Pete Rose: Current Wall of Shamer, Future Hall of Famer


Considered by most to be America’s pastime, baseball has become one of the largest, most entertaining, most watched, and most respected games in the history of sports. Since its inception in 1936, Major League Baseball has honored those who have excelled in playing, managing, and serving the sport at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York. Regarded as the highest honor in the history of the sport, the Hall of Fame currently holds a total of 297 inductees, which include 236 players, 20 managers, 9 umpires, and 32 pioneers and executives. These individuals have forever been immortalized and have gained the highest amount of respect for their dedication to the game, but there has been one issue over the last twenty-five years that has stirred one of the greatest debates in the sport’s history, Pete Rose.


On the night of September 11, 1985, then player-manager Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds drove a single to left center off San Diego Padres pitcher Eric Show. Although the hit was not very significant during that particular game, it marked Pete Rose’s 4,192 career hit, thus passing Ty Cobb’s all-time career hits record of 4,191. Gaining widespread acclaim for holding baseball’s all-time hits record with 4,256 career hits, Rose also holds MLB records for games played with 3,562, at-bats with 14,053, and outs with 10,328. A twenty-four year career as a player and a five year career as a manager, three of them as a player-manager, Rose has won three World Series rings, three batting titles, one MVP Award, two Gold Gloves, a Rookie of the Year Award, and was an eighteen time All-Star; he was considering a lock for the baseball Hall of Fame following his retirement from the game.

“On February 20, 1989, Rose met with Commissioner Ueberroth and then National League President Giamatti about gambling allegations. On March 20, Ueberroth announced he would investigate these allegations, selecting a Washington lawyer, John Dowd, to be in charge of the inquiry.”[1] During his investigation, Dowd had interviewed many of Rose’s known associates, which included alleged bookies and bet runners who admitted to taking bets from Rose. When Dowd gave his report to a now one-month in office Commissioner Bart Giamatti on May 9, 1989, it contained Rose’s alleged gambling activities in 1985, ’86, and ’87. Known as the Dowd Report, this 225-page report, accompanied by seven volumes of exhibits, documented Rose’s alleged bets of at least $10,000 on 52 different Reds games in 1987, but “no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Reds.”[2] This was still in clear violation of Major League Baseball’s rules, which states, “”Rule 21 MISCONDUCT, (d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES, Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.”[3]

Pete Rose_Bart Giamatti

Commissioner Giamatti was often criticized in the course of the investigation as having a personal vendetta against Pete Rose. During the MLB’s investigation, Rose had sought a restraining order against Giamatti, believing it would put an end to him acting as both a judge and executioner of his case. “Rose found a few sympathetic ears. U.S. District Judge Carl B. Rubin resented “the baseball commissioner entering into what I think is … a vendetta against Pete Rose.” In Ohio, the Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge, Norbert Nadel, stated that he also thought Giamatti had “prejudged Rose.” Many fans also questioned Giamatti’s motives, remembering in particular an incident between Rose and Giamatti in 1988.”[4] When Giamatti was the National League president in 1988, he suspended Rose 30 days for bumping into umpire Dave Pallone, which fans and writers believed was way over the top. Fans often showed how unfair his ruling was when they compared it the four day suspension Giamatti gave a player for throwing a bat at another during that very same season, an act far more severe than Rose’s.

Rose continued to deny the accusations made by Commissioner Giamatti over the next couple of years. Rose filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner in the city of Cincinnati in order so he could get a fair trial. After several court battles over the legality of Giamatti’s ability to decide Rose’s fate, Giamatti and Major League Baseball finally secured a federal hearing for Rose’s case on August 17, 1989. This time around Rose’s appeal was denied, so instead, he decided not attend the hearing. In a plea-bargain settlement, Rose agreed and signed to the following terms,


“In accord with the agreement signed on August 23, 1989, both Rose and Giamatti were allowed to make public statements regarding the affair “so long as no public statement contradicts the terms of this agreement and resolution.” The agreement also allowed Rose the right to apply for reinstatement in baseball, although he may not, at any time, attempt to contest Giamatti’s decision, or of the decision of any future commissioner. The most curious clause in the contract reads: “Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball game.”[5]

