I mean the professionals: they must define and shape this new landscape.

So, I come tonight with a challenge to us, to FASPE, to individual professionals.

Let me give a few examples of what I mean:

In the new order, there will be reduced regulations, fewer restraints coming from Washington.

• In the brave new world of AI and more: technologists, you are going to have to provide these ethical restraints.
• Doctors, the control of the delivery of medical treatments might not come from Washington or Atlanta. You must take control of patient-doctor relationships.
• In this new order, the United States might pull out from the Paris Accords. Washington will not dictate environmental policy. Business leaders, we must count on you to create truly ethical capitalism.
• Journalists, we simply must have objective, truthful information. Help!
• Lawyers, I know that you are paid to win. I know that the rules of ethics tell you that your loyalty is to your clients. Well, today, share that loyalty with the rule of law.
• Clergy/religious leaders: In this new order, we need empathy and humility more than ever. Please lead us.

I want to be clear. I am not talking pro-Trump or anti-Trump. We must move on from that obsession. I am talking about the real world.

I am reporting that FASPE will take a leadership role in energizing the influencers to do what they do best: influence. FASPE’s professionals, more than anyone, can define the future, a future that right now screams out for definition. That requires ethical foundations.

I am excited by this opportunity, by this challenge. And, I look forward to bringing everyone in this room into the process.

Democracy depends on accurate information being placed before the voters. Put in economic terms, democracy depends on a free and accurate marketplace of facts that serves as the basis for reasoned ideas and opinions (and votes). Misinformation, intentional or knowing mistruth, is the greatest threat to democracy. 

Democracy depends on free and fair elections. Democratic autocracies claim to be true democracies based on their free elections. They ignore the fair part of the equation. Campaigning and advocating are fine—they are an element of fair elections; seeking through legal or legislative processes to influence an election, however, is not fine. Even more, seeking through clever lawyering or legislative power to make it more difficult to vote curtails freeness and fairness. It is simply the greatest threat to free and fair elections. Even if one suspends disbelief and accepts that those who are seeking to increase the barriers to vote are acting in good faith without partisan interest, we must still not interfere with that most basic of democratic values—the right to vote. Our goal should be to make voting easier, not to create false and distracting impediments.

What role are some journalists playing in the spread of misinformation? What role are some technologists playing in creating misinformation? What role are some clergy playing in preaching misinformation? What role are some business people playing in using the power of their commercial platforms to promote misinformation? What role are some lawyers playing in seeking to restrict the availability of the voting ballot to only some citizens? 

Believe me, I am not here advocating for one or the other candidate. I suspect that the supporters of each candidate see the miscreants on the other side. Of course, that raises the important question of self-awareness (and, even, the belief in propaganda as long as it is my propaganda). But we may leave these questions for another time.

While it is too late to hold those unprofessional professionals to account in this election, it is our responsibility as voters to recognize the improper (and opaque) influence they may be having on us as we enter the voting booth. It is our responsibility as voters to ignore the misinformation and to vote based on truth and on the values that matter to us. We must not allow ourselves to be manipulated by others.  

Professionals, question your ethics by being self-aware; do not pursue advocacy, even in the name of loyalty, when doing so is at the expense of professionalism and ethical responsibility.

There are legitimate-ish politicians who traffic in lies, though not 100% of the time; there are conspiracy theorists who happen upon a real conspiracy now and then; there are those who impose opaque conditions of access on the consumer. We live in a world of rampant and intentional disinformation (though one may question how to define “intentional” in the hands of, for instance, a psychopathic liar) amplified ever more by social media. We should acknowledge that these realities also put the responsible journalist in harm’s way; even the most responsible can be manipulated, putting her reputation at risk. 

So, what should the responsible journalist do when facing a known manipulator? Even reporting the risk serves to amplify the underlying story. Such a tack plays right into the hands of the ill-intentioned.

2. The confluence of the failing economics of the traditional news industry and the predominance of social media often means that individual journalists become the sole decision-makers in adjudicating risk and reward, thus (i) eliminating the judgment of the more dispassionate editor, and (ii) exacerbating the need for taking risks in order to break the story and electrify the audience. We all can imagine the starving reporter putting herself in harm’s way when all data would suggest she make a different decision. Put differently, after Evan Gershkovich’s arrest, a number of the traditional media companies withdrew all of their reporters from Russia; did the starving reporter have that luxury? How can that risk be regulated? How can we (or should we care to) protect the desperate journalist from himself? Does the profession have that responsibility?

3. What of the journalists who truly are part of the story, who become parties to, or otherwise involved in, harm? Perhaps we should care less about them; they went in with eyes wide open. But, then, aren’t they doing damage to the legitimacy of the profession itself? Yes, most may dismiss Tucker Carlson as an unserious entertainer in a journalist’s uniform; but is that clear to all? And, what of the not so public or not so obvious; how many so-called journalists are mere instruments of autocratic states or terrorist non-states even if their outerwear screams Press?

