The Flint water crisis, which began in 2014, is widely regarded as a textbook example of structural racism and injustice. This teaching case provides a close examination of the building blocks of the catastrophe, some all-too-familiar in American history and others, more particular to the time, place, and circumstance of Flint in the 2010s. The case begins by tracing the economic and racial history that made Flint especially vulnerable to the crisis, then describes the string of decisions that resulted in the dangerous contamination of city tap water, followed by the battle by residents of Flint (and later, by outside allies and scientific experts) to force official government recognition of the disaster followed by changes to the city water system. The voices of the Flint residents are featured, alongside the decision-makers. The first section of the case summarizes the intertwined events, familiar to students of American racial, urban, and industrial history, that led once-booming Flint to become financially strapped and majority-Black. It describes the nature (and criticisms) of Michigan's evolving Emergency Management system. It explains the Flint water system and the reasons behind the fateful choices both to change the source of Flint's drinking water and to bypass standard safety precautions in making that change. The case then details the battle by local residents to force government officials to recognize and address the contamination of the drinking supply amid a cascade of devastating revelations about bacteria, carcinogens, and high lead levels in the water. The case ends in October 2015, with the announcement by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder that Flint would be re-connected to its previous safer and pricier water source, Detroit's Lake Huron system.
Soon after Myanmar's longtime democracy crusader and opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from a long house arrest and elected to the country's parliament in 2012, intercommunal violence began to escalate in the western state of Rakhine between local Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims. Over the next five years, the long-persecuted Rohingya minority faced increasingly violent waves of attack, culminating in a humanitarian catastrophe in August and September of 2017 characterized by indiscriminate killing, mass rape, and the wholesale incineration of villages. To the shock of her many admirers around the world, Suu Kyi did nothing to try to prevent or stem the military-led attacks, nor did she condemn the military after-the-fact, instead accusing international monitors and fact-finders of spreading false reports. This case explores the evolution of anti-Rohingya sentiment in Myanmar and details the escalation of intercommunal violence against the Rohingya between 2012 and 2017. It describes Suu Kyi's reaction to the growing Rohingya crisis in these years, and ends with assorted theories about why a leader long revered as an icon for democracy, symbol of peaceful protest, and crusader for human rights-having finally become her country's civilian head of state-would choose not to take a stand against the brutal campaign against the Rohingya. Two other HKS cases explore earlier periods in Aung San Suu Kyi's evolution as a leader. "Icon of Hope" A/B (HKS870, HKS871) focuses on Suu Kyi's transformation from an expatriate living a quiet life in Oxford, England to an opposition leader and icon for democracy and human rights. "Aung San Suu Kyi, Seizing the Moment: Soaring Hopes & Tough Constraints in Myanmar's Unfolding Democracy" (HKS746), focuses on Suu Kyi's swift and challenging evolution from human rights icon under house arrest to de facto prime minister in 2016.
In 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama called on Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. To the surprise of no one, Congressional Republicans blocked the move, as they had a similar proposal the year before. Seeing little hope of federal action, wage activists turned their sights on state and local governments. Riding a tide of popular support, dozens of jurisdictions voted in hikes in their own state and city minimum wage levels between 2012 and 2016. Focusing especially on the American South, which had historically opposed the minimum wage, the case uses this wage struggle as the point of departure for a review of the issues and arguments raised in this longstanding public policy controversy. Presented as a friendly overview of economic thinking for non-economists, the case explains why liberals and conservatives view the issue of income inequality so differently, why they disagree about basic wage data, and why they vigorously dispute the impact of minimum wage laws on low-income wage earners. Case number 2099.0
On June, 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection of equal liberty, effectively overturning the law. Pennsylvania, however, banned same-sex marriage. Despite the state law, D. Bruce Hanes, a register of wills in Pennsylvania, agreed to honor a request from two women seeking a same-sex marriage license-an act of official disobedience that immediately threw Hanes under a national spotlight. Citing his oath to uphold both the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions and noting that the two were "diametrically opposed" on the issue, Hanes said: "I decided to come down on the right side of history and the law." On June 26, 2015-precisely two years later-the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage. The day the ruling was released, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced that he had instructed state agencies and county clerks to comply immediately with the court's ruling. Nevertheless, on Monday morning, June 29, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to any couples-same-sex or heterosexual. Davis said that she decided to deny marriage licenses to all couples because of her religious convictions and said that "Marriage is ordained by God to be a man and a woman." Using the context of contemporary same-sex marriage laws, the case explores two sides of the same coin: at a time and in a state where same-sex marriage is illegal, one official decides to defy the law; at a time and in a state where it is legal, another chooses to refuse to obey. The case asks students to consider if and when official disobedience-the refusal by a public official, acting in an official capacity, to follow the law-is justified.
