|Printed Black & White Copy
Richard Alpert, senior partner at Evergreen Investments, must decide which of his two best employees to promote to the position of managing VP. He had initially preferred Charlie Pace over Daniel Faraday, but that decision had become less clear-cut when Alpert inadvertently overheard an office conversation and learned that Pace was taking Adderall, a stimulant primarily prescribed for people suffering from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Pace did not have ADHD and apparently obtained the medication by deceiving a physician. Alpert is faced with a number of questions, including whether it was fair to Faraday?or any other high-performing employee?to be passed over for promotion in favor of someone who illicitly boosted his performance with a substance he did not medically need.
1. Help students examine the idea of “fair competition” in the face of technological advancement. 2. Push the students to recognize the complex implications of seemingly personal choices. 3. Help the students analyze competing considerations, such as Pace’s right to privacy versus the potential consequences to Faraday, Evergreen, and even Pace himself. 4. Draw attention to the relevant responsibilities and considerations that follow Alpert’s decision. Based on what Alpert decides, what should happen next, and how should he move forward?