John Jay College: Professors facing allegations on Drug Sales and Sexual Misconduct (2018)

Background:

  John Jay College of Criminal Justice is a well respected college in the city of New York. Founded in 1964, the now considered “Senior College” of New York has proven to become an international leader in educating students in their justice program. With a campus that has over 15,000 enrolled, you will always see a new face, giving it is one of New York’s most diverse campuses.The College is equipped with 1,100 full-time and part-time faculty. Including two Pulitzer Prize winners, seven Distinguished Professors, three Presidential Scholars. (John Jay College) 

The Controversy

It came with great disbelief to the New York City community when they had learned about the scandal at John Jay College. Four professors of the college had been accused of committing some serious charges. Those included were Barry Spunt, an associate sociology professor and former chair of that department; Anthony Marcus, a professor and former chair of the anthropology department; Ric Curtis, a professor and former chair of the anthropology department and former interim chair of the department of law and police science.

Four Professors Accused

An adjunct professor also stands accused. According to interviews conducted with the New York Post, the accusers had stated "the charismatic CUNY profs targeted them as vulnerable undergraduates and lured them into their pot-smoking circle of acolytes, only to sexually assault them and attempt to have them sexually service professors at other colleges — and worse.” (New York Post) According to the two accused, Ric Curtis had been the ring leader of the group, he had held court in "The Swamp" a secluded seventh floor of a building on campus. In this "Court" it was stated that one of the victims was quoted saying the alleged Curtis encouraged her to have sex with his academic colleagues, including a professor who was being recruited as a department head. Curtis, the alleged ringleader, had many encounters with drugs, not only did he research them, but he ended up selling them as well. A women by the name of Naomi Haber, who is 24 years old, alleges Anthony Marcus, the former chair of the anthropology department. She claims that Marcus violently raped her when she was a 21-year-old sophomore after a boozy night out at an academic conference in Washington, D.C. in 2015. It was stated she had waited to say anything about it because simply, it was traumatizing, she had just wanted to forget about it. But now that there had been other allegations on Marcus, she felt the time was right. This particular case is still pending, as each day continues, we learn new information, and in time, justice will be served.

Individualism

According to Milton Friedman’s individualistic theory, a businesses one goal is to maximize profit within constraints of the law. (Salazar 17) Within this particular situation, John Jay College was not faced with the issue of there being an opportunity to maximize any profits. But, the individualists would still argue this case was unethical. The reason being lies where the individuals who were coerced into doing drugs, and ones who were even raped and a victim of sexual misconduct were not respected. In addition to this, doing drugs on school campus and cases of sexual misconduct are against the law. And according to individualists, when you violate the law, no matter the circumstance, it is unethical. Also, what individualists would take into account the fact that many students could potentially leave the school after a case like this, which overall would hurt the schools profits. In this particular case, they were not given the opportunity to pursue their own choices in this instance, furthermore, they were not allowed to live a life that they particularly wanted to, so for that sake, the individualists would believe this situation was unethical at all costs.

The Two Victims of Sexual Misconduct

Utilitarianism

  Utilitarians would also believe that this given situation was unethical in every aspect. According to the utilitarian theory, To make everyone happy, content, and as satisfied as possible. To maximize happiness. Happiness is the only thing of value, we want to maximize it because more is better than less. Include everyone who is capable of happiness, including animals. (Salazar) In this case, no one ended up happy at any particular given time. The stakeholders happiness in this particular event had been effected drastically, and this would be something the utilitarians would take in affect. The students and staff who were victims of these allegations had suffered the mental abuse of these professors. In addition to that, the fact that sexual misconduct and rape was involved will also be a lead to the unhappiness of the students in the long run. Statistics show that Eight percent of rapes occur while the victim is at work. (NSVRC) The odds of this type of case actually happening is actually quite low, so for the fact that it actually did take place, makes it even bigger of a reason for Utilitarians to believe it was very unethical.

 

Kantianism
Finally, Kantians would also say that this situation was unethical. According to Kant’s theory, he believes that one should “act rationally- don't act inconsistently in your own actions or consider yourself exempt from the rules.” (Salazar) In this case, the professors are believed to be the ones considering themselves exempt from the rules. They also had not been acting “Rationally” when they considered to do drugs on campus. Acting rationally is based on or in accordance with reason or logic.  If they had wanted to do the drugs, they could have done them in the privacy of their own home. But, all in all nothing explains the sexual misconduct case, there is no excuse for that. The professors in this case had treated the students and other professors as a mere means. Going to the low of the low and hurting them by cases of rape, that is one, not acting rationally, and two, treating human beings more so as an object. They had basically considered them all as objects, and used them to satisfy their sick personal interests. This according to kantianism is wrong, and they would consider this very unethical.

