The Fact Chronology of Case # 69-10

Fact Time Qualifier
1. Engineer A <is an engineering faculty member at> New Community College. Pre-existing fact
2. Engineer A <is responsible for> Technical Curriculum. Occurs during 1
3. Engineer B <is an engineering faculty member at> Another Technical College. Pre-existing fact
4. Engineer B <is a member of> State Accrediting Team. Occurs during 3
5. State Accrediting Team <reviews and analyzes> New Community College. 3 months after the start of 1, Occurs during 4
6. State Accrediting Team <writes paper/article> Evaluation Report. Occurs during 4, After the start of 5
7. Evaluation Report <criticizes> Technical Curriculum. [Questioned Fact] Occurs as part of 6
8. State Accrediting Team <does not inform> Engineer A <that> (Evaluation Report <criticizes> Technical Curriculum). [Questioned Fact] Occurs as part of 6
9. Engineer A <objects to> (Evaluation Report <criticizes> Technical Curriculum). After the conclusion of 6
10. Engineer A <resigns employment with> New Community College. Immediately after the conclusion of 6, Ends 1
11. Engineer A <is unsuccessful finding work in> Engineering. After the conclusion of 10
12. Engineer A <believes> (Engineer A <is unsuccessful finding work in> Engineering) <because> (Evaluation Report <criticizes> Technical Curriculum). After the start of 11
13. Engineer A <accuses> Engineer B <of unethical behavior because> (Evaluation Report <criticizes> Technical Curriculum). After the start of 12

Actor and Object Types.

1.
Engineer A --> University or College Professor.
2.
New Community College --> University or College.
3.
Technical Curriculum --> Technical Curriculum.
4.
Engineer B --> University or College Professor.
5.
Another Technical College --> University or College.
6.
State Accrediting Team --> Academic Accrediting Team.
7.
Evaluation Report --> Evaluation Report.
8.
Engineering --> Generic Engineering

The Board's Analysis

Questioned Fact(s): Facts 7, 8
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer B
The Board's Conclusion: Ethical

The board cited the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
5. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer expresses an opinion on an engineering subject [4, 6, 7] ^  ^ Engineer's opinion is based on adequate knowledge [Hypo: "We assume in the absence of any facts to the contrary that Engineer B ... met the mandate of Section 5 of the Code in that the opinions he expressed were based on adequate knowledge ..."] 

Engineer's opinion is based on honest conviction [Hypo "We assume in the absence of any facts to the contrary that Engineer B ... met the mandate of Section 5 of the Code in that the opinions he expressed were based on ... honest conviction."] ^ 
12. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer criticizes another engineer's work [4, 6, 7] ^  ^ Engineer does not indiscriminately criticize another engineer's work [5, 6, 7, Inference based on facts] 

% Criticism of this nature is justifiable, even necessary, in the context of an honest evaluation of technical education curricula and procedures % [5, 6, 7, Inference based on facts] ^ 
12(b). Not Violated Explicitly Discussed None None ^ Engineer has an education employer [3]Engineer reviews and evaluates the work of another engineer [4, 5, 6, 7] ^  ^ Engineer's employment duties require him to review and evaluate the work of the other engineer [3, 4, Inference based on facts] ^ 

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

[Main Page] [Index to Reference Documents]
[Index to All Examples] [Previous Example] [Next Example]