You are the President of a private University. For years, your University has managed a world- renowned Acting School across town. Students who have graduated from the school have gone on to incredibly successful careers in film, theater, and television. However, as is often common with the arts, the Acting School has been running at a deficit for over a decade and has lost enrollment. As a result, the University has had to cover the operating expenses of the Acting School, including payroll. The University has a deficit of its own, and can no longer afford to manage the Acting School. Facing this deficit head on, the University has tried to sell the Acting School. Unfortunately, there just isn't a market for the Acting School, so no one is willing to buy the Acting School. This leaves the University with two options: lay off the staff and close the school, or sell the Acting School property and move the Acting School staff and students to the University. The layoff option would be financially beneficial to the University, but politically it would be disastrous. Both the governor and the mayor view the Acting School as a community institution. Also, the students would have nowhere to go, and some of them are close to graduation. It's never easy to let anyone go, and these 45 employees have worked for the Acting School for many years. Their students and alumni don't want to see them go, and are prepared to protest and file whatever lawsuits they can to block a layoff. Conversely, the sale and move option would, in the short-term, be a financial nightmare. The main campus does not possess the facilities needed for an Acting School, which means the University would need to build new offices and a performing arts center. Even if the Acting School property is sold, the proceeds will not cover the renovations the University must make for a merger. That means the University will have to finance new construction that it was not planning to make, which will delay the University making other renovations it needs to make. And of course, the employees and students at the Acting School don't want to go the main campus. They are prepared to protest and file whatever lawsuits they can to try and block a sale of the Acting School property and their transition to main campus. The Board of Trustees wants a decision made, and they have let it be known that either option is fine, provided this is the last year the Acting School exists. That means you close shop at the end of the Academic Year, or merge, build new spaces and move everyone in less than a year. You're the President: 1. Is it ethical to lay off employees? Why or why not? 2. Is it ethical to force students (who are paying customers) to move to a school they did not choose to attend, and deprive them of the experience they signed up for? Which option do you choose and why? 3. You are the President of a private University. For years, your University has managed a world- renowned Acting School across town. Students who have graduated from the school have gone on to incredibly successful careers in film, theater, and television. However, as is often common with the arts, the Acting School has been running at a deficit for over a decade and has lost enrollment. As a result, the University has had to cover the operating expenses of the Acting School, including payroll. The University has a deficit of its own, and can no longer afford to manage the Acting School. Facing this deficit head on, the University has tried to sell the Acting School. Unfortunately, there just isn't a market for the Acting School, so no one is willing to buy the Acting School. This leaves the University with two options: lay off the staff and close the school, or sell the Acting School property and move the Acting School staff and students to the University. The layoff option would be financially beneficial to the University, but politically it would be disastrous. Both the governor and the mayor view the Acting School as a community institution. Also, the students would have nowhere to go, and some of them are close to graduation. It's never easy to let anyone go, and these 45 employees have worked for the Acting School for many years. Their students and alumni don't want to see them go, and are prepared to protest and file whatever lawsuits they can to block a layoff. Conversely, the sale and move option would, in the short-term, be a financial nightmare. The main campus does not possess the facilities needed for an Acting School, which means the University would need to build new offices and a performing arts center. Even if the Acting School property is sold, the proceeds will not cover the renovations the University must make for a merger. That means the University will have to finance new construction that it was not planning to make, which will delay the University making other renovations it needs to make. And of course, the employees and students at the Acting School don't want to go the main campus. They are prepared to protest and file whatever lawsuits they can to try and block a sale of the Acting School property and their transition to main campus. The Board of Trustees wants a decision made, and they have let it be known that either option is fine, provided this is the last year the Acting School exists. That means you close shop at the end of the Academic Year, or merge, build new spaces and move everyone in less than a year. You're the President: 1. Is it ethical to lay off employees? Why or why not? 2. Is it ethical to force students (who are paying customers) to move to a school they did not choose to attend, and deprive them of the experience they signed up for? Which option do you choose and why? 3