🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000CA160,000

Classical Studies 2900 Final: EXAM NOTES- 2907.pdf

56 views6 pages
orchidcricket11
15 Apr 2012
School
Western University
Department
Classical Studies
Course
Classical Studies 2900
Professor
Mayer

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Livy- book one: other ethnic groups mentioned by livy, sabines- the rape of the sabine women ; start populating rome, absorb. Sabine race; justified by the romans as the right thing to do; joint rule of. Romulus and tatius (two kings, rise of non romans into roman government very quick: albans- brought to rome, removed from their homelands and integrated into. Rome; legitimizing rome"s actions: trojans- story that all romans are descended from trojans (aenius)- connection to heroic greek past; romans mixture of trojan settlers and. Latins: arcadia- evander of arcadia is greek; shows influence of greece on rome; Evander started lycian festival (later rome lupical: corinth- demartus of corinth; more greek influence, introduced writing and pottery to rome. Lots of cultural and political influence on the romans from the. Roman games, took them very seriously; some of the game go back to. Etruria, popular on tombs, took place to honour the dead.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers

Related Documents

HIST 205 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Livy, Etruscan Language, Roman Republic
greywildebeest28
HIST 2850 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Tullus Hostilius, Res Publica, Numa Pompilius
periwinklegerbil169
CLST 201
Final Exam
Study Guide
CLST 201 Midterm: CLST 201 Midterm 1
ceruleanleopard752

Related Questions

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term “feminist theory” is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word “feminist,” which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically “feminist.” Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as “womencentered”
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the discipline’s theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled “feminist theory” consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of “malestream” sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marx’s and Mannheim’s discussions
of ideology, Foucault’s work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, “masculinist,” “objectivist,” and “positivist” social science, and
develop a “feminist” alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a “woman’s standpoint,” Collins’ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a “masculine”
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed “essentialism,” a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and men—cognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioral—not
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

Assignment Scenario:

As a new marketing associate with Barclays Bank, you are tasked with writing a critical essay summarizing what transpired during the investigation conducted by the United States Department of Justice into the abuse of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) interest rate regulated by the British Banker’s Administration. This essay, if chosen by your new employer, will be the report presented to the Board of Directors.

Write a 2–3 page, (not including a title and references page), double spaced, critical essay responding to the checklist items. For assistance with your Assignment, please use your textbook and library research resources. The instructions for you to execute this task are as follows:

Directions for completing this Assignment:

1. Read the “Barclays Bank: Banking on Ethics” case study: case study is below..

2. Learn how to write a critical essay: I will make the changes if need be..

3. Use APA format and citation style, provide a title page and references, and do not forget to use in text citations with their accompanying references so as to avoid plagiarism.

4. In your critical essay that includes your thesis, arguments, support, and conclusion, respond to the following:

Checklist:

● Describe the level of ethical development the executives at Barclays demonstrated

when manipulating the LIBOR interest rates.

● Did Barclays Bank neglect social responsibility? What could they have done to be more socially responsible?

● What actions regarding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) could Barclays have engaged in after the scandal broke to set things right and ensure that such an event would not happen again?

● Describe what level of morality would have been demonstrated if executives at Barclays asked themselves, “Even though manipulating the LIBOR will increase company profits, is it the right thing to do in the long run?”

● Explain the importance of ethics and social responsibility in marketing as a result of your case study analysis.

