In this issue's "Ethical Challenges" column, commentators share their views of how evaluators might respond to specific problematic situations, linking their analyses to the principles and standards they believe are most relevant to the case. Not surprisingly, the perspectives that commentators offer are not always in agreement. When this occurs, reflection on the nature and sources of these differences of opinion can enhance sensitivity to the ethical dimensions of evaluation work and awareness of the options available for addressing them. In this issue's scenario, "Should We Call the Whole Thing Off?" an evaluator realizes that the participants in the program being evaluated speak different languages. Although the evaluator was prepared to work with English-speaking and Spanish-speaking participants, he is unprepared to deal with the significant population of Russian immigrants who are also involved in the program. Moreover, he does not have the financial resources to expand his evaluation team to include a native speaker of Russian. In responding to the scenario, the commentators start from very different, but complementary perspectives. The first commentator is Dr. Dina Birman, from the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, whose response to the scenario is rich in detail about the specific circumstances faced by Russian immigrants, including the subgroups one is likely to find within that population, the ways in which the welfare system interacts with refugees, and other contextual influences (see EJ753261). She points out that language is only one aspect of culture that is needed to address in working with diverse populations. The second commentator is Dr. Donna Mertens of Gallaudet University's Department of Educational Foundations and Research. She points out that language is a potential barrier to developing an evaluation that is not just inclusive but also works to increase the power of communities who are disadvantaged in the majority culture (see EJ753260). The two commentators both conclude that leaving the Russian immigrant population out of the evaluation would have negative implications for the ethical soundness of the evaluation, as well as for the quality and usefulness of the information obtained. (Contains 1 note.)