An Entertaining Film About the Mishandling of a Conflict Situation

When I put in the DVD yesterday evening, I did not expect the movie Admission (2013; written by Karen Croner, based on a novel by Jean Hanff Korelitz, starring Tina Fey and Paul Rudd) to be a revelatory movie about the mishandling of conflicts of interest situations. But it is. Not in government (it's about a university admissions employee), but the situations are easily applicable.

I can't tell the whole story of the characters' conflicts without giving away the plot turns, but I'll try to do the best I can without doing so. What is most important is that the protagonist's conduct would, if she were a government board member, not be considered an ethics violation, even though everything she did would be considered inappropriate. A discussion of the film would be a good way to show that ethics provisions are the minimum that are expected of government employees, not the maximum.

First, all the conflicts in the film are indirect. No adult character could benefit financially from their conduct (in fact, the protagonist takes the risk of being financially harmed). Many ethics codes do not make indirect benefits the basis for an ethics violation. When they do, the indirect benefit must go to an immediate family member or business associate. Other relationships, such as friendship, even love, are ignored.

Therefore, purely on the basis of the law, many ethics advisers may have told the protagonist, were she to have asked for advice (and, of course, she didn't), that what she was doing was okay. A good ethics adviser would, however, have told her to withdraw from participation (except that then there wouldn't have been a movie).

Second, as in so many stories (think Shakespeare), the central conflict situation involves a misunderstanding. In real life, situations commonly involves misunderstandings, misinterpretations, wrong information, partial information, and the myriad results of people's blind spots. Laws do not normally anticipate these things.

Only an ethics adviser, by asking questions, can go beyond the law to get to the bottom (pun intended) of a conflict situation and, thereby, get a government employee to deal with it responsibly.

Third, as with most conflict situations, those close to the individual with the conflict are brought into the situation and corrupted, sometimes without their being aware. In the movie, this includes a colleague, a family member, and the individual who makes the protagonist aware of the conflict situation in the first place (with someone else's best interests in mind, of course).

And not only are others corrupted, but the conflicted protagonist steps over the line between what would be an ethics violation and what would be a crime. Much criminal behavior can be stopped by preventing ethical misconduct.

Finally, probably the most interesting thing about the film's conflict situation is the way the situation leads to vote trading, so that its effects go well beyond the immediate situation. Preferential treatment is given not only to the person who is the possible beneficiary in the conflict situation, but also to individuals favored by other board members whose votes are required to benefit the person. In other words, one board member seeking preferential treatment helps others provide preferential treatment. This can happen whenever government board members choose individuals for positions, organizations for grants, or companies for contracts. Choosing students for admission is pretty much the same.

Besides being a good film to get a discussion going about the responsible handling of conflict situations, Admission is entertaining. It's worth watching for Lily Tomlin's performance alone.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---