Gender quotas in corporate boardrooms – an increasing trend

On March 6, 2015, Germany passed a law  that will require companies to give 30 percent of the seats on their corporate boards to women starting next year. In recent years, there has been a trend in European legislatures to pass laws requiring greater representation of women in corporate boardrooms.

According to an article in the New York Times, this trend began with Norway passing the first legislation which required such quotas for board positions, and Spain, France, and Iceland followed with similar legislation. Each of these countries now require 40 percent of their corporate board positions to be held by women. A number of other European countries have this quota set at 30 percent.

The New York Times reports that in the United States, which has no legislation requiring such a quota, women hold approximately 17 percent of the seats on corporate boards.

This current trend in Europe brings to mind the ethical questions: What should a government’s role be with respect to such issues? What do you think of such legislation?

The Applied Ethics Institute
2015 Keith Goree Lecture Series
“The Moral Obligation to Our Veterans”

The Applied Ethics Institute and the 2015 Keith Goree Lecture Series present Guest Lecturer Stacey-Rae Simcox, Esq. speaking on “The Moral Obligation to Our Veterans”.

Simcox is an associate professor of legal skills and director of Stetson University College of Law’s Veterans Advocacy Clinic.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 7 p.m
St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus, Music Center

Approximately 100 St. Petersburg College ethics and education students toured the Kennedy Space Center during the Spring 2014 semester.  There they were challenged by ethical issues raised by space exploration and educated on resources available for teachers.

For example, student Kaitlyn Moore wondered, “Who owns the rights to drill on the moon?” Before visiting the space center, she had never thought about drilling rights on the moon and she is concerned that the right people make ethical decisions about space issues.

Read more about the trip and college’s Ethics Department.

Is it ethical to use performance enhancing drugs in sports? This was the question posed to a panel of local experts for the Applied Ethics Institute’s most recent ethics forum on April 2, 2013 at St. Petersburg College/Gibbs campus.

Frank Murtha, an attorney and sports agent, Dr. Michael J. Smith, a sports medicine doctor, and Mark Strickland, SPC’s athletic director and associate provost of the downtown campus, answered questions posed by ethics Professor David Monroe and the audience.

Team doctors for professional sports teams are under strong ethical pressures from the athletes, the team owners and the fans to do whatever is necessary to get an athlete ready to play as soon as possible when they are injured. When they are healthy, they may use performance enhancing drugs to even the playing field.

“Fans want to see their stars play. Fans want their team to win. But fans need to understand there are risks for the athletes if they play injured,” says Murtha.

Dr. Smith says a physician has to determine what is right for the athlete even though the physician is paid by the team. This tension between the demands of the owners and the interests of the fans can be in conflict with the best interests of the athlete. “As a physician, I have to do what is right for the athlete,” says Dr. Smith.

Murtha pointed out that the minimum salary for an NFL player is now about $500,000 a year. Players making the least amount of money will do whatever it takes to be healthy and to qualify to play so they can continue to earn money during their short careers. Murtha summed the dilemma up with an NFL aphorism: “You can’t make the club in the tub. If you’re injured, you can’t play.” He says athletes frequently use medication to get through the pain because they are under so much pressure to play even when they are injured. “There’s no gold watch for retired athletes,” says Murtha, “So athletes play injured to keep getting paid.”

Dr. Smith remembers when he was a student athlete and he noticed some of his fellow athletes bulked up by using steroids. He visited his family physician and asked for a prescription for steroids. His physician told Dr. Smith that with every drug, there are side effects. His doctor pulled out his Physicians Reference Guide and read to Dr. Smith that the side effects of the steroid were acne, hair loss, testicular atrophy…. and Dr. Smith chose to forego the steroids. “There’s no governing body or ethical committee saying who can make designer or performance enhancing drugs; but my doctor delivered me and cared enough about me as a young man to give me good ethical advice.”

Student athletes at St. Petersburg College are random tested for performance enhancing drugs twice a year. Strickland says steroids are not a big factor at the college but SPC does maintain a small budget (less than $20,000) for drug testing. “Instead of relying on tests, we make close relationships between the team members and our coaches. Because we know our athletes, we can steer them in the right direction,” says Strickland.

It is in the athlete’s own best interests to maintain a healthy lifestyle free of drugs. Murtha points out that today’s performance enhancing drugs are much more sophisticated than in years past. “The side effects can go beyond the usual impacts to include weight loss, cancer, aberrant behavior, overdoses and death.”

Dr. Smith says professional athletes and team owners are much more aware of the problem of concussions and may blame aberrant behavior on a concussion. But sometimes the aberrant behavior is from drug use. Murtha says the downside of performance enhancing drugs “may not be immediate, but down the road, it catches up with you.”

More information about the Applied Ethics Institute.

An ethics perspective on performance enhancing drugs.