Considering Professional Ethics: November 2024

Excerpts from FASPE Chair David Goldman’s Remarks at the 2024 Dinner 

I feel like I have just returned to college. I spent two years studying and writing about what a professor of mine called “critical realignments,” then a new concept in American political history. Every 30 or 40 years, the American electorate changes course—with a focus on different issues and a new alignment of voters responding to those issues.

I am convinced that is what we are now living through. I urge that we at FASPE seize the opportunity presented by this new world.

We are at a crossroads of novel challenges and uncharted solutions.

The time for apocalyptic predictions is over. The time for extreme polarization has passed. Neither is productive.

What does that mean? It means that now more than ever is the time when those with influence must use their influence– intentionally, ethically, and effectively.

Read More

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.


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.

Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: October 2024

Professional Ethics and Threats to Democracy

By FASPE Chair David Goldman

One of FASPE’s most interesting challenges arises with fellows who are working in “democratic autocracies,” i.e., countries that claim democracy because they allow voting, but which in reality are autocracies. Think Russia or the Philippines, think Turkey or Venezuela. It is a challenge because these fellows’ experiences and their professional contexts are so different from those who work in the United States. Because of this, however, their insights are so very important; they are able to talk from experience about the true and fundamental importance of professional ethics. They are able to talk about the luxury (that we may take for granted) of operating free of autocratic restrictions.

As we come to Election Day in the United States, I write about those professionals in the United States who today accommodate the actions that elsewhere have led to autocratic behavior and create a real risk for us today. My bone to pick is not with the voters who may vote for one candidate or the other; my frustration is with the professionals who are sacrificing professionalism and professional ethics in the false name of advocacy. This, in turn, can instead lead to autocracy.

Read More

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.


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.

Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: September 2024

"Today's Complicit Bystanders: the Professionals?"

Is there such a thing as an “innocent bystander?” What does it mean to witness harm and remain “innocent”? We are familiar with the binary of collaboration and resistance in reference to humankind's worst behavior. Many of us (perhaps including me) took advantage of the solitude of the Pandemic, entranced by all 85 episodes of A French Village, a saga of a television series that laid out in deeply human terms the French Resistance’s heroism during WWII. Opposite this valor, the program juxtaposed the shame of French collaborators. But isn’t that too simple? What of the bystanders, those millions who were neither heroic nor actively complicit? It is too simple to brand the bystanders, with the benefit of our historical hindsight and moral superiority, as complicit by virtue of their inaction. How do we make sense of the complicated nature of simply seeing, of standing by in inaction?

These questions remain salient. What of today’s professionals as analogous bystanders, especially in the context of social and professional norms? 

  • The marketing consultants who advise opioid manufacturers in promoting the sale of products that are clearly both lawful and necessary while also addictive and dangerous.
  • The environmental compliance lawyer whose expertise is in identifying the regulatory exceptions or ambiguities that will shield activities that are damaging to the environment. 
  • The algorithmist whose artificial intelligence formulae are designed to identify creditworthiness for mortgage loans to potential home buyers, yet produce racial or gender bias.
  • The journalist who in the interest of full (and fair) reporting objectively lays out facts as pronounced by the dishonest candidate for high office through quotation marks or video footage.
  • The lawyer who in advocating for her client promotes election lies that cut to the heart of our democracy. 
  • The doctor who prescribes the medication that the patient demands because of the power of television ads and the requirement for patient agency, not because of what is in the best medical interest of the patient.
  • The religious leader who, in his literal readings of scripture, creates a framework for harm to others.
Read More

In each of these circumstances, the professionals are doing their jobs. Even doing them well, even in compliance with the legal and ethical norms of their professions. What is the problem? 

The problem is that in some cases they become the equivalent of the innocent bystanders who, by their inaction, may be complicit. That is, they are doing nothing wrong, but they are potentially causing harm. How are we to regard them?

Let us be clear: these are not the equivalent of the cable-car dilemma; these are not situations where one is faced with two harmful scenarios. Instead, the question is one of judgment. Professional judgment. Ethical judgment. Professional ethics. 

None of these professionals woke up in the morning and decided to take the described actions as part of a design to do harm that day. That’s not how it works. Instead, they woke up and decided to do their jobs, even to do their jobs well—as they had been trained to do, as they had been instructed by those who hired and now pay them. But, did they become complicit in unethical behavior?

There can be no excuse here. None of these professionals can simply claim to be an innocent bystander, can claim to be without stain. They must not lose sight that they were entrusted with responsibility by virtue of their choice of profession, by virtue of their influence. “Johnny is doing it” may be a reasonable excuse to an eight year old; “If I don’t do it, someone else will” may be the excuse of the irresponsible. But there can be no such excuses for the professionals.

An ethical duty of the professional is to be diligently self-aware and vigilant in asking about potential unintended consequences. Innocent bystanding by those who expect our trust is not a legitimate category. The bar is not the law or unexamined legal or ethical norms of the profession. Ethical judgment comes with higher requirements: namely thought, questioning, self-reflection, and judgment. We must question our ethics!


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter. Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: August 2024

Journalism: When do dangers cross the ethical line?

We are pleased to celebrate Evan Gershkovich’s return home. All who believe in a free press were horrified by his arrest and subsequent conviction on made-up charges concocted by a regime that is interested in neither a free press nor the rule of law. Several in the FASPE community are friends and colleagues of Evan; we join them in their joy and relief.