Case study

Chapter 3

On February 28, 2012, the United States Department of Justice announced a criminal investigation into abuse of the LIBOR, an important interest rate regulated by the British Bankers’ Administration. Four months later, London-based Barclays Bank was fined more than $440 million by United States and English financial regulatory agencies for knowingly manipulating the LIBOR to its own advantage. The political and economic uproar that followed the exposure of Barclays’ actions led to several resignations (including that of Barclays’ CEO Bob Diamond) and further criminal investigations. Former governor of New York Eliot Spitzer called the incident “the mega-scandal of mega-scandals,” while journalist Robert Scheer christened it “the crime of the century.” The LIBOR, short for “London Interbank Offered Rate,” is the interest rate banks pay when they borrow money from each other. To calculate this rate, up to 20 influential British banks report their own proposed bank-to-bank lending rates. The highest and lowest rates are trimmed off, and the remaining rates are averaged, creating the LIBOR. A low LIBOR often points to financial stability, while a high LIBOR indicates that banks lack confidence in each other’s economic health. What Barclays was fined for was proposing artificially low bank-to-bank rates to make itself appear more stable than it actually was. However, further investigations indicated that Barclays colluded with other banks—and perhaps even the British government—to impact the LIBOR itself. An unnaturally low LIBOR would suggest greater economic stability than actually existed, misleading investors and loan-seekers in a potentially volatile market, and thus creating profit for the banks involved in the collusion. The rate manipulation carried out by Barclays affects not only London banks and business executives, but also small businesses and individuals—perhaps even you yourself. Because it has historically been considered trustworthy and economically accurate, the LIBOR is used all around the world as an interest rate and financial instrument benchmark. Everything from currency values (including the United States dollar) to multimillion-dollar corporate debts to home mortgages to individual student loans depend on the LIBOR. While it may not seem like it, each of these is a product that is marketed and sold. As loans and exchanges of varying types are banks’ primary sources of profit, banks compete to exchange these products within a market. At the consumer level, consider how many car and credit card commercials you have seen advertising a low interest rate. Hundreds of trillions of dollars’ worth of these financial products have been sold based on the LIBOR—a rate that may not in fact accurately reflect the world’s shaky economic standing. Journalists and economic analysts have been quick to reject the ethicality of Barclays’ actions. As information about the LIBOR scandal broke, TIME contributor Christopher Matthews wrote, “[Barclays’ alleged collusion] speaks to the moral compass, or total lack thereof, of the world’s financial professionals...the public and the government no longer trust the industry to set its own standards for acceptable behavior.” In a piece for

The Nation, Robert Scheer said, “The modern-day robber barons pillage with a destructive abandon totally unfettered by law or conscience and on a scale that is almost impossible to comprehend.” Dennis Kelleher, president of nonprofit financial watchdog organization Better Markets, Inc. was perhaps most condemnatory of all: “What we probably need is to wipe out this entire generation of so-called banking leaders who apparently have no ethics or integrity.” While the total sum of the LIBOR scandal’s consequences are yet to be seen, Barclays’ actions may go down in history as a monumental failure in business ethics and corporate social responsibility.

National Health Company (NHC) became one of the nation’s leading providers of healthcare during the early 2000s, through aggressive mergers and acquisitions. The company provides both in and out patient care such as convalescent care, rehabilitation, physical therapy, outpatient surgical centers, ultrasounds, mammograms, MRI’s, CT scans, and other medical services. The company’s rapid expansion initially resulted in a substantial amount of profit and success in the healthcare market. However it became increasingly difficult to maintain the growth and expansion in light of the economic climate, continued pressure from Medicare, the insurance companies to cut costs, competition from other health field carriers and the concern over potential government funded health care programs. As the NHC’s management failed to sustain the expected growth, its management resorted to other strategies that not only maintained the expectation of its shareholders, but would also allow management to keep their extravagant life style.In this case, we will follow the struggles and anguish faced by Karen Larson, NHC’s Chief Financial Officer, as she battles her way through making the right financial and corporate governance decisions and not to allow herself to be allured, by fancy titles, avarice and greed as well as upper management pressure placed before her. We will present not only the decisions she has to make but also the outcome of her decisions.

Background

National Health Company (NHC) is one of the nation’s largest providers of healthcare. It is ranked in the top ten nationally in terms of size and revenue. The company reached its ranking by expanding rapidly through aggressive mergers and acquisitions throughout the late 1990’s through the 2006. The company had 50 facilities across the nation in 1990. By 2006the company had purchased another 28 hospitals and 45 outpatient rehabilitation facilities from National Health Enterprise.In 2003, NHC purchased ReLive, a major healthcare chain. In 2005, NHC acquired Medical Surgical Corporation, Novacare, Health Imaging, Horizon and several other healthcare providers, with acquisition costs totaling approximately $2.5 billion. The buying binge positioned the companyas one of the major players in the healthcare industry.As the expansions continued, the NHC’s stockholders became accustomed to a period during which they enjoyed double digit growth rate in their investments. Yet, once this growth began to truly slow down, management and Karen Larson, NHC’s Chief Financial Officer (“Karen”) did not pay any heed but instead took various steps to ensure that the price of the stock would continue to soar.

