Tag: ethics

Professor of Christian ‘sexual ethics’ at Midwest university and father of TEN charged with rape and child sexual abuse

A former Midwest university professor who fathered at least 10 children and wrote about Christian sexual ethics has been charged with rape and sexual battery of one or more minors.

John Kent Tarwater, 55, was indicted last Friday in Greene County, Ohio, about an hour west of Columbus, on two counts of rape, three counts of sexual battery and three counts of gross sexual imposition.

Tarwater was booked into the Greene County Jail, where he remained in custody as of Friday night.

One victim was known to Tarwater and was as young as 10 years old when the alleged years-long abuse began, per the indictment viewed by the Daily Mail.

Tarwater had worked at Cedarville University, a Baptist school with roughly 6,400 students, as a business administration faculty member and associate finance professor since 2017.

In December 2022, he penned an article titled ‘Does Sexual Self–Gratification Glorify God?’ which has since been deleted but remains archived online.

‘Perhaps the issue that causes the greatest confusion for both single and married people centers on the permissibility or impermissibility of masturbation,’ Tarwater’s article read.

He co–authored a piece the previous year titled ‘Business Ethics in the Marketplace: Exploring Transgenderism.’

Keep reading

Leading Ethics Journal Floats Forced Abortion For Minors

Pro-abortion rhetoric has long rested on a slick focus group-tested “pro-choice” mantra, which claims that abortion is necessary for women to have “bodily autonomy.” But pro-abortion “ethicists” are now asserting that “justice for girls” demands that all underage pregnancies end in the death of the unborn child — even if it requires physically or chemically subduing the mother against her will.

That is precisely the case made in a new essay in the April edition of Ethics, the University of Chicago’s elite philosophy journal. Across 31 full pages, our two authors, Alyssa Izatt, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia, and Kimberley Brownlee, her UBC professor, explain why compulsory abortion is essential for feminine justice. In fact, in two places they explain enforcing this upon objecting females “might then require sedation or physical restraint” even though it “could be traumatizing,” but still, “the use of restraint (chemical or physical) … is justified as a last resort when it is necessary to provide adequate care.” By “adequate care,” of course, the writers mean killing the mother’s preborn child.

You heard that right. Good-bye, “My body, my choice!” Hello, “Do as you’re told, honey!” Leftist patriarchy parading as feminist empowerment. The pro-abortion ethic is growing ever more sinister.

The authors’ reasoning consists of a basic syllogism, which they admit even the most radical pro-abortion warriors have previously failed to piece together. 

First, abortion is a fundamental, uncontested good. This prejudice is crystal clear in their paper. The only negative observation of abortion they could muster is this: “Having an abortion can be challenging and distressing, even for adult women.” That’s it. They add, “It can be a life-and-death decision, a reality that is far beyond the scope of appropriate childhood responsibilities.” Can be? They never confess whose life is at stake, but one clearly assumes they mean the young mother if she brings her unborn child to term.

Second, the authors assume that underage pregnancy and childbirth are always wrong because of risks to the mother. While the essay is mum on abortion’s risks, it spends pages detailing the physical and psychological dangers of pregnancy for girls and young women. In fact, the authors boldly state without qualification that “a child’s best interests are served by the provision of an abortion: Prioritizing her wellbeing necessitates that physicians and family members view her impregnation as a malady to be treated and take steps to terminate it.” Note that the authors consistently infantilize any female under 18 as “a child.”

Ergo, forced abortion upon underage girls and young women is clearly the most ethical action because they lack the maturity to realize abortion is life-preserving health care. As such, “medical professionals would be failing a child if they withheld abortion care, even if they did so because the child was averse to it.” That is their case.

Keep reading

AOC Faces House Ethics and FEC Complaint for Spending Campaign Funds on Doctor who Specializes in Ketamine Therapy

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has come into the crosshairs of an ethics complaint for using campaign contributions for personal use after allegedly spending almost $19,000 on a psychiatrist who is known for specializing in Ketamine therapy.

