Thank you to everyone who shared their thoughts on our newest moral dilemma. After outlining the original dilemma and then adding a wrinkle to it later, we are now ready for an analysis of the dilemma from an expert in moral theology and ethics.

The Final Analysis

Those who have responded to substitute teacher Catherine’s dilemma acknowledged the sticky circumstances surrounding deserving minority senior Michaela’s “altered grade transcript.” All empathized with Michaela – the rough life she has lived, the loss of her mother, and her genuine merit vis-à-vis the scholarship at hand. Most commentators also pointed out that school counselor Rich had no authority – personal or professional – to be changing grades and doctoring the school’s official transcript, however well-intentioned he was on Michaela’s behalf. As one person noted, at the very least that is “unfair” to deserving candidates from other schools, whose counselors “played by the rules.”

Keep it Real

The dilemma posed is from the perspective of Catherine, the substitute teacher, who has been asked to write a letter of recommendation for Michaela. In the world of Plato’s forms (i.e., up-in-the-clouds, minus historical context) one might neatly suggest that Catherine report the “falsified record” to the principal, that Rich be fired, Michaela lose the scholarship, and Catherine either will be hired as “Miss Goodie Two Shoes” or not be hired for fear of adding a squealer and/or troublemaker to the faculty. But Plato’s ideal world in the clouds is not the real, contextual, situational world of moral dilemmas and decision-making. So, at the risk of sounding like a compromiser or a pragmatist, I would like to propose a morally-defensible middle ground:

First of all, no one appointed substitute teacher Catherine to be the conscience of the whole institution. She has been asked to write a letter for Michaela. She can still do so, highlighting the girl’s stellar personal and academic qualities. It would be appropriate to note the time frame in which her mother died and the possibility that Michaela’s academic record during that period may be slightly less stellar, understandably so. Strictly speaking, I think one could make a case that Catherine’s moral obligations to Michaela and to the school stop there.

The Complications of Confrontation

Still, one might suggest that since she is aware of Rich’s alteration of the grades record, she is complicit-by-default in his charade. In that case, echoing Matthew 18:15-18 (”If you have something against your brother, seek him out one-to-one first”), Catherine should approach Rich personally and confidentially. This she does, according to the “wrinkle” addition to the case. She lets him know that she is aware of the falsified record and recommends he correct the record. As noted in the wrinkle, Rich admits the error, but argues that, in context, it was done for the greater good or lesser evil.

While Catherine may or may not agree with this logic, ( I don’t ) that doesn’t mean that she is morally obliged to report this to the principal. As I mentioned at the start, she has not been appointed the conscience or moral watchdog of the whole institution. Colleges, universities, and the S.A.T. offices in New Jersey do not have a claim on Catherine to protect their interests at all costs. After all, and I mean this kindly, she is merely a substitute instructor in her school. If Rich is to be supervised, reviewed, reprimanded, etc., that is up to the principal and the school’s due process system. It is not up to Catherine to police and enforce unless asked to do so.

The Verdict

The fact that the school has announced Michaela’s acceptance for the scholarship somewhat prematurely complicates matters somewhat, if not morally, then at least in terms of etiquette and face-saving appearances. If I were Catherine, I would write my letter of recommendation, as noted above, congratulate Michaela personally, and let the institutional chips fall where they may. In a messy world this is not wholly satisfying, but for Michaela’s sake, Rich’s sake, and Catherine’s own potential job-sake, I don’t see that pristine moral correctness is desirable or required. Poverty in the world, ill-timed death of one’s mother, racism, and the good-ole-boy politics of the higher education system are all “not fair.” Catherine wades into deep waters and needs to learn sometimes how to “tread water” rather than to try to “walk on water.” Where sin abounds, grace abounds more. Thank God!

Read the original dilemma.

Read the wrinkle.