"

23 Ethical Professional Practice

Introduction

The National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences, developed by the National Association of Teacher Educators of Family and Consumer Sciences (NATEFACS), describes the unique knowledge and skills needed by beginning teachers. One of the 12 standards emphasizes that ethical behavior is fundamental to the concept of professionalism:
Beginning family and consumer sciences teachers will…engage in ethical professional practice based on the history, philosophy, and family and consumer sciences Body of Knowledge, and relationship to career and technical education through civic engagement, advocacy, collaboration with other professionals, recruitment and mentoring of prospective and new professionals, and ongoing professional development. (Standard 12, 2018).
Ethical concerns have been priorities for family and consumer sciences educators throughout our history. Blankenship and Moerchen (1979), for example, noted that, from its beginnings in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the profession once known as “home economics” has been closely tied to ethical issues such as the democratic ideal of education for all, the idea that education should help people improve their lives, and the need to improve education for women, who at one time were excluded from many educational pursuits. Craig (1996) described ethics as the “heart” of the profession: …if we really are a profession that has as its goal the improvement of quality of living for individuals and families, ethics must be at the heart of our education, training, and performance (p. 150).

Key Terms to Know

Deontology
Educational Justice
Ethics
Idealism
Objectivity
Professional
Relativism
Teleology
Utilitarianism

Background Information

What does it mean to be a professional engaged in ethical practice? The term professional describes a person who is qualified to provide service to others by virtue of specialized knowledge and lengthy academic preparation (Mish, 1988). Professionals serve both individuals and the larger society. They are expected to demonstrate technical expertise and to meet certain standards of behavior that contribute to the well-being of clients and to the common good.
Ethics refers to the discipline or field of study that deals with principles of right and wrong behavior, and also may be used to describe the principles themselves (Couch & Alexander, 2009). Some experts differentiate between morals and ethics, using morals in reference to personal behavior, and ethics to describe the rules that govern group behavior. In practice, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
When considering what ethical professional practice is, it is important also to consider what it is not. For example, ethical behavior cannot be defined solely in terms of personal values. Values and ethics clearly are related, but not all value systems are equally ethical. Some values are consistent with moral principles; others are rooted in self-interest, expediency, greed, prejudice, or other non-ethical or unethical motives. Further, ethical behavior is not synonymous with the legality of behavior. Although moral principles often are codified into law, not all laws are based on strong moral foundations (Couch & Alexander, 2009).

Theoretical Framework

 

The study of ethics emerges from two basic theoretical perspectives: the teleological theories and the deontological theories. As described by Arcus (1997), the teleological theories hold that the morality of a particular behavior is based on the consequences of that behavior. People who subscribe to this approach are sometimes called consequentialists. Utilitarianism, an example of teleology, judges the rightness of a given action by assessing competing outcomes or consequences. Ethical behavior is defined as that which generates the greatest possible benefits for the largest number of people and does the least harm. The utilitarian perspective can be applied either in terms of the direct consequences of a specific action or by considering the potential outcomes if the action should become the general standard of behavior.
The deontological ethics theories assume that the morality of behavior is determined by universal principles, which are absolute and unconditional, regardless of the outcomes or consequences of the action taken (Couch & Alexander, 2009). Arcus (1997) cites Immanuel Kant’s duty ethics as an example of deontology. Kant argued, for instance, that parents choose to take care of their children because they have a moral duty to do so, rather than to reap the benefits of raising healthy, well-adjusted offspring, or to avoid the consequences of neglecting them.
Both teleology and deontology have limitations. The teleological approach assumes that the consequences of behavior can be anticipated, ignoring the problem of unintended consequences. In addition, teleologists accept no moral responsibility for the minority who may be harmed by actions that benefit the majority. On the other hand, deontologists offer little assistance when it is necessary to choose between or among competing ethical principles, as is true for many ethical dilemmas (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
Because of such limitations, ethics scholars have attempted to integrate the two perspectives. A two-dimensional model developed by Forsyth (1980) is an example of an approach that draws on both theories. The model is based on the dimensions of relativism, the degree to which a person rejects universal moral principles, and idealism, the degree to which a person believes that the right action will produce desirable consequences. Forsyth articulated four ethical positions that illustrate why people differ in their ethical judgments:
  1. Absolutists (low relativism, high idealism) assume that the application of universal moral principles always produces the best possible outcomes.
  2. Subjectivists (high relativism, low idealism) reject universal moral principles and base moral judgments on individual circumstances and situations.
  3. Exceptionists (low relativism, low idealism) believe that morality is determined by the consequences of the behavior.
  4. Situationists (high relativism, high idealism) make moral decisions by considering both universal moral principles and individual circumstances and situations (Forsyth, pp. 175-176).