From Rose’s end, he only asked for one thing in return, “In exchange for his lifetime ban, Rose did not ask for much, only that the MLB refrain from making any “formal findings” in relation to his betting on the Reds.”[6] On August 24, 1989, former Major League Baseball Commissioner Giamatti banished Pete Rose from all involvement in the sport of baseball. Rose was barred from baseball and sentenced to permanent ineligibility from the Hall of Fame for his alleged involvement in gambling on baseball games while he was still playing and managing. Rose voluntarily accepted a place on baseball’s “permanent ineligibility” list and also agreed with Giamatti that he would never challenge his statement when applying for reinstatement in the future. (Below is the signed plea agreement between Giamatti and Rose)

pete rose signature

On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Although it was already considered an “unwritten rule,” the Baseball Writers Association of America voted to make it an official rule for the Hall of Fame, which people believed was in response to Rose’s plea-bargain agreement. Pete Rose was also the only living member on that list at the time and still to this day.

On January 8, 2004, after years of denying the gambling allegations against him, Pete Rose released his autobiography My Prison Without Bars. In his own words, Rose finally admitted to betting on baseball games, as well as other sports, while he was still playing and managing the Cincinnati Reds. “Some folks have even implied that I am unworthy to set foot on a baseball field because of what I’ve done. I’ve never really understood that way of thinking. But I understand now.”[7] That same night, Rose appeared on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday, where in the interview he publically readmitted that he was betting on baseball games, but also admitted that he never bet against the Reds. When asked why he did it, Rose said, “I bet on my team every night. I didn’t bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team, I did everything in my power every night to win that game.”[8] His hope was that if he came clean to the public, then he be more likely to be reinstated back into baseball so he can live to see himself get into the Hall of Fame.


Admittedly, Pete Rose willingly violated a known Major League rule and should accept the consequences for his actions. He lied for nearly fifteen years and was trying to gain forgiveness by the baseball community. In today’s world, this case has turned into a moral one, with no need for an investigation or a new trial, but understanding and listening to arguments Rose has made as to why he should be reinstated. He has argued, on numerous occasions, that baseball has allowed many people into the Hall of Fame that have committed worse acts than his.

“If MLB wants to say that placing a bet to win a game is worse than purposely striking one’s comparatively defenseless spouse, then it’s worse, and baseball can impose light sanctions for the latter and lifetime banishment for the former. If MLB has implicitly concluded that a bet on one’s team to win a game more seriously compromises or over-enhances the competitive integrity of the game than does an outfielder pumping himself up on steroids, then so be it.”[9]

When you take into account what Rose has to say, he makes some good points as to why he should be reinstated. How he has handled so much abuse over an act that is less bad than someone beating their wife or men who are on steroids has been amazing. He still played with the integrity of the game and never made a decision that affected the outcomes of games.


When looking at this case from an ethical standpoint, you really have to address both sides of the situation. First, with Rose, he knowingly violated an established MLB rule and then denied that he did so for nearly fifteen years. As a coach, although he may never have bet against his own team, he still should have business ethics in mind. From a Kantian perspective, Rose had a duty to manage his team and by violating rules, he failed in trying to achieve that duty because he showed his players that they don’t have to respect the rules of the game. He can go around and try to justify the decisions he made by saying he loved his team so much that he knew they could win, but he was getting himself involved in illegal gambling activities with most likely the wrong kind of people. What if situations arose where he was in debt and in order for him to get out of it, he had to start manage the games in order to lose on purpose? He had a duty as manager to make sure not to get in situations like that. I think that is why people take a case like this so seriously and why baseball executives don’t want baseball to be associated with this kind of illegal behavior.

From the current baseball executives’ ethical point-of-view, you are now addressing issues with steroid all over baseball. Currently, baseball today has been dubbed the ‘Steroids Era,’ where we not only see fielders, but pitches as well, taking steroids and Human Growth Hormone in order to increase their strength, stamina, and recovery time. These are the types of issues that should ban people from baseball, as these are performance enhancers. Pete Rose broke records and never once had to pop a pill or inject himself with a needle, he played with his natural talent into his forties. Yes, he violated a rule, but you are treating him as if he was a member of 1919 Black Sox, who threw a World Series in order to win bets of their own. Obviously, these executives believe in a rule-utilitarian philosophy, in that if you commit actions that violate the happiness of others, then there will be consequences for those actions. Which is what major executives should abide by, but as time goes by, the happiness is beginning to swing another way and soon more people will be unhappy that he is not inducted into the Hall of Fame.

