is what this bridge barely hung onto for dear life—a commendable 43 years. Yet, it
is also what eventually cost 13 people their lives. While the gusset plate at U10 was
drastically underdesigned initiating the failure, many other gusset plates failed the
D/C checks as well. Holt and Hartmann (2008) conclude that:
Reviewing the entire set of D/C ratios in total reveals a
consistent mis-handling of shear by the designer. … lack of

141
 capacity of these gusset plates was coupled with a violation of
the detailing requirements for the unsupported edge… providing
approximately one-half of the resistance required by the design
loadings without consideration for instability.

While the design error just discussed certainly had a significant impact on the chain
of events that occurred that evening in 2007, one can hardly say that it was an
ethical mistake. As ethics refer to one's beliefs of wrong and right, good and bad,
and so on, it can be shown that a sequence of events must occur for ethics to come
into play. First, one must have belief one way or the other that one action is the
right action, and the other wrong. Second, that person must act on said beliefs. And
finally, one must remain steadfast in said beliefs even after their actions, for if one
sincerely repents after committing unethical conduct, there is no discussion of
ethics except for that persons remorse within his or herself for their previous
actions. While it could be argued that the gusset plate designer may have been
actively apathetic towards his or her job, which in that case would be relevant, for
apathy is not mere laziness, but rather it is intentional carelessness. However, the
possibility that this designer made a simple mistake seems the most reasonable
conclusion.

One the other hand, there were a number of procedural issues that had ethical
implications in this case. During inspections, this bridge had consistently received
inadequate ratings; so much that in 2001 it was the subject of a research study on
fatigue evaluation, of which several problems with fatigue were discovered (Delatte
2009). Indeed, typical inspection reports regularly included comments such as poor
welding details and corrosion of connections. As icing on top of the cake, in 2005
the bridge was rated 50 out of 100 with regards to its structural stability, deeming it
“structurally deficient.” But not to worry, as Delatte (2009) points out: “[about] one
in eight U.S. Bridges are considered structurally deficient.” Roughly 466 bridges in

142
the United States are structurally unstable – doesn't quite solicit public support of
the engineering profession does it? Delatte also makes it clear that such a design
error would not have been noted on inspection reports, as bridge inspectors merely
check the condition of the components, and not the structural adequacy.

Since this situation could, and probably should have been a lot worse on many
levels, it helps to review some of the positives. After the bridge failure, many of the
victims took responsibility upon themselves to minimize the damage before if was
even finished. Listed below are just some of the many reports of nobility, empathy,
compassion, and love exhibited by ordinary people who, in midst of tragedy were
well aware of the impact that a stranger's happiness, or lack thereof, had on there
own (NTSB 2008a).
• Exited vehicle, climbed incline and ran into traffic to stop other NB traffic.
White car underneath Blazer, checked and did not see anyone inside.

• Helped woman in white car.

• White PU work truck (started on fire) to my right ← Helped me out of my

car.

• Helped lady jump down to rocks…

• …climbed up to guardrail to help kids.

• Started helping others nearby until he heard children crying on a school bus
in the Southbound lanes…. climbed off east edge of bridge, ran under and
climbed back up to the southbound side and started helping children down
from the bridge…”

• I helped load kids from bus down to street.

143
4.1.2.4 Conclusions and Changes Made

The failure of this bridge shared many similarities to failures of other bridges prior,
including the Point Pleasant bridge collapse in 1967 and the Mianus River bridge
collapse of 1983 (which is also presented herein). Delatte (2009) points out that the
I-35W and Point-Pleasant bridges were both forty years old, and had inherent
design flaws that remained undetected for not only a week, or a few months, but 40
years! All three bridges were structurally non-redundant. Both the I-35W bridge
and the Point-Pleasant bridge suffered complete failure. The most amazing
similarity however is that this bridge and the point pleasant bridge This seems
entirely unacceptable, and the industry needs to implement procedural changes to
prevent similar errors in the future.

One change that seems prudent to address this issue is to install a system of regular,
thorough peer-reviews on all public structures and failure critical structures—if not
all structures, period. This may be a little bit greedy, but it seems reasonable to
request the indefinite retention of all project documents, including correspondence,
construction drawings, as built drawings, and so on. In the modern world, as nearly
every single piece of correspondence, contract document, technical reference,
engineering calculation and so on, is done electronically, the storage limitations that
existed decades ago are no longer applicable. This shouldn't require but maybe $5
worth of digital storage space per project. One could also imagine that this charge,
whatever it may be, could be added into filing fees for zoning and whatnot.

In addition to the retention of project documents, it is also suggested that regular

(e.g. annually, biannually, etc.) and periodic peer-reviews conducted by varying
engineering firms be required, at least for failure critical structures, such as bridges,
dams, hospitals, government facilities, and so on. This would all but eliminate

144
failures caused by design errors—the probability of a design flaw being detected
increases exponentially with every engineer that reviews the design. The
construction industry as a whole has a severe case of short-term memory. Many
projects are conceptualized by one firm, designed by a few different firms,
constructed by numerous others, and ultimately maintained by entirely separate
management structures all together. A sense of loyalty, dedication, and investment
should be promoted in the industry to reinvigorate engineers, inspire greater
passion, and ultimately prevent such failures.

4.1.3 Galileo's Cantilevered Column: A Design Change for the Worse

Petroski (1994) recounts a story told by Galileo, in which Galileo illustrates a

paradox of structural engineering—that with the regards to reversal of stress. In
modern times, stress reversal is common knowledge—or at least it should be. It is
especially of concern when dealing with members susceptible to fatigue. Similar to
how one can repeatedly bend a paperclip back and forth and eventually get it to
break, the same thing can happen with structures. Due to the uncertainty in load
direction (e.g. wind, seismic, etc.), some structural components can be subject to
not only very high forces, but also forces alternating directions frequently. When
this is present, special attention must be given to the fatigue of those components,
because many materials will fail at much lower fatigue loads than they would at
yield level loads.

Galileo's story is about a few wisemen and a marble column. Initially they store this
column by resting it on two rocks (e.g. supports). One wiseman walks by and
notices the beautiful column, but after a moment he starts worrying about the
column cracking in half at it's midpoint. So, he starts thinking of ways to reduce the

145
internal forces in the column. Eventually, he decides that it would be wonderful
idea to add a support at the midpoint. Like any good engineer, he runs his idea by a
few of his colleagues. After a lengthy discussion, they all agree that it indeed is a
wonderful idea, and the additional support is added. Each of the wisemen walk past
the column every day, and in the process, feel a great sense of accomplishment for
devising such a brilliant plan.

Some time passes, and soon their achievement becomes but a distant memory, at
which point they hardly even take note of the column's existence as they pass by.
But one day, one of those wisemen walks past and finds that the column is broken
in two pieces mirrored over the center support. Incredulous, he runs and tells the
others who quickly jump up to go see for themselves. Unfortunately they find that
what he says is true; the column is split in half at exactly the location the were
worried about initially. After much investigation, they find that the right support
had fallen and settled over time such that the column was no longer supported by it
at all. In fact, the only supports it had were at the left end and at midspan. What the
wisemen realized was that their solution was a temporary solution that would need
to be monitored regularly, but they let their emotions take them over so that they no
longer saw the column as something to be protected, but as something to be
admired for the role they each played in protecting it. One can learn many things
from this story:
1. The night watchman’s shift does not stop until the day watchmen arrives. In
other words, just because you do something wonderful, or even if the
person who is supposed to relieve you from command is late—in whatever
you are doing—you are responsible for everything that happens on your
watch, regardless of who's fault it was or who you relied one. You are also
responsible for the successful transfer of that responsibility. Just as George

146
 Washington made sure that he would not die in office, so that he could hand
over the reigns to his successor; just as Ernest Shackleton's shift ran roughly
a year long and few hundred death defying experiences wide; just as Nelson
Mandela's plan was delayed by nearly half a century. Non of these men ever
threw in the towel until they had nothing left to give, or until someone else
took the baton from them.
2. Lack of attention can turn the most obvious solutions into even more
devastating failures.
3. Too much patting yourself on the back, leaves you one-handed and
essentially helpless.

Barefoot (2008) describes this situation perfectly when discussing Thomas

Jefferson and his lack of action on slavery amidst the numerous other
accomplishments to his credit:
Thomas Jefferson symbolizes the nation's tolerance for moral
stagnation amid so much self-congratulation for its “progress”
(Barefoot 2008).

In other words, one's work is never finished. Even whence complete, one's
responsibilities have only just begun.

4.1.4 Hyatt Regency Walkways Collapse

As one reads the following quote by Petroski (1994), the lightheartedness with
which the previous section was presented no longer seems appropriate.
A design change to which no one seems to have objected was
the cause of the structural accident that killed over one hundred
people in the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel in 1981.

147
Then, when “Galileo's alter ego, Salviati…” remarks that “…a circumstance which
is worthy of your attention as indeed are all events which happen contrary to
expectation…” one might feel inspired and even wise. But, as he concludes by
further observing that his remark is especially authentic when “…a precautionary
measure turns out to be a cause of disaster,” all the laughter stops. Just as the
collective reaction of the engineering community to the many failures throughout
history was that of incredulity, no longer does that amazement last than until the
critical error becomes obvious to all: “…the moment the cause is known our
surprise vanishes.” The following quote by Petroski (1994) affirms both the
awesomeness and the simplicity with which the physical world presents itself to
engineers:
It is an invaluable aid to designers to remember with Galileo
that seemingly different objects can behave in astonishingly
similar ways. And the ability to draw broad analogies can be an
invaluable aid to the anticipation of failure in novel designs.

Certainly there are cases when the most unthinkable, least plausible, most
outrageous scenario causes the engineering masses to hold a collective breath. Yet
more times than not … it doesn't.

4.1.4.1 Facts

On July 17, 1981 two walkways at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City, MO
collapsed in the presence of thousands (Roddis 1993). The interconnected
walkways served to connect the north guest tower with the function block to the
south, allowing guests to traverse between them without having to traffic through
the often crowded atrium and lobby. In what soon would be known as the single
largest structural failure in United States history (Delatte 2009), 114 people were
killed, while another 200 or more were injured—many severely.

148
The intent of the walkways was to appear as if they were floating in air, The failure
occurred at 7:05 P.M. local time, during a weekly dance competition (History
Channel 2008). While, at first, this seemingly explains the timing of the failure, this
assumption would prove inaccurate. Reports submit that a loud crack was heard
right before the second and fourth floor walkways—which were separated laterally
from the third floor walkway in a staggered pattern—quickly “…dropped from the
hangers holding [them] to the roof structure, leaving [them] dangling like impotent
stalactites” (Levi and Salvadori 2002). The third floor walkways did not fall. In
paradoxical fashion, it seems that the third floor walkways may have been the
safest place to be that evening; not because they were any more structurally reliable
than the other two, but because many on the other two walkways and in the atrium
below were killed or severely injured—either from the fall, or by being crushed by
the weight of hundreds of thousands of pounds of concrete and steel.

4.1.4.2 Technical Issues

Before one begins to analyze this case, it is crucial to understand context of the
failure relative to the entire project. Luth (2000) explains it best:
…it should be realized that in the context of the project in 1978,
this was considered to be a relatively insignificant part of the
process. While the details of the walkway were being
completed, the 35-story concrete tower was under construction
and the details of the revolving restaurant at the top of the tower
were also being completed. All of these elements were being
subjected to the same process that caused fundamental changes
to be made to the walkway structure in July of 1978.
Understanding the context created by this project environment
is fundamental to understanding the human aspects of the
process that led to the failure.

This statement by Luth (2000) is in no way an excuse, as much as it is an

149
explanation. For indeed, his statement speaks deeply to the issues inherent to a fast
track schedule. While this was the largest structural failure in United States history,
Mr Gillum and Mr. Duncan did not have the luxury of a crystal ball to alert them of
such. The fact that construction literally precedes design in a fast track schedule,
warrants more structural attention to be focused on the primary structure(s)—the
35-story tower and the revolving restaurant, which had either of these been the
origin of collapse, many more than 114 people would have died, as the guest tower
itself boasts nearly 800 units (many multi-person units) (Fodor's 2010).

The hangers that held up these two walkways, in what will soon be shown to be the
critical components leading to failure, were nothing more than 1¼” diameter steel
rods (Levy and Salvadori 2002). While the cause of failure may seem obvious at
this point, the discussion of this case is far from over, and such a conclusion does
not paint the full picture. The hangers were a two part system, “spliced” at the
fourth floor through steel nuts on top and bottom of a box-beam girder that
supported each walkway's floor framing structure. At the fourth floor connection,
the hangers supporting the second floor walkway was threaded up through the box
beam girder where the nuts were screwed onto the rod. The fourth floor was
constructed similarly except that the supporting rod went down through the
midsection of the girder where a nut supported it from below. The seemingly
innocent, yet suspicious box-beam girder was actually not what it seemed at all.
The white and fluffy clothing it boasted was nothing more than a disguise for the
sharp teeth and hungry eyes hidden beneath. As is generally more economical, the
beam was designed as two eight inch steel channels, connected toe-to-toe by a
continuous, but nominal weld along the top and bottom seams.

While at current, more than enough evidence is available to predict failure, one

150
must remember that the luxury of hindsight is only given to those who have yet to
take their turn on the stand. The hangers which if you remember were 1¼” in
diameter, had been originally “designed” as 1¾” diameter rods, supporting the
walkways via eccentric angles welded to the web of the orthogonal wide flange
beam (Luth 2000). In what would prove to be a meaningless change, since the rods
would eventually be covered with fireproofing material, the architect requested that
they be reduced to 1¼” to give it more of a floating visual effect. Again, in eerily
similar fashion, not only was the design flaw critical, but was made even more
critical by the fact that the structure had no redundancy.

The Kansas City building code requirements for live load on walkways was 100
pounds per square foot, which would apply to each walkway individually. Given
this information, one can compute the design load for the walkways. Additionally,
laboratory tests showed that only sixty-three people were needed on the two
walkways to induce failure (Levy and Salvadori 2002). Using an average weight
per person, this live load was found to be only 13% of that required by the Kansas
City building code (Delatte 2009).

4.1.4.3 Ethical Issues

Early on in the design phase of the project, the senior design engineer and project
engineer both resigned, and their duties and responsibilities were forwarded on to
others (Delatte 2009). Ultimately, Jack Gillum—the Engineer of Record (EOR)—
and his employee David Duncan—the Project Engineer—were held accountable for
the failure that resulted in 114 people prematurely losing their lives. There is much
debate surrounding this case as to who's fault it truly was. This section will try to
examine it from every angle. Not with the aim of determining guilt, but with the

151
intent of defining all of the variables involved, and to illustrate the complexity of
situations similar to this—which indeed still exist in full force to this very day.

Jack Gillum:
Much of the blame ultimately fell into the lap of Jack Gillum—and rightly so, as he
was the engineer of record (EOR), he was ultimately responsible for everything
structural, regardless of who he had previously delegated the work to.
Where does the buck stop on this thing, I mean who are the
responsible people? … Everybody should be responsible for
their own work … but, it really stops at only one place, it stops
with the structural engineer that put his seal on the drawings,
and that was me —Jack Gillum, EOR (History Channel 2008).

It is a shame however, that decent human beings like Jack are almost forcefully
placed into these situations. This responsibility is simply too much for one man to
carry, especially when a project is being delivered on a fast track schedule such as
this. Yet, if one engineer does not accept this as an industry standard procedure,
there will be someone next in line who will, and eventually that first person will be
out of work for having integrity to do the right thing. Nonetheless, Mr Gillum and
his employee, David Duncan, were held responsible for the failure and their
professional engineering licenses were revoked.

David Duncan:
Certainly, it seems that this connection was never designed, as told by the History
Channel (2008),
It wasn't that this connection was misdesigned… this
connection was never designed. That was the problem.… and as
it became part of various detailed plans, people kept assuming
that the design had been checked at some point in the process.

The person ultimately responsible for this was David Duncan. Indirectly, Jack

152
Gillum was also responsible for the work produced by Mr. Duncan, but since Mr.
Duncan was also a licensed professional engineer, the direct responsibility for the
design falls on him.

Structural Drafter:
According to Luth (2000), “As part of preparation of shop drawings fabricator's in
house engineers design heavy truss connections and all beam connections for forces
shown on drawings.” Had the detail drawn by the engineer been transcribed onto
the contract drawings as it was originally sketched, the steel detailer would have
known that the connection had not yet been designed, and therefore designed it
according to their in-house policy. Yet, the fact remains that certain people are
leaders, whereas others are not; and due to the hierarchical structure in engineering,
the ultimate responsibility still falls on Jack Gillum and David Duncan. Mr. Gillum
was responsible for hiring and overseeing the work of David Duncan, who was
directly responsible for overseeing the work of the drafter, and therefore Jack
Gillum was also indirectly responsible for the work of the drafter.

Architect/Owner:
According to Levy and Salvadori (2002), Donald Hall (the owner) settled more
than 90 percent the lawsuits that resulted from this tragedy out of court, as a “sense
of duty and social responsibility.” While a noble effort, Mr. Hall still needs to hold
some accountability for his role in the matter. His decision—and it should be
remembered that it was his decision alone, regardless of who may have influenced
or deceivingly convinced him to make it—to build on a fast track schedule, was the
first weak link in the chain of events that led to this disaster. Mr. Hall was not an
average being; he was a very wealthy businessman, and in such a position one takes
on additional responsibilities—much the same as professional athletes indirectly
accept the pressures and headaches inherent to fame, Donald Hall indirectly

153
accepted this responsibility when he made the decision to build a hotel that would
house thousands at a time.

Contractor:
Given the advantage of hindsight, it seems almost obvious that this connection
would fail. So obvious, in fact, one hesitates to ask the question “how did the
contractor or even one of the construction workers not notice it and think to express
concern that it didn't look right?” It only seems right to say the contractor had some
responsibility to take notice of something as obvious as this. But once again, the
clarity with which anyone reviewing this case sees it with is far from the level of
clarity with which is revealed itself in 1981. On top of this, there are too many
people above the contractor with more knowledge on the matter to say that he take
any significant amount of responsibility. For if at all one should think that the
contractor be responsible for noticing something such as this, it could be just as
easily argued that this responsibility falls more so on either the architect or the
owner—Luth (2000) notes that the engineer requested “field representation on three
separate occasions but [was] ignored” every time.

Steel Detailer:
The steel detailer, is in fact responsible somewhat in this situation, for he or she
made certain assumptions that, according to standard practice should never be
made. While it is true that it is/was standard practice for connections that were
intended to be designed by a detailer should be shown on the drawings with the
load that they are required to support, this connection was far from typical. In
essence, the steel detailer did not simply make a passively innocent assumption
regarding the connection. He or she must have actively made the decision to weld
the seams of the two channels. If the detailer had enough presence of mind to find

154
this to be necessary, then no less should they have seen that the connection was in
fact NOT already designed. The instant this fact was realized, the detailer should
have sent a request-for-information to the engineer questioning the entire
connection. One cannot partially “drop the ball,” so to speak. When the detailer
recognized that a weld, not specifically shown on the drawings, was needed, it
signifies that he noticed that the connection was no longer explicitly detailed by the
engineer and as such should at least warrant a phone call.

In addition to this, Luth (2000) reports that the primary steel detailer—due to an
increase in work load—subcontracts the rest of the partially finished shop drawings
to another firm, sending them incomplete drawings and details without clarifying
what still needs to be completed. Once again, an assumption is made that the
connection has already been designed and thus this subcontractor finishes the
drawings as such.

The Engineering Industry:

Certainly more than once the following scenario has occurred. As a project—like
every project it seems nowadays—progresses much more rapidly than the design
team can keep up with, an engineer somewhere along the line tells his or her
colleagues to not worry about a given detail, for they will “catch it on the shop
drawings.” This implies that time had run out and as such, a standard but
inapplicable detail would be added to account for a certain non-standard condition.
The theory behind this madness is that once the contractor submitted shop drawings
for review, the engineer could make the necessary corrections and return them to be
fabricated correctly. The one situation where this occurs more frequently than not is
on projects commissioned on a “fast track.” schedule, which is defined by Luth
(2000),

155
 As with many projects delivered by this method, construction
preceded design, structural design preceded architectural
design, and both the design and construction phases were
plagued by a lack of time and quality control.

Now, this wasn't the exact situation on the Hyatt walkways, since the detail for the
support of the walkways was a very atypical detail. However, the detail was
intended as a typical detail (Roddis 1993). The project as a whole was delivered via
the fast track process, and as such, was indeed “plagued by a lack of time and
quality control.” If you were to ask any structural engineer, they would probably
say they oppose fast track schedules—anytime action precedes planning, there is
likely to be an engineer somewhere holding his or her breath. In addition to the fast
track schedule, the design team was selected using a lowest-bid process. This
however, is an unacceptable process if the industry has even the slightest concern
for the safety of the public.
The implications of structural failures, even though they are
relatively rare, are far too serious for the scope of services to be
defined through a “low bid” process… (Luth 2000).

The unfortunate fact is that this process appears to be much more efficient than a
traditional qualifications based selection (QBS) process. Because of this, many
owners can easily be convinced of its inherent value, which apparently to some,
outweighs the risks it creates. This may be true 99 percent of the time, until a
situation similar to this occurs such that the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City,
instead of being famous for its elegance and comfort, will always be remembered
for the tragic events of July 17, 1981. This, unfortunately, is something the owner
of the hotel, the person who sold him or her on the fast track delivery schedule, and
the entire engineering community will have to live with until someone decides to
take a stand, and put an end to this nonsense.

156
4.1.4.4 Conclusions and Changes Made

Roddis (1993) says that the city of Kansas City made, not one but two attempts to
rectify, or at least explain, this failure. First, they organized a team from the
National Bureau of Standards to investigate the collapse. The main purpose of the
NBS investigative team was to determine the causes of failure, such that similar
failures could be prevented in the future. The NBS report included the following
comments:
• The collapse initiated at a fourth-floor box-beam-hanger-rod connection.

• The loads on the walkways at the time of collapse were substantially less than
the Kansas City building code specified design loads.

• The as-constructed beam-rod connection did not meet code requirements, nor
did the original (continuous rod) detail.

• The change in rod detail essentially doubled the transfer load.

• Neither quality of workmanship nor materials played a significant role in

initiation of the collapse.”

The second effort that the city of Kansas City made to relieve the panic among the
people was to form another team to investigate the collapse with the intent of
“professional introspection to learn from the tragedy” (Roddis 1993). Roddis
(1993) also describes some of the changes that he feels are necessary in lieu of the
events in 1981:
…improved performance … especially in the areas of detailing
and connections, fee levels, and building envelope design and
construction

…structural detailing needs more attention in routine design

practice and engineering education, and that structural schemes
that lack redundancy demand an especially thorough design and

157
 careful review.

Delatte (2009) takes note of a few procedural changes that have been suggested as
well:
• The engineer of record (EOR) should design and detail all nonstandard
connections

• All new designs should be thoroughly checked

• All of the contractor's modifications to design details should require written

approval from the EOR

• Redundancy must be provided

The management company of the hotel took immediate action after the events, first
asking the design team to design new walkways that would explicitly be supported
on columns. These walkways were given the go ahead for construction immediately
in an attempt to ease the sorrows of the public, by removing the horrific site. When
finished, the new walkways did indeed accomplish this intent, as they were so
massive, they “had to be overdesigned by a factor of 20” (History Channel 2008).
The management company also hired a separate engineering design firm to perform
a complete check of the design of the new hotel (Levy and Salvadori 2002).

Finally, ASCE also organized a safety and responsibility committee with an initial
project to clarify the the confusion on steel connection detail and design
responsibilities and to recommend guidelines for future industry practice (Roddis
1993). Their recommendations were:
• The engineer of record (EOR) should have responsibility and authority for all
aspects of the structural design, including the connections. Connections
should either be designed or reviewed and approved by the EOR.

• The EOR should have sufficient time and compensation to prepare design

158
 drawings and to review and approve shop drawings in order to produce safe
structures.

• The design drawings should provide sufficient information for the fabricator
to produce correct shop drawings.

Delatte (2009) then describes some of the procedural changes that have actually
occurred in the nearly three decades since the tragedy.
Florida and Connecticut have mandated special inspection
procedures

New York State has adopted rules that state, in essence, that
each engineer is responsible for his or her own work

ASCE published Quality in the Constructed Project in 1990,

which was updated a decade later (ASCE 2000). This
publication assigns responsibility for connections, as well as for
other design elements.

The most important conclusion to take from this case, or any case for that matter, is
that the lessons learned from such failures are only applicable as long as the
industry remembers them. But even then, action is required to ensure those 114
lives were not in vain. Indeed, these cases can be studied and questioned more than
a fuzzy picture of an apparent UFO (unidentified flying object), but if no one
makes a move, that analysis is no more than…well, analysis. From the lack of
change that has actually been implemented due to this tragedy it is clear that the
industry did not learn the lesson, or at least not well enough. Delatte (2009)
observes that “[although] it has been extensively studied, doubts remain as to
whether the key lessons have in fact been learned.”

It is important to remember that despite all of the design changes, the walkways

159
were still highly under-designed, even per the original design—or structural
concept since structural calculations were never actually completed for this system.
Some argue that Gillum designed the rod to be continuous. Yet, this is inaccurate
and erroneous for multiple reasons. First, the drawings never showed a continuous
rod; they simply showed a typical detail for the condition at the 2nd and 3rd floor
walkways where the rod ends just below the box-beam. The structural engineers
never gave any consideration to the fourth floor walkway, which in the end was
used to support both itself and the 2nd floor walkway due to the connection details
already discussed. Second, the rod never failed—the box-beam failed as the
rods/nuts pulled right through it. Third, even if a continuous rod was utilized, the
connection most likely still would have failed, as the load on the two walkways
needed for failure was only 13% of the design live load required by the Kansas City
building code. Even with that said however, the following view by Roddis (1993)
still seems much too bitter to benefit the engineering industry at all.
The need to police professions (law and engineers alike) and to
continually punish professional misconduct must be recognized.
It is healthy; it is necessary. It instills public confidence—it
removes from practice those who may cause loss of life….Most
important, however, is it's prophylactic effect on the profession.
It is an effective weapon against complacency.

Such black and white views—when one thing happens, these repercussions MUST
follow—that never consider the characteristics of the situation at hand are exactly
the kind of heartless views that produce the same in return. Once again, Abraham
Lincoln said it best when he pleaded with the people that “[the] government, can
properly have no motive of revenge, no purpose to punish merely for punishment's
sake.… No purpose is served by punishing merely for punishment's sake (Phillips
1982). One can punish a dog for soiling the carpet; yet, when the pain wears off, if
no one is present to make him fear another beating, he will simply do it again—

160
only compassion, love, and empathy can truly train him to not want to pee on the
rug; anything else is mere coercion.

Finally, another very important concept is that of the selection process of design
professionals. ISPE (2010) tells of a report published by a subcommittee for the
House of Representatives in 1984, regarding the low-bid process—which was the
process utilized in this case. This report names this decision as “…one of the six
factors of critical importance in causing the structural failures in this particular
project….” The report goes on to explain that:
…there is a tendency to unrealistically reduce the price when
price is known to be the primary basis for the contract award…
use of “low bid” procedure has frequently resulted in
insufficient funds allocated to a project to adequately verify the
accuracy of design and to thoroughly check plans before
construction…selection of an Architect or Engineer solely on
price-competition basis provides the potential for reductions in
quality due to initial underestimation of the costs and resources
required to adequately perform the work.… Federal
procurement practices that lead to or promote the selection of
Architects and Engineers on a “low-bid” basis should be
changed to require…greater consideration given to prior related
experience and past performance of the parties seeking the
contract award.

As noted above, this change, as shown by the state of Illinois as well as many other
municipalities in the United States, has been effectively incorporated into the
industry on a governmental project basis. The goal now should be to implement
such into the construction industry on both public and private projects. The ISPE
only requires the QBS process to be used when selecting architects, engineers, and
land surveyors. It is imperative that this be extended to every discipline involved in
construction, including but not limited to:
• General contractors and all subcontractors.

161
 • Companies promoting themselves as a supplier of a proprietary product(s).

• Companies promoting their fabrication/production services for structural,

non-structural members, and other building components.

• Engineering, architectural, and construction sub-consultants, including

designers, inspection agencies, and testing agencies.

• Other person(s), or firm(s) that influence or control any characteristics of a

project, which directly or indirectly, and in any magnitude, have the potential
to put lives at risk.

4.1.5 Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse

The case of the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse in 1940 is quite possibly common
knowledge to more American citizens than any other, short of those having
occurred in the last five to ten years such as the I-35W bridge collapse—it almost
seems fictional. Yet, with video documentation, and innumerable personal and
professional accounts of the event, this failure is added to the list of all time
fantastically awesome failures. The bridge, nicknamed “Galloping Gertie” for it's
literally visible galloping motions during even the most lame winds, was
undoubtedly advanced for it's time; so much that mother nature decommissioned it
after only 4 months of public service (Delatte 2009).

4.1.5.1 Facts

“Galloping Gertie” was the real life equivalent of a modern day action film; the
place to go for thrill seeking teenagers, and a nightmare for those that were the least
bit susceptible to motion sickness—indeed, many came from all over just to ride
the rollercoaster, and still others complained of nausea when passing over it
(Delatte 2009). A common lore, as told by one of the construction workers who

162
built the bridge, was that he and his fellow workers would often suck on lemons to
combat nausea (WSDOT 2005). The bridge opened to the public on July 1, 1940
serving to connect Seattle and Tacoma, Washington across Puget Sound. It's main
span 2,800 feet long spanned between two 420 feet tall towers which supported the
cables the bridge deck was suspended from.

On November 6, 1940, Kenneth Arkin of the Washington State Toll Bridge

Authority, pulled up to Galloping Gertie to find that under a relatively modest
wind, severe oscillations were exhibited. A few hours later that morning, as wind
measurements showed wind speeds that had increased to 42 mph, the oscillations
had become even more violent. Levy and Salvadori (2002) describe the amazing
observations:
…the deck rose and fell at the center of the bridge 38 times per
minute with a 3 ft. (0.9 m) amplitude (Levy and Salvadori
2002).

Arkin, acted honorably and closed the bridge (Delatte 2009). It can be attributed to
this noble act, that not a single human life was lost in the event.

4.1.5.2 Technical Issues

The Tacoma Narrows bridge had three times the flexibility of any other bridge of
it's day (Levy and Salvadori 2002)—its span was 350 times its depth, and 72 times
its width. With the utilization of steel plate girders in favor of stiffening trusses,
paired with the fact that it had only two lanes, the bridge was narrow and very light
—appearing to have all the ingredients for disaster.

From the moment the bridge opened, its dynamic movements were visible. Many

163
attempts were made to minimize them. Tie-down cables were installed, then
snapped during a storm, and immediately reinstalled. A local college professor,
William Farquharson, conducted wind tunnel testing, the results of which suggested
the installment of deflector vanes or fairings could be utilized to alleviate some of
the motions. The installation of an untuned dynamic damper was also installed
(Delatte 2009).

At least four theories have been proposed to explain why the Tacoma Narrows
bridge failed in the manner in which it did. One theory was based on resonance,
another based on air vortices and wakes, others based on specific types of air
vortices, and still others based on torsional flutter. (Delatte 2009). While this
discussion could make a thesis in itself, the exact cause of the failure of the Tacoma
Narrows bridge is not as important to the topic of ethics as is the fact that it failed.
When considering the questions of “why?” a more appropriate question would be
“why was this bridge even proposed, designed, and built in the first place? The
actual failure mechanisms took half a century or more to determine, and even with
such they are still not entirely understood by the scientific community. Delatte
(2009) makes this point very simple by saying “…it seems that nothing has been
able to compensate for the inherent flexibility of plate girder suspension bridges.”
If this is true, 70 years after the fact, why was this project even conceived to begin
with?

4.1.5.3 Ethical Issues

As mentioned in the previous section, there were many signs that this bridge would
fail. Delatte (2009) tells of an engineer named Charles Andrew who reviewed the
structural plans for the bridge, as requested by the Toll Bridge Authority. Mr

164
Andrew spoke up voicing his opinion of being worried about the narrowness of the
design, saying that it would lead to motorist discomfort. If one opposing voice
weren't enough, another engineer, T. L. Condon, was also asked to review the plans.
Mr. Condon also voiced his concerns about the excessive narrowness of the bridge.
Delatte (2009) then explains that the bridge's ”narrowness and slenderness
represented a dramatic leap beyond previous practice, and these engineers were
concerned that this leap was not safe.” He goes on to pose the following
introspective discussion:
Every time engineers push the limits of technology, they risk a
similar loss, sometimes even a loss of life. How much is too
much? When is a possible advance worth a risk to public safety
(Delatte 2009)?

Never! Is society so vain that it still places the happiness of one above that of
another? When it is proposed that failure is the cost for human progress, no less is it
proposed that the life—and therefore happiness—of those who are killed is not as
important as those of future generations. Yet, those lives will then be less important
than those of future generations. This is then a never ending trend, which has the
ultimate conclusion that says nobody's happiness matters. This is entirely illogical;
to conquer this paradox, the engineering community must collectively as
themselves:
What can the engineering profession do to make the
implementation of new technology safer (Delatte 2009)?

Delatte (2009) takes notice of the fact that there had been many issues with
suspension bridge in that time, and that it was not until the success of John
Roebling that concerns began to dissipate. This is a perfect example for why
engineering students should be exposed to more engineering case studies, for as
generations fade out, the people who physically experienced the dramatic effects of

165
the failures that occurred during that time fade out as well. And, with this, a
collective lack of appreciation for the awesomeness of such starts to take hold, such
that the engineering community as a whole begins to convince themselves that the
stories were simply blown out of proportion; that the issues that led to such failures
had been fixed in the time that had elapsed; that such events could not happen again
—not with the technology presently available. Yet, history never fails; it almost
always happens again.

Indeed, this is a discussion every engineer should have with themselves, but it is
suggested that there is a finite definition of “too much.” There should be no
competition among the engineering profession. While one knows that competition
is a natural instinct of man, and that certain levels of such will always exist,
situations such as this are indeed going “too far.” For when even but one competent
engineer openly voices his or her concerns against the implementation of a new
technology, the engineering profession and the individual engineers thereof have
the responsibility and the duty to take it seriously. The advancement of such
technology should not proceed without addressing every single concern of the
engineer in question. Indeed, the questionable project should not proceed until this
engineer has been convinced of it's safety, and has acknowledged his or her
endorsement of it. This should be the case regardless of who this engineer is—an
employee for the design firm, a retired engineer on vacation, or a first year engineer
right out of college.

Levy and Salvadori (2002) point out that since “…the bridge had been designed by
one of the outstanding world experts in suspension bridge design, Leon Moisseiff,
there were few voices of alarm concerning its safety.” Delatte (2009) affirms this
by saying that “Leon Moisseif was a highly qualified and well-respected engineer,”

166
and that he had pioneered many design methods for determining and calculating
forces on suspension bridges. His methods were utilized all over the world at the
time. In large, he had “…contributed in some way to almost every suspension
bridge built during the first four decades of the 20th century.” Moisseiff himself
had successfully designed many suspension bridges using his own methods,
including “…the Golden Gate, Bronx-Whitestone, and San Francisco-Oakland Bay
bridges.”

