Values Day Collaboration

At the commencement of the discussions, participants were asked to contribute to a word cloud one word expressing what they were most concerned about. Many different concerns were registered but they did not cluster into a few topics. The range of concerns was wide.

The Values Day collaboration then listened to a debate. Mitch Pearlstein, founder of the Center of the American Experiment, and Richard Broderick, journalist and author, considered the question “Does America Have a Values Crisis?” before participants.

Mitch took the position that a values crisis has been precipitated in America by 4 social developments: 1) fragmentation of families as vehicles for promotion of values of responsibility and community concern; 2) widespread acquiescence in this fragmentation; 3) decline of personal responsibility for work among students which has resulted in low educational achievement across the board for Americans; and 4) an inability to “balance our books” to resist the temptation of funding our desires through debt. 

Rich responded with a yes and a no. He admitted that what Mitch put forward was true but on the other hand was more symptom than cause.  He posited that values come from institutions so to consider the state of values we need to look to the biases in institutions. He suggested that forces and event have provoked value changes in response, which are not necessarily the values which individuals would have chosen on their own free from pressures. 

He noted the presence in American culture of a war footing since 1941, with the social pressure to think in “we/they” terms and to over-simplify understandings out of a felt need to justify our “side” in the struggle.  He pointed to social and economic inequalities as forces facilitating breakdown of confidence and optimism. He felt that economic conditions do not result from individual values but rather drive them into prominence. 

Third, he noted that traditional normative institutions – families, churches, schools, the military – still by and large aligned with traditional values of responsibility but that a new institution had arisen to great power and influence – the media, including entertainment and celebrities. 

Broderick noted that the media/entertainment set of normative institutions were the only such institutions driven by the search for profit from audience. This therefore is a pandering institution, not an educational one.  It encourages the demand for “more” among citizens and reflects the values of an oligarchy which is infantile and narcissistic.

A second word cloud of concerns was generated, again with many concerns but few of them having the assent of many participants. Notable, however, was the shift in the nature of the concerns. Nearly everyone registered a concern along the lines put forth by Mitch and Rich. 

Participants then were polled as to several issues about values discussions – was it easy to talk about values, should ethics be taught in schools, should leaders talk about values or be more circumspect? 

Then, each table of participants was asked to consider a problem taken from recent events as described in news stories and reflect on how it did or did not embody one or more of Rotary’s Four Way test of ethical thinks to say and do. A Rotarian at each table facilitated the discussions. After these group conversations, each of the 9 tables reported on their conclusions. 

The discussions could be summarized as validating the relevance of each of the four standards – truth, fairness, goodwill/better friendships, benefits.  The problems did implicate in one way or another finding truth about a situation or considering what was a fair outcome – including questioning results that were legal but not necessarily fair. Groups were sensitive to who would benefit from outcomes under different scenarios and they considered how decisions could or would not enhance constructive relationships.