Ethics Bowl tests the Honor System

Which academic department is the most ethical? Is it the logically minded math majors or the eloquently spoken philosophy majors? Can history majors use their knowledge of historical precedence to trounce the sound reasoning of computer science majors? Such questions were put to the test on the afternoon of Wednesday, February 3 in Gear and Triangle's first annual Undergraduate Ethics Bowl.

The first day of the competition took place this week on the second floor of Babbio, where 14 departments went head-to-head with each other in a bracket-style tournament. The departments represented were Art & Technology, Biomedical Engineering, Business & Technology, Chemical Biology, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, History, Mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, Music & Technology, Philosophy and Physics.

However, only four majors were allowed to advance to the semi-finals: the two victorious teams of each bracket and next two teams with the highest average judge score. The Philosophy and Computer Science departments managed to bulldoze their way to the top, with Biomedical Engineering and Chemical Engineering stepping in as wild cards in the finals for their average scores of 122 and 119 respectively. These teams will compete in the finals in DeBaun Auditorium on Wednesday, February 10 at 2 p.m..

Natalia Bilchuk, Honor Chair of Gear and Triangle, was pleased by the turnout and the composition of the teams. "I think because we specified departments, more people came," she said. "Some of the largest majors didn't have a team and some of the smallest did. Hopefully next year we'll even be able to get every single major."

Departments were also limited to having two team members per graduation year to diversify the composition of each team. "I think this promoted seniors to interact with freshmen," said Bilchuk.

The teams, which consisted of three to five members, were given case studies a week before the event to discuss and establish their positions. These case studies were created by a collection of faculty members who collaborated with the Honor Board and Gear and Triangle. Each case fell into the categories of societal, political, bioethics, engineering and business.

Bilchuk said, "Most of these cases were submitted by faculty at Stevens who wrote these case studies from real life experiences, [so] this was a great way for faculty to teach students to be prepared for scenarios they may face later in their professional lives. We assigned case studies in such a way that each team gets an opportunity to present on case studies from all five categories as they move forward in the competition."

The tournament took place using a series of 30 minute rounds. During each round, teams would have to debate two of the cases they had received beforehand. During the first case, one team would make their case to the judges before allowing the opposing team to offer a rebuttal. During the second case, the opposing team would then make their case and allow the first to rebut it. Judges were also given time to ask questions to either team.

Teams were scored on their performance by a panel of judges composed of two students and two faculty members. Each judge rated the group on a scale of one to five in the categories intelligibility, integrating ethical concerns, feasibility and moral imagination and creativity. The aggregate scores from all judges on the two cases would be tallied, and the winning team moved on to the next round. Earlier rounds in the bracket were scored by four judges while later rounds had six and the scores of these later rounds were multiplied by a 2/3 modifier.

"We tried to mix up judges from various departments as well," said Bilchuk.

One of the cases posed a bio-ethical question to the mechanical engineering team and the business and technology team. The case involved a child with ADHD which had been taken off Ritalin by his mother after the medication gave him stomach aches, insomnia and a rash. However, this caused the child to act up in class to the point where the other children could not focus. A doctor is called in to assess the situation, and ultimately the question is posed on whether or not the child should be taken away and put into state care. Although the business and technology students argued for forms of alternative medicine, in the end, the mechanical engineers won with their stance that he needed to be put into a special needs classroom. "It's the doctor's responsibility to what's best for the child," said Ellyn Griggs, a member of the mechanical engineering team.

In another debate, history students faced off against computer science majors. One of the questions posed to them involved a self-employed commercial artist who reported less taxable income to the IRS than what she actually made because most of her income took the form of cash from small projects. She considered herself part of the "underground economy" and defended her actions be rationalizing that it was merely a tactic to allow her small business to survive. In this case, even though teams took similar stances against her actions, the computer science majors were declared the victor due to their analysis of both sides of the argument and their intelligibility in speaking to the judges.

The Undergraduate Ethic Bowl was created by Gear and Triangle to give its members a way to contribute to the school and the organization. According to Bilchuk, Gear and Triangle noticed that many students were joining and simply putting the organization on their resume. To rectify this problem, Gear and Triangle elected three chairs with a committee working with each to come up with a large event to fulfill the organization's three initiatives of fellowship, honor and spirit.

The result was the Undergraduate Ethics Bowl. Bilchuk said, "Basically, the goal of Gear and Triangle is to promote leadership on campus, and what better way to do that than have events and really make our presence known at Stevens? We saw this as a perfect time to start something like this because we had just celebrated 100 years of the honor system. We just wanted to start something completely new."