The National Legal and Policy Center filed a joint complaint with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and the House Ethics Committee on Friday.

It reads, “NLPC alleges that AOC’s expenditure of almost $19,000 of campaign funds in 2025 to psychiatrist Dr. Brian W. Boyle ostensibly for ‘leadership training and consulting’ was expended instead for personal psychiatric services provided to AOC or members of her campaign staff. Accordingly, those expenses were also misreported by the campaign committee with the FEC. NLPC requests that the FEC and OCC immediately investigate the facts and circumstances of these payments and impose appropriate penalties and disciplinary sanctions against AOC.”

However, “there is reason to believe that Dr. Boyle does not provide campaign ‘Leadership Training and Consulting,’” the complaint continues, highlighting his specialty in depression and his status as a “leading authority” on Ketamine therapy.

The complaint further provides receipts of the expenditures from FEC data.

Paul Kamenar, the group’s general counsel, told the New York Post, “AOC’s spending almost $19,000 in campaign funds for a shrink appears to violate both the FEC and House Ethics rules prohibiting use of such funds for personal purposes.”

He added, “While AOC has been in therapy in the past, she should spend her own money if she needs psychiatric treatment from Dr. Brian Boyle, whose specialty includes narcissistic personality disorder.”

Keep reading

DC Bar Files Disciplinary Charges Against DOJ Official Ed Martin – DOJ Responds

Justice Department official Ed Martin is facing ethics charges after he sent a letter to Georgetown University Law Center related to its DEI policies.

Ed Martin sent the letter last year while he was Interim US Attorney for DC.

The DC Bar is targeting Ed Martin for pushing to end the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies at Georgetown.

Martin may be sanctioned.

“The DC bar’s attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda,” a statement from the DOJ to CBS said.

CBS News reported:

The office that polices attorney misconduct in Washington, D.C., has filed ethics charges against Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin, after Martin last year sent a threatening letter to the Georgetown University Law Center that raised questions about its diversity and inclusion policies while he was serving as interim U.S. attorney, according to court filings made public Tuesday.

In a Feb. 17 letter to the law school, Martin told university officials that a whistleblower claimed Georgetown was teaching DEI and asked about the practice. Without waiting for a response, he told the school he was imposing sanctions by instructing his office staff not to employ any students from the school as fellows, interns or employees at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C.

In response, the school’s now-former dean, William Treanor, told Martin, who is a devout Catholic, that his letter represented “an attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.”

In filings made in the D.C. Court of Appeals’ Board on Professional Responsibility dated Friday and made public on Tuesday, Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton “Phil” Fox III of the D.C. Bar alleged that Martin’s conduct as a government official violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by making demands that the law school change what it teaches students and how it teaches them.

Ed Martin was the Interim US Attorney for DC but his confirmation got derailed by GOP Senator Thom Tillis.

Martin is currently the DOJ’s pardon attorney.

Keep reading

Fraud claims, wine money, Sharia: Ethical storms around Ilhan Omar’s husband

A fresh wave of legal challenges facing Tim Mynett, the husband of US Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), has brought renewed scrutiny to the couple. This attention focuses not only on business ethics but also on the apparent contradictions between Mynett’s commercial interests and the religious identity central to Omar’s public persona.

Mynett, a political consultant turned venture capitalist, is currently the subject of a lawsuit alleging fraud and breach of contract in connection with “eStCru,” a California-based wine business in which he is a partner.

The lawsuit, filed in Washington, DC, claims that Mynett and his business partner, Will Hailer, defrauded investor Naeem Mohd. According to court documents, Mohd alleges he was persuaded to invest $300,000 based on a guarantee of a 200% return within 18 months, but the plaintiff’s promises were never fulfilled.

Although the principal investment was reportedly repaid after a delay, the lawsuit alleges that the promised profits were never paid. It accuses the partners of misrepresenting the company’s financial health. Mynett has denied the allegations, characterizing the matter as a contract dispute.

