Increasingly, citizens of open societies must grapple with their tolerance of retrograde cultural customs such as “family honor.” Fearful of being labeled a “bigot” or a “racist,” many people choose to remain silent, as social workers in this case did. It is also time to recognize the morally courageous leadership of individuals like Rafael Wugalter, who are unafraid to take a politically incorrect stance in order to save lives.

Having immigrated to Canada in 2007, the young Shafia sisters were like most teenagers.  Zainab had fallen in love with a Pakistani man and wanted to marry him.  Sahar posted pictures online wearing sassy clothes.  Geeti was struggling in school.  Their father saw this behavior as “shameful” and threatened to kill his daughters to preserve his reputation.  Rona Mohammad, Mr. Shafia’s first wife, was the girls’ only advocate in an often tumultuous household.

The girls repeatedly tried to escape their dangerous situation, pleading for help.  Zaineb ran away to a shelter and Geeti asked social workers to intervene.  Both efforts were fruitless as the girls were returned to their home.  What government officials and social workers could not (or would not) understand is that Mr. Shafia’s threats, far from being a father’s frustrated outbursts, were in fact rooted in the ancient cultural practice of his homeland, Afghanistan. The custom of “family honor” calls incites men to cleanse the family of shame – usually by doing violence to one or more of the women in that family.

Chilling wiretapped conversations between Mohammad and Tooba reveal just how intentional these murders were.  At one point, Mr. Shafia reflects, “I say to myself, ‘You did well. Would they come back to life a hundred times, you should so the same again…’” Later he states, “May the devil defecate on their graves! This is what a daughter should be? Would a daughter be such a whore?”

Enter Rafael Wugalter, an ordinary Canadian with an extraordinary commitment to do more than stand by. Wagalter has launched a petition that urges the government to revise its child protection protocols. Moreover, he encourages teachers and neighbors who might hear of honor-based threats to intervene. As Wugalter explains, “If we value our freedom and equality, if we consider them to be cherished principles, then why aren’t we there for these women?”

To those who would retort that it is not his culture, Wugalter shoots back, “The origin or culture of a person should never determine what rights they have as human beings.”

But this point will only sink in if officials understand that honor murder is not akin to typical domestic violence.  “In the case of honor killings,” Wugalter points out, “everything is pre-meditated. It’s not merely an outburst of passion or anger. Keeping families together in that kind of setting can harm children more – and, as we’ve seen, can be fatal.”

For those not sure why they should care, Wugalter has a message: “If you have been afforded freedom and a privileged life, then it’s your responsibility to stand up for those who want the same thing as you but are being coerced to live differently.”  Rafael Wugalter is a model of moral courage at a time when multiculturalism intimidates too many.

Please do the morally courageous thing and sign Rafael Wugalter’s petition, which goes directly to the government that could have protected the Shafia sisters.

Photo credit: thestar.ca

According to UNICEF, over 500,000 children work on farms in the Ivory Coast, a country responsible for nearly 40% of the world’s cocoa supply.  The children work from sunrise to late in the evening and use machetes to cut and open the bean pods containing cocoa beans.  Aly Diabat, a former child slave, described his experiences: “Some of the bags were taller than me. It took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you didn’t hurry, you were beaten.”  Aside from the obvious dangers of children using machetes, there were other unsafe conditions.  These child slaves are forced to live in small, over-crowded and unsanitary spaces with little food or clean water.

Initially, Reps. Engel and Harkin proposed legislation that would require chocolate companies to mark products with a “No Slavery Here” label, indicating ethical labor practices.  “How many people in America know that all this chocolate they are eating – candies and all of those wonderful chocolates – is being produced by terrible child labor?” said Sen. Harkin.  “We felt like…we ought to take some action to try to stop it.”

Unfortunately, this was the legislation fought so forcefully by lobbyists.  So, instead, an agreement was made, known as the Harkin-Engel Protocol.  This agreement requires candy companies to eradicate child slavery with the help of domestic and international government, NGOs and cocoa manufacturers and suppliers.

Since the protocol was voluntary, the amount of change needed to stop these illegal labor practices have not been as effective as intended.  Still, Reps. Engel and Harkin continue to demand more.  Speaking about the chocolate companies, Rep. Engel has said, “They are working with us, and we are glad that they are working with us.  But they could do better.”  With the bold leadership of Reps. Engel and Harkin and the countless others who have been inspired to join this worthy cause, change is now more possible than ever.

Michael Gunn and his teenage daughter went swimming in the pool located at his apartment complex.  Gunn claims that his landlord, Jamie Hein, a white woman, complained about it.  She accused his daughter of “…making the pool ‘cloudy’ because she used chemicals in her hair.”  Shortly thereafter, Hein posted a sign at the pool’s entrance which read “Public Swimming Pool, White Only.”  The sign, an antique from Jim Crow era Alabama, was used prior to the Civil Rights Act to separate whites and blacks from sharing the same space.

