Leadership and Training Division - Deputy Leadership Institute - DLI Articles

By Sergeant Gilbert Aguilar
Deputy Leadership Staff

Back in 1999 as presidential campaigns were formalizing, George W. Bush gave a speech in New Hampshire stating that schools must play a greater role in contributing to the moral education of students. And while such a proposition probably isn't greeted with a broad rally of diverse support, he brought attention to the fact that regardless of whether or not schools present a formal class on morals or values, they are already in the morals business. He zeroed in on an argument that a current movement within our educational system known as "values clarification," presents an ambiguous message that all matters of right and wrong are merely matters of opinion. The concept further postures that students invent their own morality from scratch and that all choices are equally valid. His argument was supported by a story he conveyed whereby a teacher found herself unable to criticize cheating because her sixth-grade class, with their values fully clarified, had announced that they morally valued cheating. This all-choices-are equal mentality creates a character weakness that causes a reluctance to make judgements more symbolized by college students who were unable to criticize the Holocaust. As one student defended, "Of course I dislike the Nazis, but who is to say they are morally wrong?" As absurd as this might sound, we should recognize that such a "values clarification" mentality was born out of the Sixties cultural revolution resulting from the distrust of all authority and contempt for "the old bag of virtues" of the Western moral tradition. Attempts to shape the character of the young was viewed as indoctrination and efforts to promote conformity. One might also argue that it was a convenient excuse to abdicate personal responsibility to teach and influence morals/values.

The practitioners of this clarification philosophy emerged and were influential in schools during the mid-70's to the mid-80's. Their influence receded however, because the public sentiment was recognizing that no-content clarification wasn't effective against the rising incidence of drugs, violence and teen pregnancies. It instead produced a moral relativism that blurred the lines between moral choices and simple preferences. Professor of education Howard Kirschenbaum, a founder of values clarification says "The times passed it by," due to the assumption that these clarifiers mistakenly assumed that students in attendance already possessed a moral grounding and merely needed to sort out their own values. However, now the demand for some form of character/values education in the schools is rising. The proliferation of school shootings, the civil disobedience at Woodstock ‘99, student tolerance of school cheating and binge drinking have focused the demand that schools must provide some moral input.

Despite what public opinion may be with regard to the influence of parents or popular culture contributing to school shootings, it is quite apparent that the culture of the schools themselves was part of the problem. The social development of children in schools is unquestionably tested amongst the peer group environment. The problem is exacerbated however, by the immature reasoning of the student interaction. In his classic The Hurried Child, David Elkind noted, "children today know much more than they understand." [For all their] " pseudo-sophistication, they still feel and think like children." In the absence of disciplined, mature role modeling, the temptation to merely follow the crowd can lead young persons to devastating decisions.

The question "Whose or what values should be taught?" has been a paralyzing one. However, the Gallop organization found more than 90 percent of those polled for support stressing honesty, democracy, patriotism, moral courage, caring for friends and family, and the acceptance of people of all races and ethnicities. Still others favor more virtue based values such as derived from the ancient philosophers: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Many schools are starting to experiment with different programs, but most agree something more than a class called "character" is needed. Moral questions need to be integrated into classrooms and the everyday life of the school.

It would be naive to assume an educational system that integrated this concept of values education would produce persons of mature and disciplined character that would completely suit the needs of law enforcement today. On the contrary, even though persons might understand the processes for ethical decision making, they would still lack the maturity developed through real life experience. Thus even our organization has a responsibility to teach some values-based decision making. The common thread that must exist between our educational and organizational values is an emphasis on the growth of character and integrity, courage, initiative, decisiveness, mental agility, and personal accountability - the basic skill needed to make timely, accurate, and ethical decisions.

The delivery of law enforcement services changes dramatically from time to time. However, the nature of law enforcement decision making remains the same. Everyday Sheriff's Department members are confronted with a spectrum of intellectual and tactical challenges. Without direct supervision, members (deputy and civilian alike) are required to make rapid, well-reasoned, independent decisions. In the event of controversial conclusions or results, such decisions will be subjugated to the harsh scrutiny of the media and the courts. In most cases, the individual deputy will be the most conspicuous symbol of law enforcement policy.

The really tough issues confronting law enforcement are ethical/moral dilemmas, and our members must have the wherewithal to handle them appropriately. We cannot anticipate and train our members for each situation, so they must possess a moral consistency to serve as their compass. These ethical dilemmas will challenge the very character of an individual. General Eisenhower once said that "character in many ways is everything in leadership. It is made up of many things, but I would say character is really integrity." Stated differently, leadership, as a demonstration of character, is behavior. Leadership therefore becomes the responsibility of every member of our organization.

We must ensure our personal contribution to the continued development of the character of our members: the cultivation of leadership behavior. We must constantly emphasize the highest ideals of law enforcement - honor, courage and commitment. We must place these values on our members in a framework of high organizational standards and hold them strictly accountable. The consequences of failing to hold members accountable can lead to compromises in personal behavior, and thus result in repeating controversies such as the recent credit card scandal, Operation Big Spender, or the Rampart Scandal. The good character that we bring to the job defines the character of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Welcome to DLI's - The Character of Leadership Page

The Character of Leadership By Sergeant Gilbert Aguilar Deputy Leadership Staff Back in 1999 as presidential campaigns were formalizing, George W. Bush gave a speech in New Hampshire stating that schools must play a greater role in contributing to the moral education of students. And while such a proposition probably isn't greeted with a broad rally of diverse support, he brought attention to the fact that regardless of whether or not schools present a formal class on morals or values, they are already in the morals business. He zeroed in on an argument that a current movement within our educational system known as "values clarification," presents an ambiguous message that all matters of right and wrong are merely matters of opinion. The concept further postures that students invent their own morality from scratch and that all choices are equally valid. His argument was supported by a story he conveyed whereby a teacher found herself unable to criticize cheating because her sixth-grade class, with their values fully clarified, had announced that they morally valued cheating. This all-choices-are equal mentality creates a character weakness that causes a reluctance to make judgements more symbolized by college students who were unable to criticize the Holocaust. As one student defended, "Of course I dislike the Nazis, but who is to say they are morally wrong?" As absurd as this might sound, we should recognize that such a "values clarification" mentality was born out of the Sixties cultural revolution resulting from the distrust of all authority and contempt for "the old bag of virtues" of the Western moral tradition. Attempts to shape the character of the young was viewed as indoctrination and efforts to promote conformity. One might also argue that it was a convenient excuse to abdicate personal responsibility to teach and influence morals/values. The practitioners of this clarification philosophy emerged and were influential in schools during the mid-70's to the mid-80's. Their influence receded however, because the public sentiment was recognizing that no-content clarification wasn't effective against the rising incidence of drugs, violence and teen pregnancies. It instead produced a moral relativism that blurred the lines between moral choices and simple preferences. Professor of education Howard Kirschenbaum, a founder of values clarification says "The times passed it by," due to the assumption that these clarifiers mistakenly assumed that students in attendance already possessed a moral grounding and merely needed to sort out their own values. However, now the demand for some form of character/values education in the schools is rising. The proliferation of school shootings, the civil disobedience at Woodstock ‘99, student tolerance of school cheating and binge drinking have focused the demand that schools must provide some moral input. Despite what public opinion may be with regard to the influence of parents or popular culture contributing to school shootings, it is quite apparent that the culture of the schools themselves was part of the problem. The social development of children in schools is unquestionably tested amongst the peer group environment. The problem is exacerbated however, by the immature reasoning of the student interaction. In his classic The Hurried Child, David Elkind noted, "children today know much more than they understand." [For all their] " pseudo-sophistication, they still feel and think like children." In the absence of disciplined, mature role modeling, the temptation to merely follow the crowd can lead young persons to devastating decisions. The question "Whose or what values should be taught?" has been a paralyzing one. However, the Gallop organization found more than 90 percent of those polled for support stressing honesty, democracy, patriotism, moral courage, caring for friends and family, and the acceptance of people of all races and ethnicities. Still others favor more virtue based values such as derived from the ancient philosophers: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Many schools are starting to experiment with different programs, but most agree something more than a class called "character" is needed. Moral questions need to be integrated into classrooms and the everyday life of the school. THE NEEDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT It would be naive to assume an educational system that integrated this concept of values education would produce persons of mature and disciplined character that would completely suit the needs of law enforcement today. On the contrary, even though persons might understand the processes for ethical decision making, they would still lack the maturity developed through real life experience. Thus even our organization has a responsibility to teach some values-based decision making. The common thread that must exist between our educational and organizational values is an emphasis on the growth of character and integrity, courage, initiative, decisiveness, mental agility, and personal accountability - the basic skill needed to make timely, accurate, and ethical decisions. The delivery of law enforcement services changes dramatically from time to time. However, the nature of law enforcement decision making remains the same. Everyday Sheriff's Department members are confronted with a spectrum of intellectual and tactical challenges. Without direct supervision, members (deputy and civilian alike) are required to make rapid, well-reasoned, independent decisions. In the event of controversial conclusions or results, such decisions will be subjugated to the harsh scrutiny of the media and the courts. In most cases, the individual deputy will be the most conspicuous symbol of law enforcement policy. The really tough issues confronting law enforcement are ethical/moral dilemmas, and our members must have the wherewithal to handle them appropriately. We cannot anticipate and train our members for each situation, so they must possess a moral consistency to serve as their compass. These ethical dilemmas will challenge the very character of an individual. General Eisenhower once said that "character in many ways is everything in leadership. It is made up of many things, but I would say character is really integrity." Stated differently, leadership, as a demonstration of character, is behavior. Leadership therefore becomes the responsibility of every member of our organization. We must ensure our personal contribution to the continued development of the character of our members: the cultivation of leadership behavior. We must constantly emphasize the highest ideals of law enforcement - honor, courage and commitment. We must place these values on our members in a framework of high organizational standards and hold them strictly accountable. The consequences of failing to hold members accountable can lead to compromises in personal behavior, and thus result in repeating controversies such as the recent credit card scandal, Operation Big Spender, or the Rampart Scandal. The good character that we bring to the job defines the character of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Contact the LTD Webmaster Contact DLI	© Copyright 2012	Updated: April 13, 2012

The Character of Leadership