You are here
Tolerance of Intellectual Dishonesty
In the November 5 issue of the New York Times Book Review, Michael Kinsley wrote, "The biggest flaw in our democracy is ... the enormous tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. Politicians are held to account for outright lies, but there seems to be no sanction against saying things you obviously don't believe. ... Yet one minor exercise in disingenuousness can easily have a greater impact on an election than any number of crooked voting machines."
Nowhere does intellectual dishonesty have a greater effect than in dealing with conflict of interest issues. Excuses and justifications abound whenever the issue comes up.
Probably the most popular of all is, "What I did was ethical because it's not covered by the Code of Ethics." Everyone who says this knows that a Code of Ethics covers a limited number of ethical matters. Excusing one's conduct in this manner is almost an admission that one is unethical.
And yet, because of the tolerance for intellectual dishonesty, almost everyone gets away with it. When was the last time you read a newspaper article that followed such a line with the truth? Or heard another politician or administrator respond with the truth? A young reporter may not know better, but every politician and administrator in the room does know. How many of them are thinking that they might need to use the same line in the future?
It is not just politicians who depend on our tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. Ethics professionals do, as well. They often say that 99% of municipal officials and employees act ethically. This simply isn't true.
Every day municipal officials and employees confront situations where conflicting loyalties are tested. In cities and towns where loyalty to the people who run the town is effectively the administration's ethic (organizational loyalty is often seen as akin to familial loyalty), even the most ethical people have to favor loyalty to the administration (no matter how unethical its leaders' conduct) over loyalty to the public they are supposed to be working for. The only other choice is to give up their job and their pension. It is very difficult to think and act independently.
To say that 99% of municipal officials and employees act ethically is to ignore organizational realities, which are more important to ethical conduct than any other factor. Municipal ethics is not about rotten apples, but about rotten baskets. And far more than 1% of our nation's municipalities are rotten.
Please share some of the intellectually dishonest, disingenuous statements you feel are regularly made and accepted.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired
City Ethics, Inc.
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Robert Wechsler says:
Thu, 2007-01-11 15:37
Permalink
Click here for a comment re intellectual dishonesty in discussing conflict of interest legislation in Alaska.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
[email protected]
Robert Wechsler says:
Fri, 2007-01-26 14:40
Permalink
According to a recent article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the head of a task force reviewing Fort Wayne schools' building needs is also the chair of a PAC supporting school board candidates (his job involves long-range planning for the city). About half of the money raised by the PAC came from local construction and engineering companies.
The PAC chair said he doesn't believe any of them were donating money to buy influence with respect to the building project. "The thought never crossed my mind that we were being used in any way. My focus has always been on identifying and supporting candidates I thought and I felt lined up with the PAC's sentiment about quality education."
When the apparent conflict came out, the PAC chair did offer to step down from the task force. But he did not offer disclosure about where the contributions were coming from until campaign finance reports were filed, not long before the task force report is due. The school board's vice president said that it may be too late now: "The problem here is the perception out there in the community among people already skeptical that this is going to be a contractor feast on their tax dollars."
And still the superintendent of schools, the school board president, and other school board members see no conflict, no problem. Everyone agrees he's a good, ethical person. But being good is not being ethical. Being ethical is thinking things through, considering how your actions affect others and how they are perceived by others.
If he is being sincere about not seeing the connection between his two roles, should he step down because he is not capable of ethical reasoning? What do you think?
In any event, it sounds like this school board needs some ethics training fast.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
[email protected]