The design of the Citicorp Center provides an excellent case study to analyze the competing demands placed on design professionals and to examine how business, legal, and ethical responsibilities much be carefully considered and balanced. LeMessurier’s lasting legacy is as a design professional standing behind
the work. However, he has been both praised for his forthright honesty and also criticized for particular aspects of how he handled the situation.
As an engineer, LeMessurier would know the Code of Ethics for Engineers issued by the National Society of Professional Engineers. Six fundamental canons must be obeyed by engineers in the fulfillment of their
professional duties:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Choose one of the three prompts below to reflect on particular aspects of the case study. Write a 300–500 word reflection response in a three part essay including introduction, body, and conclusion. Reflect on Canon 1 and this sentence in the reading: “…LeMessurier considered his options. Silence was one of them; only Davenport knew the full implications of what he had found, and he would not disclose them on his own” (p. 48, par. 2). Understanding that LeMessurier did not choose this option,
write about implications you discern in considering together the implications of Canon 1 and the option of silence. Consider Canon 3 and the press release made on August 8th (described on p. 51, col 2).
Write about whether Canon 3 was or was not upheld in the language of the press release.
Provide persuasive evidence to support your claim (or claims).
Consider Canon 3 and Canon 4.
Write about whether these two Canons might seem contradictory in this case.
Evaluate how the two Canons were addressed in the case and provide your view about whether they were addressed correctly. Again, provide evidence to support your claim(s)