Virtue Theory

Virtue Theory is an approach to ethics that emphasizes on an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves. (Philosophy Basics) Aristotle created four main virtues to this theory, those include courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Stating that rationality is what differentiates characteristics of people, Aristotle had a vision for life; if you act rationally, you perform well in life and if you perform well, that creates happiness. Analyzing this case from virtue theory, there are many things to take into account. The victims of these crimes finally came out and said something about the professors, someone finally had a voice, and this encouraged other people to speak up on this measure. I believe that in this particular case, the professors that are on the defense are not being quite honest. Giving that there were text messages proving that there was some sort of coercion, they should step up and own up to it. Temperance in this particular case would be how John Jay College handles this situation. What plans are the college putting in place to pyramid down a way to the entire staff on codes of behavior, for this particular case that will come in the future. The final virtue Justice, will be acted upon as this case developes. If found guilty on charges, it will be up to the New York City justice system to bring these individuals to serving some sort of jail time in prison. It will also be held responsible by the college to dismiss these individuals from their staff permanently without chance of return.

These facts and analyses are based on an original essay conducted by Jay Nanfito, "John Jay College: Professors facing allegations on Drug Sales and Sexual Misconduct."

Works Cited:
“Mission Statement.” John Jay College of Criminal Justice, www.jjay.cuny.edu/mission-statement


 “Virtue Ethics.” Virtue Ethics - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy, www.philosophybasics.com/branch_virtue_ethics.html


 Rashbaum, William K., and David W. Chen. “John Jay Professors Face Allegations of Drug Sales and Sexual Misconduct.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/09/22/nyregion/john-jay-professors-allegations.html.


 Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business. Print. Date Retrieved: 18 Nov 2018.


 Dorn, Sara, and Melissa Klein. “College Professors Allegedly Sold Drugs, 'Pimped' out Students.” New York Post, New York Post, 23 Sept. 2018, nypost.com/2018/09/22/john-jay-professors-allegedly-ran-swamp-of-drug-dealing-sexual-assault/.

Patagonia vs. Trump: The Retailer Strikes Back (2017)

Controversy:

Patagonia's Logo

Patagonia is an American clothing company based in Ventura California, specializing in outdoor gear and apparel. Founded by Yvon Chouinard and Tom Frost in 1973, Patagonia was formerly known as Chouinard Equipment. In the 1970s Chouinard and Frost developed their first environmentally sound climbing gear and would continue to develop and support environmentally friendly products and organizations. This, along with high-end quality and design, catapulted Patagonia into one of the most well-known and respected outdoor apparel companies in the world. Then in 2017 they would be put to the test in how green of a company they were and how far they would go to support and fight for the country and planet they have been building to protect for over 50 years.

On December 4, 2017 President Donald Trump officially announced, through an executive order, that he would be shrinking the natural monuments of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah, for commercial use, by 85% and 46% respectively. 

 

Trump signing the executive order

The very next day on December 5, Patagonia announced their disapproval on their own website with a message from the company, “The President Stole Your Land”. The lands that were affected were some of the ones that Patagonia had played a part in the establishment of, putting $2 million towards efforts to protect Bears Ears. Supporting nonprofits from Utah in the process, like Friends of Cedar Mesa, putting their money where their mouth is. Revealing that they would be suing Trump for his “illegal” actions against the National Parks. The whole of these controversies and lawsuits are ongoing.

Stakeholders:

The success and the future of Patagonia relies heavily on their relationships with there stakeholders in the company and those who are being affected by their decision to sue the U.S government. Consumers of Patagonia’s products have to trust the people behind the brand and in turn the corporations and suppliers that supply Patagonia and keep the boat afloat financially have to as well. The general populous of the United States, and in this case workers and residents near or within the natural monuments are very much affected by Trump's and Patagonia's decisions. Lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum and activists are all effected as well. Patagonia's products may be environmentally sound, but one must think about the social repercussions of suing its parent government and what that means to support them. 
Individualism:

Before & after:the national monuments effected. 

