Written by FASPE Business Fellows Brian Hathaway and Courtney Kaplan

What makes individuals complicit with objectionable policies? How should companies respond when legal, profit-maximizing behavior is viewed by some stakeholders as unethical?

Companies have become accustomed to challenges from legislators, regulators, and social movement activists. A recent wave of protests reflect the emerging power of a different set of stakeholders: junior employees. These public challenges "from within" call on company leaders to sever ties with problematic clients. The emergent debate touches on questions of complicity and corporate citizenship that are integral to FASPE's treatment of business ethics.

Online furniture retailer Wayfair recently became the latest instance of this trend. As this article summarizes, a tweet from a non-employee drew attention to the company "fulfilling a $200,000 furniture order for detention centers on the US-Mexico border." As the news spread, employees organized a walk-out, arguing that the company was profiting from the inhumane treatment of migrants. Executives responded to the uproar by donating $100,000 to the Red Cross, while reiterating a policy of selling "to any customer who is acting within the laws of the countries within which we operate."

In addition to Wayfair, many consulting and technology companies have experienced similar employee protests on a wide variety of issues. These encounters raise many worthwhile questions. How should a company respond to diverse and divergent views their employees hold? How and when should employees mobilize? And who gets the final say in defining a company's activities and exchange partners? While definitive answers remain elusive, we expect employee protests to become more frequent and even more consequential in the coming years.

Read the original article from the Boston Globe.

Written by FASPE Law Fellows: Shannon Joyce Prince and Carson Thomas

In June, New York joined six other states in banning gay-panic and trans-panic defenses.  These defenses allow a criminal defendant to claim that a violent act was a sudden emotional response to an unwanted sexual advance from a person of the same sex.  They descend from centuries-old common law "heat of passion," or provocation, defenses. In the mid-twentieth century, progressive legal thinkers called for penal codes to recognize the decreased culpability of defendants whose capacity was diminished by past mental and emotional trauma, including survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.  This shifted the focus from a specific set of external circumstances that would cause a "reasonable person" to act violently---i.e., finding one's spouse committing adultery---to the mental and emotional capacity of the individual defendant. The elimination of the gay-panic and trans-panic defenses seems to stem from a laudable desire by state legislatures to ensure that LGBTQ persons are afforded the full protection of the law.  This article identifies some positive outcomes from the expansion of provocation defenses and questions whether the elimination of the gay-panic defense might lead to unintended consequences, including potential limits on the ability of women to claim self-defense against men who had previously abused them. Provocation defenses also raise difficult ethical questions for criminal law practitioners. Should a defense attorney rely on a gay-panic defense to acquit their client despite the fact that the defense is predicated on prejudice?  Do bans against gay-panic defenses prevent defendants from protecting themselves against inappropriate sexual advances simply because the advances were made by someone of the same sex? Where do the concepts of trans-panic and “rape by deception” intersect, and what ethical questions should guide us in navigating that space? In making charging and sentencing decisions, how much should a prosecutor consider a defendant's prior trauma?

Read the original article from The New Yorker.

Written by FASPE Journalism Fellows: Ian Kullgren, Christine Rushton, and Dustin Volz

Journalists, like everyone, can easily fall victim to their own confirmation bias, especially when the issue hits close to home. The New York Times this past week published an article based wholly on a study conducted by a group called the News Media Alliance that asserted that Google had made $4.7 billion from the work of news publishers last year through its search and Google News enterprises. The implication was that a monetary figure could be attached to the damage done to newsrooms across the country that have seen revenues fall as tech behemoths steadily taken more eyeballs--and advertising dollars--away from news publisher websites.

The methodology used to determine that dollar amount, however, was quickly scrutinized by other journalists, and many concluded it lacked merit. As FASPE Journalism faculty member Bill Grueskin noted in a series of tweets, the calculation relied on an offhand "comment (former Google vice president) Marissa Mayer made 11 YEARS AGO" and data extrapolation that appeared more like guesswork.

Publishing an entire article based on one study from a group with a thin track record would raise concerns in many cases about whether a news organization had done enough to verify the information being provided. Journalists are taught to always seek confirmation from other sources, especially if the source may have a particular perspective or agenda. But it is a constant challenge to maintain standards of verification when the information comports to a journalist or newsroom's preexisting views and prior reporting. When it does, journalists must consider whether a heightened level scrutiny of their reporting is required, and how to weigh the demands to produce clickable articles against the expectations to act prudently in order to get it right.