The Ethical Dimensions of Public Education

The case for ethical, professional practice by teachers is rooted in the history of public education in the U.S., in the growth of Career and Technical Education, and in the development of the family and consumer sciences profession. For example, Thomas Jefferson and other early advocates of education for all clearly envisioned that public education would serve the common good by ensuring an educated citizenry, rather than merely provide a private benefit to individuals (Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government: Educating the People, n.d.).
Although the idea of providing public education for everyone is no longer considered revolutionary, the question, “How well does public education serve all our children?” remains a fundamental ethical issue underlying current controversies about school reform (Couch & Alexander, 2009). Cookson and Shroff (1997), for example, asserted that any effort to improve public education should pursue the goal of “educational justice.” The concept of educational justice recognizes that every child, regardless of the circumstances of birth or family, has the same right to a quality education as every other child. The effectiveness of public education should, therefore, be determined by its success in providing education to all citizens (Cookson & Shroff).
The growth of home economics, family and consumer sciences and other Vocational and Career and Technical Education program provided a gradual expansion of educational opportunities designed to help people improve their lives. John Dewey, an early proponent of education that is useful and practical, maintained that Vocational Education should play a reconstructionist role in society, serving to correct, rather than perpetuate, unfair privilege and deprivation (cited in Miller & Gregson  1999). Thomas (1986) spoke to the same point when she proposed an interventionist view of home economics education that emphasizes reducing barriers and creating opportunities for economically or culturally disadvantaged groups. Thomas recalled, “…the roots of intervention are found in the Lake Placid proceedings where discussions focused on the poor, on educating children and females from urban ghettos, and on assisting immigrants in cultural assimilation” (p. 174).
Although the states have primary responsibility for public education, federal legislation has played an important role in democratizing education and expanding educational opportunities for groups previously excluded or underserved (Couch & Alexander, 2009). Examples include the following:
  • Morrill Land Grant Act in 1862 – established land-grant universities to serve “ordinary citizens” (Learn about land-grant acts, 2008).
  • Smith-Hughes Act in 1917 – provided the first federal funding for vocational education (Hillison & Burge, 1988).
  • Vocational Education Amendments in 1968 – first authorized federal funds for the education of handicapped and disadvantaged students (The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, 1968).
  • Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972 – prohibited gender discrimination in all public education programs (Title IX, 2007).
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004 (a revision of the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act) – provides federal funds for the education of students with disabilities, emphasizing inclusion in the least restrictive educational environment (Building the Legacy, n.d.).
Teachers, administrators, parents, civic leaders, state legislators, and others have contributed to the nation’s progress toward educational justice, but federal policy-makers clearly have pointed the way (Couch & Alexander, 2009).