My conclusion? As the world becomes more complicated–by technology, by what seems to be a pandemic of lying (or psychopathic) politicians, by the availability of and our demand for speed, by the charlatans within all professions–we have two calls to action:

To coin a play on a phrase, journalists, heal thyselves. Find ways to regulate yourselves; have the courage to call out those who jeopardize journalistic integrity–both from within and from without.

For the rest of us: put our faith in the hands of the true professionals, those who lead ethically. At the same time, we must become literate and vigilant as consumers of journalism and reject the non-journalists.

Perhaps the Midgley example is on the far end. Could he have understood the environmental impact of leaded gasoline and CFCs, or even in his wildest imagination foreseen the intricate web of highways that surround the world’s cities and the streets that clog our towns; or could he have anticipated a refrigerator and air conditioner in every house, a world filled with aerosols? Maybe not, but let’s turn it around on today’s professionals:

• Do our lawyers and judges sufficiently consider the consequences of their overly clever arguments and precedent-setting decisions, i.e., beyond the narrow case at hand? 
• Even beyond opioids, do our medical product companies sufficiently consider the economic and health consequences of the aggressive marketing of complicated treatments?
• Do our religious leaders appreciate the political and social impact they have by engaging in and promoting our so-called culture wars?
• Do our journalists take into account the influence of their financially driven promotion of (even by merely reporting, without commentary, on) misinformation and conspiracy theories?
• And, of course, are our technologists sufficiently introspective and curious about the consequences of what they are creating?

It is an ethical responsibility of those with influence to consider, to search for, the potential consequences of their behavior, even (or especially!) of their actions that would seem to fall directly within the purpose of their professions. Could the doctors in Germany in the early 1930s have anticipated that their aggressive eugenics policies (including forced sterilizations) would lead to the murders of the handicapped by the end of the decade? Could the lawyers in Germany in the early 1930s have anticipated that their enforcement and participation in the “Aryanization” (meaning theft) of Jewish-owned businesses would lead to mass deportation and murder? Could the clergy in Germany in the early 1930s have anticipated that their cozying up to the National Socialists would lead to complicity in genocide?

Yes, these are the extremes. But they are emblematic. The extremes matter because they are instructive. Indeed, they are harsh reminders to today’s professionals that their actions have consequences—not just today for their direct clients, patients, parishioners, et.al., but also tomorrow to potentially larger populations. 

Professionals: ask the questions; work your crystal balls. It is your ethical responsibility. 

On the other hand in the US:

• American journalists, while certainly recognizing the lies that are euphemistically called alternative facts or conspiratorial truths, provide voice to the lies and even agree, for example, to rules of political debate that prohibit fact-checking.
• In the spirit of long-established “rules” that assume self-regulation, American legal scholars and judges at the highest level accommodate objectively unethical behavior at the very highest level in the spirit of long-established “rules;” and lawyers act as mouthpieces for the worst kinds of liars, spewing the same anti-democratic and anti-justice lies as their clients. 
• Church leaders ignore patently irreligious and immoral behavior.

Timothy Snyder wrote in his 2017 book On Tyranny about American naivete in thinking that those things cannot happen in America. Whether Snyder is correct–either about the threat to democratic values posed by the extreme right or about American complacency–can be debated. In any case, however, FASPE argues that the professionals must take a leadership role in ensuring our ethical values. Sometimes such bold defense may mean taking positions that may feel uncomfortable or untraditional. That discomfort is the price of ethical conduct.
Vigilance in the face of threats to fundamental principles that include democracy, a free press, and an independent non-political judiciary must take priority; and our professionals must be willing to face uncomfortable challenges, perhaps taking guidance from the German professionals who know what can happen.

Now, unlike any other time in our history, the very basics of our democracy are being threatened as a result of the very nature and intent of the misinformation and demagoguery. No, the elections were not, and there is no threat that they will be, rigged or stolen. No, the American system of Justice has not been converted into a banana republic of political witch hunts. No, QAnon is not real.

We need timely ways of thinking about this recurrent problem. Perhaps the answer lies in thinking about a different group of professionals, the consuming public, the voters. 

FASPE defines professionals by reference to those who have influence in their communities (defined broadly). We demand professionalism and expertise from those who have such influence. Thus, we now ask for that professionalism from those with the ultimate influence, the voting public. That responsibility lies with all of us–to take our role, as voting professionals, more seriously. Our decisions, as a voting public, affect our shared future.

Why are we, the consuming public, tolerating and even buying shoddy products? We know better, don’t we? We know better.