Read the original analysis by Nieman Lab.

Written by FASPE Seminary Fellows: Cornelia Dalton, Fr. Andrew J. De Silva, and Alissa Oleson

Last January, during a month-long time of spiritual and material fasting, Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, VA raised $150,000 by eliminating frivolous spending. At the end of the fast, church members were asked to donate the money to the church. They were not told where the money would go, just that it would go back into the community. Two HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) received the funds: Howard University and Bennett College. 

Alfred Street Baptist Church’s donation prompts the question of the responsibility that communities of faith have in helping those struggling in the community. While houses of worship often give firstly to those inside their faith family, Alfred Street chose to use the material result of their spiritual fast to assist the needy not necessarily in their community or even known personally to the community. Instead, as the assistant minister Marc Lavarin explained, it was an opportunity to both “support HBCU’s and ease a burden borne by individual students.” The worshipers’ generosity showcased their understanding that as a church, ethical responsibility extends beyond the recognizable faces in their pews. It also raises awareness to the rising cost of higher education followed by the rising student debt in the country. In raising awareness, it begins a discussion in and beyond the immediate faith community of why college education is climbing so drastically, as well as how to help ease the burden this places on so many.

The responsibility to give to the needy—espoused in all major religions—is particularly lived out in this case by addressing communities in which high cost of education limits access to education. Alfred Street Baptist Church partnered directly with HBCUs, but each faith community could work with partners or justice allies to address material needs beyond their spiritual community, raising awareness in the process.  

Read the original article at NPR.org.

Written by FASPE Medical Fellows: Alexa Kanbergs and Joseph Scarpa, Jr.

For the last decade, the number of people who require an organ transplant grossly outpaces the number of organ donations. Many proposals have been offered as a potential solution to this problem, including replacing the current opt-in system with a standardized opt-out program. Other proposals include expanding the living donor pool to previously restricted populations, like people currently incarcerated. Prisoners, particularly those facing the death penalty, may consider donating an organ in exchange for a reduced sentences. Is this coercion? Does it create perverse incentives for incarcerated individuals? Is this substantively different than reducing a sentence for typical reasons, like “good behavior”? Does the State have a duty to reduce a person's sentence because he or she has donated an organ? Some prisoners deeply committed to reconciliation, responsibility, and transformation may find fulfillment in donating an organ, even deferring a reduced sentence to remove any hint of coercion. Others, eager to reduce their sentences, might be tempted by a perverse incentive structure. Should evaluating potential living donors who are incarcerated require a greater standard of rigor to determine the “proper” motivations for donating? Or should the potential for coercion prevent incarcerated individuals from donating altogether?

Read the original articles from the Organ Procurement & Transplant Network and an original manuscript on the topic from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

Written by FASPE Seminary Fellows: Cornelia Dalton, Deacon Andrew J. De Silva and Alissa Oleson

This past February marked the one-year anniversary of the Parkland school shootings. Noting how quickly the 24-hour news cycle changes yesterday’s priorities, one church chose art to remember the names of those killed in the Parkland massacre. “We wanted to make sure that we found a way to use our public space to memorialize and remember…” remarked Rev. Nathan Detering, senior minister at Unitarian Universalist Church in Sherborn, MA. Placing empty school desks outside the church with the first names of those tragically killed written on the backs, the church created a poignant memorial.

The primary responsibility of a house of worship in the face of tragedy is prayer for victims; for perpetrators; and for the culture that allowed this. A house of worship ought to be a voice of remembrance calling the faith community to spiritually unite in asking God for continued help in a given situation.

A house of worship also has the sacred responsibility to speak out against injustice. It is for this reason that Unitarian Universalist Church used their memorial as an opportunity to gather and reflect on the shooting. In the face of tragedy, we too can be inspired by the Church in Sherborn to encourage the difficult conversations about why it happened and what we as faith filled people are being called to do about it.