Keep reading

Ethics Questions Swirl Around Somalia’s UN Ambassador Tied To Ohio Healthcare Company

Somalia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Abukar Dahir Osman, is facing growing scrutiny over his connections to the Ohio healthcare company Progressive Health Care Services Inc. This comes as federal investigations into suspected Somali-linked welfare fraud, stretching from Minnesota to Washington, Ohio, and Maine, continue to intensify, with allegations that some entities (daycares, healthcare, or transportation service companies) were merely front operations to extract taxpayer funds.

The story surrounding Osman is certainly a strange one, with the news and analysis outlet Horn Diplomat publishing a report titled “Ethics Questions Surround Somalia’s UN Envoy, as U.S. Healthcare Fraud Scandals Heighten Scrutiny.”

Here’s the report:

Public corporate filings and professional records have raised questions about transparency and potential conflicts of interest involving Abukar Dahir Osman, Somalia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

The scrutiny comes as Somalia prepares to assume the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council on January 1, 2026, a role that places the country at the center of global diplomatic decision-making on peace, security and sanctions.

Ohio state corporate records show that Osman was listed as the statutory agent for Progressive Health Care Services Inc, a Cincinnati-based home healthcare company, while simultaneously serving as Somalia’s top diplomat at the United Nations.

Keep reading

The Moral Flaws in Corporate Ethics Codes

In the world of modern corporations, ethics codes are often presented as beacons of integrity, guiding employees toward right conduct and fostering a just workplace. Yet, upon closer scrutiny, many such codes reveal themselves to be deeply flawed, prioritizing institutional self-preservation over genuine moral principles. This is particularly evident in how they handle reporting mechanisms, employee treatment, enforcement roles, and inclusivity policies. Far from upholding true ethics rooted in human dignity and fairness, these codes can become instruments of imbalance and dehumanization, rendering them not only unethical but profoundly immoral. By examining these aspects through the lens of timeless moral values — those emphasizing justice, truth, and the inherent worth of every person — we can see why such codes fail to embody authentic goodness and instead perpetuate harm.

One of the most troubling features of these corporate ethics codes is their emphasis on anonymous reporting, which, while intended to encourage openness, often empowers complainers at the expense of fairness. Anonymity allows individuals to raise concerns without personal risk, but it creates a system where accusations can be made freely, even over trivial matters or with ulterior motives, without the accused having a chance to respond directly or challenge the claims. This imbalance undermines the core ethical principle that justice must be even-handed, protecting both the one who speaks and the one who is spoken against. Morally, it erodes trust and invites abuse, as it favors one side’s voice while silencing the other’s right to defend their reputation. In a truly moral framework, accountability should bind everyone equally; by skewing power toward hidden accusers, the code fosters division rather than harmony, making it unethical in its disregard for balanced resolution and immoral in its potential to enable falsehood and injustice.

Equally concerning is how these codes tend to safeguard the company above all else, treating employees as mere tools rather than beings of intrinsic value. They frame ethical behavior as a means to enhance business success — building trust with customers or maintaining operational excellence — while downplaying the human element. Employees are expected to comply rigorously, facing penalties for lapses, yet the code offers little assurance that the company will prioritize their well-being in return. This approach reduces people to interchangeable parts, valued only for their utility, which contradicts the ethical imperative that every individual deserves respect and care independent of their productivity. Morally, it offends the fundamental truth that humans are ends in themselves, not means to corporate ends; by elevating institutional interests over personal dignity, the code promotes a cold, utilitarian mindset that dehumanizes workers and sows resentment, proving its immorality through this inversion of priorities.

Keep reading

College Students Can Take a Class to Learn How to Steal – Yes, Really

New York City college students at a four-year university in Manhattan can now take a course titled “How to Steal,” which promises to look at “radical ethics” around theft. Yes, you read that correctly.

Students at Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts can take the four-credit class that will cost students upwards of $10,040 to look at things like the “aesthetics of theft in a world where accumulation is sacred,” the New York Post reported.

The report noted the insanity of the course description.

