Aussie Academic & Research

In 2012 Professor A from the University of Newcastle, NSW was found guilty, by his employer, of the misuse of research funds. He was fired from his professorial position by the university. A was a professor in Information Technology and the recipient of at least nine prestigious Australian Research Council (ARC) grants. However A assumed that once he had gained the grants that he would be entitled to use them as he saw fit. According to The Australian (February 26th, 2013), the ARC monies were spent on reflexology treatments, massages, wine, cosmetics, tourist attractions, music equipment and a noodle maker.

A appealed to the Fair Work Commission, and in 2013, this body ruled that he had been treated too harshly, stating that Professor A’s activities could not be construed as serious misconduct i.e., that the sacking was harsh. A’s lawyers are now set to file a compensation claim against University of Newcastle.

Evaluate A’s actions from an ethical perspective, and state what moral framework he may have been following in his use of funds. You must consider his actions from both utilitarian and deontologic perspectives. Clearly explain why you have reached your conclusion, then deliberate on both the long-term and short-term consequences of the ruling that his employer had treated him too harshly.
€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€”€“
Format:

The assignment must not be more than 2 pages long (excl. References). It is to be typed, using Times Roman font, and justified along both margins. Use single column only. Main text should be in font size 12, with headings in bold, font 14.

References are to be in the Harvard System, as in the back of the text 4 Es: Ethics, Engineering, Economics & Environment. (2011 Edition, Federation Press)

Argue your case carefully, ensuring that the reader is able to follow your reasoning.