In stark contrast to a culture led by an ever-changing news cycle, houses of worship draw on timeless texts and ancient beliefs as their source for this responsibility. Thus, it seems that they hold a privileged place in our increasingly frenetic culture of reminding us of things that we promised not to forget and our responsibility as people of faith to be instruments of change in our world around us.

Read the original article in The Boston Globe.

Written by FASPE Law Fellows: Shannon Joyce Prince and Carson Thomas

Should it be illegal for an American scientist to participate in foreign research that would be unlawful if conducted in the U.S.?  Recent news about the genome editing of two babies in China has prompted important ethical discussions in the medical and scientific community.  It has also brought attention to the practice of "ethics dumping" that raises significant legal and regulatory questions. Ethics dumping can be defined as "the carrying out by researchers from one country (usually rich, and with strict regulations) in another (usually less well off, and with laxer laws) of an experiment that would not be permitted at home."  As academic and industrial research continues to globalize, there is a danger of a regulatory race to the bottom. How should regulators balance concerns about ethics dumping against charges of ethical imperialism, whereby powerful countries impose their cultural norms onto less powerful nations?

Though one would hope that the rule of law would universally enshrine respect for human dignity, as members of the FASPE community, we know that it can and will fail to do so at time.  What, then, is the responsibility of professionals to create ethical norms for their fields that constrain their behavior regardless of policy?

Read the original article in The Economist.

Written by FASPE Business Fellows Brian Hathaway and Courtney Kaplan

In May 2019, a new investment fund focused on Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) issues raised $851M in its launch. BlackRock's iShares ESG fund signals a growing trend of investor interest in so-called "responsible" investing, as ESG factors can be used to measure the sustainability and ethical impact of a given business.

In past decades, ESG was often seen as a "nice-to-have" by investors, but it was understood that prioritizing sustainability would likely yield lower returns. Today, investors are less willing to accept that trade-off, and are starting to demand that companies deliver on both promises. Today, as "people [have begun] to realize that these environmental, social, and governance issues mattered to financial performance, both the corporate community and the investment community started to see things differently." In 2019, over 50 percent of assets invested in Europe are invested in sustainable investing; even in the US, that number now tops 25%.

While we applaud the ESG movement, we want to be cautious that it is discerning enough to truly reward companies that are behaving responsibly and influence companies to change. Without clearly defined metrics or true oversight, companies may take advantage of this trend without cleaning up their operations or making real commitments to change. Furthermore, investors may feel that by buying an ESG fund is a way to "check the box" on sustainability without having to make any difficult sacrifices. Is that a reasonable expectation? What are the risks associated with funds that promise that investors can have it all?

Read the original article in The Wall Street Journal.

Written by FASPE Medical Fellows: Alexa Kanbergs and Joseph Scarpa, Jr.

This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death.”  Motivated by the number of patients in hospitals that were permanently unconscious but retained biological function, this document outlined a definition and criteria for determining brain death.  The criteria included confirming the patient is unconscious and cannot respond or perceive stimuli, loss of key brainstem functions, and that all reversible causes have been ruled out. The wide acceptance of the concept of brain death proposed in the Harvard Report then led to significant advancements in the field of organ donation.  Patients determined to meet the criteria for brain death who have consented to organ donation are the ideal source of organs, as circulation can be maintained until organ procurement takes place. The concept of brain death has been controversial since its origins, but with technology advancements that allow organs to remain viable for longer periods without a beating heart, does the definition still stand the test of time?

Read the original article on The New York Times.

Written by FASPE Journalism Fellows: Ian Kullgren, Christine Rushton and Dustin Volz

News outlets covering the highly-political issue of abortion rights struggled to hit the mark while reporting on the new legislation in Alabama this May. A piece by Alexandria Neason in the Columbia Journalism Review criticized the coverage as short-sighted and damaging to related coverage on maternal health. Both local and national journalists who report on maternal health spoke out on how the national outlets sensationalized the signing, making it seem as if the law crept from nowhere despite significant work by both proponents and opponents leading up to its passage. National coverage also caused confusion, with many outlets failing to explain that the law won't go into effect for another year. Women who misunderstand might not seek treatment they can still receive for that time.

“News publications can make it seem like a doomsday,” writer Clarissa Brooks said in the CJR piece. She added that it appeared the media didn't pick the story up until the final votes.

