DRAFT
To: Baltimore County Central District High School Teachers and Students
From: Irving J. Spitzberg, Jr., Esq.
ijs@aol.com
RE: Hunt Valley Rotary Club 2015 Oratorical Contest
4-WAY TEST ORATORICAL CONTEST DISCUSSION GUIDE
The Hunt Valley Rotary Club is pleased to invite high school students to
participate in the annual Rotary International Oratorical Contest. Each year
we ask interested students to prepare a four to six minute oral presentation
that analyzes an ethical decision they have made or will make using the
ethical guidelines articulated in Rotary’s 4-Way Test. The speech must be
original in content and solely the work of the student. The Oratorical Contest
will be held at your high school in the spring. The Hunt Valley Rotary will
offer a first prize of $100 and two additional prizes of $75 and $50. There
will be a Club final for the winners from the competing high schools in our
area at the end of March or the beginning of April. The District semi-final
contest will be held on a Saturday in mid or late April. The winner of the
Club Final will receive $150 and will compete with winners from other area
high schools. In the District 7620 finals the first prize will be $2000.
I hope that, before preparing the six-minute talks, high school English,
Speech, and Government or History classes will discuss and analyze the 4Way Test in preparation for applying it to ethical dilemmas. In order to
assist students (and teachers and parents) in analyzing an ethical problem
using the 4-Way Test, I provide some background on the origins and ethical
underpinnings of the 4-Way Test along with discussion questions to be
considered when preparing talks and a brief example of analysis. I write
from the perspective of a former professor of Policy Studies and Ethics.
This year for the first time Baltimore County and City Schools are aspiring
to meet the standards of the Common Core as specified by the State and by
BCPS. The 4-way Test program specifically meets detailed standards
incorporated in the Common Core. The Maryland Common Core State
1
DRAFT
Curriculum Frameworks for English Language Arts and for History/Social
Studies require students to display the skills and knowledge required to
analyze a problem, research it, write clear arguments to support the position,
and to be able to communicate the argument through a variety of media
including the internet and oral as well as written communication. As the
following guide makes clear, the 4-way Test Oratorical contest demands that
all participants display these capabilities in the application of ethical values
to specific action questions.
Our experiences in the Baltimore County high schools that have participated
in our program in the past make clear that the successful model originally
developed at Dulaney by Kelly Smith, who is now the supervisor of
secondary school English in the County, is outstanding. This model
incorporates the program into the honors and advanced English classes to
meet the persuasive argument requirement of the curriculum. Currently,
Kelly Dougherty at Loch Raven has the largest and best program based on
this model. In 2014 Loch Raven will be integrating the 4-way Test program
into both English Language and Social Studies, since it clearly involves
mastery of skills and knowledge in both sectors of the curriculum. Speech
classes, where offered, are also part of the program, but the greatest
educational impact occurs when the 4-way Test Oratorical Contest is offered
to students throughout the school in a manner integrated into the larger
Common Core curriculum.
Teachers and parents can use the following outline to guide discussion of the
4-way Test and its application to substantive issues and choices.
I.
The 4-Way Test
Rotarians have always promoted high ethical standards in their professional
lives. One of the world's most widely printed and quoted statements of
business ethics is The 4-Way Test. It was created in 1932 by Rotarian
Herbert J. Taylor when he took charge of a company that was facing
bankruptcy. This employee guide was credited with saving the company. It
was the guide for sales, production, advertising, and all relations with
dealers and customers. Adopted by Rotary in 1943, The 4-Way Test has
2
DRAFT
been translated into more than a hundred languages and published in
thousands of ways. It reads as follows:
"Of the things we think, say or do:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is it the TRUTH?
Is it FAIR to all concerned?
Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?"
II.
Ethics
The 4-way Test is a summary of ethical concepts that have been
fundamental to many cultures, civilizations, and religions around the globe.
The analysis of these concepts --truth, fairness, goodwill, friendship and
benefit --as guides to human action is the focus of the academic discipline of
Ethics.
