We present a case that focuses on the allocation of costs between men's and women's sports. At issue is whether large portions of indirect costs can or should be allocated to women's sports to keep a university in compliance with Title IX, the federal law promoting gender equity in collegiate athletics. Students are instructed to use an ethical decision‐making model when addressing the cost allocation issue and deciding whether it is ethical for accountants to “play” with numbers to achieve certain objectives. The cost allocation alternatives generated by students are appropriate for managerial accounting courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The case also helps students to develop a systematic approach when solving ethical dilemmas. Students are required to identify potential stakeholders of the decision to reallocate costs and to assess the interests of the different stakeholders. After developing potential alternatives and determining how each decision could affect the stakeholders, students must make a cost allocation decision that is consistent with the fundamental qualities of the accounting profession—honesty, competence, objectivity, and integrity. In addition to gaining exposure to cost allocation methods and ethical decision making, students are exposed to several core educational competencies identified in the AICPA Core Competency Framework (AICPA 1999).
Compliance with Title IX at Kingston State University: A Case Study on Cost Allocation and Ethical Decision Making
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
John T. Reisch, Larry P. Seese; Compliance with Title IX at Kingston State University: A Case Study on Cost Allocation and Ethical Decision Making. Issues in Accounting Education 1 February 2005; 20 (1): 81–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2005.20.1.81
Download citation file: