On an Ethical Dilemma and the Best Course of Action

I want to clarify first and foremost that we're not here to judge, belittle, berate Dr. Kuttal. That certainly isn't our place to do. What is our place, and what I will do below, is examine the potential courses of action we could take given what we know and then select the most appropriate from among them.

We have an ethical dilemma on our hands, and in order to exercise our best judgement, I will summarize this dilemma and its multiple facets. First, we have been asked to create a formal requirements document for an application idea to be pitched Thursday 1/30. Many students see this additional coursework as extraneous or even unfair. Second, the nature of the app mentioned involves egregiously pseudoscientific ideas known as the "Law of Attraction." They were presented in an email from the professor to the students as a matter of fact (or, as the kids say, unironically) and we were expected to study relevant materials before coming to class. We're also expected to engage with a "Christian Law of Attraction Life Coach" in order to learn more about the Law of Attraction and his ideas for the application. Third, there's an obvious conflict of interest in  that our work could be used to benefit him professionally and financially. In-class work in previous Senior Software Design courses has been used to the direct benefit of Dr. Kuttal's research, so it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

I, among many others, are largely uneasy with legitimizing the Law of Attraction both by in-class lectures and also by carrying out the assignment. The assignment would produce a deliverable that could be presented to a software development firm in order to have this application realized. We students would be responsible for peddling pseudoscience, and this is both unethical and unacceptable. This forms the primary facet of this ethical dilemma. Secondarily, this assignment would be to the direct benefit of an individual as opposed to a nonprofit, charity, or reasonably just cause. Our extortion to benefit this unjust cause forms the second facet. Lastly, some have raised concern that we shouldn't be giving faith a platform in our lectures and assignments. If this occurs on Thursday, this would form a third facet.

(As an aside, the idea that this assignment is unfair because it is too much work to bear does not contribute to this dilemma, and as such it will not be discussed further.)

A reasonable course of action could involve raising this dilemma to the professor or her superior, and viable candidates include the department chair John Hale or the ENS Dean James Sorem. After consulting multiple students and professors familiar with the functions of these roles, it was suggested to me that this concern would concern the Dean and is an appropriate use of his time. It has also been brought to my attention that concerns on the use of last year's class projects in Dr. Kuttal's research were raised to the CS Department but not acted upon, thus I recommend seeking assistance further up the chain of command.

Others have expressed that we should approach the professor directly. This seems like a calm and rational path forward, but this alone would not be doing enough. This is not a mistake that can simply be undone or backpedaled. This ethical dilemma is multifaceted; ignorance is not an applicable excuse, let alone a lack of ignorance. Currently we cannot determine which is the case nor can we launch an investigation.

In summary: the Dean would want to know about this and the Dean can enact an appropriate response. Raising our concern to the Dean is the best course of action.