Through the eyes of Friedman’s individualism, Patagonia's actions would be deemed unethical. Under Friedman's individualism a company’s actions should be to maximize profits for the owners of the business and do so within the law. When Patagonia focuses their resources on “socially responsible” acts of fighting for national parks, Friedman would see this as an unethical waste of the company’s resources. Patagonia spending its money on resources, employees, and donations to causes is wrong by Friedman because it is essentially stealing from the owners of the company. The profits that are going against the government is not against the law, but it does go against Friedman’s view of ethically maximizing profits, showing why this form of individualism would see Patagonia’s actions as unethical. 
Under Machan’s individualism, things go down a bit differently. Maximizing profits within the law is still a belief for Machan's individualism, but other goals of a business besides profiting may actually help to boost their company's profits. Through Patagonia’s eyes we can see that by saving these national parks, this may generate profits for them in the future. With more parks out there for people and potential customers to enjoy, the more outdoor gear they will need to purchase in order to fulfill their desires to explore these natural monuments. All of which will generate more profits overall for Patagonia. You got to spend money to make money, showing that under Machan’s individualism, Patagonia’s actions are ethically correct. 
Utilitarianism:
The goal of Utilitarian’s is to maximize the happiness of all the stakeholders involved and to also minimize the unhappiness of these said stakeholders. This being said, Patagonia’s decisions through the eyes of a utilitarian would be seen as ethical because of the happiness they are bringing to the majority of the stakeholders is greater than the unhappiness. Patagonia’s customers, wildlife in Utah, and conservationist groups all gain happiness from Patagonia's decision. Patagonia was out front with everyone when they began going against the choices of the government and told their customers that they would be donating at least 1% of their sales towards these efforts and conservationist groups. Their choices will potentially save the lives of the wildlife in Utah as well. The stakeholders who will be losing happiness are the Trump administration and the corporations that support them. They may be losing money and in return happiness for what they are going through, but their unhappiness is overthrown by the happiness that the other stakeholders are going to have. The happiness of conscious consumers, activist groups, and wildlife being saved, far outweighs the unhappiness gained by few due to losing profits.

Bears Ears National Monument: San Juan County, Utah. 

Kantianism:

Illustration of the divide by Guy Shield.

Kantianism is for companies to always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices; companies shouldn't lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get their way. Then according to Kantianism, Patagonia was acting ethically since they passed the Categorical Imperative test of the Formula of Humanity. Kantians would argue that Patagonia saw their customers as more than just a mere means of profit. They saw them as individuals who could make decisions on their own and fully disclosed everything. Releasing right away to all of their consumers that they were going against their government made sure there was no transparency between the company and its consumers. As for Patagonia donating percentages of their profits to organizations that support the national monuments, they fully disclosed this to their consumers, investors, and other stakeholders, showing that these initially investments made by them into the company were made with adequate information available to them. Allowing for them to make ethically, economically, and their own decisions in investing in a company that doesn’t see them as a means of profit. 

Yvon Chouinard the founder of Patagonia, left, with its chief executive, Rose Marcario, right.

Virtue Theory:

GQ's illustration of controversy.

Virtue Theory focuses mainly on four characteristics to follow and to act so as to embody these four virtuous or good character traits. The four virtues of Patagonia's character are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. The courage aspect of virtue theory looks to represent the risk taking and willingness to take a stand for the right ideas and actions. Patagonia took a risk by going against the government of the country they reside in, although it was for the right ideas/actions. Then comes honesty, an agreement the company makes to be truthful with the public in hiring and treatment of employees, customers, and other companies. Patagonia was very public with their views and used their own website to promote them and were honest with what those views where to everyone.  Next is temperance, meaning that the company needs to have realistic expectations and desires. Patagonia’s expectations and desires were to stop the national parks from closing, funding nonprofits who supported this, and to generate profits from winning their lawsuit. They are risky expectations but are worth it for the benefit of the whole of the United States. Lastly, the virtue characteristic of justice stands for hard work, quality products, good ideas, and fair practices. The employees and executives at Patagonia used fair practices of a lawsuit to go against Mr. Trump and their process of advertisements, products, and donations to fund this lawsuit are all included in the characteristic of justice under virtue theory. Patagonia’s lawsuit against the Trump administration is seen as ethical based on the four characteristics of Virtue Theory.

These analyses of facts are based on a research paper by Michael Szczepanski, "Patagonia vs. Trump: The Retailer Strikes Back" 

Works Cited

Andrews, Travis M. “'The President Stole Your Land”. The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Dec. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/05/the-president-stole-your-land-patagonia-rei-blast-trump-on-national-monument-rollbacks/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c58d53a1da7.