Yet, the argument is made that this can never be an adequate excuse for failing to
take action. The fault in this case rests not on the shoulders of one person or one
design firm, but on the stout shoulders of the entire engineering community.
Engineers have a responsibility, not only to simply voice their concerns to the
appropriate people, but to ensure that they are heard, understood, and taken
seriously.

In a seemingly irrelevant story, the insurance agent for the bridge—Hallett French
—was supposed to have forwarded the insurance premiums for the bridge on to the
underwriters—the Merchants Fire Assurance Corporation. However, not thinking
the bridge would fail, Mr. French temporarily used the money for personal matters.
Levy and Salvadori (2002) claim that he intended to send the money through to the
Assurance company in a matter of weeks, but this can be debated as he was never
given the opportunity to do so. Karma stepped in to hold Mr. French accountable
for his actions.

167
4.1.5.4 Conclusions and Changes Made

Certainly, to quote Levy and Salvadori (2002), the key lesson to take from this case
is that, we as engineers, “would do well to look backward, sometimes, instead of
only forward.” The following quotes illustrate this concept very well.
…the sudden change in motion was alarming. Without any
intermediate stage, violent torsional movement started…. the
suspender cable broke, and large sections of the main span
dropped progressively, from the center outward, into the river
below. Loud bangs were heard, similar to gunfire.” … (Delatte
2009).

For a few minutes, we watched it with breathless anxiety,

lunging like a ship in a storm. At one time, it rose to nearly the
height of the towers, then fell, and twisted and writhed and was
dashed almost bottom upward. At last there seemed to be a
determined twist along the entire span, about one-half the
flooring being nearly reversed, and down went the immense
structure from its dizzy height to the stream below, with an
appalling crash and roar. (Levy and Salvadori 2002).

One may be wondering what on earth these quotes actually illustrate, other than the
true violent nature of the bridge's collapse. Indeed, these are reasonable questions
to ask oneself, but only prior to learning that the above quotes refer to entirely
different events. The first quote from Delatte (2009) true to form tells the horrific
story of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The second quote by Levi and Salvadori, on
the other hand, recounts the reactions of one person who witnessed the collapse of a
bridge over the Ohio River in Virginia in 1854, 86 years prior to the events at Puget
Sound in Washington. If one example weren't enough, Petroski (1994) tells of 10
other bridges, prior to the Tacoma Narrows, since the beginning of the 19th century
that had failed or were severely damaged by wind. The interesting thing about these
ten bridges is that as time advances, the span length of the bridges increase, as if
each time the designers were unaware of the previous failure, even though the

168
similarities between them were uncanny. As Delatte (2009) says:
Most of these bridges, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, had
small width-to-span ratios, ranging anywhere from 1:72 to 1:59.
They also experienced severe twisting right before collapse…

In fact, the twisting motion prior to collapse was a common characteristic of all
suspension bridges, which Leon Moisseiff should have known, as he was widely
accepted as an expert on suspension bridges. Yet, when questioned regarding the
event at Puget Sound, he could only say “I'm completely at a loss to explain the
collapse” (Levy and Salvadori 2002). One has to wonder how he could have been
so shocked unless he hadn't reviewed any case studies over the past century.

After the failure, the bridge was redesigned with four lanes and 30 feet deep
stiffening trusses, in a eerie case of “I told you so.” This though must have crossed
John Roebling's mind at least once, as he understood that the keys to constructing a
sturdy suspension bridge were “…mass of the deck, stiffening trusses, and stays.”

4.1.6 Other Cases

A few small things that went wrong that normally wouldn't have
made any difference and they came together in just a particular
kind of way… —Dr. Charles Perrow, Author of “Normal
Accidents” (History Channel 2008).

Two or three failures that interact in a way that nobody

anticipated they would interact, then they defeat the safety
systems and bring the system down. but if they had thrown
those interactions that brought about Apollo 13 to us in the
simulator, we would have walked off the program. we would
have said that's so far out, that could never happen —Dr.
Charles Perrow, Author of “Normal Accidents” (History
Channel 2008).

169
4.1.6.1 L'Ambiance Plaza Collapse

The L'Ambiance Plaza in Bridgeport, Connecticut was scheduled to be constructed

in 1987, using a then common method of construction called the “lift-slab
technique.” Levy and Salvadori (2002) call this case “The House of Cards” because
this construction method was “…like a house of cards supported by toothpicks, a
system with little, if any, lateral resistance and therefore unstable.” Indeed it would
prove to be unstable, when on April 23, 1987 each floor slab—beginning at the top
—fell one story at a time, temporarily halting the fall only to resume once the floor
supporting the ones above gave way to the additional load and began falling as
well. The progression of this collapse occurred rather quickly as witnesses reported
that it only took 5 seconds (Levy and Salvadori 2002). In the end, 28 construction
workers lost their lives.

The critical failure in this case was the inadequacy of the contractor to install
temporary lateral bracing, which has always been the responsibility of the
contractor. Delatte (2009) notes that it is common practice for “…engineers [to]
provide designs for completed structures, including permanent bracing but not
temporary bracing.” Yet, as noted by Feld and Carper (1997), many contractors
often have the mindset that “if [they] work fast enough, [they] won't have to brace
it, and nothing is likely to happen.” Lateral bracing was required for this project per
the contract documents, but was ultimately omitted by the contractor. Apparently,
he took the gamble that he and his crew could work “fast enough.” Unfortunately
for those 28 workers, he probably didn't plan on only having 5 seconds.

Once again, many previous cases, had they been studied, would have alerted people
involved to this possible scenario. Twenty years prior, there was a similar collapse
in Canada, and within the year prior to the L'Ambiance event, two other similar

170
failures had occurred (Delatte 2009). In the case of failures during construction,
there is hardly anything engineers can do if owners, building officials, clients, and
contractors will not enforce the oft suggested policy to retain the structural
engineers as a consultant during construction, including, at a minimum, the
engineer be present on site to inspect the critical work—lateral bracing, temporary
shoring, etc.

4.1.6.2 Kemper Arena Roof Collapse

This case study illustrates a very universal concept—one that not only applies to
engineers or the construction industry, but to all of humanity. The concept is
essentially this: One action may not be catastrophic when considered on a small
scale by itself, but when expanded to a multi-degree system in which an initial act
reinforces the next which reinforces another, and so on, this single seemingly
harmless act may have potential to cause failure.

Levy and Salvadori (2002) discuss the phenomena of ponding—the unstable

accumulation of precipitation on flat roofs. They explain that engineers can usually
neglect the additional weight of water that accumulates on a rigidly framed roof
due to the roof's deflection, because this amount is typically negligible. Yet, when
that same roof is comprised of flexible framing members, such as open-web steel
joists, that additional precipitation “…increases its deflection, which in turn allows
more water to gather on it, which induces greater deflection,” and so on. Levy and
Salvadori end the repetitious cycle at that point, but certainly they could have gone
on all the way until failure, because in certain circumstances, a flexible roof may be
unstable and susceptible to such anomalies. Structural engineers utilize a variable
designated “g” to determine the stability of such flexible roofs. The value for “g” is

171
based on the stiffness of the roof compared to the density (or relative weight) of the
liquid that accumulates thereon (e.g. rain, snow, etc.). When the calculated value
for “g” is less than 1.0, the roof essentially cannot support the weight of the
precipitation that is anticipated in design. They go on to describe this event using a
case study of the 1979 failure of the Kemper Arena roof in Kansas City. They
explain that when analyzed as individual components acting separately from one
another “…the roof would have most probably appeared to be stiff enough to be
stable.” However,
…when the ponding formulas were extended to a four-degree
system., including the deformations of the deck, the joists, the
trusses, and the long span portals, the critical value of g was
found to be only 0.627.

This proves that one must no only consider the direct implications and
repercussions of their actions, but the indirect ones as well. Actually, it could be
argued that attention should be given more so to the indirect results caused by one's
actions, because the direct results—such as hurting someone's feelings by yelling at
them, or making obscene gestures, and so forth—are generally obvious, and
therefore less attention is needed to be fully conscious of such.

4.1.6.3 Mianus River Bridge Collapse

Many times, it takes failure to alert the masses of the need for change. This was just
the case in the Collapse of the Mianus River bridge in 1983 in Greenwich, CT.
According to the History Channel (2008), the bridge was built in 1958 using a pin
and hanger design. This method utilized steel plates on both sides of a steel girder
connected with a steel pin that was inserted through the girder web. These plates
“hung” down from the pins where they attached to the adjacent girder in a similar

172
fashion. On the morning of June 28, 1983, one of these pin and hanger connections
failed. Once again, due to a lack of redundancy, since the other three connections
supporting that section of the bridge were unable to support the additional load,
they all failed as well, dropping the entire 100-foot section of bridge deck into the
river below. Four vehicles—2 cars and 2 trailers— fell with that section

In response to this failure, “hanger mitts” were installed on the Mianus River
bridge. Basically, these are steel supports that cantilever off the bottom flange of
the girder resting on the support. They are not attached to the adjacent girder, but
rather sit just below to catch the unsupported girder if the pin connection fails;
hence the term “mitt.” Additionally, this sparked the Connecticut commissioner of
transportation to call for a thorough inspection of 3500 bridges in the state of
Connecticut. In a semi-systematic game of “follow-the-leader,” this also lead to the
decision of many other municipalities across the nation to enact similar bridge
inspection policies.

4.2 Successes

Failure case study analysis is invaluable to engineers, such that they give one the
opportunity to learn from mistakes by his or her predecessors. Many have argued
that this the most efficient, and most effective learning experience one can receive.
However, paying too much attention to failures without acknowledging those
persons, companies, or administrations who did the right thing, only compounds
the issue, as this negatively reinforces the stereotype that academia is out of touch
with the practical side of the industry. This only serves to further segregate the
engineering community, while offering little motivation for engineers to act
ethically. The following sections will focus on the success and triumphs of the

173
engineering industry, in such a way as to uplift and inspire change, instead of
simply demanding it.

4.2.1 16th Street Pedestrian Bridge Over Interstate 25 (I-25)

Note: This section has been borrowed in many respects from an article written by Rens and
Rens (2010) – with permission from the author(s). Much of the structure has been re-
imagined, reformatted, and adapted to fit within the content of this text, however, the
general thoughts, ideas, and concepts are unchanged. While countless hours of research on
this topic was completed by the main author in preparation for this publication, the basic
content of this section should be attributed solely to Rens and Rens (2010). The main
author does, however, take full responsibility for any and all inadvertent omissions,
misrepresentations, typographical or other reproduction errors, should any be found.
Furthermore, it is highly recommended that the reader obtain a copy of said article –
Leading, Learning, And Living The Shackleton Way: Education And Practice, – to read in
concert with this thesis for a better understanding of the evolution of ideas and content.

The Pedestrian Bridge in Denver, Colorado that connects the 16th street mall over
the major interstate, I-25, is a single-span tubular truss bridge that was fabricated in
three sections. Because of this, the bridge required top-notch supervision, and
detailed quality control to successfully assemble the individual pieces on site. The
bridge, owned by the City and County of Denver (CCD), opened on December 16,
2006. When the contractor proposed to set the bridge over I-25, the project
manager raised a number of red flags. These included: (1) the fact that the
structural engineer was out of town and would not be present for the erection; (2)
there was not enough advanced notice to the public about the closure of I-25, and;
(3) the erection plan did not include a contingency plan if the erection did not go as
planned. The project manager acted on her concerns, taking responsibility to ensure
that these issues were addressed prior to proceeding, even though it cost the
contractor both time and money. Ultimately, the project manager was not penalized
for acting on her concerns. In fact, she was recognized with an award for her
willingness to speak up and ensure the safe installation (City and County of
Denver, Department of Public Works 2006).

174
It should be noted that many of the events noted in this case were a direct or
indirect result of the characteristics—decisions and indecisions, procedural
requirements and the lack thereof, regulation changes adopted, and so forth—of the
case discussed in section 4.1.1. The City and County of Denver Public Works
Department uses a noncompliance report during bridge construction projects to
note changes from the design. Through this process, an inspector writes up a
noncompliance report and then gives it to the contractor. The contractor documents
a solution for each item and submits it back to the design engineer, and to CCD, for
approval. This system keeps the engineer of record in the loop about construction
changes that could impact the integrity of the structure. Had this system been a
standard procedure, many of the cases already discussed most likely would have
been averted.

4.2.2 William LeMessurier Doing The Right Thing

The story of William LeMessurier is certainly one of the finest stories of ethics in
engineering. According to OEC (2006), William LeMessurier was “…one of the
nations most distinguished structural engineers…” and as such was hired on as a
consultant for the Citicorp tower in New York City, New York. Most of the
construction went on without a hitch, and the building was completed in 1977.
LeMessurier had to get extremely creative in his structural design, due to
construction limitations that restricted column locations. Specifically, an existing
church was located on the corner of the lot where they intended to build the tower.
Citicorp executives arranged a deal with the church to finance the entire design and
construction of new church facilities—in the same location as the existing church
building which was rather old and deteriorated at the time. In return the church

175
allowed them to build the tower up and over the church, effectively utilizing the
entire lot. With this limitation however, columns could not be placed at the corners
of the lot, and instead had to be placed at the city-block midpoints. LeMessurier
devised a system of diagonal braces that would transfer the load from the corners
over to the midpoints where the columns were located.

The story gets much more complex as it progresses: Not only did LeMessurier get
called out for a design flaw on the tower, but the people who called him out were a
college professor and his student. Instead of taking insult at the claim,
“LeMessurier explained his entire line of reasoning for putting the tower's supports
at the building's midpoints” to the professor and the student. Now, at a point when
many would consider the matter resolved and put it in the back of their mind,
LeMessurier did what any good structural engineer would do. As simply explained
by Gordon (2003), after you have designed any structure, “the next thing to do, and
a very right and proper thing, is to worry about it like blazes.” And worry
LeMessurier did. Troubled regarding his inattention to the buildings strength
against quartering, or diagonal winds—since many building codes did require such
analysis—LeMessurier started crunching the numbers (OEC 2006). What he found
was frightening; loads due to quartering winds increased the forces on some
members by as much as 40%, resulting in a 60% increase in stress at the building's
atypical joints.

Originally, LeMessurier had designed the building's diagonal braces to be

connected using full-penetration welds. However, unbeknownst to Mr. LeMessurier
—a mere design consultant who didn't necessarily need to know of construction
changes—the contractors had decided that full penetration welds were overkill, and
that simple bolted connections would be sufficient. Additionally, the contractor's

176
had exempted “many of the towers diagonal braces from load-bearing calculations,
so they had used far too few bolts.” Given this knowledge, it would have been easy
for LeMessurier to sneak out the back door and hope the blame would fall on the
contractor, but he did no such thing. What did LeMessurier do? He worried about it
like blazes! He pulled in a consultant from Canada who had worked on the
buildings original design to help perform additional wind tunnel test according to
LeMessurier's new loads. Unfortunately, he found exactly what he had predicted.

The difficult part was now how to alert the affected persons of the new data. This is
where LeMessurier's leadership skills truly shined. He didn't just contact the first
person he thought of, but like an engineer, he planned it out systematically to
minimize inconvenience to all involved. He contacted the architectural firm and
their lawyers, then they all met with him and his lawyers, whom decided it was
prudent to bring in another engineer named Les Robertson to review LeMessurier's
analysis of the situation. In the end, Robertson not only concurred with
LeMessurier, but he took more concern in the building as he didn't feel the tuned
damper could be relied upon in a heavy storm to ease the wind effects on the
building. LeMessurier contacted Citicorp, and persuaded them to make the repairs.
He then proceeded to organize with city officials, helping to draft an emergency
evacuation plan, as well as a plan to complete the repairs without having to alarm
the general public.

Acting on his engineering convictions turned out to help William LeMessurier in

some ways. His insurance company did end up having to reimburse Citicorp two
million dollars for the repairs, but as they were convinced that his actions, while
costly, were commendable and had prevented even more severe situations, they
believed this settlement was negligible to the total number of claims that would

177
have come pouring in had the building actually collapsed. Because of this,
LeMessurier's insurance rates actually went down, and his reputation as a
respectable and highly competent engineer has been further vindicated.

It is a peculiar situation, but many times people in modern society almost expect
corruption, deceit, and denial of responsibility, so when people do the right thing in
difficult situations the public is more impressed than if that person had done the
right thing in more reasonable situation. As engineers commonly say “everything is
relative.” So goes ethics—we are all human and we will all make mistakes, but
only those who can confidently admit their mistakes and take responsibility for
their actions without focusing on the actions of their neighbor, will rise to the top.
When the ability to sink is so large and you triumph anyway, you will be held
higher by those who aspire to be able to do the same. Take this story for example:
Given all of the college football teams in the NCAA, those who consistently win
are expected to win and fans are only shocked when they lose. Yet, those teams that
fight their hardest every single game but remain mediocre will experience glory
with nearly every victory, whereas the best teams only experience disappointment
when perfection or greatness is not attained. In other words, there's no point is
trying to be perfect for it is truly lonely at the top. Just try to do your best while
helping others climb the ladder in the process and you will have the majority
looking to you for leadership when the person at the front of the pack is no longer
visible.

4.2.3 Cleaning up the Johnstown Flood of 1889

The valley of tears—as the Johnstown flood of 1889 is commonly known (Levy
and Salvadori 2002)—is one of the most tragic structural failures on record. Just

178
the nickname itself is enough to make the hardest of hearts weep. Nearly 3,000
people killed, another thirty thousand or so left homeless, an entire city erased from
the record books as if it never existed—all because of the deterioration of the
waterway transportation industry, and the desires of a few wealthy business men
who took things one step too far. Yet this section is about success, and that is
exactly what the eternal optimist will find in this case study. But first, some
background information.

The South Fork Dam was constructed 14 miles upstream of Johnstown,

Pennsylvania, throughout the period 1839–1853. The original purpose for it was to
aid navigation on the Pennsylvania Canal during dry season. The dam could supply
enough water to the canal for “…two hundred boats per day for one hundred and
thirty days without any augmentation from rain” (Levy and Salvadori 2002).
Unfortunately, it was built right before the tail end of the demise of the canal
transportation industry, as railroad transportation was becoming more and more
popular. In 1880, since it was rarely utilized any longer, the dam was sold to the
South Fork Hunting and Fishing Club—this club included many members of the
upper-class including Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick. Upon transfer of
ownership, The South Fork Hunting and Fishing Club began thinking of plans to
modify and repair it to benefit their interests. For various reasons, they ultimately
lowered the top of the dam by 2 feet, decreased the spillway width by 30 feet,
added a trestle bridge across the width of the spillway, removed the outlets pipes
and added a screen underneath the new bridge to prevent fish from escaping over
the spillway.

All of the aforementioned modifications to the dam reduced the capacity of the
spillway to about one-third of it's original design (Levy and Salvadori 2002). Then,

179
on May 31, 1889, after a record rainstorm, the dam burst and released a “40 ft. (12
m) 'ball' of water” that rushed directly towards the community of Johnstown.
Though the amount of rain deposited by that storm was unprecedented, experts say
that the original dam would have still had the capacity to safely handle it. The water
crashed into the city, literally wiping it clean. The courts called the failure a
“providential visitation,” and did not require the South Fork Hunting and Fishing
Club to pay for any of the damages.

This tragedy, though one of the largest in the history of the United States and
possibly the world, would turn out to be just the beginning of the bonding of a
nation. The United States joined together after this tragedy to not only rebuild
Johnstown but to rebuild America, in what is considered the first American relief
effort in history (History Channel 2008). With the rotten taste of the civil war still
fresh in their mouths, and much hatred remaining in their hearts, the people of
America put aside their differences during this time to realize that the people they
may have hated the day before were the same people affecting their happiness that
day; the people who were murdering their brothers and fathers a few decades ago
were helping them rebuild their homes that day; the people who they thought had
nothing but evil in their hearts were handing out love for free that day. When
someone instills anger, disappointment, sadness, fear, regret, and so on, in your
heart, try to keep in mind that they will be the same person tomorrow—the same
person who will wipe your tears; the same person who kisses your cheek; or simply
the same person who will hold the door open for you at the bank. Acknowledge the
bad that they are doing today, but understand that they are just having a bad day, or
a rough life; maybe they just got laid off, or were recently victimized by a criminal;
maybe their car wouldn't start, or maybe the sun just looks a little darker to them
that day, that hour, or even that minute. Try to understand. Understand them;

180
understand human nature; understand right and wrong; but most of all understand
that your “rough day” may come tomorrow and you'll want someone to understand
you too.

4.3 Discussion

Levy and Salvadori (2002) tell of the ancient Babylonians who were “of one
language and of one speech.” They go on to illustrate man's lust for “more” by
contrasting the Babylonians miraculous unity.
But our earliest forefathers were not content. So ambitious were
they that they determined to build a city with a tower reaching
heaven, and God, offended by their pride, broke their single
speech into so many different languages that the Babylonians,
unable to understand one another, were stymied in their plan,
and their tower collapsed.

Levy and Salvadori coin this as the first structural collapse in human history.
However, they point out that this failure, which came to be through the work of
God, is given little weight by modern day engineers—many who believe that
everything is explainable through the laws of physics. This confidence however, is
ironically prevalent despite their lumping together of all unforeseeable events (e.g.
failures) into a category called “acts of God,” or even “providential visitations”
(Levi and Salvadori 2002). This analysis draws up an interesting debate: Where do
we draw the line on design life of a structure? Certainly, many of the general public
might naively assume that every structure is designed to stand forever. Whereas the
truth is quite the opposite—every structure is engineered and designed, not for
immortality, but for some predetermined and quantifiable “structural life,” based on
years of empirical data.

181
When buildings are designed as solidly as the World Trade Center, Building No. 7
was, yet procedural problems lead to it's demise, and still other structural support
systems such as the Hyatt Regency Walkways, get entirely neglected by engineers
and designers, where should the engineering industry draw the line? At some point
does the additional pressure and stress imposed by the unnecessary rules and
regulations start negatively impacting those decent engineers who put their heart
and soul into their work, while at the same time the difficulty in enforcing such is
so high that any beneficial effects they may have on those apathetic engineers
simply slips through the cracks unnoticed, until another horrific failure occurs and
opens our collective eyes to the reality in front of us? At some point, will the people
in charge recognize that the answer does not lie in complicated jargon but rather in
practical implementation of change?

Phillips (2000) says that for every “new era, there must be new thinking.” Well, for
every new era comes a new day; every new day, a new hour; every new hour is a
new moment; and every new moment is a moment for change. It is true that people
do bad things, and they should be held accountable for evilest of such. But, if one
expects others to be perfect, they expect something they themselves cannot even
provide. If one thinks another person is not even trying, they simply don't
understand what that person is going through. Everyone tries at the level that they
are able to. Before judging others for an apparent lack of effort, or a deliberate lack
of respect, take a breath and count your blessings such that you haven't gone
through some of the things they have; indeed you couldn't have, because you have
no idea what they have gone through. Unfortunately, all men are not created equal;
your pleasure is another person's pain; your pain might be regret for someone else;
your perseverance might be the last straw to another.

182
Other human beings do not confine us; our perception of them does. Others do not
make us angry, our perception of their actions does. The worst of people aren't even
bad people at all; through different experiences, they have simply developed a
definition of happiness that is different—granted, very different in some instances
—from your own. If you disagree, explain the logic in why someone would do
something that does not ultimately lead to happiness—or perceived happiness—in
one way or another. Why would one do something knowing outright that it is
wrong? Who has ever heard someone say I just did it because it was the wrong
thing to do, without being sarcastic or vindictive?

4.4 Summary and Conclusions

The Following conclusions, having already been argued logically with a thorough
discussion herein, are made and suggested for the structural engineering
community.
• Case study analysis in undergraduate engineering education.

It is precisely to keep these lessons in the minds of young

engineers that failures should be a permanent part of the
engineering literature (Delatte 2009).

The single most important source of judgment lies in learning

from one's mistakes and those of others (Petroski 1994).

• Advancement of industry standards such that engineers—the same engineers

that design a structure—are involved, and remain involved in a project from
the beginning of conception until the final brick is laid. These same engineers
should also be required on site during all critical construction sequences.

• Promote adequate compensation relative to services offered, and lower

workloads to allow engineers to focus more of their efforts on redundancy
and quality assurance (e.g. peer reviews, failure mode analysis, etc.).

The implications of structural failures, even though they are

183
 relatively rare, are far too serious for the scope of services to be
defined through a ‘‘low bid’’ process (Luth 2000).

…to achieve realistically high professional standards,

compensation must be commensurate with the work expected.
Unfortunately, the fee levels dictated by the marketplace show
that professional responsibility is not commensurate with
monetary rewards. This practice does not look promising for
encouraging future high levels of professionalism in the field of
structural engineering as practiced in the general building
industry (Roddis 1993).

The profession has been less successful at instigating changes

that require adoption by those outside the engineering
community especially with regard to establishing equitable fee
standards (Roddis 1993).

• Promotion of complete (foundations up to the steeple), regular (non-

sporadic), and periodic (annually, or biannually, or triannually, etc.) peer
reviews of existing failure critical structures (e.g. bridges, high occupancy
buildings, dams, hospitals, military, etc.), and possibly non-critical structures
as well.

City building departments do not—and cannot—provide

adequate checking on major projects. A formal peer-review
process on such projects should be mandatory. Peer reviewers
should be excluded from liability by law and should be held to a
higher standard of qualifications than ordinary engineers (Luth
2000).

• EMPATHY—Instead of condemning, try to understand. Think if you had

been placed in a situation that someone else is currently in, how would you
handle it? If they truly don't care and are just out to cause trouble, then follow
through with the repercussions, but if not, don't strip them of their license and
humiliate their career. It was Abraham Lincoln who wisely observed that
there is “…no purpose to punish merely for punishment's sake” (Phillips
1982).

• A gradual elimination of projects delivered on a “fast track” schedule. This

184
will take more than just words however, it will require integrity from every
one of the industry to say no. This will be difficult, no doubt; as Abraham
Lincoln was the first to say “it often requires more courage to dare to do right
than to fear to do wrong (Phillips 1982).” However, Honest Abe also wisely
observed that in his capacity as president, “what [he dealt] with [was] too
vast for malicious dealing.” And, indeed, this is the situation the engineering
profession is confronted with: Are the potential risks really worth it when
dealing with such a vast audience?

185
5. Conclusions

This paper expresses many opinions as well as historical facts on a variety of

different issues. It is not intended to cast blame or render judgment but rather to
present the case for a constructive dialog on ethics. More specifically, a discussion
to promote personal and professional character improvement and growth, was the
aim of this thesis. There are lessons to be learned in all of the examples presented
herein. Engineers must be diligent in their quest for excellence and self-fulfillment;
they must be able to conduct themselves ethically by doing the right thing at all
times, accept responsibility when it is needed, and lead their fellow engineers to
respond the same way. Individual and agency leadership manifests itself through
qualities such as honesty, integrity, and compassion. These characteristics go hand-
in-hand for living a responsible personal and professional life.

It can be said that there are three stages of personal development in one's quest
towards leadership. The first step, which is the most natural for people, involves
outward reflection and action. Reflecting outwardly is so simple and so natural, that
even babies do it. It is simply learning from the world around you; watching others,
and the choices and decisions they make. Acting outwardly is nothing more than
mimicking those actions of others as one observes them. Once again, this is a
natural process that everyone experiences from the day they are born.

Step two involves the first display of maturity in a person. Everyone experiences
this step at different stages in their life and unfortunately, some never mature to this
level. Essentially it involves period of reflection where one continues to mimic the
actions of the people they look up to, but the nature of such mimicking gradually

186
becomes much more conscious. This stage involves acting outwardly, but reflecting
inwardly, such that one starts to become aware of the outcomes, results,
repercussions, and so on, of such mimicry. They gradually start to develop a
perception of the reactions of other people to certain actions. This is where most
people start to develop a sense of right and wrong, by observing that certain actions
result in pain, sorrow, and repercussions, whereas others result in praise, excitement
and happiness. Concurrent with natural evolution, people will instinctively begin to
filter out the latter actions, and increase the former—increase good and decrease
bad. In this stage, most of the development is centered on results of actions as they
pertain to themselves—one gradually eliminates actions that inflict pain and sorrow
on oneself, and multiply the actions that conversely produce pleasure and
happiness.

The third and final stage, depending on the characteristics of one's environment
throughout stage two—whether or not it was conducive to growth—one may never
reach. This stage then involves reflecting outwardly and acting inwardly.
Essentially one redirects their focus back out towards others, as they had in the first
stage, except now, instead of blindly mimicking the actions of others, they observe
the effects imposed by everyone's actions (including their own), on everyone else.
This is combined with the consciousness developed in stage two that tells them
what is good and what is bad, and they gradually develop a consciousness of the
experiences of other people. Ultimately, this development—which never ceases—
leads one towards a path of ethics, responsibility, and leadership.

In summary, stage one develops one's natural instincts and has little effect on
ethics, responsibility and leadership. While ethics can somewhat be developed in
stage two, many times this is not the case. Often, especially in modern society

187
which commendably allows kids to grow at their own pace, all three traits are
developed, almost entirely in stage three.

Herein lies the problem: people who are given the proper tools to experience and
learn from the first two stages generally have little difficulty in reaching and
developing the skills of the third. Yet, with modern society, the number of people
who are not provided with the necessary tools appear to be increasing. Not only
that, but the situations that they experience in those first two stages, as a whole
regarding all of society, seem to be getting more and more debilitating in nature.
This shows that, not only is the number of people struggling to reach the critical
third stage increasing, but of those who never reach it, the average level attained is
also decreasing. Thence, more people are acting unethically, and those people as a
whole, are acting more unethical.

5.1 Ethics

Characteristics: honesty, modesty, candor, morality, integrity,

respect, kindness, generosity, sincerity, sympathy, empathy,
compassion, humility, righteousness, conscientiousness,
meekness, submissiveness, unobtrusiveness, subservience.

5.1.1 Personal Happiness

Many philosophers and enlightened people of all races, creeds, pedigrees and
customs have theorized the same basic definition for the age-old question of the
meaning of life. The general consensus is for one to, individually speaking, achieve
happiness and minimize suffering. The most recent person to offer this theory is his
Holiness the Dalai Lama, the 14th (Lama 2001). It has been argued in this thesis

188
that the first key to ethics is personal happiness. One will not have little need for
ethics until they are truly happy themselves. In his book “Ethics for the New
Millennium,” the Dalai Lama presents a convincing argument that while the overall
objective is each individual's happiness, this happiness is dependent upon the
happiness and well-being of others as well. Many understand that if their parents,
siblings, or children are unhappy, they will in turn experience sorrow. Still, most
can also identify with feelings of despair when friends or even casual acquaintances
seem down. However, when this lineage of relation extends far enough, many
regard such sorrow as being unaffected by or not contingent on their own
happiness. The argument presented herein is that this assumption is not entirely
accurate.

Consider the inverse of a linear function, y = x-1. As the variable, x, increases, the
function, y, approaches zero. However, never does it reach the point where y has
zero dependance on the variable, x. This condition only exists when x is infinity,
which is nothing more than a finite term created to represent a fictional entity, such
that mathematicians can analyze it. In a similar fashion, since the happiness of one's
family, friends, or even casual acquaintances has a visible effect on their personal
happiness, the happiness—or lack thereof—of each and every person in the world
has some affect on everyone else as well. Just because someone is separated from
you by 5 degrees of relation, 40 years of age, or even 1000 miles, does not mean
that you are immune to the effects of their sorrow. One thousand variables, each
equal to one-thousandth of the function, still sum to one, proving that the function
itself is no less dependent on those thousand “negligible” variables, than it would
be on one variable with a direct one-to-one relationship. In fact, all of humanity is
nothing but a system of equations: six billion equations (e.g. the expression of the
level of one's happiness (y) in relation to the level of happiness of every other

189
individual person (xi)), six billion unknowns (e.g. the level of happiness of every
individual person (xi)). So, y = f(xi) in which the number of equations equals the
number of unknowns, and thence the system of equations is determinate, solvable,
and finite.

With that said, the aim here is to challenge people—specifically the engineering
community whom have been repeatedly taught that an inverse function, when
added (or subtracted) to a linear or exponential function produces negligible results
(when the variable is sufficiently large of course) and can be disregarded for
analysis—to consider this effect of every other person's happiness on their own. No
matter how negligible something or someone may seem, surely it will come to be
that this thing, at one time or another will be incredibly crucial to your ultimate
happiness—or sorrow. The challenge to engineers is to illustrate a more responsible
and ethical way of life. Not just for the benefit of others, but with the understanding
that our life and our happiness is in turn affected by the lives of everyone we come
in contact with.

5.1.2 “Do the Right Thing”

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth

itself and all it contains, rather than do an immoral act. And
never suppose, that in any possible situation, or under any
circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing,
however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to
do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask
yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you,
and act accordingly —Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

It has been shown that maximum benefits for everyone involved will be earned
when the focus is on what motivates someone to “Do the Right Thing,” instead of

190
incredulously decrying why they consistently do the wrong thing. To the reader, at
this point it should come as no surprise that doing the right thing is often much
harder than it seems. However, with practice, every “right” decision is readily
available to those seeking through empathetic eyes. There should be no illusion that
this is a difficult task. One that you will spend your entire life trying to perfect. A
common misconception is that doing the right thing is easy; in fact more often than
not, it is the hardest thing. Many will question the motives of their neighbor, as if
blindsided with wonder how someone could do something that is so obviously
unethical, oblivious to the fact that someone else is questioning the same of them.
The only factor is what one decides to focus on. Just because one “right thing” is
easy to one person, does not mean that every “right thing” is similarly as easy.
Abraham Lincoln puts this concept into context by defining the characteristics
unique to both doing the right thing as well as doing the wrong thing.
It often requires more courage to dare to do right than to fear to
do wrong (Phillips 1982).

Indeed this is a struggle for most—not only must you work at developing yourself,
but you also must stand up for those same principles in everyday situations, as
Lincoln further teaches:
Stand with anybody that stands right…. Stand with him while
he is right and part with him when he goes wrong (Phillips
1982).