The history of philosophical Ethics is replete with debates about the meaning
of each of these concepts and how they relate to each other. There are two
major perspectives in ethical philosophy. The first school is the utilitiarians,
who focus on the justification of actions in terms of the greatest good for the
greatest number (a central principle of the field of economics). The second
school is the deontologists, who focus on rights and obligations that derive
from a conception of human beings as ends in themselves. Each of the
elements of the 4-Way Test can be analyzed from the perspective of each of
these traditions.
The philosophers since Plato have addressed all of the concepts in the 4Way Test. Plato and Aristotle focused on Ethics as a subset of the pursuit of
truth. The British philosophical tradition elaborated on the concepts of the
utilitarians through the writings of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Bentham, James
Mill, and John Stuart Mill. The French philosophers, through Montesquieu
and Rousseau, and the Germans philosophers, though Kant and Hegel,
elaborated on the concepts of the deontologists. Of course, all of the major
religious traditions invoke the values underlying the 4-way Test.
Philosophers have puzzled for centuries about the meaning of the elements
of the test and have raised serious questions about each and how they relate.
3
DRAFT
You will necessarily, if only implicitly, assume answers to these puzzles as
you apply the 4-Way Test to the decision you choose to present.
Keep in mind some of the questions philosophers have asked about these
concepts.
III.
Questions to Keep in Mind as You Think about Each
Element of the 4-Way Test
1. Is it the TRUTH? (This can be paraphrased as “What are the
relevant facts?”)
i. How does one “prove” the truth of a statement?
ii. What is a fact? What is an opinion?
iii. Does one know the truth by logic, by the experimental
method, or by intuition?
iv. Who decides what the truth is?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
i. Who are those concerned?
ii. Does fairness require that everyone be treated the same?
iii. How could one justify different treatment?
iv. Who is the umpire for fairness?
v. Is fairness measured by the outcomes or by the process?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
i. What is the difference between goodwill and friendship?
ii. Who decides when “will” is good?
iii. Do all acts of goodwill build better friendships?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?"
i. How do we know an action is beneficial?
ii. How does one measure benefit?
iii. If everyone must benefit, does everyone have the right of
veto?
4
DRAFT
iv. Should one act if the outcome is not beneficial to all?
v. Who should benefit if everyone cannot benefit?
This list of questions illustrates that each of the elements of the 4-Way Test
is very complex in concept and application. So as you apply each element to
the ethical issue you analyze, be very specific about what you mean when
you justify an action by reference to each element.
IV.
Are the Elements of the 4-Way Test Consistent with Each
Other?
Although the 4-Way Test implies that all of the elements can be applied
consistently in all situations, in fact, there may well be tension between and
among the four elements of the test. The following questions identify some
important issues to keep in mind about the interaction of the elements in
applying the 4-Way Test to your ethical decision.
1. Is Truth a condition for fair action? Is truth a condition for
goodwill and building better friendships? Is truth always
beneficial to all concerned?
2. Does fairness always lead to goodwill? Is what is fair always
beneficial to all?
3. Do better friendships always contribute to finding the truth?
Does goodwill always lead to fairness to all? Will better
friendship necessarily benefit all concerned?
4. Will acts that are beneficial to all always be fair?
V. An Example
Finally, let me share with you a major ethical decision I had to make when I
was a junior in high school in 1958 in Little Rock, Arkansas and how the
ethical concepts summarized in the 4-Way Test influenced my decision. In
defiance of an order of the United States Supreme Court, Arkansas Governor
Orval Faubus closed all Little Rock high schools to keep them from being
desegregated. Attending a nearby country school that admitted me because I
played the saxophone, I became ever more upset that my Little Rock school
was closed for reasons I considered immoral and illegal. A small group of
Civic leaders asked me to organize the Little Rock secondary school
students to support a recall of Governor Faubus’s supporters on the Little
Rock School Board so that the Board would obey Federal law. I had to
decide whether to take a visible leadership role at great personal risk.
