Official Disobedience Public Responsibility and Loyalty

Private Life, Public Life, and Responsibility Political life different from ordinary life: Usually not acting on one’s own Acting in a system that has life of its own Acting on the behalf of others (“of … for … and by the people”)

The Rituals of Public Responsibility (Thompson) “Hierarchical Responsibility”: Accepting Full Responsibility –the practice of declaring oneself responsible for bad outcomes simply because one is in charge. Since this ritual is exploited by high-level officials who do not expect to suffer any punishment, it has the effect of undermining real responsibility. “Collective Responsibility”: Sharing the Blame –the practice of assuming responsibility for collective wrongs simply because one is a member of or otherwise associated with a collectivity. Blaming “the system.” The effect is to make everyone responsible and/or no one responsible. “Role Responsibility”: Doing Your Job: –the practice of limiting one’s responsibility to the specific duties of a bureaucratic role. The effect is to deny any ethical responsibility for criticizing public actions.

The Possibility of Personal Public Responsibility Criteria of Responsibility Cause: –the outcome would not have occurred in the way it did but for your action or omission. Knowledge: –a “reasonable official” in your position would have foreseen the consequences of the outcome. One cannot act out of inexcusable ignorance. Compulsion: –the duties of your office did not morally prevent you from contributing to or correcting the outcome.

Civil Disobedience (Rawls) Act publicly Act non-violently Appeal to principles shared by other citizens Direct challenge against law or public policy

Voice (Protest) Sabotage (Disloyalty) Exit (Resign) Leak Speak out until silenced Issue ultimatum Resign and disclose Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Hirschman, 1970)

“Exit, Voice and Loyalty” (Hirschman) Institutional decline is inevitable Institutions can recuperate through either “exit” or “voice” “Loyal opposition” will stay and attempt to work through “voice” channels “Exit with voice” may sometimes be necessary for “loyal opposition”

Support for Whistleblowing Professional ethics 1980 Coded of Ethics for Government Service Whistleblower hotlines

Bok’s Ethical Standards for Whistle blowing, Leaking, and Resignation Presumption toward loyalty Judgment and accuracy in dissent Exploring alternatives to breaching loyalty Fairness in accusation

The Case of BART 1972 Bay Area Transit fully automatic control system 3 Engineers independently discovered safety problems. Found each other. Spoke to supervisors; numerous efforts to speak to BART management. Appeals failed. Contacted member BART Board of Trustees who raised issue at Board meeting engineers fired when complaint traced to them. BART trains encountered problems; one train crashed into parking lot for commuters. 2 engineers turned to California Society for Professional Engineers for support. Society reviewed issue and reported to state legislature. Legislature investigated. Engineers had difficulty finding employment; suffered considerable financial and emotional hardships.