Certainly it should be clear now that a dishonest or deceitful act is equivalent to

taking the easy way out. Now then, consider the various ways in which dishonesty
can manifest itself. The most obvious is blatant dishonestly, which involves
deliberately lying with intentions to deceive someone. Beyond this case, the water
starts to get murky—many not only fail to comprehend the following cases, but
also disagree with the claim of them being unethical. The second manifestation of

191
dishonesty is passive honesty, which is undoubtedly knowing of, or witnessing
something unethical, and deliberately deciding to do nothing about it. Many
opponents of this concept will claim that if they were not a direct participant in the
situation, then they have absolutely no responsibility for of the outcomes resulting
from it. This is a common fallacy, for in other instances these same people will do
the right thing and stake their claim to ethical glory. But, how is it that one can
receive praise for doing good in one situation, yet not be responsible if they fail to
do so? Ultimately, ethics simply is a matter of action versus ability. Those who
have the ability to do good and don't are ultimately acting unethically; and those
who have the ability to do good and do are acting ethically. The final manifestation
of dishonesty is deceptive and intentional, incomplete honesty. Many find comfort
in the idea that they are doing the right thing when they are only partially honest—
intentionally omitting certain pieces of information that may be damaging to
themselves or someone else they know, or when in doing such proffers them greater
personal gain. Yet, remember that ethical conduct with unethical intentions has a
resultant which is unethical.
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead,
nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat
it —Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

As a conclusion to this discussion, consider the ways that honesty can manifest
itself. There is only one: active honesty. This is accomplished by accepting
responsibility for anything and everything that one has the ability to control, no
matter how much influence—or power—in the matter they may actually have; nor
how much benefit—or sorrow—they may gain from doing such. This is about a
contract with oneself—being proactive in one's efforts to do the right thing, holding
oneself accountable for such, and reporting only to one's conscious. Though it may
be extremely difficult, the potential rewards of ethical conduct are great. Consider

192
the following quotes as illustrations of this concept.
If ever you find yourself environed with difficulties and
perplexing circumstances out of which you are at a loss how to
extricate yourself, do what is right, and be assured that that will
extricate you the best out of the worst situations. Though you
cannot see when you take one step what will be the next, yet
follow truth, justice and plain dealing, and never fear their
leading you out of the labyrinth in the easiest manner
possible…. Be assured that nothing will be so pleasing as your
success —Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom —Thomas

Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

“Do the Right Thing” is one of the most common phrases used to persuade one to
act ethically. However, many interpretations of this phrase focus narrowly on the
faults of others with an outward projection, such that the only sentiments produced
from it are those of judgment. Many equate the issue of ethics with a problem of
what others can do better or differently to advance the almost universal objective of
bringing about global happiness—and in turn bring themselves happiness—in one
way or another. Because of this, over time, it has become a cliché to plead with
someone to do the right thing, when most don't even understand it's directive
themselves.

Therein lies the problem—the definition of doing the right thing has many
variables, including fundamental individual beliefs, individual momentary moods
and thoughts, the facts available for examination, the identity of the victim—as
well as the accuser and the accused—and innumerable others. For instance, in the
case of a serial killer, nearly every reasonable person would initially be sitting on
the prosecutor's side of the courtroom. However, it is reasonable to presume that
the percentage of people wrongly imprisoned for murder sitting on the defendant's

193
side would be significantly higher than the percentage of the general population
sitting with them. Then suppose the accused is mentally disabled and has been
regularly ejected from healthcare facilities for insufficient funds—the fraction of
people sitting on the defendant's side once again would rise significantly. If you
now consider the people closely related to the defendant, such as family and
friends, the the vote for not guilty among this group could quite probably be
unanimous.

Now, this is not to suggest that murderers are not bad people, or that depending on
the situation, murder may be the right thing to do—anyone with even a feeble
amount of ethical judgment would agree that murder is wrong. However, while one
person's opinion may be completely irrational to someone else, the undeniable truth
is that this person has very strong convictions for their opinions such that they
believe them to be right. Additionally, as has been displayed time after time, this
opinion only becomes stronger as the animosity towards it increases. In essence, the
more someone is attacked for their beliefs—whether right or wrong—the further
they retreat into survival mode—as is the case with most living organisms—such
that they will do anything necessary to salvage whatever level of happiness they
feel to be threatened.

One invariable truth that is consistently overlooked is that it is always easier to

expose things than to hide them. Consider the elementary game of hide and seek.
The end result, not by design but by nature, is that the hider is always found. The
find is the finish line; the end of the game; the conclusion. Therefore, the greatest
liars and con-men in history—even should they never get caught and their lies
never exposed—must continue the game of hiding and wondering if, when, and
how they will ever be found. Whereas, once their deceitful tactics are exposed, the

194
game ends for those seeking. Nobody wants to play a game that has no end, no
fourth quarter, no final two minutes, no 9th inning, no match point, no 'check-mate',
and so on. Why then are humans so fond of deception, when there is no possibility
of conclusion, let alone any potential for victory or reward for the perpetrator?

5.1.3 Empathy and Compassion

You have more of that feeling of personal resentment than I.

Perhaps I may have too little of it, but I never thought it paid. A
man has not time to spend half his life in quarrels. If any man
ceases to attack me, I never remember the past against him —
Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in
the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to
finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to
care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow
and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just
and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations —
Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

The most effective approach to confrontation, accusation, and all basic social
interactions is founded in empathy. Empathy, not sympathy, is defined as “the
intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts,
or attitudes of another” (Reference.com 2010). This does not imply acceptance of
or agreement with someone's feelings, or admission of fault or wrongness. It is
simply the ability to understand why one believes or feels a certain way. One can
empathize with people and still achieve good things, even great things; one can
empathize with the corrupt without feeding corruption; one can empathize with
failure without encouraging mediocrity; most importantly, one can empathize to
benefit others by letting them know that somebody is actually listening to their

195
concerns and not just demanding action. Similar to the old Chinese proverb that
says “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you
feed him for a lifetime” (Moncur 2007). Well, if you watch a man fish, befriend
him, empathize with his struggles, and help him discover for himself what it is that
he is doing wrong, you feed his soul for eternity. Empathy is not just putting
yourself in the shoes of another, but more so it is researching the human mind to
better understand how it works and how it operates. Ultimately, empathy is
introspection so that you can understand another person's actions, by vicariously
experiencing their struggle. You understand not just why they did what they did,
but why they felt they had to do it; why they felt they had no choice; how they were
merely searching for happiness just like yourself.

It may come to be that some will criticize this work for the amount of personal
opinion, hypothetical situations, imagery, and metaphors contained herein. And,
this is OK. It is not the expectation for every single person to benefit from this
thesis—but hopefully the majority. While many may not agree with such methods
because their learning styles are much different, the fact remains that it is never
possible to please everyone. One can only attempt to reach as many people as
possible. Then, borrowing some words of wisdom from Abraham Lincoln, “it turns
out that human beings reason largely by means of stories, not by mounds of data”
(Phillips 1982). Lincoln expounds upon this topic.
They say I tell a great many stories. I reckon I do; but I have
learned from long experience that plain people, take them as
they run, are more easily influenced through the medium of a
broad and humorous illustration than in any other way…
(Phillips 1982).

Lincoln was certainly no novice on the human condition. Widely considered as one
of the most learned American Presidents on the human mind, it was Lincoln's:

196
 …penetrating comprehension of human nature that helped [him]
possess the compassion necessary to issue the many pardons,
for which he is so famous, to deserting soldiers during the Civil
War (Phillips 1982).

Furthermore, Phillips (1982) goes on to describe the Lincoln memorial, observing

how the left hand was sculpted with his fist clenched, whereas his right hand is
open. This signifies Lincoln's “determination to preserve the Union,” and the
empathy and compassion with which he accepted the South back into the union,
respectively.

This thesis is not advocating the kind of ethics where one does what he or she
believes or “knows” to be right; or what their heart tells them is right; or what they
understand to be right as mandated by one religion or way of life. The complete
opposite of such is suggested—a realization that no one can ever be right on every
single issue, or certain of anything for that matter. Likewise, nobody can ever
possess infinite knowledge to be able to see any situation in a perfect light. Instead,
one should push themselves to see situations from their neighbors view. They
should try to understand, not only where they are coming from or what their basic
arguments are, but why they think such things; why they feel what they feel; how
their brain processes data in such a different way than their own. One should ask
themselves what another may have experienced in life to cause them to have to
look through those individually unique lenses; how they may have been raised to
perpetuate certain ideologies that are innate to them as the ABC's are to an English
speaking person, but as foreign to another as the same to any other nationality.

Life is not something that just happens and passes. It is something that molds,
shapes, and nourishes, providing an everlasting imprint on everyone it flashes in
front of. Life is something that must be explored from every angle possible to truly

197
understand right and wrong. Thomas Jefferson, when speaking of John Adam—a
good friend, yet political foe—said “His opinions are as honestly formed as my
own. Our different views of the same subject are the result of a difference in our
organization and experience” (Barefoot 2008).

5.1.4 Mindfulness

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but
far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the
tempting moment. —Benjamin Franklin (Rees and Spignesi
2007)

When your foundation is good, even if bad is built on top, the structure can be
repaired so that it remains stable. However, when the foundation is bad, no amount
of good can be built atop to stabilize the structure—only by demolition and
rebuilding can such be obtained. Thence, if one wishes to have a stable mind, they
must practice and stabilize the mind's foundation—or one's thoughts. One of the
most necessary, yet most lacking virtues of modern human beings is that of self-
critique—the ability to form an opinion on a specific matter, and then have
discipline enough to explore it further. This is only achieved when one realizes the
limitations which make them human, such as a natural bias toward self. Once this is
realized, and only then, one can seek out the invalidity of their own opinions.
Surely, this is the only way human beings can ever become truly unbiased, as they
are forced to resign from the flesh and enlist in the experiences of another, as to see
life from their perspective. It is impossible to live a life that is perfect—not only
will everyone inevitably do something at which someone else finds fault, but all
human beings will do things that are unquestionably wrong at one point or another.
While one needs to have remorse for their evil acts, no good can come from such

198
remorse if one does not experience growth and thereby better oneself because of it.
No amount of self loathing over regrettable acts will put one's mind at ease, thence
allowing them to grow. Only when such acts are acknowledged with love,
compassion, understanding, and determination to overcome, will personal growth
be attained.

5.2 Responsibility

Characteristics: accountability, liability, dependability,

reliability, discipline, preparedness, self-sacrifice, self-control,
ethics.

…at the root of the word “responsibility” is the Latin verb

respondere, which means to pledge back or to make a solemn
promise (Barefoot 2008).

5.2.1 Personal Responsibility

The ability to accept responsibility is the measure of the man.—

Roy L. Smith (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

The level of personal responsibility shown by some of the characters introduced in

this thesis can be illustrated by how they accepted responsibility in situations where
many would deflect or hide from such. Thomas Jefferson, at the young age of
fourteen, suggested that the cost of his schooling be deducted from the portion of
his family's estate that he inherited upon his father's death (Barefoot 2008).
Abraham Lincoln, as a young professional opened a store with a colleague of his.
The store did not last long before it went belly-up and stuck Lincoln with $1,100 in
debt—which was quite a significant amount of money back in his time. Though it

199
took some sacrifice and a good chunk of his life to repay, he eventually paid it all
back. (Phillips 1982).
The price of greatness is responsibility.—Winston Churchill
(Rees and Spignesi 2007).

Another illustration of personal responsibility is taken from Kalungu-Banda (2006)

regarding Nelson Mandela. After Madiba had risen out of the ashes of
imprisonment and had been elected the first democratic President of South Africa,
he had won not only the presidency but the hearts and souls of an entire nation.
Many of his constituents looked up to him not only on a political level but on a
personal level as well. After he decided to resign the presidency and retreat to the
life of an ordinary citizen, he endorsed one of the presidential candidates to be his
successor. Mandela however, did so fairly aggressively, but when the results came
in, the man he endorsed did not win. Realizing that he had subconsciously used
coercive tactics to persuade people to vote for this man, Mandela was very upset
with himself. So much that he went public to issue an apology to the nation for his
actions. One citizen commented that they “loved him even more as [they] listened
to his apology.” It takes more courage to admit one's faults than it does to pretend
to be faultless.

5.2.2 Professional Responsibility

Neither an aggressive thirst for power nor a brazen quest for

glory drove [Jefferson] into office; rather, he was motivated by
a deep sense of responsibility… (Barefoot 2008).

Who is responsible for what in modern society? How long are they responsible? To
what degree are they responsible? Where is the line of distinction that separates
one's responsibility from that of someone else? Indeed, it would be a wonderful

200
world if every citizen took responsibility for everything they had the power to
control. But, this is not the case; nor does it seem feasible to expect such in modern
society.
Errors once discovered are more than half amended —George
Washington (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

The preceding quote by George Washington works well when it comes to personal
responsibility, but for professional responsibility—especially that in structural
engineering—when lives are at risk, an error once discovered sometimes signifies
that it is too late for anything to be amended. Not many situations like the fifty-nine
story crisis present themselves in the everyday world of engineering. Indeed, not
many engineers like William LeMessurier exist. Yet, this does not have to be the
final nail in the coffin. The engineering industry can break free from this perpetual
state of mediocrity. All that it takes is the acceptance of responsibility, one engineer
at a time. Yet, this can not occur until a solid foundation of ethical conduct is built;
and not the vague ethics of the early 20th century, but the tangible ethics of the third
millennium. Ethics is not something like sports or politics, where your success is
measured relative to that of others. Regardless of the humility, honesty, or integrity
of your neighbor, if you conduct yourself unethically, the history books will always
regard you as such. George Washington was well aware of this; so much that he “…
would not allow his hungry soldiers to raid farms during the Revolutionary War—
stealing was stealing; it was as simple as that” (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

Introspection is the key to accepting responsibility. Companies should start asking

themselves how they are proactively training their employees to be responsible,
both personally and professionally. When only two out eleven respondents say that
their current company has an ethics program specifically dedicated to assisting
employees in difficult situations, how can the engineering industry as a whole

201
expect ethics to gain steam? When six people out of eleven respond that their
company does not provide any incentives for their employees to get their
professional engineering license, how can one say that they don't understand why
ethics is at such a low level? The simple fact of the matter is that everyone has a
role to play is this fight. The young engineer who feels like his opinions don't
matter, has a responsibility to ensure that his voice gets heard. Don't irresponsibly
write it off assuming that no one is listening. There was at least one person listening
when Martin King took a stand while his neighbors were burning his churches and
bombing his home. Someone is always listening, find them! To the mid-level
engineer who is not confident that their work is accurate—not because of a lack of
skill but because of a lack of resources, as the work is piling up on their desk faster
than they can review it. To these engineers—speak up! To senior-level engineers,
who are growing weary of the politics of confusion and blame, take a moment to
try empathize with your fellow colleagues. You will find not that it adds stress but
that it relieves it. Listen to what they have to say; empathize with them by
considering what you felt when you were in their shoes; then lead by example!

5.3 Leadership

Characteristics: authority, foresight, discernment, conviction,

persuasion, promotion, wisdom, judgment, bravery, courage,
patience, perseverance, responsibility

Fail to honor people, they fail to honor you. But of a good

leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
they will all say, “We did this ourselves” —Lao Tzu (Phillips
1982).

202
5.3.1 Talent and Obligation

In the discussion on leadership, it is helpful to consider the characteristics and

health of one's ethical dogma: those convictions and beliefs that guide our thoughts
and actions, in situations where conscience and integrity are pitted against our
innate human instincts of survival. The catalysts that drive some people to react and
seek instant gratification or pleasure, decrease mental stress, and/or relegate
accountability; and others to respond with long-term vision, a servant-minded
attitude, and a belief that responsibility is not something one may choose to accept,
but rather something a leader cannot decline, as illustrated by the following
passages:
In a virtuous government, and more especially in times like
these, public offices are what they should be, burdens to those
appointed to them, which it would be wrong to decline, though
foreseen to bring with them intense labour and great private
loss. —Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

I neither started the protest nor suggested it. I simply responded

to the call of the people for a spokesman —Martin Luther King
Jr. (Phillips 2000).

After being implored to accept the position of Secretary of State by President

George Washington himself, Thomas Jefferson admitted that it would be “…
impossible to give a flat refusal to such a nomination” (Barefoot 2008). Even more,
this statement came after he had already failed miserably in his leadership position
as Governor of Virginia, saying in response to his failure that he had “…no
ambition to govern men,” and that it was “…a painful and thankless office”
(Barefoot 2008). This is one example of many that vindicates the claim that certain
people are sought for positions of leadership not because they are the perfect
candidates for the job, but because they have consistently demonstrated leadership
characteristics— resiliency under pressure, ethical decision making in the face of

203
adversity, steady personal convictions, a dependable reputation, and most of all,
acceptance of responsibility without any implicit or explicit obligation to do so.

Shortly after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, Martin Luther King Jr., one of
the greatest leaders this nation—and possibly even the world—has ever seen, when
asked about his role in the United States' Civil Rights Movement of the mid-1900's,
responded humbly and simply by saying that “History has thrust me into this
position” (Phillips 2000). It was clear to both him and Thomas Jefferson that if they
didn't do it, nobody would, and even as they both were hesitant in their acceptance
of such responsibilities, they knew that they simply could not decline.
Truth advances and error recedes step by step only; and to do
our fellow-men the most good in our power, we must lead
where we can, follow where we cannot, and still go with them,
watching always the favorable moment for helping them to
another step —Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

Avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a

leader among men —Lao Tzu (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

When considering the topic of leadership, Plato masterfully sums up the

requirements for such, by simply saying that “only those who do not seek power
are qualified to hold it” (Phillips 2000). Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus define
leaders as those who “…articulate and define what has previously remained
implicit or unsaid” (Phillips 2000). The ethics of doing the right thing certainly is a
characteristic of leadership. It can be proven that one cannot be a leader—they can
be a dictator or manipulator, but not a leader—without ethics.
…truly great leaders tend to exhibit certain personal traits that
are more a part of their character, more innate. They include
high ethical standards in which a person consistently attempts to
“do the right thing” (Phillips 2000).

204
 Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to management and
politics to mere technique —Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

5.3.2 Leading by Example

This is no time for romantic illusions and empty philosophical

debates about freedom. This is a time for action —Martin
Luther King, Jr. (Phillips 2000).

The people wanted to do something they would have done with

or without me, but having preached the effectiveness of going to
jail for one's rights, I could hardly do less than they —Martin
Luther King, Jr. (Phillips 2000).

Contrary to the assumptions of many, leadership is a combination of self-sacrifice

and respect; it is living ethically, being proactively responsible, and leading others
to do the same. Many of the best leaders were able to distinguish between genuine
characteristics of a leader, and those promoted by leadership stereotypes.
Somewhere in between such leaders and the common man, the truth becomes
misrepresented, such that in paradoxical fashion, people develop personal qualities
of deception and coercion believing them to be characteristic qualities of
leadership. Some of the saddest such paradoxes of human nature are that for even
the most simple and innocent of beings, the love of power almost always triumphs
over the power of love; the root of all evil—NIV (2002) says that the love of
money is such a root of evil (First Timothy 6:10)—precedes the uprooting of evil;
and many hate hatred convinced that they are promoting love. Loving a few people
close to you is often confused for being a loving person. In confusing situations like
these, one must remember the words of Jesus Christ (NIV 2002):
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are
not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only
your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not

205
 even pagans do that (Matthew 5:44-47)?

The ability to love those who are directly meaningful to one's life, while
commendable in modern society in many respects, is really nothing more than what
most people should do naturally. Indeed, this should not be the exception to the
rule, but rather the rule of expectation. The greatest leaders in history have
consistently distinguished between such concepts, which allowed them to “Do the
Right Thing” through leading by example.

5.3.3 Vision and Action

Jones (1996) tells of a cartoonist who illustrates the concept of vision by drawing a
cartoon of an Indian scout with his ear to the ground listening for clues. Then, with
“a group of intent-looking cavalry” surrounding him, he makes his conclusion
“Heap big buffalo stampede. Three, maybe four feet away.”

By refusing a third term, Washington looked ahead to the future

of our government and insisted on the peaceful transfer of
power to a new generation of leaders (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

…Followers do not see solutions, even when they are obvious,

because they are not looking for them (Brown 2008).

The best leaders in history had one common trait: they never gave up. They were
willing to do anything and everything; to try everything at least once. Indeed, they
would not leave the game to be debated afterward with a series of questions of
“what-ifs.” They made certain that every possibility had been exhausted before they
threw in the towel; and more often than not, this allowed them to never have to
throw in the towel at all. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln claimed that his policy was “…

206
to have no policy,” and that he would “…not surrender this game leaving any
available card unplayed” (Phillips 1982).
Hoping once again to steer the country away from the threat of
war, Jefferson and his supporters in Congress passed an
Embargo Act in December 1807…. Jefferson called the
embargo “the last card we have to play, short of war” (Barefoot
2008).

After his disappointing defeat for the Senate seat won by

Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, Lincoln wrote: “The fight must go
on. The cause of civil liberty must not be surrendered at the end
of one or even one hundred defeats” (Phillips 1982).

Of the greatest leaders to ever live, nearly every one had an innate capacity to allow
themselves to be wrong. An ability to swallow their pride, and surrender their ego,
without sacrificing determination or momentum. Unlike many inspirational slogans
and self-help adages, there are very tangible ways to illustrate such characteristics
in the leaders mentioned throughout this thesis. For instance, each one made
conscious efforts to appeal to the egos of their adversaries. Furthermore, many of
them empathized so deeply they recognized the talent within those same
adversaries. The fact in many instances was that, even though they were on
“different sides” politically, spiritually, professionally, and so on, there were many
aspects in which they agreed. In politics, ideas such as protecting homeland
security, eliminating terrorism, and economic development are examples of things
that every politician will probably agree to—when one gets into the specifics that is
where personal preferences begin to diverge. Understanding that even their rivals
had the same overall goals that they had themselves, many leaders throughout time
have given practical credit to this such that they seek consultation or even the
employment of their “enemies.” Nelson Mandela, when responding to critics who
questioned his decision to appoint his recent opponent Mangosuihu Buthelezi to his

207
staff questioned of them:
Is it not true that, although he is in the opposition, Mr Buthelezi
is one of the capable leaders we have in this country? The fact
that Mr Buthelezi and I disagree on a number of issues cannot
blind me from seeing and appreciating many of his great
qualities (Kalungu-Banda 2006).

Similarly, when Abraham Lincoln appointed “one of his fiercest critics” (Phillips
1982) to the post of Defense Secretary, he responded to his colleagues who
questioned his decision by saying “I know he does not like me and I also do not
like him, but show me who among us is better than him for the job.” Furthermore,
after promoting another one of his critics, Salmon Chase, to the position of Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, Lincoln exclaimed “I'm not in favor of crushing
anybody out! If there is anything that a man can do and do it well, I say let him do
it.” George Washington, known to favor Federalist views, appointed Thomas
Jefferson—a passionately self-proclaimed Democratic-Republican—to the post of
Secretary of State (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

5.3.4 Faith and Risk

We all have points in our lives when we must do something entirely irrational, as if
we are acting completely opposite of a leader. This is fools gold however, to think
that one can lead without first taking a gamble of which door to open. When you
arrive at these set of doors, be confident, but realistic of the possibility that you will
choose wrong, and open the door that feels right.
Many of Washington's most trusted officers felt that crossing
the Delaware River on December 25, 1776, was much too great
a risk (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of

208
 reason to believe.—Voltaire (Rees and Spignesi 2007)

5.3.5 Servitude

With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can
succeed —Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

One of the greatest tricks of a dictator is to do something seemingly for someone

else, while in reality it only benefits them. The problem with this manipulation
tactic is that on the outside it appears to be something that benefits everyone, such
that one cannot argue with the person's apparent benevolence. The trick is that they
are orchestrating their actions in such a way that it feels more like a slap on the face
than it does a favor. Consider when people treat others only how they themselves
want to be treated, and not how the other person wants to be treated. A good
example of this is a husband buying his wife tickets to a football game, or a wife
buying her husband tickets to the ballet. Not that these are terrible gifts, but more
times than not, the person receiving the gift in either of these situations essentially
has no use for the gift they are receiving. Then, the only person that benefits from
the exchange is the person giving the gift. This is why the old saying to “treat
others as you would want to be treated” isn't necessarily the best philosophy.
Instead, you should “treat other people, not as you would want to be treated, but as
they want to be treated.” Once again, this is a measure of one's capacity for
empathy, as well as their understanding of human nature. This involves the third
stage of growth: reflecting outwardly and acting inwardly. Phillips (1982) makes
this distinction when speaking of Abraham Lincoln.
He treated people the way he would want to be treated, the way
he knew others wanted to be treated (Phillips 1982).

If you only treat people as you would want to be treated and you never try to

209
empathize with them to understand what they truly want, those same people will
eventually cut ties with you. They will separate from you not much different from
how America separated from Great Britain.
Kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people. Open
your breast, Sire, to liberal and expanded thought. Let not the
name of George the Third be a blot on the page of history….
The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.
Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit
where you fail. No longer persevere in sacrificing the rights of
one part of the empire to the inordinate desires of another; but
deal out to all equal and impartial right. It is neither our wish
nor our interest to separate from [Great Britain]—Still less let it
be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall
be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The
God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand,
of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them —Thomas
Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

5.3.6 Persuasion and Inspiration

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the
people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all
of the time —Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

Persuasion and inspiration are undoubtedly two of the most critical characteristics
of effective leadership. George Washington knew this; Abraham Lincoln knew this;
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew this. There is hardly a single leader who did not
either master this skill or at least become very conscious of its influence. The basic
precept is appealing to a person's passions and desires. To master this, considering
the variations of these qualities throughout the diversity of human beings, one must
first master an understanding of human nature. You need to understand why people
do what they do; not why they don't do the same things that you do—there is a
difference!

210
 Washington instinctively knew—as did Lincoln later—that
appealing to the spirit, through emotion and passion, was often
more effective than reason and logic (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

[Abraham Lincoln] almost always rejected coercion as a means

of attaining what he desired … we can see that it was his
mastery of the art of persuasion that brought him much of his
success (Phillips 1982).

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced,

persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be
adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a “drop of honey
catches more flies than a gallon of gall.” So with men. If you
would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are
his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his
heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his
reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little
trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause,
if indeed that cause really be a just one. On the contrary, assume
to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark
him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat
within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart;
and tho' your cause be naked truth itself… you shall no more be
able to [reach] him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise
with a rye straw. Such is man, and so must he be understood by
those who would lead him, even to his own best interest —
Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

Abraham Lincoln's masterful understanding of the art of persuasion is nothing more

than an extension of his expansive knowledge of the fundamentals of human
nature. Lincoln knew humans inside and out; almost as if he knew what someone
would do, what they wanted, or how they would respond even before they knew it
themselves.
Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise
whenever you can —Abraham Lincoln (Phillips 1982).

211
5.3.7 Perseverance and Dedication

In endeavors to improve our situation, we should never despair

—Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

Act well your part, there all the honor lies. He who does
something at the head of one Regiment, will eclipse him who
does nothing at the head of a hundred —Abraham Lincoln
(Phillips 1982).

A leader has to be concerned with semantics —Martin Luther

King, Jr. (Phillips 2000).

5.4 Recommendations

The following recommendations come as a compilation of those that have already

been presented. This is not intended as an exhaustive list but rather one that
highlights key points.

5.4.1 Individual Engineering

• Promotion of the development of empathy.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence,

and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be
touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom
more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond
amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored
with it…. Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed,
more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths
disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace

212
 with the times —Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

5.4.2 Engineering Education

• Promotion of case study analysis in undergraduate civil engineering

education.

Many writers have pointed out the need to integrate lessons

learned from failure case studies in civil engineering education.
(Delatte and Rens, 2002)

Nearly all past presidents of the United States who were even
remotely deemed good leaders were, like Truman, avid lifelong
learners. Abraham Lincoln, for example, taught himself nearly
everything he ever learned. With his own private book
collection, Thomas Jefferson personally replenished the Library
of Congress after it was burned by the British during the War of
1812. And John F. Kennedy, a writer before becoming a
politician, once wrote that it was “vital for a presidential
aspirant to have a deep sense of history.” (Phillips 2000).

• Promotion for a significant increase in the amount of exposure undergraduate

civil engineering students are given on the topics of the industry such as
calculating wind, seismic, snow, and other live loads; basic understanding of
project drawings and specifications; legal implications; etc.

Introduction of basic wind, snow, or other live loads tends to be

a topic overlooked in many engineering courses… (Delatte and
Rens 2002).

5.4.3 Professional Engineering

As interesting as this discussion may be—or uninteresting to some possibly—still

some may only care for the areas that relate directly to structural engineering. Of
the many engineering case studies that have been reviewed and analyzed in concert

213
with the topic of this thesis, many conclusions and recommendations have been
developed. Among the cases that spurred some of the discussions that led to these
recommendations, some of the most influential cases are the following: the Tacoma
Narrow bridge collapse of 1941, the construction failure of the L'Ambiance Plaza
in 1987, the Hyatt Regency walkways collapse of 1981, and the girder failure on
the C-470 overpass above I-70 in 2004. From these and every other cases study
presented herein, the following recommendations have been compiled:
• Periodic (annually, biannually, etc.) design review of all failure-critical
structures—not just inspections, but a review of existing contract drawings,
as-built drawings, specifications, request for information (RFI) submittals,
and so on.

Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes —Oscar

Wilde (Rees and Spignesi 2007).

• Advancement of industry standards such that engineers—the same engineers

that design a structure—are involved, and remain involved in a project from
the beginning of conception until the final brick is laid. These same engineers
should also be required on site during all critical construction sequences.

• Promote adequate compensation relative to services offered, and lower

workloads to allow engineers to focus more of their efforts on redundancy
and quality assurance (e.g. peer reviews, failure mode analysis, etc.).

• A gradual elimination of projects delivered on a “fast track” schedule.

5.5 Engineering Lessons

5.5.1 Failure

Many, if not all failures occur, at least in part due to pressure—whether this be in
the form of a fast track schedule pressuring expediency, panicked clients or bosses
who need something “right away,” or simply inadequate industry fees causing

214
engineers to take on more work than they can reasonably handle. When these
situations arise, which will most likely be often, it is important to take a step out of
your own shoes momentarily and look at the situation from the viewpoint of
everyone else involved. First, ask yourself what specifically your boss, his boss,
your client, the contractor, etc. is doing regarding that situation and compare it to
your own efforts. Next, ask yourself why each person is making such actions—
could they truly be in a bind and need your assistance? Is it possible that they may
have come off a little harsh or direct simply because they are under pressure
themselves? Finally, examine your own efforts once again and think about your
responsibilities—not just what is written on paper or in a job description, but your
personal responsibilities, social responsibilities, professional responsibilities, and
so on. Compare these to your capacity—how much do you have left? Can you do
more?

5.5.2 Confidence

It is important to learn not only to be empathetic, but also to remain confident in

one's decisions, as an engineer, and as a member of society. Similar to how many
equate kindness with weakness, the same equate empathy to a lack of confidence.
This is entirely false however, as confidence is a very necessary characteristic when
practicing empathy. One must have sufficient confidence in their own beliefs and
ethical conclusions to be able to temporarily abandon them while he or she sets out
to understand the view of their opponent.
…it behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in
their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are
able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so —
Thomas Jefferson (Barefoot 2008).

215
5.5.3 Judgment

Many young engineers encounter the following scenario: They will be asked to
design a beam or a column or whatever portion of a structure it may be. Once they
finish with their design, they proudly present it to the project engineer or whoever
asked them to design it. They confidently express their answer, explain their logic
and design methods only to find the other engineer staring blankly either at the
piece of paper in front of them or at the young engineer directly. Uncertain of what
is going through this other engineer's mind, the younger engineer starts to become
nervous and uncomfortable. This period can last up to a few minutes in some
circumstances before the experienced engineer flatly states “…that can't be
right…” The design engineer may get taken off-guard by this proclamation,
thinking to themselves how they just spent hours designing it when the other
engineer knew the answer all along. To some extent this is true, however it is not so
much that the project engineer knows the correct answer, as they are able to spot
blatantly wrong answers, which younger engineers tend to struggle with more
often. This concept is illustrated by the following quotes.
The engineer should know the approximate answer before
sitting down in front of a computer and must be able to
distinguish an accurate solution from one that is absurd but
appears precise (Delatte and Rens 2002).

The first and most indispensable design tool is judgment. It is

engineering and design judgment that not only gets projects
started in the right direction but also keeps a critical eye on their
progress and execution (Petroski 1994).

It is judgment that separates the significant from the

insignificant details, and it is judgment that catches analysis
going astray (Petroski 1994).

The same goes for just starting a problem. A lot of time can be saved when you

216
have a general idea of the design procedures you will utilize and a feasible solution
that you will get before you even start design. A significant of time, effort, and
resources can be saved by adding a little leg-work in the beginning, such that one
doesn't heedlessly plow into the task ahead.

217
5.6 Other Helpful Resources on Ethics, Responsibility, and Leadership

5.6.1 Internet

5.6.1.1 Ethics, Responsibility, and Leadership

Applied Ethics on the World Wide Web – Homepage:

http://www.ethicsweb.ca/resources/

British Broadcasting Corporation – Ethics: http://www.ethicsweb.ca/resources/

Online Ethics Center – Homepage: http://www.onlineethics.org/

Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy – Homepage:

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/

Santa Clara University – The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics:

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/

Institute for Global Ethics – Homepage: http://www.globalethics.org/

California State University, Fullerton – Ethics on the World Wide Web:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/ethics/ethics_list.html

United States of Government Ethics – Homepage:

http://www.usoge.gov/index.aspx

Five Cent Nickle – Is Personal Responsibility Dead?:

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2009/05/14/is-personal-responsibility-dead-
dfa/

Livestrong – Accepting Personal Responsibility:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698-accepting-personal-responsibility/

Personal-Development – Personal Responsibility: http://personal-

development.com/chuck/responsibility.htm

218
5.6.1.2 Engineering – Ethics, Professionalism, and Case Studies

Ethics Education Library – Homepage: http://ethics.iit.edu/eelibrary/

Student Pugwash USA – Pledge: http://www.spusa.org/pledge/
Texas Tech University – Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism:
http://www.murdough.ttu.edu/pd.cfm?pt=Murdough
http://www.niee.org/murdoughCenter/index.php

Texas Tech University – Applied Ethics in Professional Practice:

http://www.murdough.ttu.edu/pd.cfm?pt=AECM

Texas A&M University – Engineering Ethics: http://ethics.tamu.edu/

National Institute for Engineering Ethics – NIEE:

http://www.niee.org/murdoughCenter/index.php
http://www.murdough.ttu.edu/pd.cfm?pt=NIEE

National Academy of Engineering – Ethics Center: http://www.nae.edu/ethicscenter

Materials Digital Library Pathway – Failure Case Studies:

http://matdl.org/failurecases/

Materials Digital Library Pathway – Failure Case Studies Bibliography:

http://matdl.org/failurecases/bibliography.htm

Washington State University – Kenneth Carper (Faculty Webpage):

http://www.arch.wsu.edu/faculty/kcarper/asce.htm

Cornell University – Jill Powell (List of Engineering Successes & Failures):

http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/FailureCases/List_Engineering_Successes
_Failures.htm

Engineering.com – Ethics Case Studies:

http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/Cate
goryView/categoryId/7/Ethics-Case-Studies.aspx

219
Engineering.com – Workplace Ethics:
http://www.engineering.com/Blogs/tabid/3207/EntryId/138/Workplace-
Ethics.aspx

5.6.2 Books

John C. Maxwell – Ethics 101

Alexander Brown – Personal Responsibility: Why It Matters

Robert B. Mellert – Seven Ethical Theories

Richard Taylor – Ethics, Faith, and Reason

Paul A. Newberry – Ethical traditions

Peggy Morgan and Clive A. Lawton – Ethical Issues In Six Religious Traditions

5.6.3 Journals and Articles

American Society of Professional Engineers (ASCE) – Journal of Performance of

Constructed Facilities

American Society of Professional Engineers (ASCE) – Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management

American Society of Professional Engineers (ASCE) – Journal of Leadership and

Management in Engineering

American Society of Professional Engineers (ASCE) – Journal of Professional

Issues in Engineering Education and Practice

American Society of Professional Engineers (ASCE) – Journal of Computing in

Civil Engineering

220
5.6.4 Institutions, Professional Societies and Organizations

American Society of Professional Engineers – ASCE

National Society of Professional Engineers – NSPE

National Institute of Engineering Ethics – NIEE

221
 APPENDIX A

CODES OF ETHICS

A.1 NSPE—Code of Ethics (NSPE 2010a)

A.1.1 Preamble

Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession,

engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.
Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.
Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality,
fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional
behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.

A.1.2 Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to
enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

A.1.3 Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

222
 a) If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger
life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other
authority as may be appropriate.
b) Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in
conformity with applicable standards.
c) Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior
consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by
law or this Code.
d) Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business
ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in
fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
e) Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a
person or firm.
f) Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall
report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant,
also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in
furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.
a) Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by
education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
b) Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents
dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any
plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.
c) Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for
coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering
documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is
signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the

223
 segment.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
a) Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports,
statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent
information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear
the date indicating when it was current.
b) Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded
upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
c) Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on
technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties,
unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the
interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing
the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
a) Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that
could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of
their services.
b) Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from
more than one party for services on the same project, or for services
pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully
disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.
c) Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable
consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection
with the work for which they are responsible.
d) Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a
governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not

224
 participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by
them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.
e) Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental
body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a
member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a) Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit
misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall
not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject
matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to
the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts
concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers, or past
accomplishments.
b) Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or
indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by
public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as
having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract.
They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to
secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage
fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide
established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
A.1.4 Professional Obligations

1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of

honesty and integrity.
a) Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the
facts.
b) Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a

225
 project will not be successful.
c) Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their
regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside engineering
employment, they will notify their employers.
d) Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer
by false or misleading pretenses.
e) Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the
dignity and integrity of the profession.
2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
a) Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance
for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-
being of their community.
b) Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications
that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the
client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall
notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the
project.
c) Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge and appreciation
of engineering and its achievements.
d) Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable
development1 in order to protect the environment for future generations.
3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
a) Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material
misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
b) Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may advertise for recruitment
of personnel.
c) Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may prepare articles for the lay

226
 or technical press, but such articles shall not imply credit to the author
for work performed by others.
4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information
concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or
former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
a) Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties,
promote or arrange for new employment or practice in connection with
a specific project for which the engineer has gained particular and
specialized knowledge.
b) Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties,
participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a
specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained
particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or
employer.
5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting
interests.
a) Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including
free engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for
specifying their product.
b) Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or
indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or
employers of the engineer in connection with work for which the
engineer is responsible.
6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or
professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by
other improper or questionable methods.
a) Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a

227
 contingent basis under circumstances in which their judgment may be
compromised.
b) Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering work
only to the extent consistent with policies of the employer and in
accordance with ethical considerations.
c) Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies,
laboratory, or office facilities of an employer to carry on outside private
practice.
7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or
indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of
other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or
illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for
action.
a) Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another
engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such
engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has
been terminated.
b) Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are
entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so
required by their employment duties.
c) Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering
comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers.
8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional
activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for
services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where
the engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected.
a) Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of

228
 engineering.
b) Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or
partnership as a "cloak" for unethical acts.
9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is
due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.
a) Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who
may be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or
other accomplishments.
b) Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the designs
remain the property of the client and may not be duplicated by the
engineer for others without express permission.
c) Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which
the engineer may make improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or
other records that may justify copyrights or patents, should enter into a
positive agreement regarding ownership.
d) Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to an
employer's work are the employer's property. The employer should
indemnify the engineer for use of the information for any purpose other
than the original purpose.
e) Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout
their careers and should keep current in their specialty fields by
engaging in professional practice, participating in continuing education
courses, reading in the technical literature, and attending professional
meetings and seminars.

Footnote 1: "Sustainable development" is the challenge of meeting human needs

for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and

229
effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality
and the natural resource base essential for future development.

—As Revised July 2007

By order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, former
Section 11(c) of the NSPE Code of Ethics prohibiting competitive bidding, and all
policy statements, opinions, rulings or other guidelines interpreting its scope, have
been rescinded as unlawfully interfering with the legal right of engineers, protected
under the antitrust laws, to provide price information to prospective clients;
accordingly, nothing contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements,
opinions, rulings or other guidelines prohibits the submission of price quotations or
competitive bids for engineering services at any time or in any amount.

A.1.5 Statement by NSPE Executive Committee

In order to correct misunderstandings which have been indicated in some instances

since the issuance of the Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final
Judgment, it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme Court of
the United States declared: "The Sherman Act does not require competitive
bidding."

It is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court decision:

• Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for engineering services.
• Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering services.
• Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering
services are not affected, and remain in full force and effect.
• State societies and local chapters are free to actively and aggressively seek

230
 legislation for professional selection and negotiation procedures by public
agencies.
• State registration board rules of professional conduct, including rules
prohibiting competitive bidding for engineering services, are not affected
and remain in full force and effect. State registration boards with authority
to adopt rules of professional conduct may adopt rules governing
procedures to obtain engineering services.
• As noted by the Supreme Court, "nothing in the judgment prevents NSPE
and its members from attempting to influence governmental action . . ."

NOTE: In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-à-

vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence
conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services,
which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish
and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to
apply to the Engineer, and it is incumbent on members of NSPE to endeavor to live
up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code.

A.2 NSPE—Engineer's Creed (NSPE 2010b)

As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the

advancement and betterment of human welfare.

I pledge:
• To give the utmost of performance;
• To participate in none but honest enterprise;
• To live and work according to the laws of man and the highest standards of
professional conduct;

231
 • To place service before profit, the honor and standing of the profession
before personal advantage, and the public welfare above all other
considerations.
• In humility and with need for Divine Guidance, I make this pledge.

*Adopted by National Society of Professional Engineers, June 1954

A.3 ASCE—Code of Ethics (ASCE 2010)

A.3.1 Fundamental Principles

Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering
profession by:
1. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and
the environment;
2. being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their
employers and clients;
3. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering
profession; and
4. supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines.

A.3.2 Fundamental Canons

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development3
in the performance of their professional duties.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as

232
 faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their
services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor,
integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.
7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their
careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of
those engineers under their supervision.

A.3.3 Guidelines to Practice Under the Fundamental Canons of Ethics

CANON 1.
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and
shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the
performance of their professional duties.

Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and welfare of the general
public are dependent upon engineering judgments, decisions and practices
incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.
1. Engineers shall approve or seal only those design documents, reviewed or
prepared by them, which are determined to be safe for public health and
welfare in conformity with accepted engineering standards.
2. Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances
where the safety, health and welfare of the public are endangered, or the
principles of sustainable development ignored, shall inform their clients or
employers of the possible consequences.
3. Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or

233
 firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present
such information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with
the proper authority in furnishing such further information or assistance as
may be required.
4. Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic
affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of
their communities, and the protection of the environment through the
practice of sustainable development.
5. Engineers should be committed to improving the environment by adherence
to the principles of sustainable development so as to enhance the quality of
life of the general public.

CANON 2.
Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.
1. Engineers shall undertake to perform engineering assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the technical field of engineering
involved.
2. Engineers may accept an assignment requiring education or experience
outside of their own fields of competence, provided their services are
restricted to those phases of the project in which they are qualified. All
other phases of such project shall be performed by qualified associates,
consultants, or employees.
3. Engineers shall not affix their signatures or seals to any engineering plan or
document dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence by
virtue of education or experience or to any such plan or document not
reviewed or prepared under their supervisory control.

234
CANON 3.
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
1. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering
and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination
of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.
2. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements,
or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in
such reports, statements, or testimony.
3. Engineers, when serving as expert witnesses, shall express an engineering
opinion only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts,
upon a background of technical competence, and upon honest conviction.
4. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on engineering
matters which are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they
indicate on whose behalf the statements are made.
5. Engineers shall be dignified and modest in explaining their work and merit,
and will avoid any act tending to promote their own interests at the expense
of the integrity, honor and dignity of the profession.

CANON 4.
Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
1. Engineers shall avoid all known or potential conflicts of interest with their
employers or clients and shall promptly inform their employers or clients of
any business association, interests, or circumstances which could influence
their judgment or the quality of their services.
2. Engineers shall not accept compensation from more than one party for
services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project,

235
 unless the circumstances are fully disclosed to and agreed to, by all
interested parties.
3. Engineers shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or indirectly, from
contractors, their agents, or other parties dealing with their clients or
employers in connection with work for which they are responsible.
4. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a
governmental body or department shall not participate in considerations or
actions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their
organization in private or public engineering practice.
5. Engineers shall advise their employers or clients when, as a result of their
studies, they believe a project will not be successful.
6. Engineers shall not use confidential information coming to them in the
course of their assignments as a means of making personal profit if such
action is adverse to the interests of their clients, employers or the public.
7. Engineers shall not accept professional employment outside of their regular
work or interest without the knowledge of their employers.

CANON 5.
Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and
shall not compete unfairly with others.
1. Engineers shall not give, solicit or receive either directly or indirectly, any
political contribution, gratuity, or unlawful consideration in order to secure
work, exclusive of securing salaried positions through employment
agencies.
2. Engineers should negotiate contracts for professional services fairly and on
the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of
professional service required.

236
3. Engineers may request, propose or accept professional commissions on a
contingent basis only under circumstances in which their professional
judgments would not be compromised.
4. Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their academic or
professional qualifications or experience.
5. Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to those to whom
credit is due, and shall recognize the proprietary interests of others.
Whenever possible, they shall name the person or persons who may be
responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other accomplishments.
6. Engineers may advertise professional services in a way that does not
contain misleading language or is in any other manner derogatory to the
dignity of the profession. Examples of permissible advertising are as
follows:
• Professional cards in recognized, dignified publications, and listings in
rosters or directories published by responsible organizations, provided
that the cards or listings are consistent in size and content and are in a
section of the publication regularly devoted to such professional cards.
• Brochures which factually describe experience, facilities, personnel and
capacity to render service, providing they are not misleading with
respect to the engineer's participation in projects described.
• Display advertising in recognized dignified business and professional
publications, providing it is factual and is not misleading with respect to
the engineer's extent of participation in projects described.
• A statement of the engineers' names or the name of the firm and
statement of the type of service posted on projects for which they render
services.
• Preparation or authorization of descriptive articles for the lay or

237
 technical press, which are factual and dignified. Such articles shall not
imply anything more than direct participation in the project described.
• Permission by engineers for their names to be used in commercial
advertisements, such as may be published by contractors, material
suppliers, etc., only by means of a modest, dignified notation
acknowledging the engineers' participation in the project described.
Such permission shall not include public endorsement of proprietary
products.
7. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the
professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another
engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work.
8. Engineers shall not use equipment, supplies, laboratory or office facilities of
their employers to carry on outside private practice without the consent of
their employers.

CANON 6.
Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity,
and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero tolerance for
bribery, fraud, and corruption.
1. Engineers shall not knowingly engage in business or professional practices
of a fraudulent, dishonest or unethical nature.
2. Engineers shall be scrupulously honest in their control and spending of
monies, and promote effective use of resources through open, honest and
impartial service with fidelity to the public, employers, associates and
clients.
3. Engineers shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in
all engineering or construction activities in which they are engaged.

238
 4. Engineers should be especially vigilant to maintain appropriate ethical
behavior where payments of gratuities or bribes are institutionalized
practices.
5. Engineers should strive for transparency in the procurement and execution
of projects. Transparency includes disclosure of names, addresses, purposes,
and fees or commissions paid for all agents facilitating projects.
6. Engineers should encourage the use of certifications specifying zero
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all contracts.

CANON 7.
Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers,
and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers
under their supervision.
1. Engineers should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in
professional practice, participating in continuing education courses, reading
in the technical literature, and attending professional meetings and
seminars.
2. Engineers should encourage their engineering employees to become
registered at the earliest possible date.
3. Engineers should encourage engineering employees to attend and present
papers at professional and technical society meetings.
4. Engineers shall uphold the principle of mutually satisfying relationships
between employers and employees with respect to terms of employment
including professional grade descriptions, salary ranges, and fringe benefits.

1
The Society's Code of Ethics was adopted on September 2, 1914 and was most
recently amended on July 23, 2006. Pursuant to the Society's Bylaws, it is the duty

239
of every Society member to report promptly to the Committee on Professional
Conduct any observed violation of the Code of Ethics.

2
In April 1975, the ASCE Board of Direction adopted the fundamental principles
of the Code of Ethics of Engineers as accepted by the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET).

3
In November 1996, the ASCE Board of Direction adopted the following definition
of Sustainable Development: "Sustainable Development is the challenge of meeting
human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation,
shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting
environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future
development.”

240
 APPENDIX B

COMPLETE RECORD OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

B.1 Graduate Student Weekly Discussion Boards

B.1.1 Discussion 1: Engineering Case Studies
Being a leader includes having the integrity to do the right thing and taking
responsibility for oneself and others. Benator and Thumann state, "If one word
could describe the essence of project management it is responsibility." Two recent
engineering case studies show the complexity and results for taking responsibility
and doing the right thing. The first case study is a girder failure on the C-470
Bridge over I-70 in Golden, CO. This case study exposes many issues facing bridge
construction in urban areas today. The second case study, a pedestrian bridge over
I-25 in Denver, CO, demonstrates the personal responsibility of the project manager
and the successful erection of the bridge.

B.1.1.1 Case Study: C-470 Girder Failure

This case study is the girder failure on the C-470 Bridge over I-70 in Golden, CO.
On May 15, 2004, a 204-foot, 40-ton girder toppled over and hit an eastbound
vehicle on the interstate below. The three passengers in the vehicle, a young family,
were killed instantly. The construction project was an interchange reconfiguration
and included the bridge widening of Colorado C-470 over I-70. Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) owned the bridge. The girder, which was
spliced from two sections, was constructed and set in place during a nighttime
closure of I-70 from 9:00 pm on May 11 to 5:00 am on May 12. The original plan
called for setting two girders and bracing them together. However, the erection of
the first girder took longer than expected and only a single girder was erected in the

241
8-hour duration. The erection of the second girder was postponed until the next
evening. However, inclement weather prevented the erection of the second girder
for more than 3 days. During the 3 days, the bolts in the temporary bracing
loosened from wind and temperature effects and the girder rotated and fell. Feld
and Carper state “Failure may result from a single error. It is more common,
however, for a failure to be the result of several interrelated contributing factors.”
This was the situation for this case study as a number of elements contributed to the
failure of this girder. These included both procedural issues and construction
fabrication errors. The construction fabrication errors included: setting the girder
off center by 2-5 degrees, using a cutting torch to shape the temporary braces, and
improperly installing temporary bracing anchor bolts. The procedural issues
included:
• No stamped set of construction drawings for the temporary bracing

• No structural engineer on site

• No CDOT requirements for pre-qualifying subcontractors

• CDOT’s practice to allow the contractor to accomplish the work without

CDOT direction.

• The short time window allowed for erection

• No pre-erection meeting to discuss details

• Given the weather conditions, no predefined inspection of the girder after

installation

The contract plans and specifications did not require a professional engineer to
design the temporary bracing so no formal bracing plans were developed. Nor did
the contract require a structural engineer to oversee the girder erection. The bridge
contractor did not feel it was necessary to have a structural engineer involved. Feld

242
and Carper note, “While erection is taking place, the assembly may have less
strength than the finished assembly. This condition is unfortunate, particularly
when the construction process often introduces loads that are larger than those
anticipated by the designer.” If a structural engineer was on site supervising the
workers, perhaps the construction errors and the stability of the girder would have
been questioned and another course of action taken.

At the time of construction, CDOT did not have a requirement to pre-qualify

subcontractors. In this project, the bridge contractor, a subcontractor to a roadway
contractor, had not done bridge work for over 14 years. Pre-qualification would
have ensured the competency of the subcontractor.

CDOT, like most other state highway agencies, does not give direction to the
contractor on how to perform the work. Feld and Carper (DATE) state “The
responsibility for developing construction sequence is currently the subject of some
controversy. Some engineers believe that the designer should be responsible for
developing and supervising construction sequence; others advocate making this the
responsibility of the contractor or construction manager. Most contractors prefer to
retain the freedom to be creative in the development of a construction
sequence……Sequencing has a major influence on construction costs.” The manner
of erection of the C-470 project was left to the contractor. This agency attitude
creates little ownership in the process for the CDOT project engineer. However,
these professionals can and should contribute in the construction process. During
construction, the lead CDOT inspector noticed that the girder was fabricated
backwards and did step up to inform the bridge contractor. Although he reportedly
had difficulty persuading the contractor, this error was corrected. However, another
CDOT bridge engineer (not associated with the project) traveling through the area

243
on the morning of the failure noticed the rotated girder on the bridge, but did not
notify anyone. A citizen did call 911 that morning and reported a twisted beam but
the message got confused by the time it reached CDOT and a maintenance crew
was dispatched to look for a twisted sign. While the lines of responsibility may get
blurred, everyone involved with a construction project has a personal responsibility
to ensure the safety of the traveling public and construction workers. NTSB cited in
this report that government agencies need to take a lead role in safety critical work
on their facilities.

Construction closures of major freeways in urban areas are often restricted to

nighttime closures. These time constraints put additional stress on the construction
fabricator to ensure a smooth construction process. This makes planning the
erection sequence even more important. Since no pre-erection meeting other than to
discuss crane locations was held, a number of problems arose that slowed their
schedule. Given the progress made with the first girder, it would have been
impossible to erect two girders in one nighttime closure. The contractor admitted
that the original intention of the bracing was to hold the one girder for only a short
period of time—for hours—not days. As noted in Feld and Carper, that is a
common attitude among contractors: “If we work fast enough, bracing is not
necessary.”

The weather forecast was calling for snow and windy conditions. Given the
weather conditions and the additional wind loading that could be applied to the
girder, a predefined inspection schedule for the girder would have been prudent. In
fact, one supervisor for the prime contractor was concerned, checked the girder on
the evening of May 12, and noticed nothing wrong. If the supervisor had checked
on the next day, he/she would have noticed the girder starting to rotate. A traveler

244
on westbound I-70 took a digital picture of the girder on May 13—two days prior
to the failure. The picture was later analyzed and showed the girder rotating toward
the existing bridge by about 5 degrees.

Since this failure, CDOT has taken steps to ensure that another similar failure does
not take place. They have modified their pre-qualification rules to include
subcontractors performing certain types of work. They modified their specifications
on Falsework, Formwork, and Shoring, Erection of Steel Structures, and Erection
of Pre-Cast Concrete Structures. However, the responsibility of the falsework or
temporary bracing is still the responsibility of the contractor. Nonetheless, the
contractor’s engineer is responsible for determining the need for falsework and
designing it. The specification had added the need for a pre-erection conference
with the contractor’s engineer being present.

Acting on the recommendations of the NTSB, CDOT has added two specifications
to define safety critical work and to address the performance of safety critical work.
The specification for the Performance of Safety Critical Work defines work
elements that are considered safety critical and includes a formal construction plan
submittal to CDOT before the work commences. This plan includes:
• Safety critical elements

• the contractor responsible for work

• names and qualifications for supervisors responsible for work

• schedule, procedures, and sequence of operations

• plans for how the contractor will handle unexpected events such as weather,
structural elements that don’t line up, and work that cannot be completed in
the specified time frame.

245
This specification requires a safety critical element conference to discuss the plan
before implementation. It also empowers CDOT engineers to stop work on safety
critical work that endangers the public or the construction workers.

B.1.1.2 Case Study: 16th Street Pedestrian Bridge

The 16th Street Pedestrian Bridge over I-25 in Denver, Colorado is a single-span
tubular truss bridge—it was fabricated in three sections and required field
fabrication to assemble the individual sections. The bridge, owned by the City and
County of Denver (CCD), opened on December 16, 2006. When the contractor
proposed to set the bridge over I-25, Denver’s project manager noted a number of
red flags. These included the fact that the structural engineer was out of town and
would not be present for the erection, there was not enough advanced notice to the
public about the I-25 closure, and the erection plan did not include a contingency
plan if the erection did not go as planned. She acted on her concerns. Even though
it cost the contractor both time and money, the fabrication over I-25 was delayed
until the issues were addressed. The project manager was not penalized for acting
on her concerns. In fact, she was recognized with an award for her willingness to
speak up and ensure the safe installation. (In the Works, 2006)

The City and County of Denver Public Works Department also uses a Non-
compliance Report during bridge construction projects to note changes from the
design. An inspector writes up a non-compliance report and then gives it to the
contractor. The contractor documents a solution that then must be approved by the
design engineer and the CCD. This system keeps the engineer of record in the loop
about construction changes that could impact the integrity of the structure.

B.1.1.3 Discussion 1: Student Responses

246
• We, structural engineers, as leaders in our field due to the knowledge and
skills we posses, have the duty to safe guard the welfare of the public and
speak up when necessary. David Brosnan, PE (See the article that I posted
under the “Doc Sharing” tab called Human Error and Structural
Engineering) notes that as a profession, we owe society our best efforts to
control errors that may occur in the course of our work. He also explains the
“Swiss Cheese Model for Error Propagation in Structural Engineering”.
That model can easily be applied to the first case and how for the second
case, a tragedy was probably prevented by blocking some of the holes.
Please refer, also, to the attached pdf file (Ethics discussion.pdf) in this
response to see my comments. Ethics dicussion.pdf

• thanks…I will indeed read this article.

• Many times it seems that it is very difficult to work with getting the
contractor to request the services of the structural engineer. On the last
project I was on, we had designed a tall and slender industrial process tower
that had very large overturning moments. It was being erected at a
temporary facility before being shipped to the final operational site. While
we (the structural engineers) had designed the foundation and anchorage for
the operational site, the contractor had designed the temporary foundation
and anchorage. The temporary anchors were post installed epoxy with 14"
embedment while the permanent anchors were cast in place anchors with
48" embedment. We were not informed of the design of the foundation but
came across some information that raised some red flags. Just seeing the
discrepancy between the embedment depths should have raised the flag for
the contractor. We in turn, brought the issue up with the owner and the
contractor. While this design was the responsibility of the contractor, we
(the structural engineer) should still feel some responsibility for the safety
of the tower. After some independent calculations, the temporary anchors
could potentially be stressed at over 300% of capacity. Field modifications
were installed to distribute the loading. Even though it was the contractors
responsibility, I know I slept better at night after the field modifications
were installed, knowing there wasn't a chance that the tower would blow
over during a gust of wind during the night.

• yes, temporary bracing is always an issue…..this in itself would be a great

MS report or thesis. I had several case studies where timber trusses were set
and not properly braced during a weekend….this was a gymnasium (lots of
long span pre fab trusses)….wind came on saturday and blew them all
down….. happened twice in two weeks….learning from failures, yeah,

247
 right!

• Here is an article in failures in construction due to temporary bracing (Part

1). Failures during construction1.pdf

• thanks…david peraza is a very good friend of mine…we have served for

many years together on the ASCE technical council on forensic engineering
(of which I am past chair of that group and currently sit on the executive
council that governs TCFE)

• Here is part 2. Failures during construction2.pdf

• I was on the same project as Dave and we had numerous problems with
both the fabricators and the contractor. The contractor was in charge of
assembling individual modules that made up the plant. When it came time
to lift and transport the modules to the final operational site we noticed
numerous problems. For one they had oriented the lifting lugs on the
modules incorrectly. Also at the last minute they revised the trucking
support locations on the modules. We had to make some last minute
modifications to ensure that the connections and beams on the module
would not fail during shipping. Dave and I both got the opportunity to
spend a few weeks at the construction site to see all these problems first
hand. I thought it was a great learning experience to see what to do and
what not to do.

• I have recently been involved with two federally funded bicycle/pedestrian

bridge projects over the S. Platte River that were administered by CDOT.
The bridges were pre-fabricated and erected by the same contractor, but a
mandatory Pre-Erection conference was held for each bridge. A lengthy (12
page) document was filled out at each meeting detailing such things as the
erection sequence, crane locations, contractors stabilization of the girders
before and after the erection, and weather contingency plans as well as a
stamped set of erection drawings were submitted and approved by CDOT
before any erection work could take place. These were simple pedestrian
bridges but I was told these pre-erection meetings are required for any
CDOT bridge project as a result of the C470 project mentioned in your case
study. I hope that something positive came from that tragedy. I could go on
and on about the contractors responsibility but I will refrain. I believe it
should be their right to design he sequencing of the project they are
building, so long as it is done by a pre-qualified professional in responsible
charge, not just someone who has “been building bridges for 30 years”. I

248
 also believe that anyone (associated with the project or not) who notices a
potential safety issue is obligated to bring it up regardless of the time or
money implications. The first ASCE fundamental cannon of engineering
states: “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of
the public and strive to comply with the principles of sustainable
development in the performance of their professional duties.”

• well put!

• We as structural engineers need to take responsibility and step up to the

plate if we see something out of the ordinary. I don't understand how the
bridge engineer that saw the girder rotating didn't call anyone. A lot of the
time people are worried about being sued for things as simple as
dimensioning the wrong dimension that we forget about our responsibility
to be great engineers.

• attached is some photography associated with the two above engineering

case studies….part of a presentation I delivered in harbin china this past
spring. Shackleton practice (v7) -- 5806 version.pptx

• I am taking the Design Project class this semester and this week we were
discussing ethics. I want to share some of what we read to show that the
biggest concern for us as Engineers must be public safety. Engineers' Creed
(adopted by National Society of Professional Engineers, 1954) "As a
professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the
advancement and betterment of human welfare…" Engineer's Hippocratic
Oath (Charles Susskind, 1973) "I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my
life to the service of humanity…" The Engineer's Vow of Service (American
Association of Engineers, 1928) "We dedicate ourselves to the service of
mankind as members of the Engineering profession…" Engineers
Fundamental Canons. canon 1, "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety,
health and welfare of the public…"

• The first case study was an utter tragedy. I hadn't heard about all of the
details concerning it, but it seems that everything that could have gone
wrong, did. Who do you blame? It sounds like CDOT stepped up and has
implemented many new rules and specifications so that they do their job
better in the future. In the second case study, the project manager acted on
her responsibilities as well as her ethics. Kudos to her.

• Is it a standard practice to have a structural engineer on-site of every

building project? Obviously not, so what are the requirements and who

249
 decides one is required on-site? I am sure that the site supervisor believed
with all his heart that what they did would work. Some can be so confident
in what they do, that they do not believe they need to be checked. Is this a
wise thought process? In this economic downturn, how will this affect the
experience requirements in the pre-qualification rules? I imagine that there
are contractors that will no longer be in business, and the list could get very
short of available contractors that build bridges, roads, etc. Or are they
looking at the resumes of the individuals that work for the contractor? How
often are the pre-qualification rules amended, and is there a predetermined
time to evaluate the list of rules? As structural engineers, we are
knowledgeable and experienced in many aspects of structures, but experts
of a very focused product/field. There are engineering judgments that can be
made only by those who are experienced in their field and there are just
“good sense” judgments that can be made by the non-engineer. We all
(engineers and non-engineers) come from various backgrounds and
experience/knowledge levels to make the correct decision. I believe that it is
everyone’s’ responsibility to look out for one another and help those that do
not know (considering that they are not too proud to listen).

• Case 1:

Facts you should know before making a discussion.

CDOT Spec for Road and Bridge Construction 1999, Section 509 Steel
Structures:

509.01. This work consists of furnishing, fabricating, erecting, and painting

structural steel in accordance with these specifications and to the
dimensions, shapes, and design shown on the plans, and to the lines and
grades established…………..

509.27 Erection of Steel Structures.

a.) Equipment. The contractor shall provide the falsework and all tools,
machinery, and supplies, including drill pins and fitting up bolts, necessary
to complete the work.

b.) Field Inspection. Material and work not previously inspected will be
inspected after delivery to the job site. The quality of all field welds,
including inspection and testing, shall meet the requirements of the section.

c.) Storage….

250
d.) Falsework….

e.) Bearings…….

f.) Anchorage…..

g.)straightening……

h.) Galvanizing…….

i.) Handling and installation. During erection the parts shall be accurately
assembled, as shown on the plans, and match-marks shall be
followed…………. Splices and field connections of main stress carrying
members shall have a minimum of one half of the holes filled with high
strength bolts and cylindrical erection pins, with bolts fully tightened before
external support system are removed and the connections completed by
belting, unless otherwise specified.

Discuss on The spec:

To me, the spec did not provide enough the authority for the inspector or
engineer to stop the contractor; even though, something went wrong. But it
could be in the safety section that the engineer could direct the contractor to
stop work if it looked unsafe. The spec did not require the contractor's PE
stand by during the erection. It did not also require Pre-erection Meeting 4
weeks prior to the girder erection. Also Structure Engineers who designed
the bridges had never showed up or were required to present in the meeting.

Facts of the contractor and the girder erection in that night:

a.) They did first time and the last in bridge construction project. Others
were pavement and road constructions.

b.) Road closure on I70 could be allowed between 9:00PM to 5:00AM

c.) The contractor had wrong size bolts and had to wait for them delivered
from their shop during the erection.

d.) The contractor made wrong girder field splice for 2 times, and finally
were successful one girder erection. Then snow hit next day.

e.) So the contractor used angles to brace the first girder temporary to the
existing concrete deck with asphalt overlay on top by drilling holes in it
which might not be deep enough, and tied them with expansion some bolts.

251
 f.) That valley always has very strong wind and sucks very hard as I have
observed while traveling between Idaho Spring and Denver.

g.) The project was bidded for the second time with new spec. and it
requires the contractor erect 2 girder lines at the time with pre-erection
meeting.

Discuss on the contractor:

I think this is the worse issue that the contractor had never had a bridge
construction experience, but still be qualified to do the job. They should not
be allowed to bid the project. One thing comes up in my mine that how
many do contractors hire full time structure engineers in their office. I guess
5%. So that don't expect that the State can force the contractor provide an
structure engineer on the erection site.

Discuss on State construction management team:

Most of project engineers on the construction site have never done any
structure design and girder erection when they are sent to the job sites.
When they have any question, we will support them. Therefore, I suggest
that when there are pre-erection meetings, we as structure engineers should
attend the meeting to ask and answer questions the contractor to make sure
they know all erection procedures, sequences and requirements. All project
engineers should have a girder erection training before doing a bridge
construction project.

Case 2. I-25

She made a good decision to stop the construction activity when she saw
something went wrong and no Project Engineer was on the job site, but
make sure that it was complied with the project spec.

• very good analysis…thanks for posting spec 509 (will come in handy as I
further analyze this case)

• Thank you.

• The two cases seem to juxtapose two general ideologies within the field of
structural engineering. At times I think there is the mentality that design and
plans once completed by the engineer in the office and has been stamped by
the PE is dropped off into the lap of the next person along the process and
the engineer may only come back to check on that project when contacted

252
 by someone else further down along the process that may have issues or
problems with their portion of the job. This sort of relegation of
responsibility to one’s own duties I think was what eventually led to the
lack of communication and vision to recognize potential problems that in
the end caused this tragedy. The second case points to the engineers, project
manager’s, or contractor’s that take a pro-active approach to the process of
design and manage to keep an eye on the progress of projects from start to
finish and during its service life. That approach is what led to a successful
project in the case study, where potentially if allowed to be constructed as
scheduled would have possibly led to detrimental problems for the project. I
guess the silver lining amidst the tragedy of the first case is that it forced
CDOT to re-evaluate its policies and may have prevented other projects that
may not have failed initially or as blatantly as this case but would be
projects with cause for potential failure in the future.

• Engineers, contractors, manufactures and owner of project should work

closely to avoid failure resulting from poor construction and design. I think
state now want to see erection plan with professional engineer stamp and
presence of engineer on site. But this alone will not avoid any concern. I
don't practice in this area but I have witnessed a bracket failure after poring
concrete which results delaying the project and everybody was pointing at
each other. If we take this particular job, it satisfied state requirement but if
I remember right the failure was due to anchor/bolt failure. Contractors
sometimes use product available on the yard not necessary different kind
but using over and over, being exposed for different weather could exceed
the factor of safety when the designed years ago.

• As Structural Engineers our first duty is to protect the community and if

there is anything that has us concerned we need to act in the appropriate
manner to rectify them immediately.

• The first case is a very unfortunate occurrence that is, in my opinion, a

result of the lack of personal accountability. Although it may be easy to look
back and attribute the causes of the girder failure to a number of ill-fated
decisions, the outcome may have been different if one person had taken the
personal responsibility to ensure that the girders were installed and secured
properly or that the appropriate steps had been taken to ensure that danger
to the public did not ensue. Although it is very unfortunate that an event like
this has happened, the safety of the public has increased as a result of this
occurrence as depicted by the successful handling of the 16th Street
Pedestrian Bridge erection in the second case.

253
• CASE 1: I believe this case was an ethics failure by CDOT and the
Contractor. CDOT has a duty to keep the public safe. If this project was one
in which the public was not directly at risk if something were to happen, I
could understand leaving the entire process up to the contractor with
periodic inspections. However, there was a high amount of public traffic
running below this area. When the public is heavily at risk, CDOT needs to
step in…and they didn't. The Contractor was obviously at fault since all
temporary conditions were left up to them. This was a matter of ignorance,
not grossly, but typically. The attitude was taken to "do as minimal as
possible" and that is what got the family killed. You would think that one of
the 5 guys holding a shovel standing around the hole would have noticed
and said something.

CASE 2: It is common for engineers to hesitate when making a decision

that could delay the contractor. This is due to the high amount of lawsuits
due to delay, liquidated damage contracts, the hesitation to pi$$ off the
Contractor, etc. The most important item is life safety and all decisions
should be made with that fact in mind.

As far as the non-compliance reports…it's a great system and a nice idea but
doesn't mean squat unless you have a contractor that actually does it. Often
times non-compliance will come through as an RFI (Request For
Information) and the answer will be required yesterday. This is a good time
to show the contractor that you are not willing stray from the contractual
requirements. It is the contractor's responsibility to implement the contract -
hence, the term "Contractor."

• The construction field is not only dangerous because of the means and
methods used to construct structures, but by the fact that we build to
improve the quality of life. We build bridges and skyscrapers because it they
are necessary in order for cities to exist (at least the size of cities that are in
the US), and most people live in these cities because it improves their
quality of life. However, just the simple fact that skyscrapers and bridges
exist is a danger because of their potential to fail. I recently heard a statistic
that said, "Over 90% of people trust engineers even though they do not
understand what it is that they do." And I believe this is true. How many
people worry about a bridge collapse as they drive over it? Or how many
people actually stop to think that a building could blow over as they travel
up an elevator to the 52nd floor? My point is this: It is a tribute to the
engineering profession that it is able to maintain such a high level of
confidence and respect despite the danger of its profession.

254
 Failures will always occur at some points throughout history for at least two
reasons. (1) We design economic structures. We could potentially design
structures that would last millennia, but it is not economical, and as a result,
there is a certain level of risk associated with the building of structures. (2)
Mother nature will always win.

While the paper outlines several steps that could be taken to reduce risk of
failures, it is never a guarantee. That must always be a point when
discussing the ethics of structural engineering.

