William LeMessurier Case Study Assignment Guide

Part 1:

Assignment Details:

William LeMessurier and his role in the Citicorp Tower controversy represent an example of when engineering ethics are put to the test.

In light of this, please watch the “Professional Engineering Ethics: The Citicorp Tower case” blog post and tweet out about the videos.

Then write a 300-500 word explaining your opinion on whether or not LeMessurier adhered to the fundamental canons of engineering ethics. As you think about this case and prepare your one page essay, it might be wise to understand that any ethical decisions we make are inevitably socially-situated in nature. That is, our formal and informal interactions with employers and clients are wholly embedded in how we approach ethical decisions. Unfortunately, it is too often the case that ethical implications are linked with notions of neutrality, objectivity, and clarity. On the other hand, perhaps a more realistic approach to ethical studies might best begin with an understanding that ethical decisions are rife with conflicting agendas and diverse interests that must be negotiated with every ethical decision. As Dr. Loui rightly points out, as a professional engineer, you need to avoid situations where your judgement as a professional can be questioned. However, it needs to be pointed out that the very nature of an employer-client relationship will place you in an ethical dilemma; one where you will need to reconcile your contractual responsibility to your client while simultaneously adhering to the moral responsibility of the public’s safety.

This essay will be worth 10 points.

The following rubric will be used to evaluate your essay:

Rubric for Citicorp Reflections:

1. Reference to and discussion of Fundamental Canons

No reference to canons                                                              = 0 points

Reference/discussion of 1 or 2 canons                                  = 1 points

Reference/discussion of 3 or more canons                          = 2 points

2. Explanation of dissenting opinions

No inclusion of dissenting opinions                                       = 0 points

Inclusion of 1 dissenting opinion                                            = 1 points

Inclusion of 2 or more dissenting opinions                          = 3 points

3. Provide clear and developed consensus

A consensus was stated                                                                 =0 points

A consensus was stated with little development                  =1 points

A consensus was stated with effective development           =3 points

4. Clear organizing structure

The essay had no logical/coherent structure                         =0 points

The essay had effective/coherent structure                          =2 points

Total Points:                                                                                     =10 points

Part 2:

Assignment Details:

In your zodiac groups, you need to write a 300-500 word essay where you synthesize your initial reactions to the Citicorp case (that each of you individually discussed in Part 1). Here, we are looking for you to first explain possible dissenting opinions on this case study AND subsequently reach a group consensus and offer supporting explanation that provides rationale for this consensus.

In order to help your group decide whether or not LeMessurier adhered to the fundamental canons of engineering ethics in his handling of the Citicorp Tower repairs, please refer to the Fundamental Canons of Engineering Ethics, as codified by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE).

The following rubric will be used to evaluate your essay:

Rubric for Citicorp Reflections:

1. Reference to and discussion of Fundamental Canons

No reference to canons                                                              = 0 points

Reference/discussion of 1 or 2 canons                                  = 1 points

Reference/discussion of 3 or more canons                          = 2 points

2. Explanation of dissenting opinions

No inclusion of dissenting opinions                                       = 0 points

Inclusion of 1 dissenting opinion                                            = 1 points

Inclusion of 2 or more dissenting opinions                          = 3 points

3. Provide clear and developed consensus

A consensus was stated                                                                 =0 points

A consensus was stated with little development                  =1 points

A consensus was stated with effective development           =3 points

4. Clear organizing structure

The essay had no logical/coherent structure                         =0 points

The essay had effective/coherent structure                          =2 points

Total Points:                                                                                     =10 points

This will be worth 10 points.

Part 3

Assignment Details:

First read Cezar M. Ornatowski’s “Between Efficiency and Politics: Rhetoric and Ethics in Technical Writing/“.

After reading the text above, the objective of Parallel session March 15th will be to break into groups of 3 to discuss  and answer each of the five short answer questions posted on Critviz. These questions will ask you to either summarize or analyze different parts of the reading. Only one person from the group needs to  submit the assignment on Critviz.

This assignment  will be worth 50 points.