From my point-of-view, I think it’s disrespectful to the game that Pete Rose isn’t in the Hall of Fame. The man was one of the best players to play the game and holds multiple Major League records, most which probably will never be broken ever again. Even after he was banned, he was still voted to the All-Century team as outfielder in 1999, meaning he still is respected by players and writers alike. I think Pete Rose will one day become an inductee into the Hall of Fame, but I feel in order for baseball to get their point across, they will wait until after his death to reinstate him, which is a major shame in itself.


[1] Matthews, G. (1995). Epideictic rhetoric and baseball: Nurturing community through controversy. The Southern Communication Journal, 60(4), 275-275. Retrieved from

[2] Dowd, John M. “The Baseball Archive Presents The Dowd Report.” The Baseball Archive Presents The Dowd Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013. <;.

[3] “SoxProspects Wiki – Rule 21.” SoxProspects Wiki – Rule 21. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2013. < 21>.

[4] Matthews, G. (1995). Epideictic rhetoric and baseball: Nurturing community through controversy. The Southern Communication Journal, 60(4), 275-275. Retrieved from

[5] Matthews, G. (1995). Epideictic rhetoric and baseball: Nurturing community through controversy. The Southern Communication Journal, 60(4), 275-275. Retrieved from

[6] Standen, J. (2010). Pete rose and baseball’s rule 21. Nine, 18(2), 134-140,210. Retrieved from

[7] Rose, Pete, and Rick Hill. My Prison Without Bars. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale, 2004. Print.

[8] “Rose Admits to Betting on Reds ‘every night'” N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013. <;.

[9] Standen, J. (2010). Pete rose and baseball’s rule 21. Nine, 18(2), 134-140,210. Retrieved from

Patagonia: Taking Corporate Responsibility to the Next Level

After I read a number of class examples about unethical clothing companies, I wondered if there were clothing companies in today’s society that genuinely care about the environment and the future instead of short-term profits. There is so much news lately about businesses cutting corners and using immoral business practices because they are profit driven. I did find, though, that there are a handful of companies that actually care about their employees, customers, environment, and products. After much research, I eventually stumbled upon the clothing company called Patagonia. I owned a sweatshirt from the company, but I never knew much about it. I was intrigued with the company because of its mission statement and the low environmental impact it makes without sacrificing the high quality of its products. After all of this, I wondered if the company could even turn a profit.

Originally founded in 1973 by Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia is a privately owned company based in Ventura, California (Chouinard). Chouinard started the company in the back of his pickup truck by selling hand-forged mountain climbing gear (Chouinard). He combined his love for the outdoors, business, and the environment in order to create Patagonia. The company now “designs, develops, and markets clothing and gear for a wide range of outdoor sports, travel, and everyday wear (Chouinard).” Their products are currently sold in the 88 wholly owned retail outlets and other retail stores the company has teamed up with throughout the world (Associated Press). This growing company has doubled its revenues and tripled its profits since 2008 while running an advertising campaign to encourage customers to buy less (Associated Press). Patagonia is a pioneer corporation in today’s society because it values social responsibility and sustainability instead of profit margin. Management does not have to focus so tightly on the bottom line because it does not need to please shareholders. This unique company culture started with the founder and top management sticking to their values instead of compromising to increase their profit margin.

A truly ethical company starts from the commitment of the top managers. What sets Chouinard apart from the typical CEOs of multinational corporations is that he started Patagonia with the mindset of an environmentalist. He loves the outdoor and grew up with a passion for rock climbing and surfing (Chouinard). He never wanted to work in the corporate world, but he saw that his business could be an important resource for environmental activism. He set out to make high standards for ethical practices “in order to create the best quality products with the least environmental impact (Chouinard).” Chouinard is not afraid to decrease the company’s profit margin if the company is switching to a more sustainable practice that will benefit the company and the environment in the long term. The company’s mission statement best portrays Chouinard’s founding principles. The mission statement is to “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, and use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis (Patagonia site).” Patagonia also has a specific code of ethics to make sure that the company “promotes fair labor practices and safe working conditions throughout their supply chain (Holmes).”