We ask for truth in advertising when we buy a car, yet we are pulled into (and tolerate) a hurricane of lies in the political sphere. We expect to have the freedom to choose which products to buy, yet we blithely permit new legislative restrictions on voting and corrupt gerrymandering that diminishes or even cancels our right to choose. We account for bombast from underhanded product sales tactics, yet we are drawn to political demagogues. We rely on a system of regulation that roots out the dangerous products on the market, yet we continue to accept candidates whom we know to be corrupt thugs and candidates whose words and behavior scream danger to democratic principles. We reject sales tactics that rely on racist, misogynistic ideas; we reject othering or discrimination of all stripes, yet we vote for candidates who blatantly (or not so blatantly) travel in such territory. On the other hand, our better selves are even willing to sacrifice and pay a bit more for our products in order to protect the workers who produce the products and to ensure the basic legitimacy of the marketplace, yet we all too often select candidates solely based on our own petty and selfish prejudices (and pocketbooks).

We, as voters, must demand and vote for products that are not based on misinformation, demagoguery, and dangerous allusions even where those products may seem to satisfy our individual desires at the moment. We as voters need to question our ethics as we practice our profession.

 Can it, instead, be the ethical risk that comes with a tradition, even history, of exemplary behavior?

• Over the years, we have spoken with many young professionals at these great institutions who willingly admit that they defer the ethical questions to their seniors—on the theory that senior people at prestigious organizations must know the ethically right answers, that to have risen within such an organization speaks to their ethical reliability. 
• Perhaps even more prevalent is the risk of the arrogance of the elite. Because of their status, is there an unstated internal implication that they are entitled to pronounce what is ethical? If they do it, it must be ok. If the leadership, if the policies, at [pick a name] condone [pick an ethically questionable act/behavior], then, well, it must be fine. Sometimes the consequences are tragic—think of those well publicized failures of members of the Navy Seals or Green Beret; sometimes the consequences are existential to the institution—think of Arthur Andersen; sometimes the consequences are reputationally disastrous. Worse, though, consider what unethical actions we do not know about because they were shielded by the reputation of the organization.

Sometimes these ethical risks arise not within existing, even elite, institutions, but instead in environments of our own making, where within our small groups we create our own ethical constructs in service to the group and without regard to otherwise obvious ethical constraints. 

• Do we even unintentionally or subconsciously ignore ethical boundaries in support of our family unit? Isn’t that the case in the most blatant situations involving compromises that we have seen parents make to “assist” their children gain entry to elite universities?
• How often do lawyers or other service providers design their own self-serving, self-reinforcing ethical structures in the micro-environment between service provider + client? In the extreme, does that define the interactions between lawyers or consulting firms and pharmaceutical companies or tobacco companies that were major contributors to the opioid crisis and cigarette-caused cancer?
• Don’t we know of situations where the special relationship between journalist and source or doctor and patient devolve into the unethical not out of ill-intent, but because of the importance of the relationship and the distinction of the project?

Otherwise normal and well-meaning people are vulnerable to act unethically. Not intentionally, perhaps not consciously, even not out of personal (or selfish) motivations. But, rather, because of the allure of the group. Even the group that forms a justifiable and well-earned elite, even the groups that we establish ourselves with the best of intentions.

The lesson: ethical behavior requires self-awareness and constant vigilance. Professionals: question your ethics. 

Is professionalism defined by gender, elite education, clothing, economic power, and athleticism? Does professionalism depend on gender, elite education, clothing, economic power, and athleticism? If the answer to either is yes, then the anti-professional must be right.

The problem is that those characteristics were the accouterments of the professional of the 1950s. But they must not define them today! We must not see the accouterments as defining the professional or professionalism.

So, what are the traits and values that qualify the professional for the influence and trust that we depend on? Consider whether any of these sound like Cliff Huxtable and Marcus Welby, even if hidden behind their clothing, style, or other accouterments: expertise, objectivity, curiosity, integrity, judgment, creativity, reliability, availability, commitment, empathy, altruism, selflessness, self-awareness. 

We can discuss which of the above are fundamental, what others we want to add–perhaps depending in some cases on the profession. But, we know that none of the above assumes any specific race, religion, gender, or cultural heritage; any particular schooling or family wealth; a personal appearance or style. 

So, why this crisis of trust, crisis of definition? It is no revelation to say that we are a society in transformation, one that is far from defined by the supposed white male symbol of expertise or trustworthiness. Do luddites exist? Are there many who remain tethered to the white male symbol? Yes to both. But, this must not be a political discussion; this is not a debate. There has been progress; and we require more. Professionalism does not lie in the past. 

Our greatest risk lies in a class of prospective professionals who themselves reject true professionalism because they believe (or fear) that it remains dependent on the old models. That is itself an act of anti-professionalism that undermines the need for ethical leadership.