Patagonia. “'The President Stole Your Land': Patagonia.” Protect Public Lands - Patagonia, 2017, www.patagonia.com/protect-public-lands.html.

Kenna, Corley. “There Is Trump and There Is the Truth.” Patagonia , 5 Dec. 2017, www.patagonia.com/blog/2017/12/there-is-trump-and-there-is-the-truth/.

Gelles, David. “Patagonia v. Trump.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 May 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/business/patagonia-trump-bears-ears.html.

Marcario, Rose. “Patagonia CEO Explains Why They're Suing Donald Trump.” Time, Time, 6 Dec. 2017, www.time.com/5052617/patagonia-ceo-suing-donald-trump/.

Dawsey, Josh, and Juliet Eilperin. “Trump Shrinks Two Huge National Monuments in Utah, Drawing Praise and Protests.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 4 Dec. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-scales-back-two-huge-national-monuments-in-utah-drawing-praise-and-protests/2017/12/04/758c85c6-d908-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.10adff91fd70.

Nordhaus, Hannah. “What Trump's Shrinking of National Monuments Actually Means.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 2 Feb. 2018, www.news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/trump-shrinks-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments/?user.testname=none.

Patagonia. “Patagonia's Mission Statement.” History of Patagonia - A Company Created by Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia Action Works, www.patagonia.com/company-info.html.

Patagonia. “Beginnings and Blacksmithery.” History of Patagonia - A Company Created by Yvon Chouinard, Patagonia Action Works, www.patagonia.com/company-history.html.

 Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.

Walmart: Discrimination Against Pregnant Women (2018)

Controversy

The Walmart Logo

Walmart has been around since 1962, when they opened their first store in Rogers, Arkansas. The man behind Walmart is Sam Walton, he wanted to create a store with “great value and great customer service” (Corporate Walmart). Mr. Walton just wanted to open up a “dime store” due to his experience in the retail industry. Little did he know how well his store would do and what Walmart would become. 
Walmart has been discriminating against pregnant women for years, but no one has come out about it until recently. Recently, pregnant women have been bringing up lawsuits against Walmart. Walmart is unfairly punishing these women due to them being pregnant. Walmart is doing this because pregnant women are not as productive as the employees who are not pregnant, due to them getting sick from the pregnancy or having restrictions. Walmart’s reputation is at stake for being a more family-oriented establishment that welcomes all and helps families. Four women have brought lawsuits against Walmart recently. Two are from New York, one from Wisconsin, and the last one is from Illinois. 

Leigha Klopp and her family

One of the woman, Leigha Klopp a woman who became pregnant on accident from New York.  Leigha was having a difficult pregnancy and kept having to make doctor appointments and going to the hospital. She was with significant pain due to the mass amounts of pain she was in and thinking she was miscarrying. Each time she had to go to the hospital or an emergency doctor’s appointment she would have to call out of work. Each time she called out she was assessed a point. Each time, points were assessed for these very legitimate reasons. Later with her pregnancy the doctor ordered bedrest, this meant an extended leave for Leigha from Walmart. Walmart then fired her. Walmart put her in the predicament to choose between taking care of herself and her unborn child, or to keep her job, and put her health at risk. Another woman Alyssa Gilliam, worked in the warehouse at Walmart. She requested lighter work since she could not due all the heavy lifting she used to be able to do before she was pregnant. Walmart denied her request for lighter work. Alyssa took them to court. Walmart tried to deny the claim against them in Illinois, but the federal judge refused to drop the claim.
Stakeholders
A stakeholder is an individual that is impacted by any outcomes of what happens in a company. There are many stakeholders in this controversy, but the biggest stakeholder is the companies employees. The company needs to keep its employees happy in order to make sure that the consumers will be happy. The other stakeholders are the pregnant employees, unborn child, and supervisors. 