• CASE 1:

CDOT: I believe most of the fault for this failure lies with mostly with
CDOT. Yes, the contractor was ill equipped and inexperienced for the job
and the failure that followed was a direct result of several rather poor
decisions made by the contractor. However, the decision to give an
inexperienced contractor the job was made by CDOT. As seen in the spec,
CDOT did not require their bridge to be quality or for it to be constructed
by a quality method. It appears that CDOT wanted no part in the in the
construction process or quality assurance process. The spec did not require
periodic or continuous inspection and it did not require prequalification of
the contractor. They gave someone who didn’t know what they were doing
license to build however they wanted and there was no opportunity to get
any type of feedback on quality of work. My guess is that this contractor
was the cheapest bid and CDOT jumped on it. Since this incident, CDOT
appears to have changed its standard spec and has taken steps to stop an
accident like this from happening again. It is unfortunate that it took an
accident of this consequence to cause change in the system.

Contractor: The contractor carries some of the fault in this case as well. It
should have been well known by the contractor that the documents
described final condition designs. The contractor should have scheduled the
work appropriately. If the proposed schedule gets interrupted by
unforeseeable circumstances, the engineer should have been notified
immediately of the conditions by which the bridge was left in and for how
long they planned on leaving it that way.

CASE 2: I think the project manager for the city of Denver made a good
decision. Here you have an excellent example of the city making life safety
the most important issue, regardless of what the cost and schedule impact
would do. It is always difficult for an engineer to hold up work on a job site.
Kudos to this PM for having the guts.

255
• In the case of the pedestrian bridge it was heads-up thinking on her part and
kudos to her for that. Now getting an award for doing your job? I am not so
sure about that. I don't get special awards for critical thinking at work, and I
am sure you guys don't either.

• government vs private

government (lots of awards given)

private (not so much recognition)

• Having come from the background of a construction material testing

QA/QC inspector I have a rather cynical view point on the where
responsibilities lie and who is to blame for what. I have unfortunately seen
hundreds of examples of projects going wrong from catching field mistakes
to being involved indirectly with lawsuits long after the projects have
completed and problems have started to arise. I haven't worked on CDOT
projects so I don't know their policy (besides what I just read), but I have
worked on many local City & County and private projects. The idea that the
construction field is moving more and more from QA/QC subs being hired
by the owner to being hired by the Gcs that they are supposed to inspect
seems so obviously wrong to me but then the errors that caused the C-470
catastrophe seemed very obvious and unfortunately preventable. Field
experience taught me that design engineers where mostly very ethical and it
was their stamp on the drawings so they followed up as best possible to
ensure safe engineering practices on their work. But then there is a
disconnect between the office and the field because the design engineers
aren’t often out there checking the workmanship. Quality is then left up to
the contractors who often follow the "time is money" philosophy and they
don't agree to a code of ethics to do their work. Then there is the pressure
that pointing out a mistake or a possible issue may result in thousands on
dollars a minute of losses and I have seen people fired for blowing the
whistle unnecessarily. I personally have had contractors scream obscenities
in my face more times than I can count because I wouldn’t sign off on their
work and it would cost them too much money/time to fix. Where does the
solution lie? I don’t know, when money is involved and is usually the
reason corners are cut and mistakes made you can’t get rid of that driving
force. As I continue to work more on the engineering side of the business I
hopefully will have the opportunity to try to find some sort of solution.

• As a future engineers,we should understand the importance of our

256
 technologies in affecting the quality of our life throughout the world.
Accepting a personal obligation is crucial to each one of us. And
also,accepting a personal responsibility in making engineering decisions for
the safety,health,and welfare of the public and to disclose promptly factors
that might endanger the public or the environment should have to be our
priority to prevent such a disaster.

• all…very good rhetoric back and forth…interesting stuff!

no right or wrong answers

thanks for your input!

• The case serves as an example to all of us as a civil engineer. we should

meet our professional responsibilities and should follow all the engineering
details to avoid such a disaster. As an engineer, we should hold paramount
the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their
professional duties.

• You can't help but wonder if this is a case of learned lessons. I'm sure it
takes a bold and persistent effort to delay construction. Good for her to be
strong in her fight to ensure the Public's safety. Whether it is a person's
intuition or calculated recognition that plans aren't safe and are
questionable, these issues must be addressed appropriately and with
absolute seriousness. Lives are at stake in every construction project around
the world. Both contracted Worker's and the Public passing by, these lives
trust that everyone involved performs his/her job ethically, competently, and
safely. It is difficult to understand how the transportation department went
so long without as serious an accident occurring in prior years.

It is difficult to understand the lack of requirement for an Engineer on site

during construction for immediate and post-erection inspection, lack of a
contingency plan for adverse Colorado weather, and notification of the
necessary person's of non-compliance to construction sequences. Many
times these plans develop as a result of some unexpected and never before
seen event. It seems to me that Engineering has proven itself enough
throughout the course of time that these accidents can be prevented.
Typically, when proper time and effort is not taken in design and
construction projects people get hurt. It is that simple. Whether during
erection or after completion, these deficiencies can and will result in fatal
circumstances, sometimes catastrophic.

257
 For that accident to have occurred is an awful pain in the lives of many
people. Both the Contractor at fault and the family/friends who will forever
wonder why will be affected forever. The lack of communication on
construction sites and about erection processes has been recognized
throughout the years. The appropriate lines of communication must remain
clear at all times, from public awareness during design through years of life
in service. Engineer's and Contractors must realize how important it is to
ensure every step of the process is handled professionally and safely.

B.1.2 Discussion 2: Hypocrisy: Plaintiff or Defense

While pursuing advanced degrees in civil engineering, the research project for my
Masters and PhD dissertation was in the area of investigative troubleshooting of
structures. When I moved to Colorado in 1995 to begin work as an assistant
professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, I learned that I had been taught
the skills of a forensic engineer. Since that time, I have consistently completed a
number of failure investigations as an occasional part-time expert witness
consultant.

From the beginning, I was drawn to defense representation as my clients were

usually insurance companies or attorneys. Averaging about 10 small consulting jobs
per year, I have been principal investigator on about 100 jobs since moving to
Colorado. As principal investigator of small forensic failure analysis jobs, it is my
responsibility to complete a field inspection, analyze the data, and write a report of
which the total effort amounts to approximately 8 hours for a normal consulting
job.

Some of my jobs have involved the investigation of roofing substrate damage by

hail, wind, or other natural events. In addition, I have investigated construction
defect cases involving siding, windows, and other building envelope components.

258
Many times homeowners have a fuzzy interpretation of what is a homeowner
maintenance responsibility and what is damage by natural acts of God such as
wind, rain, hail, or snow.

Recently, I moved into a relatively new home and discovered that there was an
ongoing construction defect case with my windows. Like it or not, I was now
involved in a class action law suit—this time as a plaintiff. The fact of the matter is
that I saw limited defects or damage to my windows—not damage to the level of
what I would consider a failure. Certainly, the homes I grew up in as a child and
teenager had windows that were far more inefficient, leaked, and had poor seals.
The homes I rented during my 10 years in college were in even worse condition. In
all situations, I survived. I had the opportunity to not participate in the current class
action suit, but I decided to join the group. I could have settled for $750 up front
but decided to go for the “gold medal.” I saw written defense reports using much of
the same language I used when on the other side. It made me feel strange. Had I
violated the line between defense and plaintiff and become an advocate to my
client? In any event, I soon received and cashed two checks totaling around $8,000
for my “defective” windows.

A few months later, a hail storm hit my community and many of the homes in my
neighborhood were apparently damaged. I immediately climbed my own roof and
inspected the situation within hours after the hail storm event. After surveying the
situation, I came to the conclusion that there was only minor damage, if any, to my
roof. In my opinion, the condition of my roof was in pretty good shape—especially
for an 8-year-old roof. I observed little or no damage due to hail—certainly I had
seen much worse damage on consulting jobs I had completed, jobs in which I had
been a defense expert witness, jobs in which I had recommended very limited or

259
even no repairs. So, to be consistent, I happily told my wife that all was well on our
house.

My neighbor knew that I was a civil engineer, a former roofer, and did occasional
failure analysis consulting. Because of this, he asked me if the hail storm did any
damage to my house. I indicated that it did not. He then asked if I would take a
look at his house. So I did. Since his house was built within a year of mine, I
anticipated that the roofs would be in a similar condition. After my inspection, I
indicated to him that I observed minimal, if any, hail damage on his roof and that it
was not necessary to repair or replace the roof. Again, I had been on roofs with
much more significant hail damage and had recommended only minor local repairs.
My neighbor seemed satisfied with my assessment, but indicated that he was going
to have a roofing contractor inspect it as well.

After a few weeks had passed, many of the 12 houses in my neighborhood had
signs posted on their lawns advertising that “so and so” roofing company was going
to soon be replacing the respective hail damaged roof. This included both of my
adjacent neighbors. Soon, 11 out of the 12 houses in my neighborhood either had
their roofs already replaced or had a contractor committed to do so in the near
future. Was I the village idiot?

Reporting an insurance claim resulting from natural acts of God can be done at any
reasonable time after the event. It does not have to be within a week, month, or
even a year past the event. So, I was still able to make a claim if I chose to do so. In
fact, I started coveting a new roof. All my neighbors got one and I wanted one too.
In any event, after speaking with my insurance company, he indicated that no harm
could be done by having a contractor inspect the roof for damages. In fact, many

260
times this is how roofing insurance claims are completed—a local roofing
contractor inspects the roof, many times in the company of the claim agent, and
provides expert advice as to damage. I asked two roofing contractors to inspect my
house. Each indicated that hail damage had occurred and that replacement of the
entire roof was necessary. I silently disagreed. They also indicated that because I
was the only house in my neighborhood that had not replaced the roof, that full
replacement, at the insurance company’s expense, was a sure deal. I filed the claim.
Three weeks later I had a new roof.

B.1.2.1 Discussion 2: Student Responses

• Put in the same situation I think most people would have done the same,
especially considering the age of the roof and the need to replace it in the
near future. Ethically speaking I think two mistakes are made in this
situation. The first is that the "expert" opinion is given by a contractor that
will probably benefit from having the roof replaced. The second is by the
homeowner when he/she agrees to have the roof replaced even though they
disagree with the opinion of the "expert". I think the general public would
be free of the second mistake in that they don't know any better as to
whether or not the roof needs replacing. However, in this situation the
homeowner has enough experience to make a valid assessment of the roofs
condition. Bottom line is this scenario happens all of the time and is
generally accepted by our society since the perception is the insurance
companies come out ahead anyway.

• To answer the question, right or wrong, I would have done the same thing.
My justification would be that the insurance is there for a reason and I
might as well use it when I can.

• yes, this one was kind of tough on me…as I had always taught that I did not
support insurance companies doing what I had always considered as
maintenance.

In hind sight….the $4,000 or so dollars I rec'd to get the roof done was a
small amount of money. I should have stuck with my principals. oh well.

261
• I don't know what kind of roof you had on your house but I am guessing
that is was a 30 year composite shingle. Even though you had another "22
good years" left on your shingles, the hail damage in some cases will cause
damage that may not be readily apparent. The granules can be dislodged
and shingles could become more brittle with sun exposure and can reduce
the life span of the roof or the roof may be prematurely damaged by wind or
heavy rain. So based on this, I think if a non biased inspector had
recommended a roof repair, then you were right to replace the roof.

I agree with Ben though in the fact that having the roofing contractor do the
inspection opens the door for unethical business practice.

• in general, too many claims are always filed.

people get "I want a new roof" sickness (like I did)

I have many years of roofing experience and have many years of failure
analysis experience (in roofing too)…..the facts were that I had denied
many cases that were worse off than mine. That is the ethical dilemma.

• While there is the ethical dilemma of you filing or not filing the claim, I
think the area of concern lies with the roofing contractor. I would like to
think that your decision on the cases you investigated would have been the
same if you were in a situation where you could profit from the "failure" of
the roof. I agree that to many claims are filed that should be considered
routine maintenance. This fact contributes to higher insurance rates, which
in turn make the average consumer what to get more for their money and
file more claims to see how much they can get out of their plan.

• Regarding the windows, I think there was no violation of ethics. You had a
defect in your home's construction, which should be paid for or corrected.
As you said, you yourself acknowledged the fault in the original product.

The second case I see differently. From a "smartest and fittest survive"
perspective you did the right thing. You took advantage of a prime
opportunity that presented itself. I would say most would have done the
same.

However, you mentioned you have over 10 years of experience in

inspecting damaged / defected homes. I am sure you trust your own
judgment. If you really thought there was nothing wrong with the roof, and
gave that very advice to your neighbor it sure would have been fine not to

262
 replace your roof, right? Even if your neighbor did so, it would have made a
strong statement if you stuck by your word. If not for ethics then just out of
personal pride.

I guess it comes down to a pride vs. opportunity issue.

• oh yes, doing the right thing in this case would have indeed been to stick to
my original opinion.

I could have really "shown" or "shined" but really "caved"

$5,000 was basically zero in all reality

• These are two topics that I am very familiar with. Regarding the windows, I
also do forensic e work, mostly on the defense side. It can sometimes be
frustrating to see other engineers allege that defects exist when a problem
has never occurred. I don’t know what your window problem was, but I
know a lot of the window problems involve flashing and installation. And if
it wasn’t done per installation guidelines by AIA, it’s wrong and needs
repaired even if no resultant damage has occurred. (plaintiffs view). I have
seen numerous problems with windows that do warrant repair, but if two
windows have problems, does that mean all twenty need repair? One
question I would have for you—did you use the money to repair your
“defective” windows? You don’t need to answer that, but it is a question I
have with all these cases. If you get the money, are you going to fix the
alleged problem or just take the money? Another point on your case; while
you might not have had any problems, a neighbor might have had more
significant issues. By joining in on the class action suit, you may have
helped them get money to fix their problem.

As for the roof, I recently had a similar situation. In my case, I was going to
replace the roof anyway. The roof was in need of repair, not so much the
shingles but the valleys were in real bad shape. I called the contractor, and
upon their observation told me I had hail damage and said I should contact
my insurance agent. The insurance company sent someone out, they
confirmed the hail damage, and we filed a claim. I did feel a little guilty
about it. I was going to have the work done and pay for it myself. If the
insurance company had not allowed the claim, I still would have had the job
done. In a way, I left it up to them to make the decision if they would cover
the claim or not. And since they sent someone out to inspect it and provide
an opinion on the need for repair, I went with it.

263
 I drive by subdivisions that are only a few years old and see roof
replacements. And I’ve heard the stories like yours, contractors go to each
house to get work once they know that hail hit and at least one house had
damage. I question their ethics a little more. But in the end, the insurance
company still looks at the roof and makes the decision to either accept or
reject the claim. In some ways, we all pay for that with our insurance rates.

• yes, well said.

I did NOT fix my windows….and I agree with you (do people use the $ to
correct the problem???)

yes, we all pay for this stuff in our insurance rates…

and remember, most houses are owned by the banks (or at least the majority
of them are).ie, making house payments is many times a life long luxury!!!!
…the owners, ie banks, are protecting their interest in repairing roofs and
all

• I just went out to a site where four buildings in an apartment complex were
under designed. There was cracking in the walls and windows. After seeing
the cracked windows I understand the situation for replacing your windows.
I would have done the same thing. And for the second case I think you
could have gone without replacing the roof but again I think I would have
done the same thing.

• What baffles me the most is how easily the insurance companies forked
over the money to replace all of these roofs. At first from your (Dr. Rens)
story it sounded like an independent roofing contractor inspected the roof
and with a bit of a conflict of interest in there, said the roof needed to be
replaced so that he could profit from the situation. Michael's case is what
baffles me more, since the insurance company sent a representative out and
agreed with the claim. In both cases did you just receive money to cover the
cost to replace the roof (and have the option to just pocket it), or was the
roof actually replaced for you at no cost besides maybe a deductible? Was
there any prorating in there? For example, car tires have warranties on them
for a certain number of miles and if the tire fails before the warranty is up
then they'll pay for what's left…an 80,000 mile warranty tire blows up at
50,000 miles, they'll pay for 3/8 of a new tire. Is the same true for a roof? If
the roof "failed" after 8 years of a 30 year roof, does the insurance company
pay for 22/30ths of the cost? Same goes for a car that's totaled…lets say
your 10-year-old Honda Accord is totaled. Your insurance company isn't

264
 going to fork over $25,000+ for a new car…they'll give you $4000 for what
it's worth at the time.

As an outsider it makes me furious when people make claims to get large

expensive replacements for minor repairs/flaws and make everyone else's
insurance premiums go up because of it. As an insider perspective if I was
in the same situation, I'd like to say I wouldn't make the claims but honestly,
I don't know. As stated a few times from others, it would be nice to actually
get something in return for all of my insurance payments. It's also hard to
just pass up "free" money. I guess I have a problem with the whole
insurance system (and possibly our society's mentality) in general.
Everyone expects something for free, or I should say they feel like they
should be compensated for past paid dues or hardships, whatever they may
be. When the smallest little thing goes wrong, they expect to be
compensated for it instead of fixing it themselves. Don't get me wrong,
insurance is a great thing for people in need but I think way too many
people take advantage of it to a point where the norm is "most people would
do the same." Also it tends to be the people that don't really need the help
that take advantage of the system the most.

As far as this being an ethical dilemma…you can look at it two ways:

Lawfully, you did nothing wrong and followed the rules. In that regard, it
was ethically sound. But morally on an individual basis and based on your
own principles…that's for you to decide and live with. I hate the excuse that
most other people would do it…doesn't always make it right.

• the insurance companies protect the investment and interest of the owner of
the house, which in most cases is the MORTAGE company……if they only
provide 3/8 claim for a roof that is 3/8th old (but is damaged, and could
leak), then the real "owner" is not protected. So that is why complete
replacement is often done.

as for my moral principles and such, i did violate my personal ethics and as
I have stated above, the $4,000 I rec'd was not worth it as I think about the
situation often.

• What an interesting topic! I do not think you can lump ethics and moral
principles into black and white categories. It's not just a matter of did your
windows/roof "need" or “need not” to be replaced/fixed. In every situation,
I believe you should ask yourself, who gets "hurt" one way or the other. In
both of your situations, you personally would be getting "hurt" if you didn't
accept the claims, because everyone else who paid for the same coverage

265
and bought a house just like you did, was receiving a better or more
valuable product than you. If you went to buy a TV and one of them had a
large scratch on the side but the functionality was not impaired, would you
not request a discount or a different TV? Chances are that TV was damaged
in production, shipment or stocking. Why should the consumer pay the
price for someone elses error (e.g. the person responsible for the scratch)?
Why should one person be penalized for something that a corporation has
already assumed would happen eventually? I propose that they shouldn't,
regardless of the circumstance. Like Scott said, the insurance companies
will come out ahead regardless and if they don't, that is a problem with their
business practice, not with your ethics. They base their rates on the chance
of that exact circumstance occurring. Replacing windows and roofs is the
exact product that they are selling. If you file a claim, you're not necessarily
taking advantage of anyone, you're just cashing in on what you have
ALREADY paid for.

In Dr. Rens' circumstance, you had paid for insurance on your home,
correct? Therefore your were paying a nominal amount more for your home
than the retail value. And over time, I suggest that you probably paid or will
pay at least $4000-$5000 for that insurance. So why shouldn't you get that
money back if the exact reason you purchased the insurance warrants it.
Nobody wants to pay for insurance, but we know that it is a necessary evil
to protect our possessions. In Michael's case, sure he was going to replace
his roof anyway, but why? Because it needed to be replaced. Hadn't he been
paying for insurance up until that point? Was he lucky that the hail came at
the perfectly right time? Yes, of course, but that does not mean that he isn't
entitled to a new roof. He had been paying money and following the rules
up until that point. He was no more scamming anyone than someone who
buys a lotto ticket everyday for 10 years and then finally wins.

Now, I propose this: If you had paid a millionaire to insure your home and
then something happened to your home that would cost a million dollars to
repair, but the repairs weren't necessary, is it ethical to then send that man
into poverty just because you want a new “whatever”? I now say no, but
once again it is a gray area. Should the millionaire fix the critical problems,
yes. Should he succumb to poverty just to satisfy your greed and lust for
everything he owns, no!

If you are the owner of a new stadium and during construction, problems
occur at the fault of the engineer, do you not try to reason with them,
compromise on what exactly was their fault and what they can do to fix it?

266
 Then, if they agree to a reasonable (once again, gray area) settlement but yet
you want more so you pursue it further in court, that is where ethics comes
into play—you are no longer just trying to get what you paid for, you are
trying to get more than what you paid for. Entitlement is the fine line
between getting walked on and being greedy. It's a very tight rope to walk,
but I don't feel like anyone should stray too far from that line. Don't
sacrifice what you deserve just to be ethical, but don't overestimate what
you truly deserve either.

• I agree…moral ethics are difficult to lump into black and white categories
(grey areas continue to be a challenge for me)

• I would expect the insurance company to have an independent third party

look at the roof. Since you didn't spend the money for the windows, how
about buying us all a beer after the exam?

• yes, beer for all!

I agree…a third party would be great to look at the roof…I think the
logistics of a $4,000 claim probably cause issues with this though (larger
claims I know they do)

• Given that I don't own a home or am married, I would not have given in to
the peer pressure and gotten a new roof. Especially when the roof was only
8 years old with minimal damage and roofs can typically last at least 25
years or more. To get a new roof seem a waste of resources and can cause
insurance rates to increase. At least, you thought about the situation and did
not just do it with out any thoughts because you could.

• yep….it is easy to think that way…..

at the time, a new roof and $4k seemed like a big deal…not really though in
the big picture.

• So we are allowed to walk through our new houses with a home builder's
representative and to check any defect before moving in. They have to fix
all things in the list; otherwise, we won't move it.

Now if we miss some invisible defects and find it out within one year
warranty, we can write a memo to the builder. This time will be harder to
have them fix the problem and we have to be patient. We have to do what
we can do including call and yell them. If we don't get it fixed, why bother?

267
 Just do it yourself. So I would say that you did the right thing to not file law
suite for a small money case as you can fix it by yourself for less than $800.

Now you are responsible for your clients to defense any damage claim from
homeowners. You do the right thing again to protect your clients' benefits;
otherwise, you won't get pay checks.

For roof damage by hail case, since we all have home insurance and when
hail storm hit our houses, we should ask the insurance company to inspect
it. If they say "No", then we have to accept it or to look at it by yourself or
hire an inspector.

Most of the hail damage cases, insurance companies are willing to pay for
it. We can observe from our neighbors' houses. If they get money for
repairs, we should do so. Why not?

I would conclude that sometime we have to take or leave it depending on

the weight by money or satisfaction. Our consideration on each claim case
is very important for decision making.

• very true…most hail cases are indeed approved.

• This is a though one. Giving the fact that the average person has no
knowledge on construction and/or structural integrity, it is very easy for a
contractor to convince them that there is something wrong with their roof,
and since the insurance company will take care of the costs, they will not
think it twice. Also, with the mind set of the majority of the homeowners"

I’ll get my money's worth" it is very easy to convince them to replace the
roof, besides the contractors are hungry for business. What the homeowners
don't realize is the more claims are out there, premiums keep going up. The
insurance companies don't lose. Personally, it will be very hard for me
receive money and replace my roof if it is not needed. I might hesitate in
doing it due to peer pressure from my neighbors, but at the end I would end
up saying "thanks but no thanks"

• yes…it can be a hard decision.

yes, it does cause all rates to increase.

• I think in the case of the first suit you were well within your rights to get
compensated for the so called “defective” windows. Although you have
survived in worse conditions, I believe once you pay for something you

268
 expect that product to be in the best condition that you expected initially so
there is no reason to settle for anything less regardless of how small that
“defect” may be. The second case it seems in a way your in depth
knowledge of accessing roof damage may have caused you more grief and
allowed for a struggle of integrity and morality within yourself. As I would
assume that what you eventually ended up doing with getting a new roof
would generally be the normal course of action and be very reasonable.

• yes, good points.

my own issue is that for both the windows and roof, I had been on the side
of the insurance company denying claims (I had recommended denying
claims many times to similar individuals when I was hired by an insurance
company)

so i did not walk the walk

• The difficult aspect of this ethical dilemma is how you view your own
competency. Your expertise told you that the damage was minimal while
two contractors and an insurance claims professional said that the damage
was enough to warrant a new roof. I don't see an ethical dilemma, but
rather, a difference of opinions, which is very common in lawful matters.
It's a question of whether you are okay with changing your opinion.

• correct…but the ethical dilemma is that I had denied similar claims while I
was a expert witness representing insurance companies (many times this
happened)

• Regarding the windows:

This case falls within an ethical grey area. I think the important issue to
look at in this case is the promise to deliver a quality product from this
particular window supplier. In all contractual obligations, spoken or written,
there is a minimum level of quality required. If this particular window
supplier claimed to have the best product and you paid the premium for the
best product, I would expect the consumer to not have to a product with
minor defects and damage. Evident from the class action lawsuit, this
particular company had not delivered what it had contractually agreed to
and in turn was required to compensate those it had short changed. In my
opinion the ethical dilemma does not lie with the consumer, but with the
supplier who knowingly or unknowingly provided an inferior product. In
this case the supplier know that work that they once did is defective and not

269
 meet the minimum requirements of the agreement. The consumer is entitled
to compensation.

Regarding the roof:

First off I would expect the insurance company to have a third party
inspector come in and inspect the roof and determine whether or not the
roof is in need of repair. I my mind the ethical infraction was between the
contractor and the insurance agency. On the surface I see no ethical
infraction by you. You were living up to the terms that you and your
insurance company both agreed on. There was hail damage diagnosed by an
"expert inspector" and per your insurance policy you are entitled to a new
roof.

If you dig a little deeper into this you find a different kind of dilemma. You,
as an expert said the opposite of what the contractor said. it seems obvious
that the contractor had a strong bias and made an ethical decision based on
that. Is it your duty as an expert in the field to put a stop to the ethical
infraction that you witnessed? In my mind that is not an ethical problem,
but a moral problem. Though ethics and morality overlap, they have subtle
differences. I think the moral decision lies with the individual and their
moral influences(religion, upbringing, etc…).

• yep…good points!

• Had I violated the line between defense and plaintiff and become an
advocate to my client? Of course not, you where using your knowledge to
benefit yourself and your interests. This is no different than someone else
using you for the same thing.

Were you the village idiot? I can see why it would be easy to believe, since
your opinion was overturned by those you in which you provide a service.
No, I do not think you are the village idiot. Opinions vary from person to
person, based on personal experience and standards. Those standards and
experiences come from many sources, whether it is upbringing, or getting
burned. My judgment is solely based on upbringing and getting burned.
Personally, if there was damage to a house outside of what would be
considered normal ware, would justify replacement by the homeowners
insurance. I would think that this would be in the best interest of the
insurance company since a roof breach would likely be more costly.

270
• The ethics of this situation are quite deeply rooted. Many of us pay our
insurance premium month after month, year after year for much of our
lives. It can, at times, seem like a complete waste of money. The fact is,
until damage occurs and we need to file a claim it seems as though we’re
paying for something intangible, worthless. It seems fair that the insurance
company pay at some point. Why not? In some situations the claim doesn’t
come close to the cumulative amount of premiums paid by an individual
over a lifetime. It is a common thread “Let the big fish pay.” As a
Homeowner and an expert in the forensic investigation of structures, it does
seem slightly unethical to accept a new roof when your professional opinion
tells you it’s unnecessary. However, the contractor is likely considered an
expert in his field and his opinion is valuable to your homeowner’s
insurance company. It is surprising that an insurance company is willing to
allow their client to simply call anyone out of the phonebook to perform an
official inspection as to the necessity of completely replacing an entire roof.
Why wouldn’t they have someone who is prequalified, and professionally
reputable, on the ground regionally to inspect such costly repair jobs? In the
long-run, a few unnecessary roof replacements in a month could easily put a
smaller insurance company out of business over the course of a year. It
seems very short- sighted from an insurance company’s perspective. And
what would keep “Joe the Roofer” from writing such frivolous
recommendations for new roofs if the insurance company is willing to pay
for it without any further inspection? Is there a Roofer’s Code of Ethics?

As a forensic Engineer working for an insurance company, I’m sure their

ideal field inspection is approached conservatively and not with a frivolous
repair budget. I would interpret this to mean that you do not recommend
replacing roofs unnecessarily. It is your professional opinion and as the
principal investigator the insurance company values your opinion to lead a
team of professional’s by your side. I’m sure other professional’s sometimes
disagree with your inspection. I assume things are then discussed openly
and agreed upon by the team. As an Engineer you perform your duties to the
most ethical of standards. Sometimes you have to sit back and let the “big
fish” learn it for themselves. I don’t think this is an unethical decision since
you only did what was suggested by the professional and accepted the
repair. Insurance company claims present a grey area of ethics. I think many
people in the world would be more unethical toward large corporations
(insurance company) than any other human being. It isn’t right but many
people feel as though they are powerless to such giant money- takers and
deserve a cut of the pie. However they can get it. I’m not suggesting this is
Dr. Rens opinion but don’t we all deserve a little payback every now and

271
 again? The stereo-typical opinion of the corporate world versus man is
constantly perpetuated. I think scandalous cases such as Enron and Bernie
Madoff robbing investor’s and the public (the “little guy”) only perpetuate
this issue further. Many people, those scammed financially and those afraid
of being scammed, now hold high animosity toward large corporations. As a
result, I think situations such as yours will typically go the same way for
other homeowner’s.

• well said…thanks for the post!

• As a professional engineer,what you did on your part regarding your own

home roof or the neighbors was ethically right. Because, unless you saw a
visual damages on the roof,it would not be ethical to claim a hail damage
for the purpose of getting a new roof.

• Dr. Rens,

I guess, I was a village idiot. I had few people knock on my door and asking
me to join their complain about hail damage. I thought it would be an
ethical to join them just to replace my roof. So I ignore. Now this summer
there was damage around neighbor so I called my insurance company and
they said I have minor damage. Then I was concerned and got a roofer
looked at it and he recommended me to get second opinion from insurance.
So I had second adjuster came over and promised 50% damage verbally and
went to office and said it would not exceed my $1000 deductible. His main
argument was I have a wood shake and will not be easily impacted by hail.
My roof was not new one but at end I have to pay for new roof. If I let this
guys deal with it from the beginning I am pretty sure I would have save a
lot for my family. At least I tried to be ethical.

B.1.3 Discussion 3: The 21st Birthday Party

On December 24, 1993 I drank my last alcoholic beverage. Being the son of an
alcoholic father, I was always conscious of chemical dependence. This
consciousness, however, did not dampen my weekend or occasional weekday beer
cravings while a graduate student. It also did not have any effect on my underage
drinking with my friends while in high school. Certainly, a cold beer after a hard
day’s work as a roofing contractor seemed justified. I suppose my mentality was

272
that I worked hard and played hard. In any event, possessing a personality that is
habitual and compulsive, the time finally came when I realized I was on the same
path that my father had blazed. The only remaining question was how far down that
path had I progressed. I was trying to complete my PhD dissertation. I needed to
completely focus my attention on my research or this manuscript was not going to
be written. That day was Christmas evening 1993.

During the fall semester of 2004, the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado
and the Fort Collins campus of Colorado State University were each shocked by the
unexpected deaths of Gordon Bailey and Samantha Spady, respectively. These
students died within weeks of each other and subsequently it was learned that each
had suffered alcohol poisoning as a result of binge drinking. Both were 18 years
old.

In spring 2005, I and another faculty member chaperoned a group of 20 of our

engineering students to Washington, D.C. I use the word chaperone loosely as how
much influence does one really have over a group of undergraduate and graduate
students ranging from 21 years old to 40-something? The purpose of this trip was to
compete against 66 other universities on sustainable research projects involving the
environment: it was called People, Prosperity, and the Planet. Overall the trip was a
huge success in that my colleague’s team won one of the six first place awards
while my own research team won honorable mention and received a plaque and
certificate. The evening of celebration was another story, in my opinion.

One of the undergraduate students on my project was celebrating a 21st birthday on

the day of the competition. My project team went out for dinner after the awards
banquet and the student began his right of passage into being of legal age for

273
everything by having the equivalent of five drinks. As we walked to the hotel, it
was decided that more award and birthday celebrations were necessary. The other
student group was contacted and a big party ensued at the local bar adjacent to our
hotel. Over the next 2 hours, the birthday kid, at the generosity of his friends,
consumed approximately 10 additional drink equivalents. By my count, the student
drank 15 drinks during a 3-hour span. Quietly monitoring the student throughout
the ordeal brought back some of my own stupid memories. However, the recent
binge drinking memories of the CU and CSU freshmen were more prevalent. It was
at this point that I used my “wisdom” and communicated to the bartender that the
birthday kid had reached the limit. The student, unlike the crowd around him, was
not an experienced drinker—and much to the crowds’ delight was professionally
and legally drunk. As a side note, it should be a required drinking code of everyone
to experience an event such as this in a totally sober mind frame as I was. I would
think that every person with this experience would approach heavy drinking
differently. The actions of a group of drunken people, the things they say and do,
are quite remarkable.

Seeing the birthday boy approaching a passed out state on the bar prompted me to
give him a personal escort to his hotel room and bed. It was 2 o’clock in the
morning. For next two hours, my graduate student, who was sharing a room with
me, and I made sure to check up on the birthday kid every 30 minutes. I barely
slept that evening. What a relief it was to see the student at breakfast and learning
that he had been up for some time cleaning up the mess he had subsequently made
on his clothes and room.

B.1.3.1 Discussion 3: Student Responses

• This is a very interesting topic with a wide range of emotions so I will try to
keep it focused.

274
 Now that I am in my early forties, I believe I can say that “I have been there
and done that” in regards to underage and college drinking. I thought then
and now, that I could do whatever I wanted to do as long as I could meet all
my obligations and accept responsibility for my actions. Being older now
and a father of two young boys, my obligations and responsibilities are
much greater and I no longer choose to carry on like a college student. The
next morning is just too much when your kids get up at 6:00 am!!

I think that college is a time when most people have the first chance to
make decisions on their own and find out who they are. Many make some
poor choices, but I believe it is part of the learning process that helps make
us successful adults.

What I do not agree with is collegiate fraternal organizations and hazing.

Having poor choices forced upon you to prove yourself is beyond ludicrous
in my personal opinion. I have listed a website below that document hazing
deaths (alcohol and others) since the early 1900’s.

http://hazing.hanknuwer.com/

To offer a counter point, a 1996-1998 study conducted by National Institute

on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) found the following
conclusions:

Three main conclusions can be drawn from the present study. First, the data
used in this study show that the number of deaths from alcohol poisoning in
the United States has been low, but this low number is partly attributable to
underreporting of alcohol-related deaths in general. Second, contrary to
heightened public concerns about alcohol poisoning deaths among college
students, characteristics associated with the highest risk of death from
alcohol poisoning are: being middle-aged, unmarried, less educated, or a
male from a racial or ethnic minority group. Third, given the limitation of
the available data source on alcohol poisoning mortality, the present study
shows a high correlation between deaths caused by alcohol poisoning and
those resulting from poisoning by other drugs.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/110-120.htm

• thanks for your response.

275
 The issue I had with the above case I write about was that I was responsible
for the student…..I had no idea on what was too much and not enough (and
the two CSU and UCB deaths were very recent when it occurred)

yes, I have two children too (8 and 9 year old)…they are a ton of work for
sure

• Sorry, I kind of went off on a tangent. The whole drinking-hazing thing gets
me going.

I can relate to the situation your were put in and think you acted very
appropriately. Do you believe the fact that you are a parent influenced how
you treated the situation? I know that becoming a parent has greatly
changed my views on many subjects.

I am already concerned about how I will deal with this issue with my own
children. I do not want to be a hypocrite, but at the same time I want to
ensure their safety. I want them to be fully aware of what dangerous
consequences may result from foolish decisions.

• yes, absolutely, parents need to set good examples for sure.

I think the circumstances I faced growing up (with a alcoholic father)

definitely played a role too.

I very much would like to casually drink wine or beer as a way to get ready
for bed and wind down (as I have a very difficult time sleeping soundly
anymore)…but I do not dare too -- hence my nearly 17 "dry" years

• Those student drank too much alcohol and might cause a problem. Who
know?

We sometimes drink over limited at parties and football games, and we can't
control ourselves especially while driving.

I have had experience with many bad drinking problems on heavily

drinking, and some my friends died, dropped out, fought with local gangs,
got DUI, went to jails, lost jobs, divorced and metal illness. We should
know our limits, the best is 1 or 2 bottles a day.

If we see our companion drink too much, we should give them an advice to
go homes. I do that all the time to avoid my bad experience.

276
• yes, I should have probably stopped the student…I was responsible for him
in DC. Very troubling experience for me

• Great topic Dr Rens.

In reading your story, it is nice to know that you recognized YOUR

boundaries as a fellow adult as well. You weren't breathing down the
student's neck but when it was time, you acted appropriately. That is
something that I would hope people would aspire to be able to do.

Alcoholism runs in both sides of my family as well. My parents decided

that they were going to break that and they definitely did. I am thankful for
that because the horror stories they tell me are something i would not want
to experience…although throwing plates sounds pretty fun, just not at
someone. Some of their stories remind me of some of my friends and
acquaintances.

I myself have had the alcohol experience to the fullest and it is no longer
something i really care to do….that is not to say that i won't have a dark
beer while grilling or after a long day of work.

What i have learned in my experience is this…alcoholism isn't altogether a

problem with alcohol, it's deeper than that. It's will power. The will power
required to live how you believe is lacking in all alcoholics. They certainly
don't "believe" in getting wasted and driving drunk and puking on
themselves. They do it because they are not living their beliefs, they are
putting immediate pleasure before everything.

I like this topic…

• I find that I don't necessarily respond to the ethics questions directly, but
instead, offer other angles or ideas related to the particular topic. I hope this
is okay, but please let me know if it isn't.

I think you acted responsibly as an adult, a chaperone, and a father for the
21st birthday boy. I believe that I would have acted in the same way.

The problem with binge drinking is that kids do not learn how to drink
responsibly. I believe this has a lot to do with the drinking age. At 21 years
of age, kids are generally out of their parents' direct control, which means
that they learn to drink outside of adult supervision. I think it would be
more beneficial to lower the drinking age (18 or even 16) so that kids are

277
 under their parents' supervision and place the responsibility on to the
parents to teach their kids how to drink.

• yes, this does have some benefit for sure….lower drinking age and be with
parents….

• As I referenced in earlier posts, I think that this straddles the blurry the line
between personal ethics(which I call morality) and your ethical behavior as
a "chaperone." I think you acted with those two in a very healthy and
quality tension. You had no ethical responsibility as a chaperone to help this
21 year old adult. However you stuck to your personal ethics and when
things went far enough, you acted. For me I will always put my personal
morals and ethics before those enforced upon me by my others.

• yes, good points.

i did feel responsibility though…even though 21. I am becoming an old

man I think!

• We are our brothers keeper. I say good for you, that is precisely what I
would have done with the same knowledge and experience.

• Even though I have never had drinking experience,I was very interested
with your choice of topics. Based on what you wrote,we can have ethical
and unethical arguments. My arguments are based on three separate
incidents. First,as you mentioned it above, the death of those young students
. Second,the birthday boy who drunk till he passed out. And,last but not
least,the personal escort that the birthday boy received from you.

Now, if we look at the first case, drinking alcohol way beyond what your
body can handle which resulted in death was in my opinion
unethical,immoral ,and irresponsible . On the other hand,the birthday boy
who drunk till he passed out was also ethically wrong because even though
he was trying to have fun on his own birthday,not knowing his limit was
wrong and unacceptable. But, when we look at the third case, helping a
passed out student was morally and ethically right. So, be advised that my
response is based on my understanding of the situation. It might be right or
wrong. If there is anything that you would like to comment about it,I will be
happy to hear that. Because, Sometimes if you don't have a drinking
experience, it is easier to comment about it.

278
• thanks Alex…you are correct when you say "it might be right or wrong"
and that is really what ethics are…a personal struggle with "doing the right
thing"

• Sometimes people can drink way to much and it's good to have a sober
friend nearby to keep them creating too much trouble. I think you acted
appropriately.

• yep….i suppose drinking responsibly always involves having "a sober

friend nearby"

• Dr. Rens,

It is an interesting topic. I have passed through this kind of life experience

almost every other day when I was say 21 through 25 years old, never got in
trouble. I was known for caring for friends. What you have done is ethical
and acceptable. You have joined his celebration and kind of let him to
experience what drinking has for him beside cheer up.

I haven’t heard of student death form excess alcohol drinking during that
age and I wonder if that would have changed my drinking behavior.

• Really, that was interesting reminiscence. In my opinion everybody has

passed different kind of things through own life. But we have to give ethical
and moral value of our life. I believe so, you were doing well at a time.

• The lose of Samantha Spady occurred while I was attending CSU and
although I didn’t know her directly my friends did and I saw how it affected
them. It is sad that some people put there loved ones through that. I have
never had to go through that and I have a feeling it’s because of people like
you. So I think that you reacted correctly to the situation you were put in.

• This is a situation I can relate to personally and professionally. I have been

in the midst of this exact situation as both a friend to someone in need as
well as the person who needed help ending the good times. When I was 17
years old I was guilty of such idiotic drinking. After a long night of
drinking-games encouraged by and encouraging “friends,” I drove home
from a party in an effort to make curfew. A one-month high-school graduate
I raced home, speeding and running stop signs on dark Virginia country
roads. Then I ran a stop sign I didn’t see until it was too late. It was the last
stop sign of a thirty-minute, 80 mph drive to my neighborhood, and it was
less than one mile from my home. I slid across a road and hit two telephone

279
poles driving 60mph and putting my face through the windshield. I wish a
“friend” would have spoke up and helped me to realize my ignorant actions
before I attempted to drive home.

I am 32 years old but I have been a bartender for 12 years. Circumstances

placed me as the untitled manager of a bar when I was only 20 years old.
This is not necessarily the career for someone with a habitual tendency
toward any substance. What is beneficial are the many lessons learned due
to such early exposure to immature adults and the ignorant theme that
accompanies most long nights of drinking; excessiveness.

At the age of 20 I had always worked in restaurants and anxious to get to

work behind the bar. As a bartender, however, I quickly took note of the
foolishness that accompanies 21st birthdays, military men on leave,
wedding post-reception parties, bachelor parties, etc… It is not uncommon
for someone who works in a bar, or restaurant, to encounter someone who
has consumed too much alcohol. The amount a customer consumes is
supposed to be regulated by the server or bartender but this approach falls
short many times. I work in a neighborhood bar north of Denver where
many people walk from their houses around dinner time and frequent
multiple bars/restaurants before returning at the end of that evening.
Because of this, many times I am presented with the situation of a person
who has legally had too much to drink coming in after dinner service ends
(when music begins, 9pm and after) and ordering alcohol. Many of the bar
patrons are regulars who I see every week when I work. They are
friendships which have developed week after week over the four years I’ve
worked for this restaurant. I over-serve these friends often because I know
they’re on foot and live within a few blocks. But even situations where
friends are acting foolishly and encouraging excessive consumption must
sometimes be forced to end. Although it is a short distance to the front door
for many, it is still a dangerous situation. It is a double-edged sword and
rare to work in a bar where such a high percentage of the daily patrons are
regulars, friends, but one that comes with personal relationships that
wouldn’t exist in the average bar and for the average bartender.

As a result, I find myself in a similar situation as Dr. Rens found himself

that night in the bar. Whether it is a new customer or an old friend, I have to
decide if the next drink is poured for someone, or not poured for some
obnoxious, intoxicated person. I have to cut-off customers nearly every
week when I work in a bar. There is always a group who, for whatever
reason, come to the bar to get one of their own “wasted” beyond a safe

280
 limit. They are typically on a bar crawl and sometimes cut-off at another bar
down the street before visiting us. We are good about not allowing patrons
to consume alcohol to the point of drunkenness but people still make
drunken, failed attempts. It is amazing to me the lengths people will go to
push another’s alcohol tolerance; that persons body’s blood alcohol
tolerance. I don’t think people recognize the seriousness of alcohol poison;
death. It never fails that someone tries to get the birthday boy/girl another
(or multiple) round(s) of shots before their group goes home. Some moron
always tries to get the drunken girl who is waiting for a cab more drinks so
she’ll leave with him at the end of the night. Regardless of the celebration,
there are people who need the end of the night to be decided by an outside
party. For some reason there are people who feel as though they need to
consume alcohol the entire time they occupy an establishment, and fast.
These people are typically guilty of breaking or spilling something,
touching some girl dancing to the band, or starting a fight with an innocent
patron and not remembering the event afterward. These are the people who
have taught me to recognize such ignorance and step forward to help
someone, regardless of the circumstances.

Every weekend I end the “good time” for someone. It is a situation that may
ruffle a few feathers when you’re one of the party group or a friend in the
crowd. However, a bartender cutting-off an intoxicated person(s) who wants
more alcohol often times evokes anger, along with verbal and/or physical
altercation. It is never an enjoyable situation but I choose to deal with it in
an effort to stop someone from hurting themselves or someone else. It is a
responsibility that I accept as a part of my job. Similar to the Engineering
Code of Ethics, bartending presents situations where I am forced decline
work (money/tips) due to conflict of interest and for the well-being of the
public (customers/friends). It is an ethical decision necessary to save lives
and keep the irresponsible in line.

B.1.4 Discussion 4: Profanity and Scientific Acronyms

I am the proud parent of two young children, ages 6 and 7. Recently, both have
developed a talent for what could be called “potty mouth.” Although not even close
to swearing in the traditional sense, my wife (also a civil engineer) and I are trying
to teach them proper communication skills. They think the potty talk is great fun,
and they laugh and giggle when uttering this mild form of preschool “farm” talk or

281
“construction” field talk. Meanwhile my wife and I try to divert the potty talk to
happy speak and try to enforce the principle of “be nice to people and they will be
nice to you” type of attitude.

I have been working on a research project since 1997 with our local county
government. This funded project is an extremely important part of my professional
life in that they are financially supporting several of my undergraduate and
graduate students. They also support my summer salary. This research is a major
part of my scholarly work. Recently, my students and I completed a task under this
project to evaluate the condition of an in-service concrete bridge involving several
nondestructive and destructive tests. The final report included an hour-long
presentation to five of my project supervisors and to two local consulting
professional engineers. The consultants were ultimately responsible for completing
the rehabilitation and restoration of the bridge—they were relying on our condition
data. The presentation was delivered by me and two of my graduate students. In
addition, six undergraduate students who work for me attended the presentation.
After presenting the introductory basics of what the investigation involved, I turned
the presentation over to my two graduate students who alternated back and forth
between various aspects of results. As part of the presentation, one of the students
spoke about the microstructure of the concrete material. In particular, the student
spoke about Alkali-Silica-Reactivity (ASR) of the concrete matrix. The student
went into the basic results of ASR, explaining how ASR correlates to the long term
health of the bridge, was very technical, competent, and basically did an excellent
professional job. I was a proud father figure teacher who then proceeded to degrade
the situation

Growing up as a son of a roofing contractor, I had grown up learning the basics of

282
roofing. As one could probably assume, at times, the language around the roofing
crew was less than spiritual. So, construction “humor” was second nature to me.
Recently, I had a lunch meeting with a large local concrete producer that is
providing me with technical assistance on a concrete research project being
completed by me at the university. At this meeting, these concrete contractors
taught me a new definition for the previously defined acronym ASR, namely, Ass-
To-Seat ratio. Apparently this is a construction code name used to describe the
basics of the size of one’s derriere.

Anyway, getting back to my story, after my graduate student had admirably spoken
about the basics of ASR, I explained that I had recently heard of an alternate
definition. Out of the audience of project supervisors, consultants, and students, I
heard one individual lightly laugh. So I proceeded to further deteriorate the
situation by clarifying the definition, explaining, of course while laughing, that it is
the quick indicator of how big one's rear end is. At this point it was clear that in
addition to me, only one other individual, namely one of the students, found the
comment humorous. In fact, one of my research project supervisors leaned over to
me and indicated with a complete poker face that I was a nasty person. After the
students had completed the presentation, I jokingly again questioned my supervisor
as to his lack of knowledge of the alternate ASR definition. Again he emphasized
my nastiness, shook my hand, and indicated his thanks for completing the study. In
a span of one hour I had managed to set a poor example to my students regarding
professionalism, degrade the quality of a fine research report, and possibly
jeopardize an ongoing research project that has been continuously funded since
1997.

Within hours after the meeting, as my conscience continued to silently haunt me, I

283
began to realize the magnitude of my gaff—it was clear that some sort of action
was to be required in order to preserve an evening of sleep. In addition, I started
thinking about the frequent times that I had been correcting my children’s mild,
sometimes public, cursing. I was ashamed. I immediately contacted all parties
indicating that I had acted with an inappropriate comment at a professional
meeting. In fact, it is an inappropriate comment in pretty much any setting. Are the
standards I hold for my children too strict? I often swear in daily conversation—
why do I not allow my children to do so? Say one thing and do another—am I
again a hypocrite?

B.1.4.1 Discussion 4: Student Responses

• I agree with your perceptions of the presentation environment. That is no
place for even the slightest of contemptible speech. My reasoning for this is
that you never completely know another person's ideals/morals. Even the
most benign joke can be offensive to someone, especially in the current
politically correct world we live in. Business environments are different
from friendly environments in that, to some extent, everyone involved are
not BFFL. :) Other than the highest ranking attendants, most of the people
there do not have a say one way or another as to the legitimacy of your
attendance. Accordingly, they can do absolutely nothing should they be
offended by your banter. It is only right to think of others' principles. Not
specifically, but in general, as in “could what I say be taken offensively by
anyone?” If there is the slightest possibility, then I say don't risk it. Not for
the sake of your own appearance but out of respect for anyone who may not
agree.

I find it to be a different situation among friends. Simply put, they are your
friend for a reason. There are no prerequisites on your friendship (or I
guess, there should be none). Also, in this situation, it is entirely their
decision to stick around and listen to you, which is the converse of a
business environment. Knowing how far you allow your personal dialog to
reach so that it doesn't accidentally slip into your professional dialog is an
entirely different story. This is where this greatly affects children.
Regardless of what a child thinks, he/she has not developed an adequate
personal conviction to be able to decipher between appropriate and non-

284
 appropriate situations. For example, my sister-in-law told me a story of
taking her 3 year old daughter out to eat. As they got out of the car to go
into the restaurant, another gentleman was exiting the building. As they
passed each other, my niece blurted out “Momma, that man is fat!” A lot of
people would laugh at such an outcry. However, the fact remains that there
is a very good chance that man will not laugh, and he may even become
very distraught. That may have been something that has dealt with since a
child, or he may have a disorder that limits his control over the situation. To
my niece, she was just noticing the world around her. No different than
when she says “hey mommy, look, an airplane!” Whereas if an adult blurts
that comment out, that adult more than likely understands the ramifications
of such a statement. Therefore, I find it necessary to sensor your children,
because they are still learning what life is all about. In contrast, in friendly
adult environments, you would like to think that someone would silence
themselves around certain people (e.g. most people would not tell a “fat
joke” if there is an overweight person is present). Not that it's right to have a
“potty mouth”, but as long as you examine the situation, no personal
remarks are made and everyone can laugh about it, no harm is done.

• I think what is interesting is the conversations between different

generations. For example, my parents, both 70 now, live in a small town in
Iowa. When I visit them, it is amazing how conversations go and how
conversations they get into is just so politically incorrect/unsanitary (based
on my living in a university life for now 25 years, I would say I am pretty
"sterile" in my speak anymore). I love my family, make no mistake, but they
would be absolutely crucified in some of the meetings I attend. Even faculty
who are a generation older than I do and say things often I would never
say/do.

The generation after me is another case. For example, I do not know what
"BFFL" means at all. I text often but I do not know the speak.

yes, there is time and place for "family" "friend" and "business" talk. You
can get into trouble easy. Many politicians have made the slip and never
recovered. Happens to professionals too I am sure.

• My feelings regarding this issue:

It has been my experience since my early undergraduate years that most

engineering students are devoid of any sense of humor. My un-funded,
strictly personal research of the reasons behind this is still ongoing and I am
not sure I'll ever get a satisfying answer.

285
 So maybe your comment was a little overboard in a professional setting and
could have been avoided. However, if I attended an engineering seminar
and the speaker would have pulled the same line, I would have laughed for
sure. If not at the joke than at the courage of the fellow who told it.

Bottom line is, you can't satisfy everyone. And while it might be wise to
skip the joke at your next presentation, it is not your fault that most of your
audience will surely have a stick up their a**.

Lastly, teaching the kids good manners is an obligation of any parent, and I
am not sure that has anything to do with you trying to lighten up the mood
at a presentation.

• yes, engineers are notoriously void of humor (or at least we have our own
humor that we all understand)….I guess that is why I married an engineer
(for 22 years now)

my comment was indeed a little overboard and inappropriate….and I claim

to be very politically correct (having worked in a ultra politically correct
environment for now 25 years)

I think any jokes are very dangerous now days…yes, you have to be very
careful…..

being a parent is the most difficult thing I have ever done…..we are
criticized for things we do and for things we don’t do with regard to rearing
children. Getting a PhD degree was much easier than raising kids…but I
love my kids and I am their biggest fan….raising kids is much more
enjoyable and fulfilling than getting a PhD for sure. I know I would never
have been able to do both at the same time….I was married 10 years before
having any children -- in fact I was a tenured professor before I had any
kids. Just the way I (and my wife) chose to go through life I guess.

• Wow, another great subject.

Yes, i think you are being hypocritical. If you don't believe in your kids
swearing why do you believe in doing it yourself? If you slip in front of
your kids they will lose some trust in your teachings. I am not a parent so
my black and white thinking may be easier said than done….but since i am
not a parent, i am "outside the box" too.

Obviously, you don't want the kids to swear…but the real reason is that you
are trying to teach them proper communication techniques AND you don't

286
 want them to get into trouble….i think. I would explain to them that
swearing isn't always right….most of the time it isn't…the trick is to know
when it is kosher…right now they are too young to be able to judge that, so
you default to the "no swearing." I'd also tell them that you yourself get a
kick out of it sometimes, but you make every effort to swear only when the
situation is more than casual.

I always felt that as long as the "why" was explained to me, i had more faith
in what was being taught to me.

I hope I’m not being too forward with this, but I am not one to sugarcoat
anything. Great discussions!!! I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it's not
as easy as i think…because I’m sure it's not.

Yep. I agree. I need to set an example in all locations (home and away)

yep, one needs to know the place and the time to do such…if you cant
control it, don’t do it.

yes, need to know "why" to better understand.

again, much of the previous ethics threads only arise because of my 8 and 9
year old.

the other day my 9 year old son and I were walking and after a person (girl)
walked by, he goes, "hottie" -- oh my

• I think the fact that you came to the conclusion that you had made a
mistake, or “gaff”, makes you a hypocrite….not.

I also have spent plenty of time on construction sites listening to and often
engaging in very colorful conversations. I do not believe that swearing is
bad or immoral, but definitely has boundaries for acceptable places and
times. I often go back to the office with the less colorful version of
conversations held in the field.

I would consider a professional presentation to be one of those times to

refrain from swearing. I myself would have found it humorous at the time
and I laughed while reading your story. I think I have a very good sense of
humor, but I am very reluctant to share it in that type of environment. I
learned back in Speech 101, never swear or tell a joke during a presentation
because you never know who in the audience you are going to offend.

287
 My wife and I are starting to go through the same thing with our children.
We were all riding in the car the other day when my 4 year old says
something about a “freakin” squirrel. I had to restrain my wife from
jumping in the back seat to beat him and the first thought that came to my
mind was, ….well first, bite my tongue to keep from laughing, and then
“not in front of your mother”.

I think we are both trying to teach our children to do what is right and to be
socially responsible. There may be an appropriate time, place, and AGE for
swearing but 4 years old and in front of your mother is definitely not it.
These are just some of the lessons we need to pass on to our children. I
don’t find it hypocritical, just responsible parenting.

You could test this theory….tell your parents this story, and see if your
mother still frowns at you a little bit!

• I think just the fact that one thinks about things both "before" and "after"
helps identify that you are trying to do the right thing. It is the people that
act without thinking before and after (repeatedly) that really have
"problems" or "issues"

yes, need to know the time and place for the colorful talk for sure.

yes, professional presentations would be a big border of right and wrong

and proper language…

yep, mom and dad are indeed good tests….my mom and dad do things that I
cannot get away with in Colorado and my job for sure.

• As a parent your job is to prepare your kids for the real world as your
parents obviously did. Part of living in this world is making mistakes and
part of what defines you as a person is what you do after you make the
mistake. Just as you recognized your mistake and did your best to remedy it,
the goal would be that given the same situation your kids would do the
same. I guess what I am trying to say is that you would be a hypocrite if you
were ok with the mistake or didn't even recognize it as a mistake. Instead
you self-corrected which is what your kids will be able to do someday. Until
that day comes you act as the corrector. Sorry if this babble doesn't make
sense. Lots of thoughts and no cohesion.

• we learn most from our mistakes and failures for sure!

288
 yes, recognizing and admitting when you are wrong is a big part of maturity
for sure!

• I don't think you are being a hypocrite. Your children will eventually learn
that there is a time and place when cursing is okay. But they first need to
learn that it is unacceptable at all times when they are young and learning. It
would be close to impossible to do it the other way, let them curse freely
and then teach them that it is not appropriate to curse at other times.

As for the joke, I wonder if it was really as bad as you tell, or is that just
your recollection? Many articles on speech writing will tell you to make a
joke. So even in a professional presentation, it can still be okay. But maybe
you kept it going too much. Sometimes in these environments, people won't
outright laugh, but will crack a smile (they are trying to stay professional
too).

• I agree. Your kids are eventually going to hear a lot worse and at this point
in their lives you should teach them that it's wrong to speak this way and to
respect everyone around them. But, it's inevitable that they'll be talking like
a sailor at some point.

It seems that you have had such a long relationship with the local county
government that you would have familiarities with a few of the same
people. And we're in a profession where 'colorful construction talk' breaks
into daily conversations all the time. Granted, maybe telling the joke during
the presentation wasn't the best idea, but afterward would have been
understandable.

• yes, it is inevitable….yes, my relationship with the city is now 13 years…

we have been through a lot together…..I have been in many situations with
them where I thought they passed the "line"…but I think this is/was the first
time I had done so.

• good points…I am always my worst critic….and I do take things too

personal some times.

I am better than I was 10 years ago….maturity I suppose????

• I would have laughed at the joke, and then I would have laughed at you
because no one else was laughing. Nothing is worse than telling a joke to a
group of people and no one laughs. I've been there before and it's not fun.

289
 As for the people who would take offense to that joke, they need to lighten
up. The joke wasn't even that nasty. Life's too short to take everything
seriously. Engineering presentations can usually get a little boring (not that
yours was of course) so I think it's good you tried to throw a little bit of
humor in there. It keeps people awake.

I think that in regards to your kids, chances are they will be cursing in a few
years anyways if they go to a public school. What age would you not care if
they curse? I think the problem with kids cursing is they say things without
thinking. Some people may take offense to that so it's good to teach your
kids not to curse at a young age.

• it would have been nice if you would have been there to bail me out.

yes, we are too politically correct world anymore for sure…we do need to
lighten up.

yes, "speaking like a sailor" (as Jesse says above) is a matter of time for
sure….the book of life yes.

• People have the right to say joke, bad or good words. However their words
tell us how their family life style are and I like to learn from that, too.

There is no rule for us to judge one as a good or bad person. Someone may
speak bad words, but they are very nice, honest and helpful persons to us.
The others speak so nice and kind to us, but they like to say joke or gossip
behind us.

We all know that kids are innocent and learn new things especially joke and
bad words from friends or media easily.

If we want our kids grow up with a good personality in public, they need to
learn what kind of words they can say and whom they can say that.

I agree with you on your correction of your kids' words as long as you give
them the reasons what right and wrong of their conversations.

In the construction business and meetings, we always meet with many kinds
of technical persons from high school, technical school, college, and
professional levels. They have their own words to communicate with others
and we have no choice to correct them.

290
 If we don't like their joke and bad words, just walk away or let it pass by
our eyes since it won't stick with ourselves to homes.

If we don't like their joke and bad words, just walk away or let it pass by
our eyes since it won't stick with ourselves to homes.

• but in today’s world, bad jokes can get you in big trouble…especially in
government types of environments for sure.

yes, bad words/language will come from friends and media easily (we
cannot prevent it for long that is for sure)

• Actually I wanted to say "let it passes by our ears", not eyes.

I've had many errors on my typing in this class discussion and will check it
next time.

• I thought the joke was hilarious! I would have laughed during the
presentation, and I'm sorry that no one else thought it was funny.

I don't think you are being hypocritical with your children because you are
trying to teach proper etiquette until they reach a mature age when they are
(hopefully) able to decide for themselves. Until they reach that age, it is
your responsibility to guide them in a manner that allows them to learn
proper interaction with others. In our society it is not respectful for a child
to use "potty mouth" language.

• David,

I and maybe others wanted to laugh about it, but how we could do that in
here.

• I think David meant that no one else at the presentation thought it was
funny.

• yes, correct….he was referring to the situation at the presentation.

• I got it.

• I know others thought it was funny too…but to laugh, means you are as
guilty as the "speaker" if you know what I mean.

291
• The comment made in a professional presentation was definitely
inappropriate for the audience. I don't really think the comment was
necessarily offensive and probably would have allowed myself a chuckle if
I heard it in the midst of a presentation about a topic as dry as ASR. I do
feel the comment was inappropriate at because the audience you were
speaking to had such great range. The world we live in is politically correct
to the point of being obnoxious. It doesn't surprise me that there was one
person who judged you for your comment. It was, however, very
unfortunate that it was your supervisor that thought the joke was offensive.

As to your kids:

You pose the question "Am I hypocrite?" My answer is yeah, a little bit. Let
me ask you this question though. Who is not a hypocrite? It is a stone cold
truth that anyone who attempts to uphold any type moral standard will
ultimately fail. It is in our human nature to be selfish and, at times, act
without thinking. We as humans are doomed to a life of hypocrisy. This
doesn't mean that we should quit trying to uphold the moral standard we
feel is right to uphold. It sounds to me like you're a good parent and just
want what's best for your kids.

• thanks for your comments…….

yes, ASR is not a very interesting topic for structural engineers…..more

chemists type of work I think.

yes, hypocrite…but yes, we all have "moments"……I have come to believe

that those who think they don’t have such moments are the real people who
have issues…..yes, I messed up a bit….but I knew it (immediately)

• Having first worked with road construction crews during my summers

getting my first undergrad degree I also have had more than enough
exposure to this "colorful" language and because a bit of a "sailor" myself
over the years. After hearing myself at a party being video tapped I was
completely embarrassed at my rudeness. I tried very hard to fix my behavior
from then on & was able to correct most of it as I worked less construction.
A couple years later I got back into field work with drill crews that I was the
"lead" team member. I quickly notified being a shorter, smaller, girl in
construction made people not respect me quickly or possibly not during the
entire project. One day after several 14 hour work days I broke out into my
"old" way of talking when one of my employees made a foolish error. I
received an immediate response and even a change in their level of respect

292
 for me. From that point on, I learned to quickly establish myself as not just
a little, kid coming out of the office for a while for a seasoned, rough-
around the edges respected college & boss. I don't think there is a direct
relationship between teaching your children manners & knowing the
appropriate time & place to speak more "colorfully," but from my
experience there is a time & place for both ways of talking. Unless of
course if it results in disrespectful treatment of others.

• very good story…..

yes, in engineering, women probably have a bit of a hurdle to get over

(probably more so in CE and even more so if you are in the "field"). Before
you jump all over me, remember I have been married to a CE for now 22
years. Interesting that getting into rough speak earned you some respect…I
suppose field women need to show that they are not afraid of getting dirt on
their shoes (office men need to prove this too fyi)…and especially PhD's
need to show that they can get shoes dirty! Oh the baggage that comes with
the PhD

25 years ago CE's were about 10-15% women -- has not really changed as
we have similar statistics today.

An interesting piece of data I can share with you regarding my 16 years of

being a professor and mentoring graduate students (I have had over 120
students claim me as their major professor at both the MS and PhD levels).
My best Thesis and Dissertations have come from the "pens" of female
students (sorry boys, but that is my experience)……..the female students I
have had frankly wrote and spoke very well (while having the same
engineering skills). PERIOD. Why is this? I'll say this too, just so I don’t
get in trouble at home--my wife is a much better civil engineer than I.

I have published many well written papers with male students too…….and
thesis and dissertations…but I think women probably have more to prove
(historically anyway) and hence have given me a better product (in general)
over the years.

ok…I am sure this will end up in the UCD academic grievance committee.
Oh well….I have never been shy about stating my opinions. We all have
them.

• Just like everything in life, it is relative. Definitely you want your kids to
learn good manners and that there is a place and time for everything as well

293
 as when swearing is not as bad. However, presenting your self in a
professional way is part of being a leader in your field. Nevertheless, I think
ASR is quite funny, I'll never look at concrete the same way any more,
thanks.

• very good!

• Although I'm not a parent (yet, but will be in March) it seems that if we are
going to teach our children one thing then we need to ensure that we are
examples of those lessons everyday. In saying that, it should be stated that
we are all human and in no way perfect. Yes, we may slip from time to time,
but letting something like cursing or swearing become a daily part of our
conversation is somewhat unacceptable.

I think that this is an issue that is all to common in society today. We strive
to teach our children to be polite individuals who don't swear, lie or veer off
of the straight and narrow path in life. However, we all know that this is
difficult because of the exposure to others who may not have the same
values and standards as we do. Unfortunately it is all to common for our
children to pick up traits that we deem negative from their peers.

I don't think that being strict with our children is a bad thing when it comes
to cursing, but we need to be strict with ourselves and hold ourselves
accountable to the same standards as well. If we continue to provide a
strong example to our children, they will always have something to fall
back on. I remember that as a child, the glance of disappointment from my
parents when a 'not so appropriate word' spilled from my mouth was instant
punishment. They didn't have to say a word, but knowing that they were
disappointed with what I had done (and I knew I shouldn't had done it) was
enough. Letting our children know what we expected from them is crucial.

• yes, very good….no words needed…just a look of disappointment was

enough.

• I don't think it will be that big to jeopardize the research but knowing your
status people can interpret it differently….nowadays things can easily stir
away to public attention.

My comment regarding children…as a fresh parent they pretty much learn

from how we respond to things..watching TV, driving on busy street,
standing on long line or how we respond when they made mistake. And
then they think they have a permission to act like us.

294
• famous quote

"do as I say, not as I do"

• Dr. Rens I don’t think you are wrong in teaching your kids proper etiquette
in the realm of society, which I believe we all should do as adults. I think
the only issue with the case of your incident in the presentation, was the
context of when and where the joke was made. Had it been another setting I
think the reactions may have possibly been different, in any case this was
just a matter of misplaced humor. As you indicated once the mistake was
realized you attempted to rectify the situation. Which was all you could do
after the initial mistake. I think you could take a positive perspective on this
incident for your kids and explain to them that as humans we will always
make mistakes, however we will learn from them and attempt to not make
the mistake again. Being able to take responsibility for your actions and
trying to remedy a situation is a another character building attribute.

• The hypocrisy involved in parenting runs long and wide. Go to bed early,
eat all your food on your plate, eat healthy, don’t swear, exercise regularly,
and be courteous to others, the list goes on and on. Every parent exemplifies
a different level of good behavior. Some are primarily great role models and
some play no role in their children’s lives. Sadly, the parents who choose
not to play a role in their children’s lives will not be forced to face this
hypocrisy—say one thing and do another.

As decent parents it is your responsibility to raise your children with moral

values and to make ethical decisions in life. Being respectful and courteous
to others with the expectation of the same in return is a positive attitude to
instill in your children. This sometimes requires some teaching from the
parent at times when a difference of opinion between him/her and the child
come to surface. Regardless of how big a difference of opinion exists the
parent must help the child to make those decisions when they’re young.

In today’s ever-changing society things are considered acceptable that

would never have been fifty years ago. Unfortunately, speaking with
profanity has become acceptable in so many public situations that bringing
this habit into the office and/or home is not uncommon; two places where it
should never occur. As young people we live life fast, sometimes
irresponsibly and without regard for others. This proves to be a difficult
switch to turn off when it comes time to lead by example. As a result,
occasionally, do as I say and not as I do may come into play in the game of

295
 parenting. It doesn’t make someone a bad person to tell their child how to
behave appropriately when growing up. It needs to be done.

What comes to issue is why you choose to teach one thing and do another.
Sometimes as adults we will admittedly make poor decisions. But as adults,
it is our responsibility to recognize our errors, make amends whenever
necessary, and learn from our mistakes. If that is the situation then the
situation has played its course. Whoever said the direction of teaching flows
only from parent to child? It is probably a more accurate assessment to
suggest the reverse flow of education as children teach their parents as
much if not more throughout the entire process of it all. Children teach their
stubborn parents things they thought they knew all of their life. Some of the
very things they argued with their own parents about so many years before.

It is a learning process for everyone involved. Through teaching your

children you have recognized a habit or behavior of your own that deserves
more attention. It is obviously something you recognize as an adult or we
wouldn’t be writing about it for class. You have learned a valuable lesson in
your own life as a result of exemplifying a good person for your children.
Sounds like good parenting in my opinion and reinforces the importance of
parents in a young person’s life. Learning from teaching your own children
seems a huge reward of the parenting process.

The parents who choose to forever lead by poor example and hypocritically
discipline their children are a problem. A child will never respect or respond
to someone who acts in such a way. Parenting isn’t easy and part of one’s
responsibility is to behave in such a way as to benefit your child, and the
best way to show that is to be a role model and lead by example.

I think you’ve got it covered.

I don’t know anyone who can look back at their childhood and honestly
declare to have been correct in a disciplinary action

• I am not going deep into this discussion because there are a lots of things
that can be raised and talked about. But, for now as a father of twin girls,I
always would like to exercise caution in raising my children. I always trying
to be careful not to take things too far. Being excessively strict is no way to
raise children. The same way as we do, children's need to develop decision-
making skills by having choices available to them, even if some options are
far better than others. It is morally wrong to expect our children to do the

296
 same that we do. As a parent, I have an interest in being a good responsible
parent.

