An Entertaining Film About the Mishandling of a Conflict Situation
When I put in the DVD yesterday evening, I did not expect the movie
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1814621/" target="”_blank”"><i>Admission</i></a> (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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Besides being a good film to get a discussion going about the
responsible handling of conflict situations, <i>Admission</i> is
entertaining. It's worth watching for Lily Tomlin's performance
alone.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---