5
DRAFT
Briefly, here is how the 4-Way Test could have been applied to my decisionmaking.
1. “Is it the Truth?” (What were the relevant facts?)
The facts were that the school system was segregated and that the schools
were separate but not nearly equal by a whole range of measures. Also,
Federal Constitutional law required desegregation of the Little Rock
schools.
2. “Is it Fair to All concerned?”
The closing of the high schools was unfair to all Little Rock students
because they were denied access to free public education. It was
especially unfair for African American students who had much less
access to alternative schooling. So fairness required those of us whose
schools had been closed to take whatever steps were necessary to reopen
the schools, regardless of personal risk.
3. “Will it build Goodwill and better Friendships?”
The answer in the short run would be “No.” The majority of my friends
would consider me to be “radical” (for some this even meant
Communist) for leading the students in attempting to reopen the schools.
But my very best friends would understand and even support me. In the
long run, I hoped my actions would strengthen my friendships with the
friends I valued most.
4. “Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?”
Once again, the short-term answer was “no” but the long-term answer
was “yes.” In the short run, my work organizing high school students
politically to work to reopen the schools would be beneficial to those
who supported a desegregated system but not to those who believed in
segregation. However, in the long run, it would be beneficial to all to
take whatever steps were necessary to create a fair and just system under
the law. Although I took both personal safety and academic career risks
by publicly leading, I knew that it was in my interest and everyone else’s
interest to act ethically and to stand up to the majority.
6
DRAFT
VI. EVALUATING ORATORY
Every oral presentation of an argument should be constructed from a
detailed outline, which systematically develops the argument of a
persuasive presentation. The speaker should make clear the topic and the
outline of the argument in the beginning.
I attach to this Guide a copy of the judging sheet that makes clear the
way in which the judges will evaluate the presentation. Please note that
being clear about the application of the 4-way Test elements is essential.
What one cannot articulate clearly in a judge’s scoring sheet is the
intangible component of persuasiveness and style. With more than fifty
years of participating in and evaluating oral presentations, I can say that
drama and entertainment are inevitably part of the power of oral
presentations. Therefore, attention to the clarity of the argument and the
enjoyment of the audience are both critical parts of all oral presentations.
Finally, it is essential that one begins the process of preparing an oral
presentation essentially as a task in writing the argument. Indeed, I
almost always write a detailed outline of the whole and often write what I
call a reader’s digest summary of the whole. I sometimes add notes like
a playwright to guide my movements and the choreography of the
presentation.
The scoring sheet for the 4-way Test requires that presenters not read
their presentations. This rule does not mean the presenter should not
write the argument. It means one should master the subject, the
argument, and the theatrical character of the talk so well that the outline
notes are there for reference; the presentation should not be the reading of
an essay.
Applying the 4-Way Test to a concrete ethical dilemma is an example
of philosophical analysis and the writing standard is one of persuasive
argument. Therefore, the rules of logical argument and persuasive
presentation are central to a careful articulation of an ethical position. In the
process of applying the 4-Way Test to a concrete issue of interest to you,
you will be learning the strategy for making ethical choices in your personal
and professional life and communicating the justification for your choices.
Good luck!
7
DRAFT
JUDGES SCORING SHEET FOR 4-WAY TEST ORATORICAL
CONTEST
JUDGES NAME:
DATE:
SPEAKER:
OPENING
5
USE OF FOUR WAY TEST: EXPLICIT UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION
IS IT THE TRUTH?
10
IS IT FAIR TO ALL
CONCERNED?
10
WILL IT BUILD GOODWILL AND BETTER FRIENDSHIP?
10
WILL IT BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL CONCERNED?
10
CONTENT, ORGANIZATION AND ANALYSIS
15
CONCLUSION
5
DELIVERY/ENTERTAINMENT VALUE
15
OVERALL
REACTION
20
INITIAL TOTAL
100
PENALTIES
READ SPEECH
OVER OR UNDER TIME
PENALTIES
-10
-10
NET TOTAL SCORE
RANK 1,2,3
8