Faculty of

Engineering

FACC 100 Introduction to the Engineering Profession

Fall 2020

CLASS 2 – IN-CLASS/POST-CLASS ACTIVITY

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL VALUES (STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ENGINEERING)

11 Sep 2020

PRE-CLASS READINGS
J. Morgenstern, ‘The fifty-nine-story crisis,’ New Yorker, vol. 71, no. 14 (1995).
E. Kremer, ‘Re(examining) the Citicorp case: ethical paragon or chimera,’ Cross Currents, vol. 52, no. 3 (2002).

ACTIVITY AND DISCUSSION POINTS

1. In your groups, discuss your individual answers to the following pre-class activity questions:
a. According to the Morgenstern article, what are the main issues that LeMessurier faced?
b. What is the main point raised in the Kremer article, i.e., what main issue surrounding LeMessurier’s
actions is he questioning?

2. LeMessurier faced a significant dilemma: he had to ensure the safety of the building but at the same time,
he may have faced litigation, bankruptcy, and even professional disgrace. If you were LeMessurier, what would
you have done in his situation? Why?

3. Discuss the following points

a. In neglecting quartering wind loads (since they were not specified in the building codes), did
LeMessurier make a gross mistake?
b. Did LeMessurier fail to adequately supervise the work he was responsible for?
c. LeMessurier contemplated remaining silent about the inadequacy of the tower’s structural frame.
Would remaining silent to avoid panic be ethical?
d. Events of the situation were not fully disclosed until 1995 and many others knew of the situation.
Given this, and based on your responses to the above, are LeMessurier’s actions consistent with the
reasonable care model?

4. If LeMessurier were in the audience in today’s class, what question would you ask him?

WHAT TO SUBMIT
Each student must submit their own responses to the above discussion points (3 or 4 bullet points for each).
Submit your response (pdf file) in the Assignments section in myCourses (Class 2 – Engineering Professional Values
– In-Class-Post-Class Activity folder) by Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 11:59 pm.

You must identify your breakout group number in your submission.

FACC 100 Class 2 – In-Class/Post-Class Activity

 Faculty of
Engineering

Your response will be graded according to the following scoring rubric.

Scoring rubric
The following is the description of an ideal submission (with regards to the first 4 discussion points):

Responses were accurate/correct and described succinctly.

Responses accounted for many factors (from the technical issues, the presentation of facts, the sequence of events,
etc.).
Responses were related to the 4 professional values in engineering and the obligations of the engineer to the
stakeholders (public, client/employer, and profession).

Submissions will be graded as follows, based on the extent to which the submission aligns with the description of
an ideal submission:

0 – Strongly disagree
4 – Somewhat disagree
6 – Neither agree nor disagree
9 – Somewhat agree
10 – Strongly agree

FACC 100 Class 2 – In-Class/Post-Class Activity