Gunn described his reaction to seeing the sign as filled with “… shock, disgust and outrage”. He immediately moved out of the complex, not wanting to embarrass or humiliate his daughter.  He also explained how upset his daughter was to learn months later that his decision to move out of the complex “was in a way related to the color of her skin.”

Hein has insisted that she is not a racist.  She has commented that she was trying to “protect” her assets.  She stated further that, “If I have to stick up for my white rights, I have to stick up for my white rights.  It goes both ways.”

Although Gunn no longer lived at the complex, he filed a discrimination complaint with the Ohio civil rights commission to ensure that the landlord’s actions would not go unexamined.  The commission found Hein’s actions to be discriminatory, releasing a statement that says the sign “restricts the social interaction between Caucasians and African-Americans and reinforces discriminatory actions aimed at oppressing people of color.”  In response, Hein has asked the commission to reconsider its ruling.

Hein is just one landlord of many in Ohio and one of very few to be so overtly discriminatory.  Gunn could have simply moved away and not concern himself with Hein.  Instead, Gunn made a decision to take action based on the principle of the matter, not the magnitude of it.  In the true spirit of Dr. King, Michael Gunn realized that any injustice must be rectified.

Danny Chen was one of the few Chinese-American soldiers serving in the Army.  In letters to his parents, Chen described the kind of racism and humiliation he faced.  “Since I’m the only Chinese person here, everyone knows me as Chen. They ask if I’m from China like a few times day. They also call out my name in a goat like voice sometimes for no reason. …”

The wives of Chen’s military friends have commented on what they saw.  One wife noted that he was a different person when he was around his platoon.  A normally outgoing person, Chen became withdrawn at work.  Another wife said she knew that in Army culture it was a bad sign that Chen was not only being harassed by his peers, but even his superiors.

Through the Organization for Chinese Americans (OCA), the Chen family has learned what happened just before Danny died.  He was dragged out of bed and across 50 feet of gravel, leaving cuts and bruises across his entire back.  Then he was forced to crawl on the ground in full-gear and in the heat while rocks were being thrown at him by his comrades.  Throughout this ordeal, Chen was taunted with ethnic slurs.  Just 30 minutes afterwards, a gunshot was heard coming from the guard tower.

The military headquarters in Afghanistan is in the midst of conducting an investigation on the matter.  So far, the Army has admitted that higher-ranked officers knew about the abuse leading up to and on Chen’s final day, but did nothing.  In the military, just one command from a higher-ranked officer to stop the harassment would have been enough to give Chen peace of mind and a chance to enjoy serving his country.  Instead, by not intervening, his platoon officers essentially encouraged the abuse.

Elizabeth OuYang, president of the New York chapter of OCA stated it best, “It is important that a strong signal be sent that this type of banned misconduct has no place in the Army…To die not from enemy fire but from mistreatment by superiors at his own base is totally unacceptable, uncondonable and must be punished.”

So far, eight soldiers have been charged in Chen’s death, including Officer First Lieutenant Daniel J. Schwartz.  Schwartz has only been charged with dereliction of duty – a light charge considering how much power he had to end Chen’s ordeal.  This does not send the needed message that all Army officers are responsible for stopping any bullying of by their direct reports.

In an environment surrounded by the very people expected to protect him in battle, Chen’s constant bullying kept intensifying and no one stopped it – including the leaders he should have been able to depend on.  This lack of moral courage is not acceptable by any leader anywhere, but is even more disappointing to find in those chosen to protect their country.  In his famous 1966 speech in South Africa, Robert F. Kennedy stated, “Moral courage is a more rare commodity than bravery in battle…”  The circumstances surrounding Chen’s death are a reminder of that.

Matalon was harassed when she refused to move, stating that, “I didn’t want to move both on principle and because there wasn’t any room.”  According to her, the man responded by calling her a “whore”.  Other ultra-Orthodox men on the bus joined him, shouting “prostitute” and “Shikse” (a pejorative term for a non-Jewish woman).  Matalon stated, “[I] felt threatened and a huge commotion began.  I yelled out for the conductor to come quick, and two male conductors rushed in.  They pushed him away from me…but he continued to be abusive.”

When recounting the incident, Matalon notes that she has been asked to move to the back of the bus several times before.  In fact, this is not an uncommon request of women in Israel, especially in areas heavily populated by religious groups.  Women’s rights organizations have repeatedly complained about certain bus lines serving ultra-Orthodox areas that enforce gender segregation.  While women have the right to refuse to move under Israeli law, they may face physical and verbal abuse in an attempt to intimidate them to move as was the case with Matalon.

