For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.”

President Barack Obama’s words, spoken as he was discussing global issues in his inaugural address last week, apparently were aimed at overseas despots. Only on sober second reading did it become clear that four core words — “the silencing of dissent” — weren’t only about Zimbabwe or North Korea. Nor were they only about the Bush administration, though they can be read that way. In their largest meaning, they point to one of the central ethical challenges of this new century: an unwillingness to confront wrongdoing, an acquiescence to the silencing of honest opposition, and a dangerous failure of moral courage.

How does this silencing show up? Three very different examples come to mind:

• Public libraries. The Patriot Act, voted into law in the wake of 9/11 to combat terrorism, still rankles the nation’s librarians. They see themselves, in the words of the American Library Association’s 70-year-old code of ethics, as “explicitly committed to intellectual freedom” and pledged to “protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality.” So when the FBI demanded in early 2005 that four Connecticut librarians turn over records of patrons’ suspicious computer use — and included a gag order preventing the librarians even from divulging that they had received such a request — they fought back. Only last month did a federal appeals court finally rule, unanimously, that nobody can be kept from discussing the receipt of such requests unless doing so would compromise “an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
• Federal departments. A 2007 law designed in part to prevent the silencing of dissent in eight federal departments and agencies has itself been partially silenced. According to USA Today, three departments — State, Defense, and Health and Human Services — have yet to appoint the required civil liberties officers or to file reports. And an independent Civil Liberties Oversight Board mandated to monitor these departments hasn’t met publicly since 2006 and no longer has any members — a failure President Obama has said he will remedy.
• Private financial institutions. Some of the most costly silencing has happened within the financial sector. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wall Street broker Bernard Madoff, Twin Cities entrepreneur Tom Petters — the list is lengthening of financial entities and actors that have come to grief over issues involving dishonesty in reporting, lack of trustworthiness, and irresponsibility to shareholders and the public. In some cases, insiders broke the code of silence and spoke up to the regulators. But how many other cases are yet to be uncovered? How often will the promises of wealth, power, or pride — abetted by corporate cultures that view dissent as mere disloyalty — prevent those in the know from speaking up?

Fortunately, given our constitutional separation of church and state, the silencing of dissent in the public square can’t be accomplished by excommunication, as it was in earlier centuries — although this very week Pope Benedict XVI finds himself controversially reinstating four bishops excommunicated 21 years ago by Pope John Paul II. Nor can such silencing be perpetrated as easily by elected officials who view dissent as an impediment to their exercise of power — though this very week Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is bent on proving that his impeachment trial is little more than the work of dissidents.

And yet the silencing persists. How much has it cost the world in this decade alone — in lives lost under foreign tyrannies, in wealth destroyed in economic collapses, in self-confidence shattered among those who let themselves be intimidated by authority? How much does it creep into families run by autocratic despots, for whom the silencing of opposition sometimes morphs straight into domestic violence? How much does it continue to inhabit our clubs, congregations, and schools?

What’s needed to resist this silencing? Two things. First, the recognition that dissent is essential to democracy. It is not an option or a sign of failure or a phase we hope to outgrow. It is the essential guarantor of transparency, the source of illumination that limits the temptations of power as surely as sunlight kills bacteria. Without the tugs and tussles of opposing views, democracy hardens into tyranny. If transparency and a welcoming of opposing views is a fundamental moral tenet of democracy, then the silencing of dissent is clearly unethical.

The second requirement is moral courage — the willing endurance of significant danger for the sake of principle. Those who silence dissent are almost always dangerous, or at least would have us think so. They operate through fear, wanting us to believe that they know best, that we’re ignorant of crucial facts, that we’re endangering the long-term good by our position, that we’re just being stupid or acting impulsively, and that we’ll be punished.

Moral courage sees through all of that. True, it doesn’t usually know as much as it would like to know, so it requires a high tolerance for ambiguity. But it knows enough to know that it can’t permit the silencing of dissent, and that it can’t not act. To do otherwise would be to find itself, in Obama’s words, “on the wrong side of history.”

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

For more information, see: USA Today, Jan. 25 — New York Times, Jan. 24 — Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (ALA) — ALA press release, Dec. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 24, 2003.

“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears…. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.”

– From a memo issued last week by President Obama, announcing a raft of rule changes and ethics measures intended to restore government transparency. Indicating a sharp break from the secrecy of the Bush administration, the measures were among the first signed by Obama upon taking office last week, reports Wired.

In addition to reaffirming the importance of FOIA, the New York Times notes that Obama “effectively repealed a Bush executive order that allowed former presidents or their heirs to claim executive privilege in an effort to keep records secret.”

“Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known,” Obama said.

Sources: Wired, Jan. 21 — New York Times, Jan. 21.

For more information, see: Slate, Jan. 23 — Washington Post, Jan. 21 — Related Newsline story, June 25, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 13, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 4, 2002 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2001.

Obama institutes new rules on lobbying, but immediately carves out an exception; House Ethics Committee confronts first hot potato of 2009; Guantánamo will be closed, but nations that had railed against the camp are now confronted with the question of whether they’ll take some of the inmates; executive order overturns international abortion rule

WASHINGTON
A variety of ethics-related issues dominated news from Washington last week. Among the top stories:

• New lobbying rules imposed by President Obama appear to be more stringent than changes implemented by previous presidents and could result in more open government, according to a variety of ethics experts interviewed by the Washington Post. In a series of executive orders and presidential directives, Obama set limits that will bar appointees from seeking lobbying jobs during his presidency, and will ban gifts from lobbyists to anyone in his administration. Obama also has instituted ethics rules that prohibit people engaged in lobbying, who are subsequently brought into his administration, from working on related issues for two years. Fred Wertheimer, president of the nonprofit finance-reform group Democracy 21, told the Post that the lobbying restriction “constitutes a major step in setting a new tone and attitude for Washington that challenges the lobbyist, special-interest culture.”
• President Obama’s new ethics mandates caused an immediate problem on the Hill as it was learned that William Lynn, nominated as deputy secretary of Defense, was granted a waiver on restrictions prohibiting lobbyists from immediately working in related areas. Lynn is senior vice president for Raytheon, and in that capacity oversees lobbying activities for the nation’s fourth-largest defense contractor, according to Bloomberg. If he is confirmed to his Pentagon post, Lynn would be responsible for reviewing major weapons programs. Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the committee that is vetting Lynn, said he was satisfied with the waiver, a procedure that is allowed and spelled out under Obama’s ethics rules. But John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee, said he was “disappointed” by the waiver and wants clarification on what matters would require Lynn’s recusal before making a decision on whether to support the nomination.
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) was appointed chair of the newly constituted House Ethics Committee. The panel, which is evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, starts the year with a hot potato — the probe into powerful Ways and Means chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), reports Congressional Quarterly. One of the panel’s first tasks will be to determine how to proceed with its investigation into Rangel’s fundraising and finances. The committee is investigating allegations about Rangel’s rent-controlled apartments, failure to pay taxes on rental property, and improper fundraising for a public policy school named after him.
• President Obama pledged to shut the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, but the decision has raised a variety of dilemmas, including whether European nations that railed against the camp will now offer homes to the inmates, reports the Associated Press. Irish foreign minister Michael Martin said EU members should agree to house at least some of the inmates “as a logical consequence of our arguing for the closure of Guantánamo.” He emphasized to the AP, however, that “no one is talking about terrorists or anything like that coming to EU countries. We’re talking about noncombatants — people who clearly have no history of any terrorist activity.” The AP notes: “Diplomatic and security officials across Europe acknowledge that in the Obama era their nations risk exposure of double standards — complaining of American injustice, but presuming that ex-Guantánamo prisoners are too hot to handle themselves. Most nations in the 27-country bloc remain in the position of waiting for an EU request that they might prefer never comes.”
• What promises to be among the most controversial of Obama’s executive orders overturns an eight-year ban on U.S. government funding for family-planning groups that provide abortions or abortion counseling overseas. The Agence France-Presse notes that the “global gag rule,” which was introduced by President Reagan in 1984 and bars family planning groups from receiving badly needed U.S. funds if they even discuss abortion with women seeking reproductive services, has been repeatedly overturned by Democratic administrations and repeatedly re-imposed by Republicans. While Obama’s action drew praise from Democratic lawmakers, family-planning agencies, and women’s rights groups, it drew immediate fire from anti-abortion organizations and Republicans, notes the AFP.

Sources: AFP, Jan. 24 — Washington Post, Jan. 23 — Congressional Quarterly, Jan. 23 — Bloomberg, Jan. 23 — AP, Jan. 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10, 2008.

Issues include Israel’s use of white phosphorus shells

VARIOUS DATELINES
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has called for an investigation into allegations of abuses against both sides in the Gaza conflict.

The Voice of America reports that the Agency’s director in Gaza, John Ging, says the process must be credible and must address allegations of human-rights violations lodged by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

According to TIME magazine, the Israeli government actively is trying to protect its citizens from war crimes charges that could be filed in foreign courts over the actions in Gaza.

While Israel is not a signatory to a Geneva Convention that allows courts in uninvolved nations to arrest and prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, many European nations are, and could bring such charges against Israeli citizens.

