Mary Brabeck

This article is an attempt to develop a measure of ethical sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance that occurs in schools. Acts of intolerance that indicate ethically insensitive behaviors in American schools were identified and tied to existing professional ethical codes developed by school-based professional organizations. The Racial Ethical Sensitivity Test consists of 5 scenarios that portray acts of racial intolerance and ethical insensitivity. Participants viewed 2 videotaped scenarios and then responded to a semistructured interview protocol adapted from Bebeau and Rest. After a 2-week interval, this procedure was repeated. Stability of the REST across time was determined by using the overall test-retest coefficient. Internal as well as interrater consistency was also calculated for each scenario. Overall findings indicate promise for the REST as a reliable measure to assess racial and ethnic sensitivity.

This article describes the development of a computerized version of a measure of ethical sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance, the Racial Ethical Sensitivity Test. The REST was based on James Rest's 4-component model of moral development and the professional codes of ethics from school-based professions. The new version, Racial and Ethical Sensitivity Test-Compact Disk, consists of 5 videotaped scenarios followed by an interactive "interview" presented on compact discs. Data from a study with 58 students provides initial validation of the REST-CD. Ethical sensitivity to racial and gender intolerance in schools, as measured by the REST-CD, was moderately related to attitudes toward racial and gender equity issues in society as measured by the Quick Discrimination Index. The results provide evidence for both interrater and internal reliability of the REST-CD scores. This study also tests the hypothesized relationship between REST-CD scores and previous multicultural and ethics course work. Students with multicultural and ethics course experience have scored significantly higher on the REST-CD than students without course work. The paper-and-pencil tests are not significantly related to previous ethics/multicultural course work. In this article, we discuss the implications of the results and directions for future research.

Across societies and throughout time, women have been traditionally classified as caregivers and relationship builders. However, as we enter the future, the roles of girls and women are changing. Who Cares? offers investigations from theoretical and empirical perspectives into the ever changing views about the responsibilities of women. Contributions from current, outstanding feminist theorists examine the view that the ethic of care is gender related. The contributors explore the arguments for and against the traditional view that the ethic of care is associated with girls and women and the ethic of justice with boys and men. Who Cares? presents the work of scholars from philosophy, theology, psychology, and education who critically examine the questions surrounding the ever changing roles of women. The book begins with an historical discussion of caring as described by women philosophers of the past two millenia. Further chapters discuss the ethic of care; the gender relatedness of care; the political and psychological price of attributing care to women; the socialization experiences that shape and develop the caring response and the caring self; the relationship between care and rationality and between care and justice; the distinction between a theory of care based on the norms of society and moral philosophy; ethical framework of Black, Third World, and pink collar women. This book is a must for students, educators, researchers, and professionals in women's studies.