Ethical Obligations of Educators

Like other professionals, educators provide services to clients and are expected to perform their responsibilities in ways that are consistent with the public interest. Ethical responsibilities of professionals include, but are not necessarily limited to, showing respect for all persons, maintaining confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, separating the public interest from self-interest, being an effective advocate for those served, and ensuring continuing competence through professional development (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
In addition, teachers and other educators face some unique ethical challenges, including the following:
  1. As facilitators of learning, teachers are responsible for ensuring that information disseminated to students is accurate and current, a task made more challenging by technology that provides almost unlimited access to both information and misinformation.
  2. The primary “clients” are minors who are particularly vulnerable to abuses of power.
  3. Students who lack the maturity to make moral judgments on their own may look to teachers and other adults for guidance.
  4. Teachers are ethically and legally responsible for meeting the educational needs and ensuring the personal safety of all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
  5. As public servants, teachers are accountable not only to students and their parents but also to taxpayers and members of the communities they serve (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
Teachers also must address ethical issues related to the content they teach. One obvious example for family and consumer sciences teachers is the need to encourage ethical objectivity when teaching about families and family structures. Ethical objectivity requires that instruction be based on facts that are not distorted by personal biases or prejudices.
Defining family as a traditional married couple with children distorts the fact that this description accounts for less than one-quarter of U.S. families today. Such a narrow view marginalizes anyone whose family might be considered non-traditional. In contrast, an ethically objective definition of family is inclusive of diverse family structures such as single-parent families, stepfamilies, families headed by gay or lesbian parents, families with stay-at-home fathers, families composed of grandparents raising their grandchildren, foster families, and adoptive families.
In their seminal work, Home economics: A Definition, Brown and Paolucci (1979) noted that the family itself is a moral/ethical enterprise with responsibilities both to its own members and to others outside the family boundaries: “It would be morally irresponsible to encourage egocentric attitudes and orientations among individual families merely to meet their own needs, and to be selfishly indifferent to the needs of others” (p. 21).

 

Codes of Ethics for Educators

Like other professions, the fields of family and consumer sciences and public education have established standards or codes of behavior to guide the professional practice of their members. These codes serve several important functions, such as articulating uniform expectations for group behavior, ensuring that members of the profession are competent, requiring compliance with relevant laws and policies, inspiring public confidence in the profession, and describing procedures for addressing code violations (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
Codes of ethics for educators may be developed by members of professional organizations and by state agencies that administer public school policies. Codes that guide the professional behavior of family and consumer sciences educators include
  • American Association of family and consumer sciences (AAFCS) Code of Ethics (AAFCS, 2013a)
  • Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE) Code of Ethics (ACTE, 2013)
  • National Education Association (NEA) Code of Ethics for the Education Profession (NEA, 1975)

 

Even a cursory review of these documents reinforces the idea that family and consumer sciences teachers are engaged in an ethical endeavor. Consider the preamble to the NEA code:

The educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of democratic principles. Essential to these goals is the protection of freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all….The educator recognizes the magnitude of the responsibility inherent in the teaching process (p. 1).

 

It also is clear that each of the codes reinforces specific aspects of professional practice identified in Standard 8 of the National Standards for Teachers of family and consumer sciences. The call for civic engagement and advocacy is reflected in ethical principles related to clients, students, and accountability to the community. The importance of continuing professional development is apparent in the theme that professionals must maintain individual professional expertise and work to ensure the collective competence of the profession as a whole. Other unifying themes found in the three codes include guidelines regarding confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and respect for diversity (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
Each code emphasizes respect for diversity, but only the NEA code specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Note that although the AAFCS code does not refer to sexual orientation, it is included in a non-discrimination resolution passed by the organization in 2006 (AAFCS, 2013b). Another major difference in the three documents is that all of the statements of ethical principles in the AAFCS and ACTE codes emphasize what professionals should do.  On the other hand, the NEA code emphasizes what educators should not do (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
Some states have adopted the NEA Code of Ethics for the Education Profession, while others have established codes specific to educators in their state. In a 2010 analysis of state codes, Couch reported that they shared several common features, including statements regarding general ethical principles to be followed (honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, fairness); ethical obligations to students, colleagues, and the profession; anti-discrimination and respect for diversity; professional competence; and public accountability. Unique features included guidelines related to fair testing and evaluation procedures, appropriate electronic communication between teachers and students, teachers’ responsibility to foster students’ ethical behavior, and disciplinary procedures for code violations (Couch & Alexander, 2009).
Codes of ethics and other formal statements of ethical principles provide a good foundation for ethical professional practice, but because they vary widely, simply adhering to such codes does not necessarily satisfy a teacher’s ethical obligations. Codes based primarily on compliance may offer limited guidance for “doing the right thing” in the broader sense. For example, ethical principles prohibit a romantic relationship between a teacher and a student, even if a given code of ethics does not. And, although teachers clearly have some responsibility to encourage students’ ethical behavior, not all professional codes address this aspect of ethical practice. As with the law, ethical behavior may involve doing more than a particular code of ethics requires and/or less than what it allows (Couch & Alexander, 2009).

Classroom Applications

Ethical question: Is it ever acceptable to cheat on a test or assignment? 
In its survey, The Ethics of American Youth: 2012, the Josephson Institute on Ethics found that a large majority of the 23,000 high school participants agreed that character and ethics are important, and more than 93% said that they were satisfied with their own character and ethics. As to their personal conduct, however, 74% reported that they had copied someone else’s homework during the past year, 51% had cheated on a test, and about one-third admitted to Internet plagiarism.
FCS teachers can use the Forsyth model described earlier to help students and others consider how they might arrive at different answers to the question of whether cheating is ever acceptable (Couch & Alexander, 2009). For example, those who take an absolutist position (low relativism/high idealism) likely would say that it is never acceptable to cheat, based on the universal principle of honesty. Subjectivists (high relativism/low idealism) might decide that cheating is okay because of the personal benefits to be gained, such as higher grades or less effort. Exceptionists (low relativism/low idealism) would focus on the possible consequences of cheating: Am I likely to get caught? How severe are the penalties? Do the potential benefits outweigh the possible negative consequences? Universal moral principles might persuade situationists (high relativism/high idealism) that cheating is always dishonest. On the other hand, if circumstances suggest that everyone else is cheating, they also could conclude that cheating is the only way to compete on a level playing field.
Ethical question: Are you an ethical consumer? 
Most people who live in the U.S. enjoy the convenience of bottled water with little or no concern for the ethical issues involved. Some are even convinced that bottled water is superior in quality to tap water. FCS teachers can lead students to explore such ethical questions as: What are the costs and benefits of consuming bottled water from different sources, such as “pure natural spring water” from some far-away location vs. water labeled “PWS” (public water source)? What are the energy costs associated with bottled water and transporting it to retailers and recycling the plastic bottles? What are the environmental costs of clogging public landfills or littering the landscape with plastic bottles that are not recycled? If it is not recycled, how long does it take for a plastic bottle to biodegrade?
Ethical question: Is the clothing sold in the U.S. ethically made? 
Fair labor standards are intended to provide assurance that clothing “Made in the USA” was not produced by child labor and that the workers who made it worked under safe conditions and were paid fair wages. Unfortunately, there is no such assurance for most of the clothing sold in the U.S. because it is manufactured in other parts of the world where production costs are lower, but working conditions may not meet U.S. standards. For example, in April 2013, more than a thousand workers died, and an estimated 2,500 were injured, in the collapse of a building housing several garment factories in Bangladesh. A fire in another Bangladesh garment factory killed 112 workers in November 2102 (Bangladesh textile workers, 2013).
To determine whether clothing sold in the U.S. is ethically made, students could be assigned to investigate issues such as: What portion of the clothing sold in the U.S. is manufactured overseas? What countries are the major suppliers of clothing sold by U.S. retailers and what is known about the working conditions for garment workers in these countries? How effectively do U.S. clothing retailers monitor working conditions in the factories of their overseas suppliers? How do organizations such as Fair Trade USA and Made in USA Certified help consumers learn where and how clothing and other products they buy are made?
Ethical question: What ethical considerations relate to the use of derogatory or offensive language?
As advocates for students, teachers have a responsibility to confront derogatory and offensive language such as racial slurs, sexist jokes, and demeaning references to sexual orientation. Those who are targeted often lack the power to resolve the situation on their own, and, in some cases, students who use such language may not even be aware of the meanings of the words they use. FCS content offers teachers many opportunities to help students explore such questions as: Why do some people use derogatory and offensive language? Is derogatory and offensive language ever appropriate? Do we tolerate offensive language targeted toward some groups more than others? How does derogatory and offensive language measure up to the standards for effective communication? What are the consequences of such language for the targeted group? for the person who uses the language? When you hear others using derogatory or offensive language, what is an appropriate response? What classroom rules should be in place to ensure a safe learning environment for all students?