Pregnant Women's Rights

Individualism

A protestors sign about pregnant women's rights

Individualism would see Walmart as unethical. The individualism theory is the ideals of managers doing everything they need to do in order for a company to maximize profits, but need to do so within the law.  An individualist would not agree with the firing of pregnant women because the company loses productivity. They would have to have managers train new staff members and hire individuals. Hiring and training people takes a lot of time out of a managers day. They also would not support the firing of pregnant women due to it being against to laws. One is the American Disabilities Act and the other is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. They both say it is against the law to discriminate against a pregnant women, and that they should not be denied against lighter work. Therefore, an individualist would not be okay with how the company has been operating with this controversy.
Utilitarianism
A Utilitarian would find Walmart's actions unethical. Utilitarianism theory is when a company is trying to maximize long term happiness with there actions.  A utilitarian would find it unethical because it causes individuals to be distraught and unhappy. It might upset other women to hear about this controversy because it goes against their rights. Walmart's employees are 57% females, and 43% males (National Organization for Women). Therefore, the majority of Walmart's employees are females. A Utilitarian would be upset by this due to the majority of their employees could be upset about their rights being violated if they were to get pregnant. It will discourage them to want to get pregnant because they would not want to lose their jobs. If they lost their jobs they would not be able to provide for their families.
Kantianism
A Kantian would also find Walmart to be unethical. Kantianism is the theory of being the most rational. In Kantianism there are four principles; let other people make decisions, help them act rationally, but don't make the decisions for them, and act in good will (Dr. Salazar's notes). A Kantian would think that the company was acting irrational for firing pregnant women just for missing work , or needing to do lighter work. It goes against the principle of good will, meaning that the companies actions were not rightly motivated. The women who got fired were not missing work just to miss work they had actual excuses, and notes from doctors to prove it. Therefore, a Kantian would find it very unethical and would not agree with how the company is treating these women.
Virtue Theory
In Virtue Theory there are four main virtues. They are courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, and justice/fairness. The supervisors and individuals in the company who knew this was going on did not have courage. They should have stood up for these women and realized it was wrong to treat them like this. They cared about maximizing a profit for the company and keeping their jobs. They were not honest towards these employees, the company treated them unfairly by not accepting their doctors notes. The company also did not have temperance. They had unreasonable expectations for these pregnant women. It is very unreasonable to be asking a pregnant women to do all the heavy lifting she was doing before she was pregnant. Finally, it is against justice, due to the company having unfair practices. Therefore, Virtue Theory would find the company unethical.

These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Jen Chamberland

Works Cited

McDermot, Meaghan M. “Your Baby or Your Job? Former New York Walmart Employees Allege Pregnancy Discrimination.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 July 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/07/29/walmart-workers-allege-pregnancy-discrimination/860190002/. 

“Our History.” Walmart Corporate, www.corporate.walmart.com/our-story/our-history. 

Romo, Vanessa. “Federal Commission Sues Walmart For Alleged Discrimination Against Pregnant Employees.” NPR, NPR, 21 Sept. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/09/21/650620184/federal-commission-sues-walmart-for-alleged-discrimination-against-pregnant-empl.

“Walmart Descriminated against Pregnant Employees, Lawsuit Says.” The Washington Post, WP Company, www.washingtonpost.com/a6486c54-bdc1-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html?utm_term=.ed52cd5f0b54.

Instagram's Dark Side: Drug Deals

Controversy  Instagram has been the social media website place to be, especially for teens and college students. Pictures are posted by users from around the world so their friends can keep up with what they are up to on a daily basis. Most of the pictures shared are fun, happy moments that people want to show their friends.  The website can keep people in touch while allowing its users to get engaged with their creative side.  However, this social media giant is not all fun and games.  Instagram is going down a dark path, and so far, the company has done almost nothing to stop it.  What is the dark path that Instagram is going down? Let’s find out.