Attorney general Menachem Mazuz ordered the Israeli media not to reveal the names of military personnel involved in the 22-day offensive because of fears they could be arrested when traveling abroad, reports TIME.

Israel has been accused of illegally firing white phosphorus shells near civilians. While use of phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens in an open military battleground, its use in heavy civilian areas is forbidden.

Phosphorus sticks to the skin and will burn flesh through to the bone, and inhalation can also be fatal.

Israel has admitted using phosphorus but denied that it was deployed improperly.

Sources: TIME, Jan. 23 — Voice of America, Jan. 23 — BBC, Jan. 23 — Times of London, Jan. 23 — New York Times, Jan. 21 — AP, Jan. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 11, 2008 — Related Newsline story, July 24, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 3, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 27, 2006.

Coaches across nation watch the case, wondering about its implications

LOUISVILLE, Ky.
What are the legal and ethical implications of a coach pushing a young player during practice? That question is at the center of a heated debate after a high school football coach was indicted last week for the death of one of his players.

MSNBC reports that Jason Stinson, a coach at a Kentucky high school, was charged in the death of 15-year-old Max Gilpin, who collapsed during an August 2008 practice. Gilpin collapsed on the field and was taken to the hospital with a 107-degree body temperature; he died three days later.

Temperatures were in the 90s, reports MSNBC, and it was alleged that coaches refused to let the players take water breaks. Stinson denies withholding water.

Stinson is charged with reckless homicide, a charge based on a Kentucky law criminalizing behavior that fails to perceive a substantial and justifiable risk, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.

It is believed to be the fist such charge against a high school coach ever lodged in the United States. Attorneys for Stinson say he will maintain his innocence at trial, reports the Louisville Courier-Journal.

According to Louisville TV station WAVE, coaches across the country are following the case, keenly interested in what repercussions they may face.

Pat Forde, an ESPN sports analyst interviewed by WAVE, maintained that “the more light that’s shed on this and what happened, the more it will eventually cut down on these sort of things ’cause it’s an awful thing that every August or every July we hear about some football player that dies.”

Sources: CNN, Jan. 26 — MSNBC, Jan. 26 — MSNBC, Jan. 23 — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23 — Louisville Courier-Journal, Jan. 23 — WAVE, Jan. 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 25, 2008 — Related Newsline story, May 19, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 24, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007.

As economy tanks, so does influx of cash into financial scams — and there appear to be more scams than anyone imagined, according to reports

NEW YORK
Bernard Madoff’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme spawned a series of ethics-related stories in the world press last week. Among them:

• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began issuing subpoenas to people believed to have been affiliated with Madoff, according to a report from MarketWatch. Madoff previously told investigators he had worked alone.
• A CNN investigation reportedly shows that Madoff engineered fictitious trading results for decades, inventing details of trades that never happened. CNN says an analysis shows that Madoff sometimes reported yearly returns of as much as 18 percent, while gains in recent years ranged from 10 to 12 percent. The “investment strategies” Madoff purported to use would — if trades were legitimately conducted — have resulted in returns of only 2 or 3 percent per year, according to the CNN analysis.
• Having savings evaporate into the ether of a scam is apparently much more common that ever before, according to ABC News. ABC profiled a variety of scams it called “Mini-Madoffs” that, while not on the same titanic scale, nevertheless involve millions of investors’ dollars. The scams are being detected, reports ABC, as a result of the economic downturn: With a lack of money coming in, Ponzi schemes have no way to cover their machinations and are crashing left and right.

Sources: CNN, Jan. 23 — MarketWatch, Jan. 23 — ABC, Jan. 22 — Financial Times, Jan. 21 — Forbes, Jan. 21.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 12 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 22, 2008.

In other medial-ethics news, major stem-cell trials scheduled to begin in United States and Britain

VARIOUS DATELINES
Medical-ethics stories made news last week in the United States and Britain. Among the coverage:

• There is a growing trends of scientists using their own children as research subjects, according to a report from the New York Times. Researchers interviewed for the piece say studying their own children allows for a more in-depth research agenda and ensures a reliable participant. Projects profiled include a psychologist using her four children in studies of media effects, a neurology professor scanning his children’s brains, and an M.I.T. researcher who has placed 11 video cameras in his house to study his young son’s speech development. While some studies seem inherently benign, ethicists interviewed by the Times say such relationships could in some cases raise questions about the effect on the child, the relationship with the parent, and the objectivity of the researcher.
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever human trial of a medical treatment using products derived from human stem cells, UPI reports. The current experiment involves attempting to restore movement to victims of spinal cord injuries. Use of stem cells from embryonic tissue has been an ethical flashpoint because critics liken it to abortion. In related news, it is expected that the new Obama administration will loosen rules on stem-cell research and free up federal funding that was restricted under the Bush administration.
• In Britain, a biotech firm has been given approval to conduct a trial into using stem cells to treat victims of stroke, according to the CBC. As in the United States, the procedure has caused a substantial amount of controversy, especially among religious conservatives.