 

Summary

The National Standards for Teachers of Family and Consumer Sciences remind us that ethical behavior is fundamental to the concept of professionalism and that educators have significant moral obligations to students and their families, the profession, the communities in which they practice, and the larger society. To be engaged in ethical professional practice, FCS teachers and other educators must recognize the ethical nature of their work, accept responsibility for their own behavior, and help students develop the capacity to address the moral issues they encounter in their own lives. Ultimately, ethical professional practice is about how we fulfill our obligations to those we serve.

 

Exercises

  1. Describe the relationship between ethics and professionalism as reflected in the National Standards for Teachers of family and consumer sciences. What aspects of ethical professional practice are emphasized in the Standards?
  2. Describe two theoretical perspectives that provide a basis for making ethical judgments.
  3. Explain how the history of public education in the U.S. and the development of the family and consumer sciences profession reflect a concern for ethical professional practice.
  4. Give some examples to illustrate how federal legislation has contributed to the goal of educational justice.
  5. Identify the major ethical responsibilities of professionals. In what ways are the ethical obligations of educators somewhat unique?
  6. Explain why professional organizations and other groups establish codes of ethics for their members? What are some of the common features of codes of ethics that govern the behavior of family and consumer sciences teachers?
  7. Give some examples of ways FCS teachers can demonstrate ethical professional practice in the classroom.
  8. Locate in the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, Professionalism: Ethical Decision Making as a Foundation for Professional Practice by Roubanis, Garner, and Purcell (2008). In this article, the authors describe a model for incorporating multiple perspectives with ethical decision making. After reading the article, engage in a discussion with your colleagues about how you might include this model in your professional practice and classroom learning with your students.

 

Multiple Perspectives Model for Ethical Decision Making (Roubanis, Garner & Purcell, 2008).
The multiple perspectives model reflects both teleological and deontological ethical theories and is designed as a tool to assist FCS educators in making professional decisions that are morally defensible. The central focus of the model is the best interest of the student within the context of the family and community; it includes four perspectives:
Ethic of justice focuses on rules and laws that are based on universally accepted principles. Uniformly applied, these laws and rules are intended to help to ensure equal treatment for all and achieve a just and equitable society.
Ethic of critique focuses on questions about how rules and laws are established, by whom, and whether they are fair and just. Critique involves issues such as oppression, privilege, authority, empowerment, and social justice.
Ethic of care focuses concern for the well-being of others, in particular, how decisions that benefit some individuals may harm others. It places value on loyalty, trust, relationships, and collaboration, and provides the basis for social justice and civic engagement.
Ethic of the profession is represented in ethical guidelines for the members of a given profession. Often incorporated in professional codes of ethics, it applies and integrates the ethics of justice, critique, and care.

 

References

American Association of family and consumer sciences (AAFCS). (2013a). Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: AAFCS. Retrieved from http://aafcs.org/AboutUs/CodeEthics.asp

American Association of family and consumer sciences (AAFCS). (2013b). Resolution on non-discrimination. Alexandria, VA: AAFCS. Retrieved from http://aafcs.org/advocacy/resolutions.asp.

Arcus, M.E. (1997). Alternative theories of ethical thought. In J.F. Laster & R.G. Thomas (Eds.). Thinking for ethical action in families and communities (pp. 3-14). American Association of family and consumer sciences Education and Technology Division Yearbook 17. Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Association for Career and Technology Education (ACTE). (2013). The ACTE code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: ACTE. Retrieved from http://www.acteonline.org/about

Bangladesh textile workers await compensation. (2013). Bonn, DE: Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/bangladesh-textile-workers-await-compensation/a-17046711

Blankenship, M.L., & Moerchen, B. D. (1979). Home economics education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Brown, M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition. Washington, DC: American home economics Association.

Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. (n.d.), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov

Code of ethics of the education profession. (1975). Washington, DC: National Education Association (NEA). Retrieved from www.nea.org/home/30442.htm

Cookson, P. W., & Shroff, S.M. (1997). School choice and urban school reform. Urban Diversity Series No. 110, New York: Columbia University/ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416271.pdf

Couch, S. (2010). Ethical professional practice for teachers of family and consumer sciences: A content analysis of professional codes of ethics. TAFCS Research Journal, 1(1).

Couch, S., & Alexander, K. L. (2009). Ethical professional practice for teachers of family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 27 (National Teacher Standards 4), 60-76. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/journal.html

Craig, K.E. (1996). Ethics: The heart of home economics. In C.B. Simerly, H. Light, & D.I. Mistifer (Eds.). A Book of Readings: The Context for Professionals in Human, Family, and Consumer Sciences (pp. 147-150). Alexandria, VA: American home economics Association.

Forsyth, D.R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39(1), 175-184.

Hillison, J. & Burge, P. (1988). Support for home economics education in the Smith-Hughes Act. home economics Research Journal. 17(2). 165-174.

Learn about the Morrill land grant acts. (2008). Higher Education Resource Hub. Retrieved from http://www.higher-ed.org/resources/morrill_acts.htm

Miller, M.D., & Gregson, J.A. (1999). A philosophic view for seeing the past of vocational education and envisioning the future of workforce education: Pragmatism revisited. In A.J. Pautler, Jr. (Ed.). Workforce education: Issues for the new century (pp. 21-34). Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken Publications.

National standards for teachers of family and consumer sciences. (2004). National Association of Teacher Educators of family and consumer sciences. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/resource.html

Roubanis, J.L., Garner, S.L., & Purcell, R.S. (2008.) Professionalism: Ethical decision making as a foundation for professional practice. Journal of family and consumer sciences Education, 26(National Teacher Standards 2), 44-57. Retrieved from http://www.natefacs.org/journal.html#journal

The ethics of American youth: 2012. (2012). Los Angeles: Josephson Institute on Ethics.

The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968. (1968). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare/Office of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED039352.pdf

Thomas Jefferson on politics and government: 39. Educating the people. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1350.htm

Thomas, R. G. (1986). Alternative views of home economics: Implications for K-12 home economics curriculum. Journal of Vocational home economics Education, 4(2), 162-188.

Title IX: Education amendments of 1972. (2007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm.

About the Authors

About the Authors

Sue Couch, Ed.D. is Professor Emeritus of Family and Consumer Sciences Education at Texas Tech University. While teaching at Texas Tech, she was very involved in student and faculty ethics initiatives. She also published extensively throughout her career at the university. Prior to becoming a teacher educator, she taught middle school and high school family and consumer sciences in Kentucky.
Karen L. Alexander, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Family and Consumer Sciences Education at Texas Tech University. She has taught FCS at the secondary and university levels for 27 years. She is professionally active in both the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences and the Association for Career and Technical Education.

Appendix A

Resolution on Non-discrimination (passed by delegates to the AAFCS Annual Meeting, 2006) (AAFCS, 2013b). 
Whereas AAFCS supports diversity and has consistently advocated to end discrimination, and; Whereas AAFCS is a professional society rooted in scientific principles and knowledge generated by research, therefore be it; Resolved that the American Association of family and consumer sciences does not tolerate discrimination with respect to an individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, age or disability, and therefore be it; Resolved that the American Association of family and consumer sciences endorses the concept that all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, age or disability are entitled to equal protection and privilege under the law.

License

Teaching Family and Consumer Sciences in the 21st Century Copyright © by Amanda K. Holland and Karen L. Alexander. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book