In December 2008, Karen was celebrating a triumphant moment in her career. She had been made the CFO in a company she loved. For Karen, this moment did not come soon enough. For 20 years, she had set her sight on this position. She had toiled in the trenches, putting in long hours and sacrificing even her vacation time in hopes of attaining her dream job. Achieving this position was a fitting culmination of her years of dedication. It was a richly deserved reward that she cherished and relished. Now Karen was too pre-occupied with her thoughts. As she sat huddled in the corner of her dark prison cell, surrounded by belligerent, mentally unstable inmates, Karen Larson’s mind could not help but revisit the fateful day when her plunge from the lofty perch in a major corporation to the bowels of prison began. Painfully, it was time for her to trace back her steps to what had brought her here.

The Plan

No sooner had Karen settled on her new position, when her troubles started. Approximately nine months into her new job, Karen Larson was lying awake, sleepless and listless on her bed. Her thoughts wandering around the meeting she had earlier in the day with several other members in upper-level management. George Dawson (“George”), the CEO of the company had gathered all the members of upper-level management with direct relations to the finance and treasury departments. George had started the meeting with a speech about how proud he was to be working with such trustworthy and loyal associates, and how he was very fond of everyone and how they were all like family to him. After George’s welcoming introduction, the real topic of the meeting came into play. George stated that, “I’m sure you’re all aware of our current financial position as a company.” Karen and everyone there nodded with the understanding of his statement. He continued, “This recent quarter has been very bleak, the bleakest one this company has ever seen in its history.” Everyone continued to nod in agreement with his words.

George went on, “However, I believe our company can pull through this stumble. All I ask is a small favor in order to bring the company to new heights.” A deep silence swept across the room in the anticipation of his next words. “All I ask is that we hide the stumble we had this quarter from the public. Not everyone in the public might agree with our strengths and abilities. And if word got out that we the giant in the healthcare industry was faltering, it would hurt the company as a whole.

And we wouldn’t want that now would we?” Whispers started out among everyone all at once, at the notion of what was being asked of them. George, the CEO of the company, the one that she had looked up to, was asking her and everyone else in the room to commit fraud and falsify the accounting books and records. George started to silence the whispers, as he continued, “I will hold personal responsibility in this act and request. All I’m asking for is to make this one quarter look positive to the eyes of the public. And next quarter, I’ll ensure the company truly has a positive quarter. I’ll let you all think it over for a few days, and we’ll continue this meeting then.” Over the next several days Karen agonized over the decisions that she was going to have to make, yet there were so many unanswered questions. These questions continued to spin in her mind. Was she really a part of the play to deceive the public? And if she wasn’t, should she tell someone about the company’s wrongdoings and the CEO? She thought about the sincerity ofGeorge Dawson when he stated that he would bring the company into positivecash flow over the next quarter, in line with the financial markets expectations. Then she thought about all her fellow associates,all of her friends and all of the people who worked under her. She hadbeen working for NHC for over 20 years, she had worked hard and diligently to gain her last position as Chief Financial Officer. She had also worked hard to gain the trust and loyalty of her fellow associates. However, what the members of top management had asked her to do against the oath she had sworn when she became a CPA, and her fiduciary duties as one of the officers in the company. It also went against the very morals and fibers of her upbringings and had left her in utter turmoil. She continued to ponder. What would have been the outcomes if the company had reported a loss? What would have been the outcomes if she and those involved did not get caught in the fraud they were about to commit? What was she going to do?

The Afterthought

A debate raged in Karen’s head. She thought if she agreed to commit fraud then the company would have no reason to lay off any of their workers. All of the jobs would be saved. But then what if the jobs were saved but the investors lost their money? She shook the thoughts out of her head. It was only going to be this one quarter, as far as she could tell and dared to believe and hope for. She convinced herself then that agreeing to commit to the act would be the best course, especially if everyone else in the meeting agreed to it. She didn’t want to be the outcast, nor did she want to disappoint everyone. She didn’t want to constantly have to look over her back with all the ridicules about why she didn’t go along with the decision. And she definitely wasn’t going to tell anyone for fear of losing her own position in the company; the position that she had worked so hard to achieve. Karen had finally decided that she was going to accept the CEO’s plea.

The next meeting took place around October of 2009. The meeting room was quiet. All her fellow upper management associates looked tired, as if they too didn’t get very much sleep the last few days. But they also all had a stern look; she could tell that everyone else probably went through a similar ordeal to her own. She could also see in their eyes, as they waited for George, that they were all going to agree with what George had proposed a few days earlier.As George walked through the doors of the meeting room, he was quick to notice the deadly silence, and was quick to break it and get down to business. He asked,“So has everyone come to a decision?” They all nodded their heads. “What is it then?” George asked, “Are you with or against me?” A short silence fell over everyone, as no one seemed willing to be the first to admit to conspiring to the devious plan. Then Patricia Kim the corporation’s in-house counsel stood up and gave her answer, “I agree to your idea George and stand behind you and your decision all the way.” At that moment, everyone else was quick to chime in with similar affirmations.The rest of the meeting went into a discussion of how they were going to hide this from the public and cover their tracks to make it difficult for an auditor to find the deception, if one ever came to investigate.