• I am not a parent, so I feel as though I have little to offer the topic. I would
think that a parent’s role runs way deeper than one realizes until they are
serving the role. Teaching fundamental etiquette to children will help them
to recognize situations to grow as a person that will contribute to society as
a progressive individual. I would hope that everyone has the ability to grow
and learn, but they will sometimes fall short if there is a weak basis to draw
from. We are not only learning from our parents but as well as social
influences as in your situation. No one is perfect, it is even worse when the
individual feels it has to be obtained because of the judgments of other.
Society is so quick to offer its disapproval and judgments towards others
wanting to take focus off them and throw it on another. I think there is a
little bit of hypocrite on all of us.

• I believe it is important that we are consistent when it comes to setting

limits for our children. If we are strict one week and permissive the next,
then our children will not know how to behave.

So the expectations and consequences for our children need to be as

consistent as possible. As long as you are not too strict, there is nothing
wrong being strict.

B.1.5 Discussion 5: Academic Dishonesty (True Story)

This is a true story about one of my graduate student classmates at Iowa State
University. We earned MS degrees together under the same academic adviser.
About 10 years after he had left Iowa State, he brought forth the following
situation.

One of my friends revealed recently that an act of cheating had occurred on a take-
home exam taken many years ago. Apparently, the weight of that academic
dishonesty had become such a burden that the student had come back to school to
meet with an academic adviser to discuss the issue. The student had returned to
forfeit the previously awarded advanced degree. It was tearing this student up

297
knowing that the easy way out had been taken. After several heart to heart meetings
between the student and advisor, it was mutually decided that it was not necessary
to return the degree back to the university. Peace could be accomplished internally
between the two by retaking the course. The former student retook the course with
ease and earned an A.

B.1.5.1 Discussion 5: Student Responses

• I think there is a lot of pressure for students to earn good grades and keep
excellent GPA's. This pressure subsequently causes even the most honest
people to have lapses in good judgment and to 'cheat' in even the smallest
forms. The fact that the student from the ethics forum had enough remorse
to offer his degree back is admirable.

• yes, I thought that was an interesting story when I learned of it….

the deal is that even very simple things can aid someone in an exam…just
by saying, "boy, that exam was difficult" gives someone an unfair
advantage. Also, just stating "boy that nonlinear problem was an interesting
problem" can offer aid too as someone might be solving it via a linear
manner.

yes, pressure can cause us to do unreasonable things.

• There are a few ways you can take this scenario. Yes, it was admirable that
the former student admitted cheating and was willing to take the
consequences, however what do others learn from hearing about this case?
If I cheat and then admit it later, I just have to take the course over again
and maybe get a little slap on the wrist. If the student got caught earlier, I
doubt it would be the same outcome. But then again, do you punish
someone for doing the right thing by coming forward? I hear it from parents
all the time "if you just tell me what happened, I promise I won't punish
you." Obviously it was foolish and unethical to cheat in the first place and
in the end, the ethical choice would be to admit guilt. I don't think there's
and question about that. The real ethical question is directed towards the
school/professor - how severe should the punishment be? Do the "rules"
change depending on if and when you admit guilt versus getting caught? …
and possibly other circumstances?

298
• Good point!!

• I think there is a world of difference between getting caught and admitting

fault. A lot of people, even after they get caught, still don't think they did
anything that bad. However, when you admit guilt, you know what you did
was wrong, and more importantly, why it was wrong. Theoretically, I guess
someone who is dishonest could cheat, then admit to it later down the line
(similar to this situation) just to get less punishment. But, if someone is
dishonest enough to cheat, why would they feel the need admit and get less
punishment when they could just never say a word and get no punishment at
all.

If that student would have been caught in the act, they probably would have
thrown him out of the class or even the university. I find that the reason for
that is to teach students that it is not right. Whereas if a student comes to
you years later and admits to it, they obviously have learned the lesson (the
adviser determined this by meeting with the person multiple times), which
is to not cheat, so additional punishment would be pointless. Conversely, if
a person gets caught years down the line, I think the same punishment
should apply as if they had been caught in the act, because they have shown
no evidence of learning their lesson.

• of course, the "black-and-white" "non-grey-area" answer to this question is

the student gets an "F" has to re-take the course…has to go through
academic board and all that stuff.

I think others can learn that doing such an act gains nothing really in the
long run…..in fact, I think the pain this student showed could de-rail others
too.

I think the student coming forward is an honorable act and shows maturity.

an opinion anyway!

• All of us should make an effort to be as honest as this student was in

admitting his guilt. The world would be a much better place.

The university has taken a huge leap (not sure if it's forwards or backwards)
when they decided to offer online classes and trust students with taking tests
outside the classroom. They are putting their reputation at risk to some
point. I agree with the punishment the student received.

299
 As a university (or human being for that matter), you can't expect everyone
to be completely honest all the time….we are all humans and all of us have
lied at some point in our lives. At least the student took responsibility for
his/her actions.

• yes, it is a huge leap of faith with regard to honesty in this class…..I think
the form you all sign at test time puts my mind at ease (but "doing the right
thing" and "grey areas" mean different things to different people……I hope
all 33 of us are on the same page.

• It seems to me that the hardest aspect of this situation is the other students
in the class. Was the class graded on a curve? If so the student who cheated
ended up hurting other peoples grades. A lot of people in the world today
seem to think that their choices only effect them which is completely
wrong. Obviously this concept is pretty clear when it comes to a lot of
professions in which a mistake can be deadly for other people. I think that if
more people actually thought about how their choices effected others this
world would be a much better place.

• very true…..the first grade does and/or did affect the overall statistics of the
class as a whole.

good point

• Cheating is a part of human behaviour if he and she can do /or like to do it.

Someones do not know how to cheat, really!!

Cheating an exam is ashamed especially when an instructor catches it as

same as this case.

If start thinking in mind to cheat the exam, you are looking down your
ability, and better stay home/watch TV and don't come to school. Actually
this student could make a good grade without cheating, but he had chosen a
short cut to wrong way.

We come to school to get a better education and the measurement of our

learning is an exam so that we should be honest on it and will be proud
ourself when getting degrees.

If don't stop cheating, it will follow your mind for life in everywhere;
school, family, work place and society.

300
 Then it will makes your life worse someday, and you won't gain your trust
from others and maintain relationship with friends, partners and loved ones.

• yes, "follow your mind everywhere"

and I think this is what the student had issues with.

• Sorry, I had many wrong typing again and not really checked it for you.

• It was admirable for the student to come forward with this. I wonder how
many people in the same situation would just kinda forget that they cheated
and not even remember that they did it. It sounds like there was discussion
between the student and school that found a reasonable and fair solution.
Probably paid the same price that he might have if he got caught at the time.
I think school policies are important here too, some schools state they have
a zero tolerance towards cheating, with dismissal as the result if caught. If
that was the case, the solution would not be in line with that.

I had a situation in college when three of us collaborated on a homework

problem. One of the students was confused, and we talked about it. The
problem was, we were wrong and each turned in the answer incorrectly the
same way. The professor brought it up. I really didn't see it as cheating,
especially since I think I was the one who did the problem wrong the first
time. It's a shame that none of us figured out it was wrong. That is probably
the more embarrassing part of it.

• group work in homework and such is a great way of learning…..I did this
many times…..but sometimes when the key concept is brought up by one of
the others, one can get lazy and not totally grasp what is going on in the
theory of the problem.

Group collaboration is fine in my opinion…but be careful you are not

letting someone else do all the key work in a problem (as that person will
not be sitting by you for consultation on the exam)

• I think if anybody want to practice in Engineering field I would suggest to

challenge himself/herself by doing enough exercise (homework, project..)
independently to develops critical thinking especially for undergrad classes.
With that practice, student will not be surprised when they face real world
where they may have to seat for hours with design problems.

301
• no doubt……see above……you need to be able to stand on your own two
feet for sure (as the exams are not group work)….nor is the PE….

but one must be able to work in teams as well and working hmwk problems
in groups helps foster this trait as well…just make sure the same person
isn’t giving the "key" always to solving the problem (that is when one can
get lazy and not realize that he/she is not learning -- I know this from
experience because it happened to me in undergraduate engineering statics
on semester)

• EXAM 2

will be NOVEMBER 2

Conjugate Beam & Energy methods

I have no idea how many problems/structures will be on the exam…the

"vision" has not yet come to me.

• Thanks for the heads up. I will NOT be requesting any special times for this
exam!!

• I think in either case, cheating is unacceptable. Although there is definitely a

lot of pressure to achieved the best grade possible, as mentioned in an
earlier comment, cheating is intentionally not accidental and therefore
should have some level of consequence to it.

The fact that the student felt guilty enough to come back to the teacher and
admit the wrong doing is honorable, but the fact of the matter is that he/she
did cheat.

I agree with other comments posted stating the irony of a student being
more harshly punished if caught cheating in the moment rather then after
the fact some time down the road. Putting myself in the teacher's seat, this
would be a tricky situation to address in the most appropriate way possible.
As well all know a degree requires taking a number of classes. Although I
am not condoning cheating, in my opinion retracting a full degree over a
mistake in one class does not make sense. Therefore, I agree with the course
of action that the teacher took in making the student retake the course. I
think however, that more should have been assigned to the student to be
given a completed grade. The student had an advantage over the other
students in the class in the sense that he had already been exposed to the

302
 material and done the homework. The student should have been required to
complete a project or some additional work to meet a completion grade for
the course. While some may see this as unfair since this would be outside of
the course scope, the student ultimately choose to cheat and choose the
consequences. Overall the student should not have been allowed to pass the
course with ease, but rather be challenged to prove that he/she deserved the
grade.

• I don't think it is a given that the course was easy to retake just because he
has done it before ("many years ago").

This guy had the integrity of going back after he completed his degree and
confess his dishonesty. While that does not excuse him of cheating, it at
least clues us in that this was a single incident and probably a mistake he
never made before or after. I have no problem with how the school board
handled the situation. You brought up some interesting points though.

• good points….yes, the coming forward at a later date had some advantages
one could indeed argue. I think passing the course with ease does at least
demonstrate the student has knowledge and has mastered the topic (yes,
good point, 2nd time through though)

thanks for the post!

• One would hope that anyone pursuing an education understands the

magnitude of ignorance accompanying academic dishonesty. It is only a
quick, easy fix to a problem(s) that will later come back to haunt someone
in their professional career. It is very admirable of your colleague/friend to
return home to his college and confront the situation after so many years
when he had clearly “gotten away with it.” I agree with the resulting
disciplinary action, though it was ultimately voluntary. Retaking the course
versus revoking this person’s degree seems reasonable, especially if the
former student has proven himself in their respective career/field.

• yes, "clearly gotten away from it" is a good point….and for this reason
some "good guy" points need to be acknowledged.

very good contribution to this forum(thanks)

• Well the university made some more money off the student, so they came
out a winner. Just kidding.

303
 Very few people I know would have the moral fiber or courage to go back
and confess something of this order. Especially so far removed from the
event. Kudos to the person. But then it would have been easier not to cheat
during the exam.

I have a question for you. Does a student have an "obligation" to report

cheating if he/she is aware of it? Or should he/she let it be the person's
problem (the person who cheats), since it is to his/her own detriment to be
cheating in the first place? I have never "snitched" on anyone even when I
was aware of the person's dishonesty. What is your take?

• I have reported cheaters during my school days…..so that is my take. And I

have caught many cheaters (on exams) in my undergraduate statics course
(many students are tempted in that first real engineering course)…and when
I catch them, we talk…I don’t turn them in to upper level administration
(for a first time offense)…I treat it internally between me and the student
(and I generally grant them grace and forgiveness with the hope they learn a
lesson (they do get dinged pretty good on their final grade though)

• As a student we are expected to be honest in all academic work and should

maintain our own integrity as well as the academic integrity and reputation
of our school. A kind of students who seek to better their records in
dishonest ways humiliate and degrade themselves and show a lack of regard
to other students.

We all should take full advantage of the opportunities that our school offers
us to ensure that our time is well spent and our experience is productive.
And also,our academic credential is valuable.

So,those students who do this will better prepared for future endeavors.

• It takes guts to do this. I'd hire this engineer, no sweat. However, when we
cheat, the only one that gets cheated is ourselves. So…since knowledge is
power… here is the equation… Cheating = no power = looser^2

• To me, academic dishonesty is an ethical, immoral and unprofessional.

Academic dishonesty, in whatever form, is ultimately destructive to the
values of the university; furthermore, it is unfair and discouraging to those
students who pursue their studies honestly.

B.1.6 Discussion 6: Fail Forward

304
Failing Forward by John Maxwell:\Mistakes are a part of life. Successful people
recognize their errors, learn from them, and then work to correct their faults. A
study of 105 executives determined many of the characteristics of successful
executives, but one particular trait they shared was identified as the most valuable.
It was that they admitted their mistakes and accepted the consequences rather than
trying to blame others.

Most people don’t want to reap the consequences of their actions. You can see this
type of attitude everywhere. A leader who is willing to take responsibility for their
actions and be honest or “transparent” with their people is someone they will
admire, respect, and trust. That leader is also someone they can learn from.

When things go wrong, the natural tendency is to look for someone to blame. The
next time you experience a failure, think about why you failed instead of who was
at fault. Try to look at it objectively so that you can do better next time. Ask
yourself:
• What lessons have I learned?

• How can I turn the failure into success?

• Where did I succeed as well as fail?

People who blame others for their failures never overcome them. They simply
move from problem to problem. To reach your potential, you must continually
improve yourself, and you can’t do that if you don’t take responsibility for your
actions and learn from your mistakes.

You will always have problems. Are you going to give up and stay down,
wallowing in your defeat, or are you going to get back on your feet as quickly as

305
you can?

When you fall, make the best of it and get back on your feet. Learn what you can
from your mistake, and then get back in the game. View your errors the way Henry
Ford did his. He said, “Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently”

People take themselves much too seriously. Many people have too much doom and
gloom in their attitudes. They simply need to lighten up. No matter how serious
your work is, that’s no reason to take yourself seriously. If you take your self too
seriously, give yourself a break. Recognize that laughter breeds resilience.
Laughing is the quickest way to get up and get going again when you’ve been
knocked down.

This week: Think about your recent failures at work and at home. What have you
learned from those experiences? Did you take your share of responsibility? Did you
blame others unduly? How can you begin again more intelligently? Can you laugh
at yourself?

B.1.6.1 Discussion 6: Student Responses

• My initial reaction to failures is to think of away to blame others but deep
down I usually know it's my fault. So I eventually end up blaming myself
and try to fix whatever went wrong. I hate when I have too much 'doom and
gloom' in my life. So I try to laugh as much as I can and surround myself
with people that don't have 'doom and gloom' in there life. Which I believe
helps the 'doom and gloom' stay out of my life.

• Dr. Rens, can you provide us with the definition of failure? I'm not sure I
know what that means.

I know in my younger years I would try to place the blame elsewhere.

Except for the very first basketball game I played in. I didn't know that

306
 teams switched goals after half-time. I figured that out when I got the ball
and went for a lay-up on the wrong goal. Luckily (and sadly) I missed.
There was no one around me to blame for that move. But I didn't give up
after that. I kept playing to become the starting forward for the 3rd string in
high school.

• I agree that it is a great learning opportunity when things go wrong. I find

that I don't learn nearly as much when a project goes off without a hitch but
I certainly prefer to learn from the mistakes of others rather than my own.

B.1.7 Discussion 7: Confrontation

I have always been pretty good at confrontation -- either as the giver or the receiver.
In professional and personal situations, In almost every case when I was the giver,
the relationship was stronger afterword. Think about your academic, personal, and
professional confrontations -- how do you do? The following again is paraphrased
from John Maxwell.

Many people avoid confrontation. Some fear being disliked and rejected. Others are
afraid confrontation will make things worse by creating anger and resentment in the
person they confront. But avoiding confrontation always worsens the situation.
Confrontation can be a win-win situation, a chance to help and develop both sides
of the story—if you do it with respect and with the other person’s best interests at
heart. 10 guidelines to help you confront positively:
1. Confront ASAP
2. Address the wrong action, not the person.
3. Confront only what the person can change.
4. Give the person the benefit of the doubt.
5. Be specific.
6. Avoid Sarcasm.
7. Avoid words like “always” and “never.”

307
 8. If appropriate, tell the person how you feel about what was done wrong.
9. Give the person a game plan to fix the problem.
10. Affirm him or her as a person and a friend.

Positive confrontation is a sure sign that you care for a person and have their best
interests at heart.

In your professional career, you can bank on two truths. First, you will be
criticized. Second, criticism always changes you. Unhappy people will attack the
point person.

6 steps on how to handle criticism:

1. Maintain your humility.

2. Face the criticism squarely.
3. Be specific about the issue.
4. Lay out the consequences.
5. Think about feelings.
6. Restore when appropriate.

Confrontation results in purity and security. Confrontation is not a punishment. The

goals of healthy confrontation are:

1. Clarification. Get a better understanding of the person and what happened.

2. Change. Get improvement (it may be yourself).
3. Relationship. Get improved relationships
4. Purity. As word gets out, tangential situations are improved.

308
 5. Respect.
6. Security. Show you are strong to take a stand.

Checklist for criticizing someone:

1. Check your motive.

2. Make sure the issue is worth the criticism.
3. Be specific.
4. Don’t undermine the person’s self confidence or identity.
5. Do not postpone needed criticism.
6. Look at yourself before looking at others.
7. End criticism with encouragement.

Think about some recent or current conflicts. How promptly do you deal with
conflicts? Are you good at confrontation?

B.1.7.1 Discussion 7: Student Responses

• so is everyone good at confrontation?

• I have no problem when someone confronts me about an issue, but I can

never seem to be the one to initiate the confrontation.

In the work environment especially, I don't trust my knowledge of every

aspect of engineering, and I know I make mistakes every now and then.

In other life situations, I feel confident in my choices and ideas and am

ready to defend myself if I think I'm in the right. I'd like to think that I listen
to criticism… but I still consider it a knock on my
judgment/personality/morals when I am confronted.

• I am probably the worst person when it comes to confrontation. I am very

easygoing and sometimes I rather not say anything just to not stir things up.

309
 This applies to my personal life as well as my work. Of course this usually
comes back to bite me in the end.

The good thing is I am constantly in the process of improving myself and

part of that is learning to hold people responsible. I have to learn to not feel
guilty when confronting my friends, family and coworkers. I have made
some progress in the past, but I am a long way from being comfortable with
it.

• I have to say that I never really looked at confrontation from this

perspective. Although I have experienced this description in job work
reviews and general discussion with superiors in a day to day environment.
I think the steps within this discussion help to specify a method that will
lead to a positive outcome as oppose to confrontation without preparation
which could end negatively. Reading this has actually helped me to look on
confrontation in a new light.

• I think the one area of confrontation that I am learning more and more about
is being humble enough to recognize your own faults that have contributed
to the problem. Sounds like a fairly straight forward idea but for some
reason it has taken me a while to grasp how important it actually is in
resolving conflicts.

• I think everyone in some respect has a fear of conflict at some point in their
lives. It seems that it always comes down to the personality of the person
themselves.

Unfortunately as you grow older and you develop not only your academic
career, but also your professional career, there comes a time when you will
either find yourself in a constructive (or maybe not so constructive)
argument/discussion with another individual on a given subject.

Although conflict is not always the most comfortable situation to be in, I

agree with Dr. Rens in the fact that the relationship is stronger afterward
When you are passionate about a topic that you know your are right on and
you express that in the discussion, the individual your are conflicting with
will respect you depending on how you address the topic. Those that are
dominating in a conversation and more combative versus open to discussion
might be less likely to be respected then an individual who is passionate
about their opinion, but open to discussion with the receiver would be.

310
 As with other hurdles, learning to deal with conflicts only adds to the bag of
tools that you'll carry throughout your career.

Although I haven't been faced with several "conflicts" in my career, it

would seem that the faster you address the conflict the better. When a
disagreement is addressed quickly the problem may be identified as minor
rather the major and resolved quickly. It seems the most conflicts are based
on miscommunication, misunderstandings or slight differences in opinion.
Although conflicts may seem like a larger issue, they may not actually be.

• I could improve on my confrontational skills. Sometimes I can be passive

aggressive, which doesn't always work out well. And I sometimes put it off
longer than I should. But I think that sometimes also helps me formulate my
argument better, or consider the conflict from a different perspective (which
could change my initial opinion). I have been yelled at by contractors on a
few occasions. While it is difficult, I refrain from getting into a shouting
match. I will let them "go off". I don't think much can get accomplished
when emotions get too out of control. Especially if I know that I am right or
my position won't change no matter what their argument is. On most of
these occasions, they did something different than plans specified, and they
were mad that I did not "let it pass"

• Confrontation will tell how a person's know-how, personality, trouble

shooting or decision making is. Our engineering careers can't get away from
it. Whenever we are afraid of the confrontation with others, then we will not
success in our business, just like a cowboy without horse.

I agreed that we can be a person with a strong confrontation if we can give

our positive opinions and receive acceptable comments from others.

• It is ironic for this topic to come up this week. I have been witness to a feud
between friends recently that nearly ended a life-long relationship between
two girls. The two girls are my girlfriend’s roommates and moved here from
New York together nine years ago, after growing up with one another since
being toddlers. The three girls have been living together for a year and a
half and for the entire time, one of the girls has had a boyfriend who the
other two roommates despise. Confrontational, rude, and stubborn, he is not
the most pleasant person to be around. My girlfriend and I choose to not
surround ourselves with people of such demeanor and mind our own
business. I feel it is of no relevance to their relationship what my opinion is
of the boyfriend. The best friend, however, is not as passive about the
situation. She has stewed over this for two years, hanging out with the

311
 couple on weekends as though they’re all old friends. There have been a
few incidents when the boyfriend was such a jerk that the roommates or I
spoke up, but the girlfriend simply dismisses the issue and moves on. Again,
the best friend is not so passive and two days ago she blew her top. The
issue of the unlikable boyfriend separating the childhood best friends
exploded and the girls had a screaming match. The couple left in a fit of
rage, yelling ignorant comments about one another as they left the scene.
The following day my girlfriend and I learned of the chaos and heard each
person’s side of the story, both irrational and very much one-sided. Each
blamed the other and swore them to be wrong in their opinion and
argument. We avoided the house for a day and returned last night to two
girlfriends laughing while cooking dinner. They had sat down to discuss the
situation and found a common ground. One is more tolerant of the
boyfriend because her best friend is in love with him and she needs to
accept that for their relationship. The girlfriend is more respectful of the
roommates and the presence of her boyfriend. Whatever the reason may be
is irrelevant, but if a roommate has issue with another roommate’s friend, it
should be discussed immediately. I have told these girls to get it all on the
table for a year now and it finally happened. Unfortunately, the magnitude
and immaturity of the situation was so much greater than necessary because
it had festered for so long. Immediate discussion of confrontational issues is
so important in a relationship. It is very easy for a relationship to slip away
due to unvoiced animosity on one side. Discussion when something is fresh
hasn’t allowed for a huge build-up of uncontrollable emotion, typically, that
comes out inappropriately either in attitude or location. After these girls sat
down and talked they each accepted the other persons side and showed
respect. Two childhood friends who failed to discuss something so juvenile
almost lost one another forever even though they love and care for the other
like family. And their resulting respect for the current situation shows their
ability to accept and forgive.

B.1.8 Discussion 8: Do The Right Thing

I am reading a book titled "do the right thing: Living ethically in an unethical
world" below are some web sites the book recommends

Recommended Web Sites:

312
 • Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/

• California State Univ., Fullerton, Ethics:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/ethics/general.html

• St. James Ethics Centre: http://www.ethics.org.au

• University of British Columbia, Ethics: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/resources

• Institute for Global Ethics: http://www.globalethics.org

B.1.8.1 Discussion 8: Student Responses

• I went to ITESO in Guadalajara, Mexico, for my undergrad degree. This
university is a Jesuit University with the same ethical values than Santa
Clara University (Above).

http://portal.iteso.mx/portal/page/portal/ITESO

Attached is an article from ITESO on ethics: Abstract

This article presents the advances on a research project regarding the skills
and traits of professional ethics among students and faculty of graduate
programs at the Universidad Iberoamericana, in Puebla. This interuniversity
project which involves fifteen Mexican higher education institutions seeks
to recommend guidelines for the formation of professional ethics for
graduate programs at Mexican universities.

The article is in Spanish…Sorry.

• Do you have a English version of this paper?

• Unfortunately I don't. Could translate it but currently I do not have the time.
I could, however, translate the conclusions.

• I would like it translated some day…maybe over the winter holiday

period??

• I'll work on it during the holiday period. I'll do my best to finish it by then.

• Thank you for many good ethic web sites. Now the question came up in my
mind that we as a structure engineer learn and understand all of these ethics,

313
 and practice as we knew; however, construction inspectors, field engineers,
and project managers on the construction sites don't care of these issues. So
this will create a gap for engineering ethic success.

B.1.9.1 Discussion 9: Shackleton Paper

Attached is a (draft proof) paper that includes the two engineering failures we
discussed about earlier in the semester. Have you ever heard of Ernest Shackleton
before?

Rens.pdf

B.1.9.2 Discussion 3: Student Responses

• please read and comment on the paper.

• I had heard of Ernest Shackleton before, in fact I saw the IMAX movie a
little while back. In this paper there are many qualities of a good leader that
are pointed out. In my opinion the most important is putting the team,
people, project ahead of yourself. Meaning you do what is right for your
team or your project regardless of whether or not it is best for you
personally. Like the CCD manager who stopped construction to resolve
some issues. Had she not done this the project would have cost less but who
knows what kind of safety issues she avoided because of her decision. In
my experience, and as shown in the Shackleton section of this paper, the
leader who puts the needs of others ahead of his/her own are generally more
respected than leaders that look out for #1. This translates into better work
environments, which translates into more productive work teams. People
that enjoy their work environment are more likely to perform at a high level
which keeps mistakes to a minimum.

• I enjoyed the paper. Thanks for posting. One of the things that interested me
was when Shackleton decided to push into the Weddell Sea against all
advice while stefansson had chosen to hold back. While shackleton's
decision may have lead to getting stuck in the ice, he took responsibility for
his decision and made sure everyone made it out safely. This goes back a
few weeks on how we as engineers deal with failure. We can take

314
 responsibility and do all we can to resolve the issue or abandon ship and let
all that our failure affect fend for themselves.

• I have only heard of Shackleton when I was an undergraduate a few years

ago and we discussed the story. Ernest Shackleton was obviously a man of
character. He seems like a man whose own word and reputation meant
something to himself before anyone else. When times are tough I could
understand it being the easy choice to bail out and adopt the attitude- every
man for himself. Travel in those days was not easy. For a man to endure
such a long journey home, crossing the mountains in the final leg of it all,
only to return to sea to rescue his crew members is remarkable.

Stefansson however, does not seem like a man of character. To have

experienced such a journey with a group of men and then to bail on them
when the situation gets serious is the action of a weak and selfish man.
Being courageous and having the willingness to journey into the unknown
is admirable but does not translate cleanly to a responsible or noble person.

Perseverance is necessary for survival in life. The qualities that make up

every one of us are different, but a common goal and ethical motivation
could form a harmony to make a safer world. Regardless of the situation, if
someone knows safety is a risk they should speak up and bring the issue to
the table. In the career we have chosen we must persevere to succeed. From
education to working in the field, we are pushed to our limits and must
overcome the obstacles at hand. This can sometimes lead to confrontation
with project managers or contractors but if you recognize an important
detail you must be capable of notifying the appropriate people. You must do
so while maintaining professionalism and back up any opinion with
numbers. This may take additional time and money, but money is always
well spent saving lives.

• Very interesting paper. I have heard of the Shackleton story a few times
over the years in different courses, and it definitely has a strong underlying
of lesson of strength and perseverance. To have the courage to not only take
on the journey that Shackleton did is one thing, but to endure the challenges
and hurdles that hit both he and his crew along to way displays the true
character of who Shackleton was as person. To focus not only on the
importance of finishing the trip, but to hold the importance of his crew's
lives and well being equal to that of his own was just as important.

In reference to the civil cases, comparing the lessons learned with the
Shackleton story shows the importance of being true to both personal and

315
 business ethics in the work that you do. The case that involved the girder
which fell from the bridge over I-70 is a prime example of the challenges of
admitting fault. This situation was made especially difficult because the
lives of a innocent family were involved. Admitting that the girder have
been incorrectly installed not only put a black mark on how the community
felt about CDOT as an organization, but also the civil engineering industry.
Despite these hurdles, CDOT persevered through the ridicule and judgment
and made it right by admitting that the installation may have been faulty
opening the door for future close examination of these types of installations,
which in the long run would provide piece of mind to the community and
accountability for those that make these decisions that may effect the safety
of the public. Although it probably wasn't the easiest thing for a well-known
company, such as CDOT, to admit fault, doing so displayed true ethical
standards and the willingness to learn from their mistakes. I believe that the
Shackleton story should be shown to more students, as it not only sparks
discussion about perseverance, but is also very applicable to the civil
engineering industry.

• I have never heard of Shackleton but what he did in my opinion was brave.
The part that really stood out to me was how you incorporated higher power
beliefs because I truly believe that people act according to there belief.

• I worked very hard on the conclusion and that is part of the paper I am very
proud of…..I tried to make it as inclusive as possible without offending
anyone or any particular spiritual belief. I am sure I failed on this account
but I tried to the best of my ability.

• I enjoyed the paper. I was able to relate some of the points to my own life.
Made me think about several things, both personal and professional. I had
never heard of Shackleton before, I will make a point to watch that IMAX
movie. I liked how you put the Shackleton story, the engineering case
studies, and religious views together. And all to drive home one point, that
seems so simple, but can be so hard to understand - "Do the right thing"

• I have written 33 ASCE peer reviewed journal articles

I have written 31 peer reviewed conference papers (most of which were

ASCE)

I have written many other papers that have been refereed by the abstract
only

316
 I have mentored over 100 MS thesis and PHD dissertations

anyway, this is a long way to say that the Shackleton paper I wrote with my
wife was the most enjoyable piece of work I have ever did. Maybe it is the
fact that it was a new topic for me…but writing about bridges, pavements,
and the like can get kind of "stale" -- it was a fun change

• attached is the power point that goes with the Shackleton paper

Shackleton practice (v7) -- Harbin Version.pptx

• I have never heard of Shackleton before. But,the story is compelling. It is a

story that anyone of can learn from it. A story that will teach us
endurance,commitment,integrity,and humanity. The story was unpredictable
not because what happened but how it unfold. The story not only a great
literature but also it is an important insights into how to motivate
people,allocate resources,and act with great integrity in times of crisis. Even
though, he never achieved his goal of traversing the continent of Antarctica,
his extraordinary leadership should be remembered forever.

• Now I knew from your article what you wanted to communicate with the
readers on our engineering ethics.

I have some comments on your writing as the following:

In the paragraph, "Shackleton and the Endurance", I feel that I am reading a

history book since it told me about many referred years and events. I think
this part can be edited to be as the survival experience story of Shackleton
rather than the history book. There are many movie reviewers included in
this portion and all are similar opinions I think the writers should add your
own opinions in this part rather than using others. So that the readers can
follow and carry your ideas to the discussion as same as in the "Stefasson
and the Karluk" paragraph which is simple story without other opinions.

It will be good to provide a more discussion on Pro and Con of both

Shackleton and Stefansson experiences so that the readers can clearly
understand your objective and reason why you are presenting both historic
cases before entering into engineering sample case studies.

I like your article that included some religion thoughts, but this discussion
should not be in Summary which is some kind of conclusion idea. It may be
included in the discussion part before the writer conclusion or summary.

317
 In the conclusion, I like to hear the writers' opinions and conclusions on the
important of Engineering Practice and Ethics for Public Safety, and what
and how we can do better after learning from these case studies. What a
state government can do to improve our engineering practice in the public
needs such as the girder erection should require the contractor and owner
provide a certified inspector and/or an experience engineer on site at all
time, both should have the girder erection training and certificates, and what
kind of specifications should be.

• Oops! I forgot that the NTSB conclusions on CDOT case should be

included in the discussion of sample case studies.

318
C.2 Online Survey of Structural Engineering Professionals
C.2.1 Survey Questions
Note: This questionnaire is entirely anonymous. Please be as honest as possible and
do not take more than once. The survey cannot be saved, so you need to complete it
in one setting to not lose your responses. My contact information is on the About
the Authors page of this website. Please contact me if you run in to any issues with
this survey. Thanks and happy survey-taking! * Required

Note: Tallied responses are shown as such: {##}

GENERAL INFORMATION
1. At what stage of your professional engineering career are you currently in?*

a) Student {0}

b) Entry-Level Engineer (0-5 years experience; no PE license) {3}

c) Mid-Level Engineer (5-15 years experience) {6}

d) Senior Engineer (>15 years experience) {2}

2. Do you have your Professional Engineering License? *

a) Yes{7}

b) No {4}

3. What is the highest level of education you have you completed? *

a) Some Undergraduate Coursework {2}

b) Bachelor's Degree {2}

c) Some Graduate Coursework {0}

d) Master's Degree {7}

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

319
 e) Doctorate Degree {0}

4. At your current company, what is your level of responsibility regarding

business decisions and so forth? (Students: If you are not employed in the
engineering industry, please skip this question.)

a) Minimal {3}

b) Some Responsibility {5}

c) Senior Decision Maker {3}

d) Sole Decision-Maker {0}

5. Does your company have an ethics program available for it's employees to
obtain information or support on ethical issues? (Students: If you are not
employed in the engineering industry, please skip this question.)

a) Yes{2}

b) No {6}

c) Don't Know {2}

ETHICS, RESPONSIBILITY AND LEADERSHIP

6. With the modern age, do you think ethics have become irrelevant in
society? In other words, is it possible to live ethically in today's world or is
this simply an idealistic sentiment? Be Honest!

a) Yes{3}

b) Yes, but it is much more difficult to live ethically {5}

c) I don't know {0}

d) No {3}

7. When you think about what it means to be empathetic towards others,

would you consider it a social disadvantage to live one's life fully
committed to such a concept?