Sequel supplement to case HKS798. On June 5, 2013, a London newspaper reported that the United States National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers in the U.S. The story was the first of many top secret revelations about the NSA's spying programs, leaked by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor. The case examines Snowden's actions and motivations and asks students to consider the repercussions of whistleblowing/leaking on the general public, the U.S. government, the NSA and Snowden himself.
On June 5, 2013, a London newspaper reported that the United States National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers in the U.S. The story was the first of many top secret revelations about the NSA's spying programs, leaked by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor. The case examines Snowden's actions and motivations and asks students to consider the repercussions of whistleblowing/leaking on the general public, the U.S. government, the NSA and Snowden himself. Case Number 2018.0
Set in 2009-2010, during the fractious U.S. Congressional debate over enacting the Obamacare health reform bill, this ethics case focuses on the choices and constraints facing Bart Stupak, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, who was both a dedicated advocate for healthcare reform and a lifelong opponent of abortion (as were the majority of voters in his rural, largely Catholic district). The case provides basic background about Stupak, his district, and the Obamacare debate but the heart of the story belongs to the abortion policy sub-plot of the larger healthcare reform drama, which culminated with the final, razor-close vote on the Affordable Care Act in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 21, 2010. At this critical moment, with the fate of the ACA hanging by a thread, the Democratic leadership pressed Stupak and his small group of pro-life House Democrats to abandon their controversial abortion stance and deliver their critically-needed votes to pass the Obamacare bill. At the same time, Stupak's traditional pro-life and Catholic supporters doubled-down on demands that he and his group hold the line, even if it meant dealing the death blow to health reform. Anti-Obamacare Republicans, meantime, maneuvered around the edges, seeking to leverage the abortion issue in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill. The case closely follows Stupak's own perceptions, conflicts, and choices as he tried to walk a middle path in this highly charged atmosphere. In the end, he made a deal with President Barack Obama, who agreed to put abortion restrictions in the form of an executive order in exchange for the support of Stupak and his bloc on the ACA.
In June, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection of equal liberty, effectively overturning the law. Pennsylvania, however, banned same-sex marriage. Despite the state law, D. Bruce Hanes, a register of wills in Pennsylvania, agreed to honor a request from two women seeking a same-sex marriage license-an act of official disobedience that immediately threw Hanes under a national spotlight. Citing his oath to uphold both the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions and noting that the two were "diametrically opposed" on the issue, Hanes said: "I decided to come down on the right side of history and the law." Officials in Texas were also struggling with the ruling. Soon after the ruling, the Department of Defense (DOD) instructed federal military facilities to begin enrolling same-sex spouses of military service members in military benefits programs. In Texas, however, where state law prohibited same-sex marriage, Texas Military Forces (TMF) indicated it would not comply with the DOD directive. Because TMF was a state agency, the commanding general said the agency would be unable to process benefits for same-sex couples. TMF members took an oath to defend both the U.S. and Texas constitutions, setting the stage for the conflict. Using the context of contemporary same-sex marriage laws, the case explores two sides of the same coin: in states where same-sex marriage is illegal, one official decides to defy the law while another chooses to refuse to comply with a federal directive to do so. The case asks students to consider if and when official disobedience-the refusal by a public official, acting in an official capacity, to follow the law-is justified. Case Number 2014.0