It read:

This field-based seminar explores the politics, ethics, and aesthetics of theft in a world where accumulation is sacred, dispossession is routine, and the line between private property and public good is drawn in blood. 

Students will critically examine what it means to steal-from whom, for whom, and why— through site visits and fieldwork in places where capital is hoarded and value is contested: corporate storefronts, grocery chains, museums, libraries, banks, and cultural institutions.

The one part that really stood out was the part about how the course will ask the question, “Is it possible to steal back what was already stolen?”

It went on:

What does theft look like under capitalism, colonialism, and in everyday life? When is theft survival, protest, or care-and when is it violence, appropriation, or harm?

The course catalog concluded by pointing out that the class is “not a course in petty crime—it is a study in moral ambiguity, radical ethics, and imaginative justice.”

The irony of teaching this class in a blue state like New York, where criminals can shoplift less than a $1,000 worth of goods and face nothing more than a misdemeanor, is not lost. California was also a place where this craziness ruled the day, allowing people to just steal and face little consequences, before residents said enough was enough, passing Proposition 36, as RedState reported.

Keep reading

Terrifying new details of Canada’s advancing assisted suicide laws… including push to euthanize newborn BABIES

Canada‘s assisted suicide laws have continued rapidly expanding in recent years, with a group of doctors now pushing for disabled newborn babies to be euthanized.

The demand for euthanasia is so high that doctors who provide it cannot keep up, according to a new report by The Atlantic.

Assisted dying, legalized in 2016, now accounts for about one out of 20 deaths in Canada, far surpassing countries where it’s been legal for longer. 

As assisted deaths have become a major part of Canada’s health care system, the Quebec College of Physicians suggested legalizing euthanasia for infants born severely ill.

As The Atlantic noted, the practice is legal in the Netherlands – the first country to adopt it since Nazi Germany did it in 1939. 

In 2022, Louis Roy from the Quebec College of Physicians raised the notion of euthanasia for babies up to a year old ‘who are born with severe deformations, very grave and severe medical syndromes, whose life expectancy and level of suffering are such that it would make sense to ensure that they do not suffer.’

While parents already have the option of stopping treatment for babies suffering from medical conditions, the proposal would accelerate the infant’s death, sparking questions about consent. 

Keep reading

Harvard ethics professor fired for dishonesty maintains her innocence

A Harvard University professor who lost her tenure due to data fraud maintains she is innocent and said she plans to fight for her reputation in court.

Francesca Gino became the first person since the 1940s to lose tenure at Harvard University after the school investigated allegations she tampered with data. The investigation followed accusations made by a trio of behavioral scientists with the blog Data Colada.

Gino (pictured), a business ethics professor, consistently denied the allegations and is fighting back with a lawsuit against Harvard. A judge previously ruled against her lawsuit against the Data Colada authors. However, the judge ruled Gino’s breach of contract claims can continue. She filed a further response on June 23, while Harvard has filed other motions in the past week.

In an unsigned email to The College Fix, Gino’s team noted several major concerns about the integrity of Harvard’s investigation.

According to Gino’s team, Harvard’s investigation report did not include the underlying data needed to independently verify Harvard’s claims. That is, the school denied the professor a proper forensic evaluation and access to raw datasets.

The response also said the burden of proof was reversed. Harvard’s own policy requires that the university proves misconduct occurred and not place the burden on the accused, but Gino was forced to prove her innocence without the backing of resources. Harvard was also supposed to prove the misconduct was committed “recklessly,” “knowingly,” or “intentionally.”

For example, Gino was reportedly not allowed to question witnesses, including her own co-authors and research assistants. She was also unable to obtain documentation that could potentially show who accessed or edited the data, Gino’s team said.

Gino’s team also noted four of five papers under scrutiny were published more than six years before the investigation, which falls outside the statute of limitations for misconduct investigations set by both Harvard and federal standards.

“The available evidence simply did not allow a thorough audit of the relevant data sets,” the email read.

Keep reading