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

320
 a) Yes{3}

b) No {8}

c) I don't know {0}

8. Can you recite the first fundamental canon of the National Society of
Professional Engineers (NSPE) code of ethics?

a) Yes{1}

b) No {9}

c) Almost {0}

d) Huh? {1}

9. I got a job at a Mervyn's department store in high school. I showed up the

first day to the training session and only stayed 45 minutes before I realized
that it wouldn't be the right fit for me and left. I didn't get paid for the time I
was there—it was basically as if I had never been hired. I rationalized my
decision by saying that I was saving both myself and the company time,
money and resources, since I probably wouldn't have lasted very long.
However, they never mentioned to me that it was a seasonal position, so I
wouldn't be guaranteed employment longer than a few months. Maybe I
was bitter that I had never been informed of this, or maybe I truly didn't
think I would enjoy the position. This is something that everyone does on a
daily basis—we rationalize our actions by using whatever positive evidence
is available to make it seem like the right decision, and hiding any negative
evidence that may make our decisions seem wrong. In your opinion, was
my decision to leave when I did right or wrong?

a) Right {1}

b) Wrong {5}

c) Neither {5}

10. When I started my latest position with URS I had been hired concurrently
with another engineer 3-4 years younger than me. He had started one week
prior to myself, and by the middle of my second day he announced that he
had accepted a position with a different company and would be leaving at

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

321
 the end of the day. Similar to my Mervyn's story, he rationalized his
decision by saying that his new position was more design based and that is
where he saw his career going. Considering only the information given, do
you think his decision was unethical?

a) Yes{5}

b) No {4}

c) Yes and no… {2}

11. The engineer from the previous question had also received $6000 in
relocation aid that he would be required to pay back. And, he had initially
declined the other position several times saying that he had already accepted
this one. Apparently, it was a very tough decision for him, but one he felt he
must make. With the knowledge of this additional information, do you think
his decision was unethical?

a) Yes{4}

b) No {5}

c) Yes and no… {2}

12. “If we work fast enough, bracing is not necessary.” Do you agree with this
statement?

a) Yes{0}

b) No {9}

c) Sometimes it is true {2}

13. I recently moved to take a job in another state. My company paid for my
relocation which included a moving company to pack and move all of my
household goods. When they arrived at my new residence, everything was
still in basically the same condition that it was before they packed it all. I
was very pleased with the services that the moving company provided.
However, they did lose two of the wheels for my desk, and my “people” tell
me that I can submit a claim to get it replaced. The catch here is that they
desk is quite old; so old in fact I was considering throwing it away before I
moved, but ran out of time and just had them move it. What would you do

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

322
 in this situation?

a) File the claim and buy a new desk with the claim money. {2}

b) Tell the moving company not to worry about it because you were going
to trash it anyway? {5}

c) File a claim and use the money buy something other than a desk—well,
you were planning on buying the desk anyway, right? {2}

d) Just forget about the whole thing, it's too much hassle to file a claim.
{2}

e) Other {0}

14. Suppose you are on a construction site for a project that you designed. You
notice a problem with your design that possibly presents some safety issues,
so you tell the foreman about it. He says that they are already behind
schedule and that they are going forward with the construction as shown on
the drawings. What do you do?

a) Don't worry about it—all of the safety factors that they incorporate int
building codes and standards cover most design flaws anyway. {3}

b) Hurry back to your office and run the calculations to see if your design
is inadequate, and hope to relay the facts to the contractor in time.
{2}

c) Stay on site, call the owner (or your boss and have them call the owner),
and attempt to distract the contractor with stories and useless banter
long enough for the owner to get the message and order the contractor to
stop. {1}

d) Tie yourself to the crane using your shoelaces, a banana peel, and an
episode of MacGuyver that you store on your iPod for just such
occasions to physically stop the contractor from proceeding. {0}

e) Call 911. {0}

f) Other {5}

15. One phrase I hear a lot is that “the contractor is responsible for means and
methods, not the engineer.” Now, in no way am I trying to imply that I

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

323
 believe any of my colleagues would ever notice a safety issue with a
contractor's methods and intentionally keep it to themselves because of this.
However, I believe thoughts of this nature can predispose one to become
less attentive to such procedures—opposed to someone who assumes
complete responsibility for everything they have the power to influence, and
is therefore constantly paying attention to everything. Do you agree with
my proposal that even thinking a certain thought can train your brain to
subconsciously believe it over time?

a) Yes{5}

b) No {2}

c) A little bit… {2}

d) I wasn't aware that this would be a psychological evaluation! {2}

16. Another phrase that is quite common in construction is for contractors to

say “I've been doing it this way for 40 (or 30, or 50 … well maybe 50 is
pushing it) years!” Why do you think contractors say such things?

a) Because they are lazy and don't want to do more work. {0}

b) They've had a tough career and have finally been promoted to a level
where they are in charge; and they perceive you as someone trying to
take away the power they fought their entire life for. {1}

c) They really have done it that way for 40 years, and they are confused
that it is changing only now. Furthermore, they wonder if they've built
unsafe structures for the last 40 years. {9}

d) Who knows, that's like trying to predict the weather in Colorado!

{1}

e) Some other reason. {0}

17. Referring back to previous question, what response do you think this
contractor would be more receptive to?

a) A belittling remark about how that's the reason he is just the contractor.
{0}

b) An engineer who disregards their concern and tells them to just follow

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

324
 the drawings. {0}

c) "I believe it, because we've been designing them that way for 40 years
too … But, I just read this article on this structural failure where the
building collapsed and killed 60 people. The investigators determined
that this method was the primary cause of failure. And, some graduate
student wrote a thesis on it, did all sorts of lab testing, and came up with
the same conclusion. You know, I wish I could go back 20 years…”
{6}

d) "I understand what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't make the rules,
and if I sign off on this, then it's on my head. You can do whatever you
want—but this is my recommendation.” {3}

e) Other {2}

18. It seems to be becoming more common (especially in very large firms) for
engineers to not even bother taking the PE exam. For many, they doubt they
will ever be promoted high enough to utilize their PE license even if they
had it. Does your company encourage young engineers to get their PE
license? If so, what kind of assistance do they offer? You may check more
than one answer

a) I don't know {2}

b) No, not to my knowledge.{6}

c) Yes, and they pay for the test. {4}

d) Yes, and they provide some assistance with review courses and whatnot.
{1}

e) Yes, and they pay for review courses and materials. {1}

f) Yes, and they give extra time off work to study. {8}

g) Yes, and they give pay increases / bonuses / promotions for passing the
exam. {1}

h) Yes, and they provide additional incentives not listed here. {0}

19. Referring back to the previous question, why do you suppose engineers
don't take the test to become licensed as a professional engineer.

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

325
 a) Too much responsibility {1}

b) Too much of a hassle. {1}

c) They're tired of studying. They stopped learning when they received

their diploma. {2}

d) Not enough incentives to do so. {4}

e) Other {3}

20. Would you support shifting towards an industry where the structural
engineer is more fully involved throughout the entire process of
construction, including but not limited to helping determine construction
sequencing, scheduling, site investigations (not just observations), helping
to produce shop drawings, and whatever else would help improve safety
and efficiency?

a) Yes{5}

b) No {2}

c) Only if we get paid more for it. {4}

21. Situation 1: Hypocrisy (Question 21): Early on in his career, Dr. Kevin L.
Rens had been taught the skills of a forensic engineer and has consulted as
an expert witness on a number of occasions. In fact, he has served as
principal investigator on about 100 jobs since moving to Colorado. Some of
his jobs have involved the investigation of roofing substrate damage by hail,
wind, or other natural events. In addition, he has investigated construction
defect cases involving siding, windows, and other building envelope
components. Here is his story: Recently, I moved into a relatively new home
and discovered that there was an ongoing construction defect case with my
windows. Like it or not, I was now involved in a class action law suit—this
time as a plaintiff. The fact of the matter is that I saw limited defects or
damage to my windows—not damage to the level of what I would consider
a failure. I saw written defense reports using much of the same language I
used when on the other side. It made me feel strange. Had I violated the line
between defense and plaintiff? In any event, I soon received and cashed two
checks totaling around $8,000 for my “defective” windows. A few months
later, a hail storm hit my community and many of the homes in my
neighborhood were apparently damaged. I immediately climbed my own

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

326
 roof and inspected the situation within hours after the hail storm event.
After surveying the situation, I came to the conclusion that there was only
minor damage, if any, to my roof. In my opinion, the condition of my roof
was in pretty good shape—especially for an 8-year-old roof. I observed
little or no damage due to hail—certainly I had seen much worse damage on
consulting jobs I had completed, jobs in which I had been a defense expert
witness, jobs in which I had recommended very limited or even no repairs.
So, to be consistent, I happily told my wife that all was well on our house.
After a few weeks had passed, many of the 12 houses in my neighborhood
had signs posted on their lawns advertising that “so and so” roofing
company was going to soon be replacing the respective hail damaged roof.
This included both of my adjacent neighbors. Soon, 11 out of the 12 houses
in my neighborhood either had their roofs already replaced or had a
contractor committed to do so in the near future. Was I the village idiot? I
started coveting a new roof. All my neighbors got one and I wanted one too.
In any event, after speaking with my insurance company, he indicated that
no harm could be done by having a contractor inspect the roof for damages.
I asked two roofing contractors to inspect my house. Each indicated that
hail damage had occurred and that replacement of the entire roof was
necessary. I silently disagreed. They also indicated that because I was the
only house in my neighborhood that had not replaced the roof, that full
replacement, at the insurance company’s expense, was a sure deal. I filed
the claim. Three weeks later I had a new roof. What would you have done if
you were in the same situation as Dr. Rens? (Short Answer)

• “Probably the exact same thing he did.”

• “Have a representative of the insurance company evaluate the roof, and

accept that opinion.”

• “The same thing.”

• “Probably the same thing. If there was minimal damage and the price
was fair i would have replaced my roof and considered it an investment
to the house. And it just so happens that the insurance company was
going to pay for it.”

• “Not got a new roof and not get the money.”

• “I'm still a little confused about the window situation. Did he end up

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

327
 replacing all the windows with the $8000? And where did the money
come from?”

• “As far as the roof and its "damage", it was an 8 year old roof, all of the
other houses on the block received new roofs, he asked 2 separate
roofing contractors to inspect the damage, I think I would have done the
same thing too. He had gotten an "ok" from the insurance company to
have the roof inspected, so he didn't lie about anything to any of the
parties involved.”

• “Same as Dr. Rens.”

• “likely the same.”

• “Proceeded in a very similar manner. If the insurance company deems a

roof worthy of repair, accept the new roof whether or not you personally
agree with their assessment.”

• “Have the roof replaced.”

• “I would have not called for the inspection, if I already thought it was
okay.”

22. Profanity and Scientific Acronyms (Question 22): Another story from Dr.
Kevin Rens: I have been working on a research project since 1997 with our
local county government. This funded project is an extremely important part
of my professional life in that they are financially supporting several of my
undergraduate and graduate students. They also support my summer salary.
This research is a major part of my scholarly work. Recently, my students
and I completed a task under this project to evaluate the condition of an in-
service concrete bridge involving several nondestructive and destructive
tests. The final report included an hour-long presentation to five of my
project supervisors and to two local consulting professional engineers. The
consultants were ultimately responsible for completing the rehabilitation
and restoration of the bridge—they were relying on our condition data. The
presentation was delivered by me and two of my graduate students. In
addition, six undergraduate students who work for me attended the
presentation. After presenting the introductory basics of what the
investigation involved, I turned the presentation over to my two graduate
students who alternated back and forth between various aspects of results.
As part of the presentation, one of the students spoke about the

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

328
 microstructure of the concrete material. In particular, the student spoke
about Alkali-Silica-Reactivity (ASR) of the concrete matrix. The student
went into the basic results of ASR, explaining how ASR correlates to the
long term health of the bridge, was very technical, competent, and basically
did an excellent professional job. I was a proud father figure teacher who
then proceeded to degrade the situation. After my graduate student had
admirably spoken about the basics of ASR, I explained that I had recently
heard of an alternate definition. Out of the audience of project supervisors,
consultants, and students, I heard one individual lightly laugh. So I
proceeded to further deteriorate the situation by clarifying the definition,
explaining, of course while laughing, that it is the quick indicator of how
big one's rear end is. At this point it was clear that in addition to me, only
one other individual, namely one of the students, found the comment
humorous. In fact, one of my research project supervisors leaned over to me
and indicated with a complete poker face that I was a nasty person. After the
students had completed the presentation, I jokingly again questioned my
supervisor as to his lack of knowledge of the alternate ASR definition.
Again he emphasized my nastiness, shook my hand, and indicated his
thanks for completing the study. In a span of one hour I had managed to set
a poor example to my students regarding professionalism, degrade the
quality of a fine research report, and possibly jeopardize an ongoing
research project that has been continuously funded since 1997. Within hours
after the meeting, as my conscience continued to silently haunt me, I began
to realize the magnitude of my gaff—it was clear that some sort of action
was to be required in order to preserve an evening of sleep. In addition, I
started thinking about the frequent times that I had been correcting my
children’s mild, sometimes public, cursing. I was ashamed. I immediately
contacted all parties indicating that I had acted with an inappropriate
comment at a professional meeting. In fact, it is an inappropriate comment
in pretty much any setting. Do you agree with Dr. Rens' assessment of this
situation?

a) Yes, his comment was inappropriate. {7}

b) No, his audience needs to lighten up. {1}

c) I don't know {3}

23. Academic Dishonesty (True Story) (Question 23): Another story from Dr.
Rens: One of my friends revealed recently that an act of cheating had
occurred on a take home exam taken many years ago. Apparently, the

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

329
 weight of that academic dishonesty had become such a burden that the
student had come back to school to meet with an academic adviser to
discuss the issue. The student had returned to forfeit the previously awarded
advanced degree. It was tearing this student up knowing that the easy way
out had been taken. After several heart to heart meetings between the
student and advisor, it was mutually decided that it was not necessary to
return the degree back to the university. Peace could be accomplished
internally between the two by retaking the course. The former student
retook the course with ease and earned an A. Do you agree with the decision
made to allow the student to keep the degree by retaking the course?

a) Yes{8}

b) No {1}

c) I don't know {2}

24. Do the Right Thing (Question 24): I am reading a book titled "Do the Right
Thing: Living Ethically in an Unethical World." Here are some web sites
the book recommends on ethics:

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/

California State Univ., Fullerton, Ethics:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/ethics/general.html

St. James Ethics Centre: http://www.ethics.org.au

University of British Columbia, Ethics: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/resources

Institute for Global Ethics: http://www.globalethics.org

In a few sentences, please explain what "Do the Right Thing" means to you.
(Short Answer)

• “It means to take each situation as a unique situation, and to analyze the
benefits and hardships to everyone involved. Basically, try to understand
everyone else's point of view, and attempt to lessen the load for those
that are struggling the most.”

• “Everyone has a sense of what is right and what is wrong. The phrase is
a directive to do what one knows to be right when faced with
decisions.”

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

330
 • “?”

• “I think it means something different to each individual. To me it means

doing the things that you have been raised to believe are "right". I think
the base for your moral and ethical standing comes from parenting. My
dad is a very straight-laced, by-the-book, ex-military man and raised my
brother and I with the same views of what was "right" and what was
"wrong".”

• “Treat others as you want to be treated. You wouldn't cheat yourself so

why cheat others?”

• “choose the most ethically appropriate path considering all direct and
indirectly affected circumstances.”

• “Doing the right thing is maintaining the utmost level of integrity in all
of your personal and work related decisions.”

• “We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. I try to treat all
as I would like to be treated and proceed with one's life accordingly.”

25. Ernest Shackleton (Question 25): Ernest Shackleton, an early twentieth

century Antarctic explorer, was best known for his leadership skills in the
face of extreme hardship. After his ship, Endurance was trapped in the icy
waters of the Weddell Sea, he kept his entire crew alive for nearly two
years. A success with the Endurance expedition would have assured
Shackleton fame and fortune after his two previous attempts at discovering
the South Pole, despite both ultimately ending in failure, set the then current
record. In spite of this, Shackleton chose the life of his men over the
potential superficial rewards of success, as well as the avoidance of
financial stress—which indeed flooded his life after the Endurance
expedition—of proceeding with the suicidal mission of reaching the Pole.
Referenced in many settings as a great leader of the modern age, Shackleton
is praised for his commitment to those he led. As long as he was still
breathing, he simply would not let any member of his crew die. Have you
heard or read about Ernest Shackleton?

a) Yes{4}

b) No {7}

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

331
 c) I don't know {0}

26. If you answered yes to the previous question, please add your thoughts
regarding Ernest Shackleton and the tale of his Endurance expedition.
(Short Answer)

• “Ernest Shackleton did what he had to do to save the lives of his men.
there was no other choice, when he set sail after being stranded i believe
he and two other men reached an island that has only been crossed twice
once by Shackleton and his men and once by a mountaineering team
with all the appropriate gear. To Shackleton he could not leave his men
to die that is what drove him on, it's too bad that all the leaders you hear
about in large companies today are the ones that had to cut everyone so
that they could save their own tail.”

27. In what ways do you think ethics could be improved in the engineering
industry? (Short Answer)

• “interpersonal relationships between disciplines, more concern for

young engineers to provide them with more direction, more
responsibility needs to be accepted across the board.”

• “One way is to publish more accounts of crucial situations and decisions

that prominent engineers have faced during their careers.”

• “There's no reward for having ethics. It's too easy for someone to get
away with being unethical. Those are two ways it can be changed.
Award those who practice good ethics, and punish those who don't.”

• “require periodic minimum continuing education credits in ethics as

does the state of NM.”

• “Have projects be awarded based on criterion other than money.”

• “That ethics be taken more seriously and encouraged in the engineering

profession instead of ignored or enforcing items based on schedule,
money or other influences.”

28. Discuss any other ethical issues not addressed in this survey that you feel
are important. (Short Answer)

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

332
 • “This isn't an ethical issue, it's more just an issue with the way you
worded your responses. You made it as obvious as possible which
response should be chosen. I realize you are trying to make this survey
a little bit more entertaining, but regarding the contractor questions in
particular, I think they were pretty biased. Just my observation. Good
luck!”

• “is it better to provide short answers to a survey or skip all together if

one is short on time??”

29. EXTRA CREDIT: Would you like to read my thesis when it is finished?
(This question is only to satisfy my curiosity. I have no way of knowing
who you are if you answer “Yes.” If you are truly interested, please contact
me. See the About the Authors page for my contact information.)

a) Yes{6}

b) No {3}

*The survey contained in this section should only be used for general reference. Due to miscommunication, approval of the
Human Subject Resource Committee (HSRC) was not obtained prior to the survey being conducted. Once the error was
discovered, full cooperation between both the author(s) and the HSRC permitted the inclusion of this data into this thesis,
however prospective approval is strictly prohibited in the HSRC bylaws.

333
 REFERENCES

ABET. (2010a). “ABET.” ABET, <http://www.abet.org/> (July 8, 2009).

ABET. (2010b). “2010-2011 Criteria.” ABET – Forms and Criteria,

<http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and
%20PP/E001%2010-11%20EAC%20Criteria%201-27-10.pdf> (July 8, 2010).

ABET. (2010c). “Proposed Changes to the Accreditation Criteria” ABET – Forms

and Criteria, <http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria
%20and%20PP/E001%2010-11%20EAC%20Criteria%201-27-10-
PROPOSED.pdf> (July 8, 2010).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2010). “Code Of Ethics.” American

Society of Civil Engineers, <http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=7231> (June
6, 2010).

Amundsen, R. (1976). The South Pole: An Account Of The Norwegian Antarctic

Expedition In The “Fram,” 1910–1912, McClelland & Stewart, Toronto,
Canada.

Amundsen, R. (2010). “Antarctic Explorers: Roald Amundsen.” Polar Postal

History on the Web, <http://www.south-pole.com/p0000101.htm> (June 19,
2010).

Annas, J. (2000). Ancient Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University

Press, New York, New York.

Annas, J. (2003). Plato: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New
York, New York.

Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean Ethics, Penguin Classics, New York, New
York.

Elliott, J. (2006). “Christian Bale's Weight Loss for the Machinist.” Associated
Content, <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/53457/
christian_bales_weight_loss_for_the.html> (June 29, 2010).

Baldwin, L. (1999). An Ambulance Of The Wrong Colour: Health Professionals,

Human Rights And Ethics In South Africa, University of Cape Town Press,
South Africa.

Barefoot, C. (2008). Thomas Jefferson On Leadership: Executive Lessons From

334
 His Life And Letters, Mariner Companies, Inc., Charlottesville.

Beekun, R. and Badawi, J. (1999). Leadership: An Islamic Perspective. Amana

Publications, Beltsville, Maryland.

Benator, B. and Thumann, A. (2003). Project Management & Leadership Skills For
Engineering & Construction Projects. The Fairmount Press, Lilburn, Georgia.

Berton, P. (2004). Prisoners Of The North. Carroll and Graf, New York, New York.

Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi (1997). The Mahatma and the Poet. New Delhi: National
Book Trust, India.

Billington, D. (1985). The Tower and the Bridge: The New Art of Structural
Engineering, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Briner, B. and Pritchard, R. (1998). Leadership Lessons Of Jesus. Gramercy Books,

New York, New York.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2009a). “Judaism at a glance.” BBC –

Religions, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/ataglance/
glance.shtml> (June 29, 2010).

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2009b). “Mormon: An Ethical Mormon

Life.” BBC – Religions, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/
socialvalues/ethics_1.shtml> (June 6, 2010).

Brown, E. (2008). Inspired Jewish Leadership: Practical Approaches To Building

Strong Communities, Jewish Lights Publishing, Woodstock, Vermont.

Bushman, R. (2008). Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University

Press, New York, New York.

CarpeNoctem. (2000). “Greatest Military Leaders.”

<http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/> (July 17, 2010).

City And County Of Denver, Department Of Public Works (CCD). (2006). “In The
Works.” <http://www.denvergov.org/admin/template3/forms/sept06.pdf>

Colorado Department Of Transportation (CDOT). (2006a). “Rules For

Prequalification, Debarment, Bidding And Work On Colorado Department Of
Transportation Road, Highway And Bridge Public Projects.”
<http://www.coloradodot.info/business/bidding/Bid%20Rules/view>

335
Colorado Department Of Transportation (CDOT). (2006b). “Revision Of Section
509, Erection Of Steel Structures.” CDOT, Denver, CO. Issued December 1,
2006, <http://www.coloradodot.info/business/designsupport/construction-
specifications/2005-construction-specs/2005ssp/section-200-500-
revisions/509ess.doc/at_download/file>

Colorado Department Of Transportation (CDOT). (2006c). “Revision Of Section

107, Performance Of Safety Critical Work.” <http://www.coloradodot.info/
business/designsupport/construction-specifications/2005-construction-
specs/recently-issued-specs/2006-12-01/107pscwssp.doc>

Cotterell, A. (2006). Leadership-lessons From The Ancient World: How Learning

From The Past Can Win You The Future. Wiley, New York, New York.

Delatte, N. (2009). Beyond Failure: Forensic Case Studies For Civil Engineers,
ASCE, Reston, Virginia.

Delatte, N. and Rens, K. (2002). “Forensics And Case Studies In Civil Engineering
Education: State Of The Art.” Journal Of Performance Of Constructed
Facilities. 16 (3). 207–218.

Feld, J. and Carper, K. (1997). Construction Failure, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, New York.

Fodor's. (2010). “Hyatt Regency Crown Center Review.” Fodor's Travel Guides,
<http://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/kansas/kansas-city/review-
425808.html> (July 6, 2010).

Gandhi, M. (2007). “Quote Details: Mahatma Gandhi: Happiness is when what…”

The Quotations Page, <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31095.html>
(July 1, 2010).

Garfinkle, P. (2009). “The Groundhog Day Buddhism Sutra.” The Buddhist

Channel, <http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=6,7712,0,0,1,0> (June
29, 2010).

Gillum, J. (2000). “The Engineer of Record and Design Responsibility.” Journal Of

Performance Of Constructed Facilities. 14 (2), 67–70.

Givens, T. (2009). The Book Of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford

University Press, New York, New York.

Global Footprint Network. (2009). “Footprint Basics – Overview”

336
 FootprintNetwork.org, <http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
page/footprint_basics_overview/> (July 17, 2010).

Gordon, J. (2003). Structures Or Why Things Don't Fall Down, Da Capo, New
York, New York.

Greenstein, F. (2004). The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From FDR To

George W. Bush, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Hebbar, N. (2002). “Ethics Of Hinduism.” Boloji.com – A Study In Diversity,

<http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/032.htm> (June 19, 2010).

History Channel (2008). Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters (History

Channel), A&E Home Video, USA.

Holt, R. and Hartmann, J. (2008). “Adequacy Of The U10 Gusset Plate Design For
The Minnesota Bridge No. 9340 (I-35W Over The Mississippi River).” Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center Report. Federal Highway Administration.

Huntford, R., Summers, J., And Rowley, D. (2002). The Shackleton Voyages: A
Pictorial Anthology Of The Polar Explorer And Edwardian Hero. Weidenfeld
And Nicolson, London, United Kingdom.

Illinois Society of Professional Engineers (ISPE). (2010). “The QBS Process.”

Illinois Society of Professional Engineers (ISPE) - A state society of the
National Society of Professional Engineers, <http://www.ilspe.com/QBS/
index.html> (July 10, 2010).

Jaccarino, M., Burke, K., and Connor, T. (2007). “Hey, Don't Blame Me For
Collapse.” NY Daily News, <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/
2007/08/04/2007-08-04_hey_dont_blame_me_for_collapse.html> (June 27,
2010)

Jefferson, T. (2008). The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth: Extracted

Textually From The Gospels, Together With A Comparison Of His Doctrines
With Those Of Others, Thompson Publishing Co, St Louis, Chicago and New
York.

Jennings, A. and Mackinnon, P. (2000). ‘‘Case For Undergraduate Study Of

Disasters.’’ Journal Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities. 14 (1), 38–41.

Jones, L. (1996). Jesus, CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom For Visionary Leadership.
Hyperion, New York, New York.

337
Kalungu-Banda, M. (2006). Leading Like Madiba: Leadership Lessons From
Nelson Mandela, Double Storey Books, North Adams.

Kaminetzky, D. (1991). Design And Construction Failures: Lessons From Forensic

Investigations, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

Koehn, E. (1993). “Ethical Issues Experienced by Engineering Students and

Practitioners.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, 119 (4), 402–408.

Kumarsamy, A. (2006). Gandhi On Personal Leadership. Jaico Publishing House,

Mumbai, India.

Lama, D. (2001). Ethics For The New Millennium, Riverhead Trade, New York,
New York.

Lansing, A. (1959). Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage. Tyndale House

Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois.

Levy, M. and Salvadori, M. (2002). Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures
Fail, W.W. Norton, New York, New York.

Loewen, J. (2010). “#6: Hodgenville, Kentucky: Abraham Lincoln's Birthplace

Cabin - Built Thirty Years After His Death!…” The Homepage of James
Loewen: Author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, Lies Across America, and
Sundown Towns, <http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/slideshowdisplay.php?
slide=6> (July 2, 2010).

Luth, G. (2000). “Chronology and Context of the Hyatt Regency Collapse,” Journal
Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities. 14 (2), 51–61.

Mandair, A. (2000). Sikh Religion, Culture, And Ethnicity. Curzon Press, Surrey,
United Kingdom.

Manz, C. (2005). The Leadership Wisdom Of Jesus. Berrett-Koehler Publishers,

San Francisco, California.

Marshall, R., Pfrang, E., Leyendecker, E., and Woodward, K. (1982). “Investigation
Of The Kansas City Hyatt Regency Walkways Collapse.” National Bureau Of
Standards, Washington, D.C., May.

Maxwell , J. (2006). Leadership Promises For Your Work Week. Thomas Nelson
Inc., Nashville, Tennessee.

338
McKernan, V. (2005). Shackleton’s Stowaway. Laural Leaf (Random House), New
York, New York.

Mill, J. (2010a). Utilitarianism, General Books LLC., New York, New York.

Mill, J. (2010b). On Liberty, Nabu Press, Toronto.

Moncarz, P. and Taylor, R. (2000). “Engineering Process Failure---Hyatt Walkway

Collapse.” Journal Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities. 14 (2), 46–50

Moncur, M. (2007). “Quote Details: Chinese Proverb: Give A Man A….” The
Quotations Page, <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/2279.html> (June 24
2010)

Morgenstern, J. (1997). “The Fifty-Nine Story Crisis” Journal of Professional

Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, January 1997, 23-29, ASCE

Morgenstern, J. (1995). “The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis.” The New Yorker, May 29,
1995, 45–53.

Morrell, M. and Capparell, S. (2001). Shackleton’s Way: Leadership Lessons From

The Great Antarctic Explorer. Penguin Group, New York, New York.

Nair, K. (1997). A Higher Standard Of Leadership: Lessons From The Life Of

Gandhi, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, California.

National Society Of Professional Engineers (NSPE). (2010a). “Code Of Ethics.”

National Society Of Professional Engineers, <http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/index.html> (June 6, 2010)

National Society Of Professional Engineers (NSPE). (2010b). “Engineer's Creed.”

National Society Of Professional Engineers, <http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Creed/creed.html> (June 6, 2010).

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2008a). “Victim Interviews.”

National Transportation Safety Board, <http://www.ntsb.gov/dockets/Highway/
HWY07MH024/405006.pdf> (June 19, 2010).

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2008b). “Photos Of I-35W

Bridge.” National Transportation Safety Board, <http://www.ntsb.gov/dockets/
Highway/HWY07MH024/387406.pdf> (June 19, 2010).

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2006a). “Highway Accident Brief:

Passenger Vehicle Collision With A Fallen Overhead Bridge Girder, Golden,

339
 Colorado, May 15, 2004.” Rep. HAB-06-01 GPO, NSTB, Washington, DC.

Nelson Mandela Foundation. (2010). “Madiba’s Many Names” Nelson Mandela

Foundation, <http://www.nelsonmandela.org/index.php/memory/views/names/>
(July 3, 2010).

New International Version (NIV). (2002). The NIV Study Bible. Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, Michigan.

Niven, J. (2000). The Ice Master: The Doomed 1913 Voyage Of The Karluk.
Hyperion, New York, New York.

Online Ethics Center For Engineering And Research (OEC). (2006). “William
LeMessurier-The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis: A Lesson In Professional Behavior.”
Online Ethics Home, <www.onlineethics.org/Topics/ProfPractice/Exemplars/
BehavingWell/lemesindex.aspx> (June 19, 2010).

Perkins, D. (2000). Leading At The Edge. Leadership Lessons From The

Extraordinary Saga Of Shackleton’s Antarctic Expedition. American
Management Association, New York, New York.

Petroski, H. (1992). To Engineer Is Human: The Role Of Failure In Successful

Design. Vintage, New York, New York.

Petroski, H. (1994). Design Paradigms: Case Histories Of Error And Judgment In

Engineering, Cambridge University Publishing, Cambridge, England.

Pfatteicher, S. (2000). “''The Hyatt Horror'': Failure and Responsibility in American

Engineering.” Journal Of Performance Of Constructed Facilities. 14 (2), 62–66

Phillips, D. (1982). Lincoln On Leadership: Executive Strategies For Tough Times,

Warner Books, New York, New York.

Phillips, D. (2000). Martin Luther King, Jr., On Leadership: Inspiration And

Wisdom For Challenging Times, Warner Business Books, New York, New York.

Pietroforte, R. (1998). ‘‘Civil Engineering Education Through Case Studies Of

Failures.’’ Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 12 (2), 51–55.

Pirke Avot. (2005). The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Project Gutenberg, Ebook.

Plante, T. (2004). Do The Right Thing: Living Ethically In An Unethical World,

New Harbinger Publications, Oakland, California

340
Radical Academy. (2003). “The Philosophy Of The Stoics.” Center For Applied
Philosophy: The Radical Academy, <http://www.radicalacademy.com/
philstoicism.htm> (June 26, 2010)

Rees, J. and Spignesi, S. (2007). George Washington's Leadership Lessons: What

The Father Of Our Country Can Teach Us About Effective Leadership And
Character, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Reference.com. (2010). “Empathy.” Dictionary.Reference.com.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empathy> (June 24 2010)

Rens, K. and Rens, A. (2007). “Leading And Learning From Failures The
Shackleton Way: Education And Practice.” Proceedings Of ASCE Structures
Congress, Long Beach, California.

Rens, K. and Rens, A. (2010). “Leading, Learning, And Living The Shackleton
Way: Education And Practice.” ASCE Journal Of Leadership And Management
In Engineering, 10 (1), 32–40.

Richards, M. and Spijer, C. (2001). Shackleton’s Antarctic Adventure: The Greatest

Survival Story Of All Time. WGBH Educational Foundation and White
Mountain Films, Boston, Massachusetts.

Roddis, W. (1993). “Structural Failures And Engineering Ethics”, Journal Of

Structural Engineering, 119 (5), 1539–1555.

Scott, R. (2001). The Voyage Of The Discovery: Scott's First Antarctic Expedition,
Volume I And II, Cooper Square Press, New York, New York.

Sedley, D. (1998). “Ancient Philosophy.” Routledge Encyclopedia Of Philosophy,

<http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/A130>. Routledge, London. (June 26,
2010)

Shackleton, E. (2002). South. Carroll and Graf, New York, New York.

Smith, J. (2010). “The Articles Of Faith.” The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-
Day Saints. <http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html>
(June 6, 2010).

Sommerville, D. (2009). The Complete Illustrated History Of World War Two: An

Authoritative Account Of The Deadliest Conflict In Human History With
Analysis Of Decisive Encounters And Landmark Engagements, Lorenz Books,
Lanham, Maryland.

341
Stengel, R. (2008). “Mandela: His 8 Lessons Of Leadership”, TIME.com,
<http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1821467,00.html> (June 19,
2010).

Stevens, P. (2001). “George Washington.” Garden Of Praise,

<http://gardenofpraise.com/ibdwash.htm> (June 20, 2010)

Stone, J. (2002). The Universal Laws Of God: Volume 1. Writers Club Press,
Lincoln, Nebraska.

Taylor, R. (1985). Ethics, Faith, And Reason, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.

Texas Tech University (TTU). (2005a). “SACS Quality Enhancement Plan

Executive Summary.” Texas Tech University, <http://www.irim.ttu.edu/sacs/
QEP/ExecutiveSummary.htm> (July 8, 2010).

Texas Tech University (TTU). (2005b). “National Institute for Engineering Ethics -
Strategic Plan.” Texas Tech University, <http://www.niee.org/murdoughCenter/
NIEE_stratPlan.php> (July 8, 2010).

Thomson, D. (2002). Scott, Shackleton, And Amundsen: Ambition And Tragedy In

The Antarctic. Avalon Publishing Group Incorporated, New York, New York.

Tucker, G. (2010). The Life Of Thomas Jefferson, Third President Of The United
States: With Parts Of His Correspondence Never Before Published, And
Notices Of His Opinions … National Policy, And Constitutional Law, Nabu
Press, Toronto, Canada.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). (2005). “Tacoma

Narrows Bridge: People of the Collapse & Aftermath, 1940–1950.”
<http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/tnbh> (June 28, 2010).

Williams, M., Teasdale, J., Segal, Z., and Kabat-Zinn, J. (2007). The Mindful Way
Through Depression: Freeing Yourself From Chronic Unhappiness. The
Guilford Press, New York, New York.

Willis, C. (2002). A Lifetime Of Wisdom: Essential Writings By And About The

Dalai Lama. Da Capo Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Witten, D. and Rinpoche, A. (1999). Enlightened Management: Bringing Buddhist

Principles To Work. Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont.

342
Worsley, F. (1931). Endurance. W.W. Norton and Co., New York, New York.

Worsley, F. (1977). Shackleton’s Boat Journey. W.W. Norton and Co., New York,
New York.

Wu, D. (2008). “Experiments In Religion: Nichiren Daishonin’s Buddhism.”

<http://dailyuw.com/2008/3/14/experiments-religion-nichiren-daishonins-
buddhism/> (June 28, 2010).

343