This spotlighting of abortion rights can leave reporting on other issues in women's and reproductive health in the shadows, as reported by journalists like Anne Claire Vollers. Writing for Alabama Media Group, Vollers is spending the next year covering the consequences of inadequate access to maternal health care in the state, an issue related to but not connected to the new abortion ban. When writing about politically charged news, journalists need to seek an understanding of not only the story of the moment, but also the larger implications that otherwise might go unreported. This is especially concerning when the topic involves critical issues today like maternal health.

Read the original article in the Columbia Journalism Review.

NEW YORK, NY – Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) announced today that Dhruv Khullar will be named Distinguished Fellow for 2019 and receive a FASPE Award for Ethical Leadership. Khullar will be presented the award at FASPE’s annual gala and awards dinner on Monday, April 15 at CNVS in New York City.

Khullar, MD, MPP, is being honored as a Distinguished Fellow by FASPE for his broad reach in bringing public awareness to key issues in medical ethics through his writing for lay publications and his policy work.

Khullar, an assistant professor of healthcare policy and research at Weill Cornell Medicine, is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, as well as other lay and academic publications, where he explores the intersection of medicine, health policy and economics. In 2012, Khullar was a FASPE Medical Fellow.

“In many respects, our Distinguished Fellow honor is the most important of our annual Ethical Leadership Awards,” said David Goldman, Founder and Chair of FASPE, which runs innovative fellowship programs that challenge graduate students and early-career professionals in business, journalism, law, medicine and religion to confront their ethical responsibilities.

“With this award we recognize a Fellow who has gone on to exemplify FASPE’s mission of ethical leadership. Khullar leads through his widely-read writings, which address a range of issues at the heart of medical ethics today and which challenge us to engage in thoughtful and transparent debate. We are proud to acknowledge Khullar’s important contributions in exploring traditional areas of medical ethics as well as those arising from the use of new technologies.”

Khullar, who holds a medical degree from the Yale School of Medicine and a master’s degree in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School, recently worked in the ABC News Medical Unit, helping to communicate evolving health stories, and was previously at the White House Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.), focusing on Affordable Care Act implementation. In addition to The New York Times, Khullar has written for publications such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Atlantic, Slate, Health Affairs, the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). He currently serves as a Senior Research Fellow at NYC Health + Hospitals, and as Director of Policy Dissemination at the Physicians Foundation Center for Physician Practice and Leadership. 

“FASPE was such a powerful experience and one that I have thought about frequently over the years,” said Khullar. “Those relationships, lessons and insights have only grown stronger and more relevant with time. It is an honor to be recognized by an organization that has given me, and many others, so much. I am deeply grateful." FASPE is presenting Awards for Ethical Leadership to two other honorees at its gala. The global consulting and professional services firm Accenture is this year’s Corporate Honoree. Accenture is being recognized for its leadership in applying ethical principles to the development and use of artificial intelligence and other innovative 21^st-century technologies. The Posthumous Honoree will be Fritz Bauer, the late judge and prosecutor who prosecuted Nazi officials following World War II in German courts, despite active opposition from his superiors.

At a private reception at LRN on April 2, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas accepted FASPE Posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on behalf of the late German-Jewish prosecutor and judge Fritz Bauer. David Goldman, Chair and Founder of FASPE, presented the Award to Maas.

Fritz Bauer (1903 – 1968) was a German-Jewish judge and prosecutor who prosecuted Nazi officials following World War II in German courts, despite active opposition from his superiors. Raised in Stuttgart, Bauer became Germany’s youngest judge in 1930 at the age of 26. In 1933, he was dismissed from his position and arrested and imprisoned for political activity against the Nazi party. Bauer fled to Denmark in 1935 and later to Sweden. After the war, in 1949, Bauer returned to Germany, eventually becoming the chief prosecutor for the State of Hessen. He focused his career on reforming the German justice system and bringing Nazi officials to trial at a time when Nazis continued to hold key government positions and anti-Semitism continued to pervade German society. Bauer set in motion the arrest of Adolf Eichmann in 1960. He is probably best known for the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, which began in 1963 and brought to trial 22 former officials of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp.

