Scribd
Upload
56 views

Postworkshop

The director of a university research lab receives a request from the LAPD to assist with a community mapping project focused on Muslim populations in LA. The project aims to identify communities that may be susceptible to extremism. Muslim advocacy groups express concern that the project amounts to unlawful religious profiling. Meanwhile, the lab would benefit from the well-funded project work. The director must decide how to respond to the request in light of these ethical concerns regarding profiling and the university's values of inclusion.

Uploaded by

api-276783092
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views

Postworkshop

The director of a university research lab receives a request from the LAPD to assist with a community mapping project focused on Muslim populations in LA. The project aims to identify communities that may be susceptible to extremism. Muslim advocacy groups express concern that the project amounts to unlawful religious profiling. Meanwhile, the lab would benefit from the well-funded project work. The director must decide how to respond to the request in light of these ethical concerns regarding profiling and the university's values of inclusion.

Uploaded by

api-276783092
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Susan T.

Williams
March 2013

Case Study: Muslim mapping


Explain how you would go about deciding how to respond to the following ethical challenge:
"A GIS Professional employed as director of a research laboratory called the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis
of Terrorism Events at a private university in southern California receives an inquiry from an officer of the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD).
"The officer seeks the laboratorys assistance in a 'community mapping' project whose purpose is to 'lay out the
geographic locations of the many different Muslim population groups around Los Angeles,' and to 'take a deeper look
at their history, demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown, socio-economic status, and social interactions.'
The community mapping project is to be one component of a counter-terrorism initiative that aims to 'identify
communities, within the larger Muslim community, which may be susceptible to violent ideologically-based
extremism...' The director invites the officer to send the laboratory a Request for Proposal (RFP).
"Soon after the telephone contact, the police officer is invited to Washington DC to explain the LAPD plan to the U.S.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. A committee chairperson cites it, among other
similar projects, as an example of effective local-level counter-terrorism strategy.
"News of the Senate Hearing and the LAPD plan is reported by the major media outlets including the New York
Times, KNBC Los Angeles, and National Public Radio. Within days, representatives of three local Muslim groups
along with the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the officer expressing 'grave concerns about efforts by
the Los Angeles Police Department to map Muslim communities in the Los Angeles area as part of its counterterrorism program.' The signatories argued that the community mapping project
'...seems to be premised on the faulty notion that Muslims are more likely to commit violent acts than people of other
faiths. Singling out individuals for investigation, surveillance, and data-gathering based on their religion constitutes
religious profiling that is just as unlawful, ill-advised, and deeply offensive as racial profiling.'
"Meanwhile, the LAPDs RFP arrives at the University lab. The well-funded project will involve considerable GIS work,
involving support for both student interns and professional staff. The potential projects stated purposes align with the
Centers mission, which is to 'to improve our Nation's security through the development of advanced models and
tools for the evaluation of the risks, costs and consequences of terrorism.' However, the director worries about the
unfavorable publicity and possible legal action that might attend the project, particularly since the University describes
itself as 'pluralistic, welcoming outstanding men and women of every race, creed and background' in its mission
statement. How should the director respond to the RFP?"

Ethical Analysis
Explain how you would go about deciding how to respond to the following ethical challenge.
The director should apply Davis seven-step guide and the GISCI Code of Ethics and Rules of Conduct
when considering his response.

How should the director respond to the RFP?"

After stating the problem, reviewing the facts, and identifying relevant factors, the director develops a list
of options. After reviewing the options and testing them, the director feels that the current RFP as it
stands violates several of the GISCI Rules of Conduct, including Section I, Number 1, which states GIS
products and services should benefit society, and enhance the well-being of individuals and groups, within
the constraints of existing law. Some applications of GIS products and services may harm individuals
(directly or indirectly) while advancing government policies that some citizens regard as morally
questionable... Although the rule further states that GIS professionals' participation in such applications
is a matter of individual conscience, the director considers additional tests that affirm the complications
of accepting the RFP in its current format. For example, the Harm test (angering a community, inviting
legal repercussions, damage the reputation of the university), the Publicity test (negative publicity which
contributes to reputation problems for the university), the Reversibility test (the director is now aware of
how the Muslim community feels about this project), and of course the Professional test (multiple GISCI
rules that the RFP seems to violate).
With this in mind, the director should request a new and modified RFP that is structured in a way to
effectively counter the accusation that this is essentially 'racial profiling. Perhaps usng as much data as
possible from existing sources (such as census datasets) will help eliminate the appearance that this
project is being carried out in order to target a specific group.
The director can also request aid from the universitys legal counsel or ethics committee, as well as
consulting the GISCI ethics officer on the matter.

Step 3: Identify relevant factors.