Leaders in Israel are slowly beginning to grapple with this issue, recognizing that there is never a good reason to violate civil rights.  The judge for this case released a statement, which read in part, “In light of this growing phenomenon of women’s exclusion and offending women who object their exclusion, I believe a dangerous cause exists here, because the aggravation of such a phenomenon endangers a democratic society when done forcibly.”  More citizens will need to exhibit Matalon’s moral courage in order to keep the pressure on Israeli leaders and their fellow citizens to stand up for the civil rights of women.

The negative attention FAMU is receiving over the drummer’s death has caused defensiveness, with students, staff and alumni claiming that their school is being unfairly characterized as a haven for hazing.  While it’s true that hazing happens on many campuses and in a variety of groups, ranging from fraternities and sororities to athletic teams and even military units, the issue at hand is what FAMU will do to stop the hazing on their campus.  As McKay stated, “Persistent hazing has been an ugly open secret at FAMU.”  It would be irresponsible to be so concerned with the school’s reputation that reformative dialogue on hazing is suppressed, guaranteeing the continuation of these dangerous practices.

Recognizing this, McKay created The FAMU Hazing Blog at http://famuhazing.wordpress.com/.  On the website, the blog is described as, “…is an independent journalistic collaboration between FAMU student media and concerned alumni who want the full truth about hazing on our beloved campus to come to light…Hazing is a disease that thrives on secrecy, that lives in the shadows. It will die in the sunshine.”  Here, FAMU alumni from all eras are encouraged to share their stories about hazing and the truth about how it negatively impacted them.  These insights are posted along with other writings about how the university can make a change.

Unfortunately, not all alumni support McKay’s efforts.  An anonymous 2010 graduate commented that the blog just adds “…fuel to the fire of a terrible situation.”  But McKay continues on, despite any discouragement, and is generating the beginnings of a movement with over 30 powerful accounts of hazing submitted so far.  With time, his efforts can stop the culture of hazing on campuses across the Unites States, helping the estimated 5% of students who are hazed every year.

McKay is an exemplar of moral courage because of his bold effort to foster a much-needed dialogue about the dangers of hazing.  He stated that, “As a proud alumnus heartbroken by the death of Robert Champion, I felt it was vital to collaborate across generations to get a better understanding of a cross-generational problem.”   McKay recognized that he could best honor his alma mater by challenging it to be better.

Although Arpey stood strong on his belief, his executive team and board of directors succumbed to the pressure to turn a quick profit and decided to file for bankruptcy.  Unwilling to accept the low moral standard set by his peers, Arpey chose to leave his position and do so without the multi-million dollar retirement payout typically afforded most chief executive officers (CEOs).  As Arpey’s story demonstrates, moral courage requires us to set our own ethical standards and to be unafraid to think and act differently than our peers.

Gerard Arpey began working for American Airlines after graduating from college in 1982, eventually rising to the most important position in the company – CEO.  In this role, Arpey viewed himself as responsible for more than just profit and loss.  He also believed in providing moral leadership.

Early on in his tenure as CEO, in 2003, Arpey faced pressure to file for bankruptcy so the company could shed financial responsibilities and regroup without any debt.  But Arpey successfully convinced the other executives and board of directors not to move in that direction.  He reasoned that filing for bankruptcy was an immoral financial maneuver because it allowed companies to take the easy way out of difficult fiscal situations at the expense of fulfilling obligations to stakeholders.

Later on he stated, “I believe it’s important to the character of the company and its ultimate long-term success to do your very best to honor those commitments.  It is not good thinking — either at the corporate level or at the personal level — to believe you can simply walk away from your circumstances.”  Despite Arpey’s strong views, his peers did not share his opinion.

The airline industry in the United States has been struggling financially for over a decade due, in part, to increased costs of labor.  Many airlines have dealt with this financial tension by taking advantage of Chapter 11 of the U.S. tax code.  Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows companies to liquidate its assets and shed financial responsibilities to employees, among others.

In the past, employees have suffered severely when their company filed for bankruptcy.  They have seen their pension funds wiped out and the promise of a secure retirement lost forever.  The most appalling example of this is the bankruptcy of Aloha Airlines, which caused some pilots to lose 90% of their pension funds.  The bankruptcy of American Airlines would likewise put its 70,000 employees at risk of what could become the “…single largest pension default in U.S. history.”

Additionally, bankruptcy necessitates renegotiation of labor union contracts, guaranteeing more favorable terms for the company and less favorable terms for unions.  In the end, employees face the loss of a significant amount of the income and benefits promised to them by company executives.  These same executives, who know what is at stake for their employees, decide whether filing for bankruptcy make sense.

Undoubtedly, bankruptcy can financially benefit a company.  As Arpey observed, “Our bankrupt colleagues all made net profits, good net profits last year, and we didn’t…And you can mathematically pinpoint that to termination of pensions, termination of retiree medical benefits, changes of work rules, changes in the labor contracts. That puts a lot of pressure on our company…”.