Yvon Chouinard wanted to create an environment that fosters the well being of employees in order to further enrich the company. Employees receive handsome salaries, parental and health benefits, maternity and paternity leave, paid internships with non profit environmental groups, surfing breaks, employee discounts and much more (Associated Press). At the main office in Ventura, workers even receive on-site day care and school for children ranging in age from 8 weeks to 14 years. Chouinard thinks that the day care center is “ a profit because it keeps five to ten people a year from having to quit (Chouinard).” Employees are very loyal to the company because they also love the corporate culture and mission. As a result of the overwhelming employee satisfaction, the company’s employee turnover is in the single digits compared to other apparel retailers who commonly see turnover of over 100% annually (Associated Press). The company also has a specific workplace code of conduct that “states what is ethical and acceptable in regards to a variety of topics both inside and outside the workplace.” This code of ethics helps to create an environment where workers are appreciated and work very hard at the same time.

Patagonia’s sustainability is portrayed the best through their supply chain management. Yvon Chouinard wanted to create a company that did not sacrifice environmental impact for high quality. Even though Patagonia does not make any of their products, the company is committed to working with factories that share their same values. However, Patagonia is not a perfect company. Like most clothing companies, Patagonia got caught up in outsourcing to new factories when they were rapidly expanding that they knew nothing about except the very cheap price. But what separates Patagonia from most other companies is how they responded to the problem. The company quickly hired a manager of social responsibility and a third party auditor to visit and review every single factory the company works (Chouinard). The customers are fully informed about every step of the clothing process. The company created a life cycle product study called “Footprint Chronicles” (Holmes). This allows customers to trace a product from design to development, manufacturing, production and transportation of the product (Holmes). Patagonia also discloses a list of its entire suppliers, which is very rare especially in the clothing industry (Holmes). The company is not required to disclose all of this information to its customers, but management felt like they have a duty to its customers to keep them informed about all of the company processes.

One sizable cost that Patagonia endured in order to make their supply chain more green was to convert to organic cotton in order to make less of an environmental impact. Patagonia is headquartered in California, but the lack of an organic cotton industry in the state did not stop Chouinard from making the decision to switch to the material in 1996 (Holmes). When a lot of employees starting getting sick, the CEO ordered an environmental assessment on the material to see what was causing the problem. The results of the environmental assessment showed that the regular cotton was the largest source of conventional pollution (Holmes). According to Rob Bondurant, the VP of marketing at Patagonia, management came to the conclusion that they would “rather go out of business than continue to use conventional cotton (Holmes).” That is a very bold stance that is not regularly taken by businesses in the clothing industry today. The corporation saw all of the negative impacts that cotton pollution had on the local water supply and wildlife so change was imminent. In order to develop an organic cotton industry in California, management had to convince farmers and spinners to go organic and agreed to subsidize them (Holmes). The company took many new risks associated with supply and performance by converting to organic cotton including a low profit margin for many months. These risks were justified according to Setnicka, the CFO, because the company is more concerned with the environment than having the company grow rapidly. According to Setnicka, “we sort of look at growth in this company the way we look at a life cycle. If any one component grows too much or too fast, it throws the system out of balance (Holmes).” This is a unique perspective to approach growth in a business because usually top management is only concerned with growing the company and the stock price as quickly as possible to reap the extra benefits. Surprisingly all of the risks paid all. Most of the customers agreed to pay the premium so Patagonia could afford to use organic cotton because customers really liked the concept (Holmes). This example shows that a company can act ethically while still earning a significant profit and keeping a loyal, strong customer base.

Probably the biggest company initiative towards helping the environment is through a program it co-founded called 1% for the Plant. The company started this program in 1995 and has contributed over $33 million and counting (Holmes). Patagonia donates 1% of their total sales to environmental organizations worldwide every year (Holmes). This program reflects Patagonia’s commitment to the environment and sustainability. Giving this one percent of total sales was not seen as a philanthropy in the eyes of management. It is viewed as part of the cost of doing business in order to try to balance the impact the company has on the natural systems (Chouinard). Since the program was growing too quickly and could no longer be managed by the company, it turned into a non-profit organization. Today the organization has a membership of over 1,000 companies.

Thanks to Patagonia’s mission statement and code of ethics, the company has not had to deal with any major controversy or critics. Probably the biggest criticism of the company is the cost of the products. Using environmentally safer material causes the retail prices of the products to be more expensive. Patagonia realizes that it produces are for the upper middle class. The CEO, Casey Sheahan, also realizes that consumers are very willing to pay a couple more dollars because they know that Patagonia inflicted less damage on the environment while making the product than their competitor clothing makers (Associated Press).

