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
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Hirschman, 1970)
Issue
ultimatum
Voice
(Protest)
Exit
(Resign)
Speak
out until
silenced
Leak
Resign
and
disclose
Sabotage
(Disloyalty)
“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.
• 1973 3 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.