In fact, this is a false and entirely counter-productive discussion. The remnants, however powerful, of the outdated models and symbols have absolutely no place in the present, no possibility in the future. The existence of the remnants must not preoccupy, or be daunting to, the prospective professional who does not look like a Welby or a Huxtable. 

Professionals: do not deny your responsibility. Consumers of professional services: do not reject true professionalism. 

Let’s be clear. We are not going to return to a world of Marcus Welbys, but does that mean that we must live in a world of deniers or skeptics of medical science; we are not going to return to a world of Thurgood Marshalls, but does that mean that we must live in a world of well-founded lawyers’ jokes that assume ill-motives for every word uttered or written by lawyers; we are not going to a world in which technologists and business executives are seen through the romance and belief in Bell Labs, but does that mean we must, as our default positions, deny technology and question all business? Shall I mention Walter Cronkite and modern media? Or this or that religious group that is more identified by [sometimes extreme] political positions than their spiritual foundation?

And, let’s also be clear that the professions have earned this level of suspicion and distrust. From the doctors behind the so-called Tuskegee “medical” experiments to Rudy Giuliani and his band of “legal” theorists of election denial (let alone a Supreme Court whose Chief Justice, himself, speaks often about the lack of trust); from Elizabeth Holmes and her breakthrough “technology” to the “journalist” Tucker Carlson. Unethical all. Unprofessional all. And, tragically, these individual acts of ethical failure lead to a suspicion of their entire professions. And, of their underlying systems and institutions–medicine and the CDC; the legal system and the Supreme Court; Journalism and Fox News and The New York Times. And on and on.

It is trite to say that trust cannot be acquired, that it cannot be returned overnight. But, it is not trite to say that trust in the professions begins with trust in the individual practitioners. One by one.

Professionals: Question your ethics. A functioning society depends on it.

I reminded Abbot of a recent election in another state where the candidate (let’s call him “Stewart”) of the “other” party was credibly accused of seriously improper behavior; and Abbot had then made the argument that a vote for Stewart was cynical and unethical. Politics and partisan issues, Abbot had then told me, must be subservient and secondary to ethics. Hmm. How does Abbot distinguish voting for Jacob from voting for Stewart? Simple, he said, “the political stakes are too high.” So much for the primacy of ethics? 

My other friend, Costello. Costello was vocal, and he was rich. A vocal, and huge financial, supporter of candidates of the “other party.” Always. We would argue about his political views and his candidates, but I could never convince him of the errors of his ways. Then came an election, a very big election, where the candidate of Costello’s party (let’s call him “John”) was objectively unethical, dishonest, and even undemocratic, in ways that everyone recognized. And, John’s opponent was an individual (let’s call her “Diane”) whose politics were absolutely abhorrent to Costello. On every issue, Costello’s positions were diametrically the opposite of Diane’s, more aligned with John’s. 

Here is what Costello publicly stated after refusing to provide any financial support to John, words to the effect of: “John is X, Y and Z [all pejorative commentaries of John’s character and morality]. I will not vote for him. Our Republic will survive four years of Diane.” 

My question: what had happened to my friend Abbot’s soul, to his understanding of fundamental right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical? How could someone on “my side” be so duplicitous and someone on the “other side” care so much about ethics? 

Our civic responsibility is not just to vote, but to vote in a responsible and ethical manner. 

The protagonist in Kazuo Ishiguro’s brilliant Remains of the Day is a proper English butler of the early and mid-20th century. He speaks at length throughout the book about what is the most important fundamental characteristic of his profession; he concludes that the answer revolves around the overriding concept of “dignity.” Ishiguro’s butler labors throughout the book over the meaning of dignity. And, that is fine. 

By analogy, we at FASPE often remind our friends that we are not the ethics police. Our goal is to urge that the influencers, the professionals, behave ethically as they define the term. All we ask is that ethics be top of mind, that it be part of the equation.

When it comes to democratic voting, we are all influencers. And, again by analogy, I am not the “dignity police.” None of us should pretend to play that role. However, we fail as a society if each of us fails to take dignity, if we do not take ethics, into account when we are in the voting booth. Fundamentally bad things can happen when we are led by people without dignity, without an ethical North Star.

Our political leaders are at the top of the pyramid of professionals, i.e., those with influence. If they do not have an ethical North Star, if ethical behavior is not top of mind for them every day, then we, the public, are at risk. Put differently, hyper-partisanship cannot take precedence over an alternative that threatens our fundamental ethical responsibilities and values.

Ultimately, we must have leadership that is ethical, that embodies dignity. Otherwise, how can we be comfortable with the predictability that ethical behavior, regardless of partisan politics, survives intact, that we are an ethical and dignified society.

Costello was right, he knew who was on first.