moral turpitude (n.) conduct considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals
Legally, conduct that's characterized as involving moral turpitude has an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general. Such conduct stands opposed to the social contract and its requirements, namely, members of society are supposed to follow what's called the "Golden Rule," absent mitigating circumstances.
NB: This definition assumes, in part, the existence of moral standards that specify appropriate social conduct (e.g., to uphold one's word, to respect others and their property, to allow for the greatest possible degree of individual freedom).
But, what happens when social morality is deconstructed to the point that people actually believe there is no truth? Conduct that would otherwise be proscribed as anti-social and uncivil ("deviancy")--namely, "conduct considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, and good morals"--is deemed socially acceptable.
This has been the "Great Experiment" in U.S. higher education for the past 5 decades. Namely, academic administrators, staff, and faculty have set about to deconstruct social morality--even at the nation's Catholic universities and colleges--accepting as "protected" conduct what used to be proscribed in the name of "propriety" (aka, conduct becoming a mature, civilized human being).
To wit, tolerating as acceptable conduct like:
- underage drinking;
- "hookup" relationships;
- the use of illegal drugs;
- providing students artificial birth control and abortofacients 24/7/365;
- protesting and shouting down others with whom one (and one's ideological comrades) disagrees;
- providing categories of students academic "guidance" to select "A/B" professors and copies of previous examinations/answers so they have a better change of succeeding; and,
- writing papers that merely restate what professors think.
And, not only that. As moral relativism becomes increasingly normative, who's to condemn what's been tolerated for so long:
- pedophilia in the football program at Pennsylvania State University;
- the alleged use of hard drugs and socializing with much younger people--some of whom had criminal backgrounds and one of whom overdosed in his presence--on the part of the Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Southern California;
- the head football coach at the University of Mississippi using his university-owned cellphone to procure an escort service; and,
- the prevalence of a "rape culture"--particularly among athletes--on campuses nationwide?
All of that (and more) in U.S. higher education should be condemned. Without any trusts "We hold to be self evident...," conduct is not guided by a social contract but personal judgments that are based upon individual preference.
In most instances, academic administrators, staff, and faculty preach "tolerance" and label as "free speech" social immorality, that is, until outside parties shine the light on what's really transpiring on the nation's campuses. Then, more often than not, rather than reiterate and uphold legal, ethical, and moral standards as well as reinforce the social contract by proscribing and sanctioning unethical and immortal conduct, institutional priorities (for example, keeping stakeholders and stakeholder groups happy) and processes (for example, the institution's personnel/student policies and judicial affairs offices) figure prominently when reacting to allegations by outsiders.
On many of the nation's campuses over the past 5 decades, with no shared truths to guide institutional decision making, functional matters have usurped the more substantive matters forming the basis of the social contract. Not only that, individual "rights" have become paramount, rendering the "common good" increasingly irrelevant. Meanwhile, protests have replaced civil discourse, what people "feel" matters more than what reasonable people "think," and the achievements of Western civilization are relegated to the dustbin of history if not denied. All the while, the promises and implications of the ideology de jour remain unquestioned and, for those who do question them, sanctions are imposed.
Yep, once again, it's all about $$$s and prestige those institutions are alleged to offer graduates that administrators tout with the goal of alluring more revenue generating students to enroll. Yes, all of those things of this world that have no anchor in immutable truth.
This is the stuff of educational malpractice.
Let the discussion begin...
To access the websites identified in this post, click on the following link: