Posted on Aug 1, 2000

For nearly three decades, Professor Byron Nichols has been challenging students in his “Moral Dilemmas of Governing” class to arrive at — and defend — their conclusions about the moral choices that ought to be made in politics.

The course is something of a natural for Nichols. His father was a Presbyterian clergyman, quick to speak out on public issues. His feeling that moral and ethical issues are of fundamental importance in governing was reinforced at Occidental and strengthened further when he became a Danforth Fellow; a primary concern of the Danforth Foundation was values in higher education. Today, Nichols says that one of the responsibilities of faculty members is to lead students to see the importance of the values that lie behind their actions and to think about their own values.

The course appeared in the winter term of 1970 — a time of questioning and demonstrations on campuses across America — and it proved so popular that it moved to the Political Science Department when the general education program disappeared.

Two steps forward, one step back

The class is “Moral Dilemmas in Governing,” the teacher is Byron Nichols, and the classroom style is definitely not a lecture.

In fact, the style could be described as inquisitorial.

One class this spring began with Nichols posing the following question to his fourteen students: “What are the properties of 'justice'?”

A brief hesitation, then a student offered, “Some sense of welfare.”

Nichols: “What does welfare mean?”

Student: “Some sort of social common denominator.”

Nichols wrote “welfare” on the blackboard and asked for other properties of justice. A student said “virtue,” and Nichols responded immediately: “Okay, but what do you mean by virtue?”

And so it went. For the next hour and a half, Nichols asked questions, accepted answers, posed more questions, and occasionally listened happily as students took issue with each other.

By the time the course is done, Nichols expects that each student will arrive at — and defend — his or her own conclusions about the moral choices that ought to be made in politics in the United States.

“The success of the course depends largely on the willingness of students to engage each other in serious discussion during class and to use the writing assignments to explore honestly their own beliefs and commitments,” he says. “Students often revise their thinking as they work through problems in discussions and essays.”

The course is not for the fainthearted. Another class this spring began with Nichols asking, “When are we entitled not to obey the law?” The ensuing discussion touched on emergency medical situations, the civil rights movement, slavery, the acceptability of violence, the Holocaust, Kosovo, civil disobedience, abortion, euthanasia, and other topics. Occasionally, students agreed with each other; more often, one comment (e.g., “violence is always wrong”) elicited a differing position (e.g., “violence depends on the circumstances”).

One reason for the liveliness of the discussion is the fact that students bring varying beliefs to the course.

Jim DeWan '00 acknowledges that he is an idealist who believes that the foundation of governing is to help people. “I feel there are a lot of good things that can come from governing,” he says. “The way we measure a society is the way it treats the poor and underprivileged, and that's a critical role for government.”

At the other end of the spectrum is Molly Shaner '00, a self-described conservative who says she likes small government. “The interesting thing about this class is that you can really discuss issues with people who have different beliefs,” she says. “I'm not sure we change anyone's views, but the class makes us scrutinize the issues and explore our own political views.”

To an observer, the process can seem to be two steps forward, one step back. Students try out a series of ideas, discarding some while refining others. In the first essay required this spring, for example, students were asked to lay out their own theories of political ethics. Nichols emphasized the tentative nature of the assignment: “Do not feel that you are committing yourself permanently,” he told the students. “You may alter your positions in future essays and in defending your arguments in discussions you have with others.”

The constant questioning is one reason alumni of the course remember it so fondly.

David Eppler'82, a lawyer in Bethesda, Md., says the course “probably affected me more than any other course in college or law school. It wasn't an epiphany, but it was very thought provoking, very challenging, and a lot of fun.”

Eppler says that the moral and ethical issues discussed continue to come up in real life in all kinds of contexts, from parenting to job. “It's stunning to me that some of the scenarios Byron put in front of us are in evidence today, such as the morality of the president,” he says. “I continue to think about some of the things we did when I encounter difficult situations in my professional life.”

Jo Anne Feeney '85, now a faculty member in the Economics Department at the State University of New York at Albany, remembers that part of the challenge of the course was to develop the ability to be concise, since the four-page limit was strictly enforced.

“More challenging was to try to minimize the numbers of 'so what' comments that Byron would invariably apply in the margin whenever our analysis would stray from a logical path.”

Feeney says the course promoted logical, concise discourse in writing and speaking, and that “is a skill that no college graduate should be without.”

Conciseness was demanded the day students described the properties of “justice.” In addition to welfare and virtue, students offered happiness (defined as a system that lets people pursue self interest), rights and responsibilities, fairness (defined as each person treated relevant to his or her circumstances), protection, the common good, and opportunities to meet basic human needs.

Each offering brought a quick challenge, sometimes from Nichols (“What is virtue?”), sometimes from classmates (“I think fairness needs to be replaced with equity, since a lot of systems are not fair but do provide equity”). Nichols pointed out that each characteristic provided by the students is vulnerable, depending on the political system (“in socialism, it's the opportunity to pursue self interest that's vulnerable”).

Finally, as the class wound down, Nichols asked a last question: “What is the logic of talking about justice as the start of talking about political systems?”

One answer: “It's the way you see mankind and the purpose of government.”

A second: “It helps explain why you believe what you believe.”

And a third: “It organizes your own political actions.”

Concluded Nichols: “Justice organizes the way you think about all political issues.”

With that, the students left to work on their essays, and Nichols smiled. “That was a great class today.”
More on teaching the right and wrong of governing: A discussion with Professor Byron Nichols