Maas is widely known for championing Bauer’s legacy. In 2015, when he was Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Maas established the Fritz Bauer Thesis Award for Human Rights and Contemporary Legal History. Maas has also said that the legacy of the Holocaust was pivotal to his decision to enter politics.

“I am deeply honored to accept the FASPE award on Bauer’s behalf,” said Maas, “The history of the German judiciary doesn’t have many heroes. One of the few was Fritz Bauer. He stood up for democratic values during the Weimar Republic, rejected the barbaric Nazi regime and continued his fight for justice in postwar Germany. Facing suspicion, even hostility, Fritz Bauer stayed true to his conviction that a democratic Germany could only have a future if it confronted its shameful past. His belief in justice and his quest for humanity inspire us, day by day, to stand up for human rights, to defend democratic values and to protect human dignity itself.”

NEW YORK, NY – The Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) will present its 2019 Awards for Ethical Leadership at its annual gala and awards dinner on Monday, April 15, 2019 in New York City. The event will begin at 6:30 pm and will be held at CNVS. 

This year, FASPE’s Posthumous Honoree is Fritz Bauer, the late judge and prosecutor who distinguished himself for prosecuting Nazi war criminals following World War II, and in particular, for having been the first prosecutor to bring criminal charges under German law in German courts against officials at Auschwitz, despite active opposition from his superiors. 

Heiko Maas, German Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be accepting this year’s posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership on Bauer’s behalf at a private cocktail reception on April 2 in Manhattan. German Consul General David Gill will attend the FASPE gala on April 15 to represent Maas and the German Consulate. Gill also serves as one of the FASPE gala’s honorary chairs. 

“We believe there is no individual more deserving of our posthumous Award for Ethical Leadership than Fritz Bauer,” said David Goldman, Founder and Chair of FASPE, which runs innovative fellowship programs that challenge graduate students and early-career professionals in business, journalism, law, medicine and religion to confront their ethical responsibilities by first studying their professional counterparts in Nazi Germany. “Simply put, his actions define ethical leadership within the law—even more so for having been undertaken at personal risk and for the benefit of the larger community. 

“FASPE’s choice of the person to accept the award is just as important as the choice of the posthumous honoree himself,” continued Goldman, “We are particularly honored that Minister Maas is able to accept the Award on Bauer’s behalf, as we believe that his entire body of work as a public figure embodies the principles that Bauer stood for.” 

Maas is widely known for championing Bauer’s legacy. In 2015, when he was Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Maas established the Fritz Bauer Thesis Award for Human Rights and Contemporary Legal History. Maas has also said that the legacy of the Holocaust was pivotal to his decision to enter politics. 

“I am deeply honored to accept the FASPE award on Bauer’s behalf,” said Maas, “The history of the German judiciary doesn’t have many heroes. One of the few was Fritz Bauer. He stood up for democratic values during the Weimar Republic, rejected the barbaric Nazi regime and continued his fight for justice in postwar Germany. Facing suspicion, even hostility, Fritz Bauer stayed true to his conviction that a democratic Germany could only have a future if it confronted its shameful past. His belief in justice and his quest for humanity inspire us, day by day, to stand up for human rights, to defend democratic values and to protect human dignity itself.” 

FASPE is also presenting Awards for Ethical Leadership to two other honorees this year. The global consulting and professional services firm Accenture is this year’s Corporate Honoree. It is being recognized for its leadership in applying ethical principles to the development and use of artificial intelligence and other innovative 21st century technologies. Physician, researcher, author and 2012 FASPE Medical Fellow Dr. Dhruv Khullar will be named Distinguished Fellow. Khullar is being honored for his broad reach in bringing public awareness to key issues in medical ethics today through his writings and public appearances. 

About FASPE 

FASPE provides a unique historical lens to study contemporary ethics in the professions. Currently entering its tenth year of operations, FASPE’s Business, Journalism, Law, Medical and Seminary programs engage graduate students and early-career professionals in an intensive two-week study trip to Germany and Poland, where they explore contemporary ethical issues in their respective fields by first studying their professional counterparts in Europe during the period of 1933-1945. FASPE selects approximately 65-75 Fellows each year for its five programs through a competitive application process. It currently has over 500 alumni fellows, many of whom are emerging as leaders in their fields.  