The persons involved include the GIS analyst and her supervisor, the environmental consulting company,
the natural gas utility company, the public who will be present at the hearing, and potential project funders
who will be present at the hearing.
The GIS Analyst may have ethical reservations about following her supervisors instructions and
omitting the data. However, if the analyst does not follow her supervisors instructions, her job
may be at risk.
The environmental consulting company may find their business and reputation at risk if the public
or potential project funders discover that relevant information has been omitted.
The natural gas utility company may also find their business and reputation at risk as it will
appear that they were attempting to hide relevant data in order to come up with a cheaper and
easier pipeline construction route with no thought to environmental impact, regardless as to
whether or not the utility company was aware of the omission.
The public citizens have the right to know about all mitigating factors, especially since this map is
to be prepared specifically for a public hearing. Potential funders have the right to know as many
facts as possible before they decide to invest in the project. There could be extensive backlash if
either party learns that data has been purposely omitted.
Step 4: Develop list of options.
Step 5: Test options.
In scenario 1 above, in which the supervisor gives an acceptable reason for the datas removal, the
analyst will likely then feel more comfortable with the decision and proceed as instructed, now having
knowledge as to how this decision might be defended to the public, potential stakeholders, and others

who may questions the ethics involved. The key is to whether or not the reason is logical and defensible.
If it truly is, then this option would likely pass the Publicity test (would I want my choice of this option
published in the newspaper?), Defensibility test (could I defend choice of option before Congressional
committee or committee of peers?), and Colleague test (what do my colleagues say when I describe my
problem and suggest this option as my solution?).
In scenarios 2 and 3 above, in which the supervisor gives an unacceptable reason or no reason for the
datas removal and continues to hold to the stance after further discussion, the analyst is in a difficult
position. If she proceeds as instructed, the action fails most of the tests as it is not publicly acceptable
nor defensible, and would likely be called into question by colleagues and ethics committees. The analyst
can consider approaching a higher-ranking supervisor (or ethics committee or legal counsel, if one exists)
with the matter. The analyst could also consult with the natural gas company that hired her firm for the
project. This meeting would allow her to voice her concerns and determine whether or not the company
asked the supervisor to see to the datas removal. The analyst could encourage the company to promote
an eco-friendly image by including the data, thereby enhancing their reputation among the public and
potential stakeholders.
In any of the first three scenarios, the analyst could also opt to include the data against her supervisors
orders and be willing to accept any consequences that might result, which may include being fired from
her job, or could ask that this particular project be given to someone else within the company. This is less
than ideal, however, as the ethical questions still remain and the analyst has only managed to distance
herself from the issue personally.
Choosing to include the data anyway is an action that would pass the ethical tests but certainly causes
personal difficulties for the analyst in regards to her employment and relationship with her supervisor.
In scenario 4, the conflict is concluded and there is no longer an issue. The matter may have been simply
an issue of miscommunication and a willingness to approach the affected parties with facts and clearheaded, respectful dialogue may have been all that was necessary to resolve the matter.
When reviewing the GIS Certification Institutes Rules of Conduct for Certified GIS Professionals, one that
seems particularly relevant to this case is found in Section I, Number 12: We, speaking in our
professional capacity, shall not knowingly make false statements of material fact, nor shall we omit
material facts (GIS Certification Institute, 2008). This makes it fairly clear that omitting the migration
routes is an unethical action and should be avoided.
Furthermore, Section II, Number 6 states that We shall not counsel nor assist a client or employer in
conduct that we know, or reasonably should know, is fraudulent, illegal, or unethical. If a client or
employer does suggest or disclose such conduct, we shall advise the client or employer of the aspects of
the proposal that are fraudulent, illegal, or unethical (ibid)

Step 6: Make a choice based on steps 1-5.


After approaching the supervisor and opening up further discussion regarding the matter, the analyst
should make it clear that removing the data is in direct violation of GISCI Rules of Conduct and is
therefore an unethical action and will not be carried out. If the supervisor persists in requesting the datas
removal, the analyst should take the matter to a higher-ranking authority and ethics committee or legal
counsel (if the company has one) and together they can decide whether or not to file a formal complaint in
regards to the supervisor.
Step 7: Review steps 1-6.

The analyst could suggest that the environmental consulting company emphasize ethics training and
adherence to Rules of Conduct such as those presented by the GISCI, perhaps even using staff meetings
to facilitate familiarity with the rules. If the company does not currently have an ethics officer or
committee, the analyst could encourage that one be formed in order to provide future guidance and
support.

References

DiBiase, D, C. Goranson, F. Harvey, and D. Wright (2009). The GIS Professional Ethics Project: Practical
Ethics Education for GIS Pros. Proceedings of the 24th International Cartography Conference. Santiago,
Chile, 15-21 November. Accessed March 2013 at https://cms.psu.edu/section/content/Default.asp?
WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1621158054F549DCAF011865DC4AD6AB
GIS Certification Institute (2008). Rules of Conduct for Certified GIS Professionals (GISPs). Accessed
March 2013 at http://www.gisci.org/Ethics_and_Conduct/rules_of_conduct.aspx

You might also like