Sources: UPI, Jan. 23 — CBC, Jan. 19 — New York Times, Jan. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 22, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 15, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 8, 2008.

Some call for “moral recovery plan” to accompany economic package

NEW YORK
Many church leaders maintain that the United States is facing not only an economic crisis but a meltdown of ethical values as well, according to a report from Reuters.

As a result, they say, this is an excellent time to bring people back into their pews.

“Honesty is honesty, the Rev. Jerry Johnson told Reuters. “It doesn’t matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever. A lot of these debacles we’re seeing can be traced and sourced back to a lack of good old ethics.”

A similar view was echoed by author Ken Eldred, who writes on the role of religion in business. “There has been a crisis of ethics,” he told Reuters, “and I think sadly it is quite significant. People think business has nothing to do with faith, that honesty is not always the best policy. But when you take that away, people end up worse overall.”

And David Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Atlanta’s Mercer University, argued that the United States needs not only an economic recovery plan but a “moral recovery plan” as well.

“We need … a renewal of the moral compass to do the right thing just because it’s right, obeying not just legal laws but moral laws related to how people need to be treated,” Gushee said.

Clerics interviewed for the piece noted that there often is a resurgence in church attendance in times of crisis, and one said that his church was mounting outreach efforts aimed at businessmen and -women.

Source: Reuters, Jan. 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 8, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8, 2008.

Also notes that “environment, immigration, health care slip down the list” of U.S. public’s priority concerns

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

“As Barack Obama takes office, the public’s focus is overwhelmingly on domestic policy concerns — particularly the economy. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation stand at the top of the public’s list of domestic priorities for 2009. Meanwhile, the priority placed on issues such as the environment, crime, illegal immigration and even reducing health care costs has fallen off from a year ago.

“While it is not unusual for the public to prioritize domestic over foreign policy, the balance of opinion today is particularly one-sided. Roughly seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that President Obama should focus on domestic policy, while just 11% prioritize foreign policy. By comparison, last January, 56% cited domestic policy as most important while 31% said Bush should focus on foreign policy.

“…The share of Americans saying that strengthening the nation’s economy should be a top priority has risen from 68% two years ago to 75% last January to 85% today. Concern about jobs has risen even more sharply. The 82% who rate improving the job situation as a top priority represents a 21-point jump from 61% a year ago.

“Of the 20 issues people were asked to rate in both January 2008 and January 2009, five have slipped significantly in importance as attention to the economy has surged. Protecting the environment fell the most precipitously — just 41% rate this as a top priority today, down from 56% a year ago. The percentage rating illegal immigration as a top priority has fallen from 51% to 41% over the past year, and reducing crime has fallen by a similar amount (from 54% to 46%)….

“The large decline in the percentage of Americans citing the environment is seen across the political spectrum, but Republicans (20%) remain far less likely than Democrats (54%) or independents (41%) to say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for the president and Congress. The only policy that ranks lower than protecting the environment among Republicans is dealing with global warming (16%)….

“The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. …A number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority — comparable to today’s 41% — before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year….

“…A partisan gap has emerged this year over reducing middle-class taxes. At the start of 2008, roughly half of both Democrats (50%) and Republicans (46%) rated this as a top priority. Today, just 31% of Republicans say middle class tax cuts are a top priority, compared with 48% of Democrats….

“The fundamental gaps between Democratic and Republican priorities seen in previous years remain largely the same today. Democrats place a far higher priority on issues related to the poor, on the environment and on education than do Republicans. And Republicans place a higher priority on defense and illegal immigration than do Democrats.

“As was the case a year ago, the single biggest partisan gap comes over how much priority to place on providing health insurance to the uninsured. Two-thirds (66%) of Democrats rate this as a top priority while just 28% of Republicans agree. Similarly, 62% of Democrats say that dealing with the problems of the poor and needy is a top priority, compared with 34% of Republicans. By contrast, Republicans place greater priority on strengthening the military (64% vs. 38% of Democrats) and dealing with illegal immigration (46% vs. 34%)….”

For the full press release from Pew, Jan. 22, click here.

“Anger is a prelude to courage.”

– Eric Hoffer (U.S. social writer and philosopher, 1902-1983)