Visit www.faspe-ethics.org/gala to learn more about the 2019Awards for Ethical Leadership and to purchase tickets. To learn more about FASPE, visit www.faspe-ethics.org.  

FASPE is a New York non-profit corporation with tax qualification as a 501(c)(3) entity. 

The Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE) will present its 2019 Awards for Ethical Leadership at its annual gala and awards dinner on Monday, April 15, 2019 in New York City. The event will begin at 6:30 pm and will be held at CNVS.

This year’s honorees are Accenture, a global consulting and professional services firm working at the intersection of business and technology; Fritz Bauer (posthumously), who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in Germany following World War II and spearheaded justice reforms; and Dhruv Khullar, a physician, researcher and author, who will be named this year’s Distinguished Fellow.

“Our honorees exemplify the ethical leadership that is at the core of FASPE’s mission,” said David Goldman, Founder and Chair of FASPE, which runs innovative fellowship programs that challenge graduate students and early-career professionals in business, journalism, law, medicine and religion to confront their ethical responsibilities.

“Professionals are the influencers in our communities and our leaders,” continued Goldman, “FASPE seeks to provide future leaders with the tools to identify ethical dilemmas, to pose the right ethical questions and to ensure that they do not ignore the ethical consequences. The stakes today are too high to ignore—from artificial intelligence, to genetic manipulation, to the proliferation of fraudulent news sources and much more.”

Accenture, is being recognized by FASPE for its leadership in applying ethical principles to the development and use of artificial intelligence and other innovative twenty-first century technologies. Fritz Bauer is being recognized posthumously for having been the first prosecutor to bring criminal charges under German law in German courts against officials at Auschwitz, despite active opposition from his superiors.

Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, is being honored as a Distinguished Fellow for his broad reach in bringing public awareness to key issues in medical ethics today through his writings and public appearances. Khullar, a physician at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine and an assistant professor of healthcare policy and research at Weill Cornell Medicine, is a frequent contributor to The New York Times and other publications, where he explores the intersection of medicine, health policy and economics. In 2012, he was a FASPE Medical Fellow.

The FASPE Gala Honorary Chairs are Paul R. Daugherty, Chief Technology & Innovation Officer at Accenture; David Gill, Consul General of Germany in New York; Joanne Waldstreicher, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Johnson & Johnson; David L. Taub of McDermott Will & Emery LLP; and Patrick Faller of Mayer Brown LLP. Tables start at $10,000. Tickets are now available and may be purchased at www.faspe-ethics.org/gala.

About FASPE

FASPE provides a unique historical lens to study contemporary ethics in the professions. Currently entering its tenth year of operations, FASPE’s Business, Journalism, Law, Medical and Seminary programs engage graduate students and early-career professionals in an intensive two-week study trip to Germany and Poland, where they explore contemporary ethical issues in their respective fields by first studying their professional counterparts in Europe during the period of 1933-1945. FASPE selects approximately 65-75 Fellows each year for its five programs through a competitive application process. It currently has over 500 alumni fellows, many of whom are emerging as leaders in their fields.

Visit www.faspe-ethics.org/gala to learn more about the 2019 Awards for Ethical Leadership and to purchase tickets. To learn more about FASPE, visit www.faspe-ethics.org.

Written by FASPE Law Fellows: Shannon Joyce Prince and Carson Thomas

The Senate’s consideration of William Barr for Attorney General has brought renewed attention to the legal rules and ethical norms that apply to the recusal of government attorneys and to the independence of law enforcement officials. At this time, it is worth revisiting the commitments made by attorneys Elliot Richardson and William Saxbe when they were nominated, successively, by Richard Nixon to be attorney general during the Watergate investigation. Famously, Richardson committed to “pursue the truth wherever it may lead” and to do so “without fear or favor and with regard solely to the public interest.” In other words, legal rules and ethical norms must apply irrespective of the politics of the day or the identity of the President.

Should the Attorney General and other government attorneys be asked to go above and beyond statutory requirements and the rules of professional responsibility?  How should the Attorney General balance Department of Justice policy and a broader obligation to the public interest? Can we find guidance in other ethical frameworks, such as the Indian concept of dharma, which suggests that when civic and private interests conflict one should prioritize civic responsibilities?

Read the original article on Lawfare.