But, ultimately, this decision was not about financial gain, it was about moral direction.  Although AMR moved forward with bankruptcy after Arpey left and despite the guaranteed loss to their employees, a much needed debate is now being generated on this topic.  Arpey’s protest of the abuse of corporate bankruptcy provides a moral lense through which to view decisions made in the private sector.  His moral courage has allowed us all to set higher standards for Corporate America and expect more of CEOs everywhere.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, a surgeon, author and talk show host, has built his career on providing people with the information and resources they need to stay healthy.  In a recent airing of his television show, Dr. Oz examined the safety of apple juice.  He told viewers that he tested different brands of apple juice across the country and that the results revealed high levels of arsenic, a known poisonous substance.

Dr. Oz admitted that the levels he found would not cause acute poisoning; however, he warned that the long-term effects of arsenic are unknown and may eventually cause cancer and organ failure.  He concluded that consumers should be wary of drinking too much apple juice until research could prove that there was no risk.

Since apple juice is a very popular drink, often packed in school lunches for children and enjoyed by adults for breakfast, Dr. Oz’s research was very concerning and the public began to panic.  The FDA, the authority responsible for ensuring the safety of juices, quickly asserted that Dr. Oz’s research was flawed and released the results of its own research, showing apple juice across all brands to be very safe, with negligible amounts of arsenic.

Well-known apple juice manufacturers, such as Motts also entered the debate, alleging that Dr. Oz’s report “…needlessly alarmed consumers in the name of ratings”, ultimately insinuating that Dr. Oz’s true motivation was media attention.

Unwilling to back down, Dr. Oz stood strong, weathering severe criticism from his peers in medical and research communities, the public and the media.  Dr. Richard Besser, Senior Health and Medical Expert for national television network ABC News, publicly accused Dr. Oz of irresponsible research, stating “Putting out this kind of health warning—manufacturing a health crisis based on faulty, incomplete data—this fear mongering, it reminds me of yelling fire in a movie theater…You are telling parents that they are poisoning their children and you have absolutely no evidence that they’re doing that.”

Despite the disapproval, Dr. Oz continued to defend his work and question the FDA’s conclusions, insisting that this issue had nothing to do with television ratings.  For him, the greater good – public health – was being jeopardized.

Finally, facing a battle that would not go away, the FDA admitted to withholding complete test results which proved Dr. Oz’s assertions to be correct.  The agency is now reexamining its testing methods and considering setting new regulations for arsenic levels in juices, ensuring safer standards for apple juice drinkers.  By unwaveringly disputing FDA research, Dr. Oz displayed moral courage, putting his reputation at risk for the greater good of public health.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of the show’s content, many people watch “Parazit” online through intermediary servers or on unauthorized copies of DVDs. As a result, an exact count of viewers is not available. With over 760,000 facebook fans, however, it is safe to assume that the people of Iran are paying attention.

Iran’s government is also paying attention. Both Arbabi and Hosseini have been publicly attacked in government-operated newspapers. Character assassinations have been employed in an attempt to shame the hosts and discredit the show. Iran’s state-run television station has even created a satirical show in an attempt to neutralize the “Parazit” effect. These desperate attacks are a clear sign that a raw nerve has been hit.

But it seems that the hosts fully expected this outcome. In fact, they named the show “Parazit” – meaning “static” in Persian – as a way to highlight the government’s censorial response to anyone who dares to challenge elected and appointed leaders. Despite their awareness of the coming backlash, the hosts proceeded with the show’s creation, recognizing that personal attacks cannot be allowed to shutter the truth. It is because of this boldness that the hosts exemplify moral courage.

Mike McQueary was Penn State’s quarterback in the mid-90s. Under the guidance of famed coach Joe Paterno and then defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, McQueary led a record-breaking season. He later returned to Penn State as a graduate assistant to the coaching team, possibly aiming to work alongside his former mentors as a full-time coach. It seems logical that after having spent so much time with Sandusky and Paterno, and having been part of the same team in different roles across numerous years, McQueary would consider these men to be like father-figures.

Imagine his shock, then, when he allegedly witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year old boy. A moral courage moment had presented itself clearly to McQueary. Should he report a nationally renowned sports figure and local hero to police, calling attention to a horrific crime? Or was the risk of challenging authorities too high? McQueary opted to report the matter to Coach Paterno and let him handle the matter.

As we now know, Paterno reported up to his superiors who did nothing to solve the problem. In fact, Sandusky continued molesting children after this incident. McQueary had, in essence, witnessed two crimes – the sexual assault of a child and the cover-up of a crime by university leadership. While the case can be made that McQueary fulfilled his legal responsibilities, he fell far short of his moral responsibility. He could have stopped this by challenging Penn State authorities to do more and going as far as alerting law enforcement agencies.