Instagram's Founders 

Instagram is the social media giant that has over 800 million users online. However, they have been in the news recently due to the founders of the company leaving their posts as CEO and CFO.  After the company was bought by Facebook in 2012, Instagram was still ran by the founders of the company, but with the new added influence of Facebook.  At first, nobody had known why the companies founders left.  However, it has recently come to many people's attention that people using the app are using it for the wrong reasons.  People today, specifically drug dealers, are using Instagram as a way to sell drugs. They do this by posting a photo with drugs in it to their feed and using hashtags of drug names to reach many users. Instagram uses phrases with hashtags so people can search the hashtags and find posts that they are interested in. The app is preloaded with algorithms that will then show a user posts that are similar to the ones that they have been searching for. So, If a user on Inst
agram was posting, searching, or liking others posts that Include hashtags with words like “addiction” or any sort of drug names, their explore page would be automatically sending them other posts that have drug paraphernalia.  This is how drug users are connected to people selling drugs through the app without even trying.  Since Instagram has built in software that shows you similar posts and tries to predict your interests, you can be shown posts of people selling you drugs, which gets you sucked in without the people of Instagram even knowing. The DEA has ca
lled these social media apps “street level dealers” because most people selling on the streets are now selling over the social media platforms.  The DEA believes that these social media platforms are able to expand their outreach towards new drug users in a faster way than at the street level, which causes greater issues in the war on drugs. With the opioid epidemic going on in the United States, kids being able to get drugs through social media websites seems like a scary thing that is going to increase the epidemic that we already have. And although Instagram has taken some action to limit what words can be used as hashtags by eliminating some of the drug names, are they really doing enough to keep their users safe? Photo of what users may see Now, there’s a lot at risk. The upper level management could potentially lose money if the controversy grows and people stop using the app, and the users of the app can be affected if there is going to be an update to their social networking rules. Individualism This story can be viewed from a few different ethical perspectives.  An Individualistic perspective would show that Instagram should maximize their profits by any means necessary, as long as they stay within the rules of the law.  Although the sale of drugs is illegal, Instagram is not profiting in an illegal way, so they would possibly turn a blind eye because to them, the drug dealers on the app are just another person using the app to see adds, which will bring Instagram profits. Utilitarianism A Utilitarian would also view this case by allowing the deals to happen. Utilitarians want to maximize happiness. If Instagram keeps allowing drug sales to happen then the dealers are happy because they have a place to sell drugs, Instagram is happy because they are making money from people using the app, and the people buying drugs are happy because they are getting drugs easily. For a utilitarian, everyone involved wins. Another example of what users may see Kantianism People that follow the ethics of Kantianism are going to view this vastly different from the first two. Kant's believe that people need to act rationally and consistently, and nobody is exempt from the rules of society.  In this scenario, this belief system would show that Instagram, even though they are a big company, should not be exempt from the rules of law by allowing drug deals to happen on their platform. Instagram would follow the first rule by doing what is right, and getting rid of drug sales on their website by banning pictures of drugs and drug posts. And if they were motivated to do this with the purpose of creating a safer environment they would follow the second rule of Kantianism as well. Virtue Theory Instagram could also take the ethical ideology of Virtue Theory. This is the most strict of the theories with four main rules to follow, courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  Instagram could be very strict by following virtue theory by taking the necessary steps, even if they are drastic, by taking a stand for this cause.  They can also be honest with the public about the issue and say how they will not tolerate it. Will the company be willing to sacrifice some things for these drastic changes?
When evaluating Instagram thus far, it is clear that they have taken some action, but not nearly enough. When developing an action plan, Instagram could reinvent themselves by changing their policies to take down pictures of drugs, or captions that involve drug names.  They could reinvent themselves as a safer place for people to share.  Instead of just capturing the worlds moments like they say, let’s capture those moments, but keep a safe, fun, and creative environment for everyone. These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by MFerrera
                                                                       Sources

Borromeo, Leah. “Drug Dealers Using Instagram and Tinder to Find Young Customers.” The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 Apr. 2016, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/apr/07/drug-dealers-instagram-tinder-young-customers.

Buxton, Madeline, and Rachel Cabitt. “On Instagram, Banning Drug-Related Hashtags Is

Anything But Simple.” Marijuana Legalization State Vs Federal Law, Scheduling,

Refinery29,www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/08/206984/instagram-drug-dealers-hashtags-banned.

Constine, Josh. “Dealers Remain on Instagram as It Pushes Drug Searchers to Treatment.”

TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 12 Sept. 2018, techcrunch.com/2018/09/12/instagram-drugs/.

Dwoskin, Elizabeth. “Instagram Has a Drug Problem. Its Algorithms Make It Worse.” The

Washington Post, WP Company, 25 Sept. 2018,

www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/instagram-has-a-drug-problem-its-algorithms-make-it-worse/2018/09/25/c45bf730-bdbf-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7d14ca9e9072.

Gibbs, Samuel, et al. “Instagram Founders Quit amid Suspected Clash with Zuckerberg.” The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Sept. 2018, www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/25/instagram-founders-quit-amid-suspected-clash-with-zuckerberg.

Grothaus, Michael. “Instagram Is Helping Addicts Connect with Drug Dealers.” Fast Company,

Fast Company, 26 Sept. 2018,

www.fastcompany.com/90242154/instagram-is-helping-addicts-connect-with-drug-dealers.

Shontell, Alyson. “Meet The 13 Lucky Employees And 9 Investors Behind $1 Billion

Instagram.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 9 Apr. 2012, www.businessinsider.com/instagram-employees-and-investors-2012-4.

Tasha. “Instagram and the Ban of Drug-Related Posts.” Banyan Treatment Center, 13 Nov.

2018,www.banyantreatmentcenter.com/2018/11/08/instagram-and-the-ban-of-drug-related-posts/.