To examine how ethically the company really is, I will refer to Norman Bowie’s work called A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics. Bowie states that, “Kant’s ethics is an ethics of duty rather than an ethics of consequences (Bowie 4). The ethical person is the person who acts from the right intentions (Bowie 4).” Long before much of corporate America embraced “green business,” Patagonia was creating clothes from recycled soda bottles and installing solar panels at its corporate headquarters (Gardiner). Chouinard felt a duty to create durable, long-lasting products and be environmentally responsible at the same time. He did not do it for the awards or the recognition; he did it for the right intentions. To examine Kant’s argument, Bowie examined and applied the three formulations of the categorical imperative to business ethics.

The first formulation is “act only on the maxims which you can will to be universal laws of nature (Bowie 4).” A world in which every corporation acted socially responsible and focused on long term sustainability would be logically coherent. If a maxim of being socially responsible was universalized, managers would be required to focus on the impact of their business ventures on the environment. Even though managers would adjust their mindset to be focused environmentally, they would still be focused on making a profit. So the two maxims together are not self-contradicting. They can exist together because people are acting ethically and business practices are possible. The second formulation is “always treat the humanity in a person as an end, and never as a means merely (Bowie 7).” Patagonia treats its employees exceptionally well by going above and beyond the standard amount of employee benefits. The company does not use other people to satisfy or further their own interests or profits (Bowie 7). Patagonia even makes sure that the factories it outsources its labor to treats its workers just through third party auditors. Patagonia is very transparent and believes that its customers and employees should have the opportunity to know all of the important information of the company. The company give all employees the opportunity to attend monthly meetings with executives in which they review the financial statements and customers are given the entire list of suppliers Patagonia works with (Chouinard). The last categorical imperative is “so act if you were a member of an ideal kingdom of ends in which you were both subject and sovereign at the same time (Bowie 10).” Patagonia does a lot of planning before implementing a rule or process to make sure that the impact is very minimal for the environment and that the corporate culture is not negatively affected. The switch to organic cotton is a great example of this. Patagonia discovered that its employees were getting sick from the pollution of the cotton and the cotton had a major effect on the environment. As a result, management quickly took action and ultimately changed from regular to organic cotton. Also, Yvon Chouinard believed that since the company was so profitability because of the environment then the company had a duty to give one percent of its total revenue to environmental organizations every year. By looking at Patagonia through a Kantian approach, I can conclude that the company is definitely an ethical corporation as is passes the three categorical imperatives with flying colors. The company goes above the industry standards to make sure every aspect of its business structure is socially responsible.

The ethical analysis of Patagonia can also be looked at in the view of Deontology, which is very similar to Kantianism. Edwin Micewski and Cermelita Troy wrote Business Ethics: Deontological Revisted (Micewski). These authors wrote an extension of Kant’s second categorical imperative that says that the ends never justify the means. According to these two authors, “the deontological approach states that the ends of any action can never justify the use of any or all means (Micewski).” Micewski and Troy state that the “real test of our code of ethic conduct is whether we are willing to do the right thing even when it is not exclusively in our self-interest (Micewski).” This is the main principle of Patagonia. The executives realize that they have to make a profit in order to stay in business, but they incur major costs in order to lessen the impact on the environment and help the future of the environment. The company even ran an advertising campaign on Black Friday that advised consumers not to buy their product with the hope of cutting down on consumerism. This advertisement was not benefiting them in anyway, it was actually hurting their profits. The company did not care because they wanted to help stop the epidemic of the public over consuming. Patagonia is dedicated to helping the environment and the future even at the cost to their profits.

Patagonia is not the perfect company and it occasionally makes mistakes that do affect the environment and the public. Although, Patagonia is an ethical company overall whose level of corporate responsibility and sustainability should be imitated by other major companies. Chouinard’s unique management style has attracted big time corporations, such as Walmart, to partner with Patagonia since they see a major benefit in becoming more socially responsibility. Patagonia is an unique company that is morally driven to better the future of the environment instead of the future of their profits.


Associated Press. “Keeping Employees Happy : Sportswear Firm Beefs Up Benefits to Boost Worker Contentment.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2013.

Bowie, Norman E. “A Kantian Approach to Business Ethics.” (n.d.): n. pag. Print.