The plan that they came up with was to decrease a contra asset account as well as the expense accounts, either of which would increase earnings and correspondingly the assets. In addition, they were going to create fictitious journal entries to correspond with the generally accepted accounting principles. Furthermore they were going to create false documents to support the bogus accounting entries.After the meeting adjourned, George came into Karen’s office and said “we are going to be reporting all of this additional income and with the capital gain NHC had from the sale of an asset this year, I am concerned about the inability from a cash flow standpoint for NHC to pay its corporate income tax. We need to find a way to offset the company’s potential tax liability, which in part was due to a large capital gain from the sale of an asset and I would like you to consider some of the tax shelters out there.” Karen wanting to help out George came across a tax shelter, called “Son of Boss”, 11which was designed to reduce capital gains. The transaction is a “listed transaction” with the IRS. However, George had made it clear that it was necessary to defer any immediate issues with their taxes with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and requested that Karen not file the listed transactions form with the IRS. Karen complied with this request in order to please her boss.The Aftermath The plan went off without a hitch. Everything had gone according to plan. However, the next quarter rolled by and passed rather quickly and still George didn’t or couldn’t hold up his end of the bargain. They all held another similar meeting, and George asked to continue the plan for another quarter. One quarter after another came and passed with no end to the accounting and financial subterfuges insight. Then one day, rather unexpectedly and without discussing it with anyone, George sold his stocks of NHC. Even though NHC’s business was supposedly booming, the first of National Heath Company's accounting problems started to surface in late 2010 after George sold $85 million in stocks several days before the company posted a large loss, the first in the company’s history. The SEC started to investigate whether or not George’s decision to sell his stocks was related to the posting of a large loss. NHC hired an outside law firm to review George’s stock sale in order to try to postpone the SEC’s investigation. The outside law firm concluded that the sale and profit loss were not related. This however did not ease the SEC's suspicions. The SEC not only looked into the stock sale but began examining the books and records of the company along with the FBI. As the investigations progressed, various employees were interviewed, including Karen. The FBI and the Department of Justice met with Karen and offered her a reduced sentence if she would come clean with what she knew. On the evening of June 13, 2012,FBI agents executed search warrants at the company's headquarters after the company's CFO Karen agreed to wear a wire, in which she was able to get George to talk about the fraud. A number of months thereafter, the Federal Grand Jury issued indictments against all upper management, including Karen for committing fraud, for falsifying NHC’s books and records, and for aiding and abetting to defraud shareholders. Now, less than a year later, Karen agreed to a plea deal in which she would be sentenced to 18 months in prison and a fine of $500,000 in return for her cooperating with the government. Had she not cooperated with the government she could have received 10 years. As Karen Larson sat outside the courtroom waiting to testify for the government against George, the government’s first defendant, she began to recollect her thoughts on her misguided actions and the ordeals she would now have to go through. She no longer was a CFO, she no longer had a job, she lost her CPA license, she lost her right to practice before the IRS, she was facing 18 months in prison and when she get out of prison, she could look forward to repaying $500,000 in restitution.What could she have done to avoid these problems, especially of the devastating pitfall of languishing in prison for 18 months? How she could be so foolish, Karen muttered to herself in retrospection. What was she thinking? How could she possibly believe that the fraud would only last a quarter? George was a human, not a god. Karen sighed deeply. She had allowed herself to be deceived. She had been myopic to think that she could save her own skin and her colleagues’ jobs through fraud. Perhaps now, Karen thought bitterly, she would be able to clearly discern her misguided actions to ensure that she never acts in that manner again. With at least another year of her life devoted to testifying on behalf of the government against other defendants with respect to the fraud committed by NHC and its officers and directors and 18 Burch, R. G. (2006). Director oversight and months of prison time yet to serve, Karen will certainly have sufficient time to dwell on all her missteps.

I need to answer the following 2 part question, thank you

4. Aside from participating in the scheme,

what are Karen Larson’s other options

in face of the dilemma?

5. What are the pros and cons of each of

her options?