Case Western Reserve University. “Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard to Receive Inamori Ethics Prize.” NewsWise. N.p., 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2013. < ethics-prize>.

Chouinard, Yvon. Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman. New York: Penguin, 2005. Print.

Gardiner, Lisa. “Patagonia and Corporate Responsibility.” Mark Kula Center for Applied Ethics. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2013. <;.

Henneman, Todd. “Patagonia Fills Payroll With People Who Are Passionate.” Workforce. N.p., 07 Nov. 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2013. < with-people-who-are-passionate>.

Micewski, Edwin R., and Carmelita Troy. “Business Ethics – Deontologically Revisited.” Journal of Business Ethics 72.1 (2007): 17-25. Print.

Steveson, Seth. “Patagonia’s Founder Is America’s Most Unlikely Guru.” The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 26 Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. <;.

Pete Rose: Hall of Fame or Wall of Shame?

Pete Rose is the all-time Major League leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053), and outs (10,328). A three-time World Series winner along with three batting titles, one MVP, two Gold Gloves, Rookie of the Year, and an incredible 18-time All-Star; is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown. Considered to be one of the biggest debates in all of baseball, Pete Rose was banned from baseball in 1989 on accusations that he was gambling on baseball games when he was playing for and managing the Cincinnati Reds. Although accused of and never proven, many people at the time believed he bet on games he was a part of, which wiould have a significant impact on the results of the game since he played and managed the team. Two years later, the executives of the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown had voted to ban those on the “permanently ineligible” list from being able to be inducted into the Hall. Although they had followed this rule before, more as an “unwritten rule,” they believed that Rose’s premier status as a player had forced them to take action. Rose is the only person that is alive on the “permanently ineligible” list, making people believe that he was the sole reason why the Hall implemented this rule.

In 2004, after years of public denial, Rose admitted to betting on baseball. In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted that he also bet on the Reds, but never against them. Betting records had shown that Rose was telling the truth and never betted against his team. So from an ethical standpoint, how do you view Pete Rose? As an athlete, he was one of the best ever to play the game. He had a long career and broke many records. I respect him as an athlete and as player-manager, that is even more impressive. I’ve gambled before, on cards, on games, but I’ve never had the opportunity to bet on one of my games because I’ve never played on that kind of level. Yes, he bet on baseball and on his team, but never against his team where he could control the odds. By betting on his team, it changed nothing. He managed his team to win every game, so since he bet on his own team, he was still pushing to win, maybe even harder. With that, he had a duty to his team to win as much as possible, which is what you want in a player and a manager. As long as he never bet against his team, I can’t see him at fault. I feel with Pete Rose, he will one day make it into the Hall of Fame. Guaranteed first ballot once reinstated, but unfortunately, I feel he won’t be reinstated until after his death, which is a shame.

EPSON scanner image


Turns out, I have to be difficult: I can’t just pick one of the many cases we’ve looked at, or even the obvious ones related to those. Nope, rereading the prompt for the aptly titled “Paper 2” left me with incredibly frustrating inspiration, which I suppose is better than none at all. And it’s wonderful.

I want to write a case study and ethics paper about the Manhattan Project.

As a youngish child who had just realized what the atomic bomb was and what that meant, my first thought was a string of questions about how it was made- who made it? How did it work? Why did they choose one that would do more than just blow up? Wasn’t radiation what they were injecting into my Grandpa to help with his cancer? (Let it be, I was young and having an existential crisis.)

So I researched it. The Manhattan Project was never, like, my big obsession or whatever, it was just interesting to me, especially Dr. Oppenheimer, the man who was always at the core of it all. I found quotes of his before and after the completion of the Project. I learned that he went about things in a totally different way. In Org Theory (shout-out to Dr. Martin!), I learned about the incredible endeavor that the project was, and how Oppenheimer’s distinct style or organization and leadership is what allowed it all to happen.

In Los Alamos, there was a small city comprised of many of the brightest minds in America, all working feverishly toward building a machine that could wipe a city off the map. They knew what they were doing and raced forward at a breakneck pace, until they saw it work. Then, only some of them continued the race forward.



There are so many ethical questions here, the difficulty with this paper is going to really be to narrow it down to a couple manageable ones. It’d be very easy to write a paper about how we should/n’t have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that’s not my goal here. At an organizational level, what did it actually mean to all of these scientists? Was it a bomb, or a big puzzle?