It is perhaps obvious, yet important, to remind ourselves of a timeless ethical issue within journalism: how might we weigh the potential ethical costs of placing journalists in harm’s way in pursuit of their reporting? When is the risk too great? Whose decision is it–the media institution’s or the reporter’s? How is risk measured or anticipated? Who decides (and how) what falls into the category of daily risk, those dangers inherent in one’s life or work, as opposed to unjustifiable risk?

Apart from these more “traditional” questions, let’s discuss three others that are particularly complicated today:

  1. We can understand the obvious types of risks:
  • Reporting from an acknowledged and clear “war zone.” Even if the reporter is clothed in “Press” outerwear, not every bullet ends up at its intended location; not every war is fought within the Rules of the Marquess of Queensberry (or of Geneva). And, what of dangers in areas that are not warzones but that are nonetheless filled with potential risks? How can journalists, editors, and others weigh such uncertain danger?
  • Reporting in the midst of natural (or man-made) conflagrations and catastrophes, such as raging wildfires and hurricanes. The danger is clear and present, if unpredictable from moment to moment.
  • Reporting from a country that does not respect the press, let alone a free press. Or, worse, reporting from a situation in which journalists are the actual targets. In either case, there are no reliable safeguards. These risks are all too obvious and the consequences all too familiar. 

But what of a fourth type of risk: the risk to reputation and sanity caused by a dishonest, deceptive, or manipulative source or subject of the story. And, the related risk of compromise to the journalist’s personal (and journalistic) integrity depending on how she reacts to that source or subject? 

Read More

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.

  1. 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?
  1. 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.


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter. Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: July 2024 

Professional Ethics Requires Personal Time Machines

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair)

The 2024 FASPE Fellows wrote, staged, and presented short “skits”—11 in total. Each took a creative, narrative approach, intending to open a window into a current ethical issue in the professions. One of the skits, written and presented by a group of Business Fellows (not always thought of as the most creative/artistic bunch!), touched on a fundamental FASPE theme: the ethical responsibility of professionals to look into the future, to consider unintended, unanticipated consequences of their behavior. 

Entitled Bearanos: One Tiny Cub Changes Everything, the skit employed the same narrative device that was so gripping in this year’s Tony Award winner, Merrily We Roll Along. The skit proceeded in reverse chronological order. Thus, they started with the outcome and, in succeeding scenes, we were able to see how we arrived at the end. Step by step.

Merrily and the Business Fellows ask: should we have been able to anticipate the end? Did we try hard enough to think about where we were going? In fact, were all of the steps that led to the end so incremental, so modest, that the process of normalization blinded us to the possible consequences, regardless of what we intended?

Consider this: in the early 20th century, a modest inventor named Thomas Midgley played a major role in developing leaded gasoline, thus creating the means that powered generations of a global, automobile-based culture. At the same time (and he didn’t know this would be the outcome!), his invention was among the largest contributing factors to the current environmental catastrophe, namely our carbon footprint. More, Midgley played a major role in developing the first chlorofluorocarbons, known by the brand Freon, thus leading to the largest contributing factor to what we know of as the holes in the ozone layer. And what of the potential lead poisoning caused by his gasoline? 

If we were to write the play of Thomas Midgley’s inventing career a la Bearanos, i.e., in reverse chronological order starting with today’s environmental impacts, would that end of climate change and environmental disaster have been obvious in the later scenes that chronologically, if not dramatically, predate the first act? Could or should Midgley have anticipated the consequences of his inventions?

Read more

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. 


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter. Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: June 2024

When does professional ethics require bending ethical norms and traditions?

By FASPE Chair David Goldman

I write from Poland, in the shadow of the sites of industrial murder. It is Poland where, in October of last year, voters rejected the far-right government that was trading on homophobia, the rejection of democratic systems of justice and a free press, and prejudice cynically promoted in the name of religion. 

I have also just spent weeks in Germany with the 2024 cohorts of FASPE Fellows, exploring memory in the shadow of Nazi crimes. Germany is a country that now, with the rise of a growing far-right political party trading on racism, Islamophobia, and nationalistic anti-immigrant mania, finds itself in the throes of a consuming fear. And this, for Germans, is in the all too familiar name of preserving national character and culture. 

Each of these efforts in far-right extremism, intended to promote anti-democratic control through fear and distrust, raises a basic FASPE theme: the responsibility of professionals, as influential leaders, not just to promote ethical norms and values but to take responsibility to lead the fight against those who attack ethical norms and values. The more difficult question that each raises is whether (and when) that responsibility may require violating traditional ethical rules and norms as a means of defending those same ethical principles. In other words, how far should the ethical professional go in standing up to the degradation of ethical values?

And, that is the question that is debated in earnest throughout Europe where far-right extremism is rising. 

Before asking the question in the American context, consider examples from Germany, which is currently under threat from such extremists:

  • We see that some in the German free press, the journalists, are actively and often unabashedly calling out the extremists, rejecting “bothsideism” and simplistic, potentially obfuscating, journalistic objectivity.
  • We see legal scholars and judges actively calling out the extremists and the threats that they pose, not hiding behind traditions of blind objectivity.
  • We see some in church leadership actively rejecting not just the far-right extremists’ policy and language, but even formally disallowing far-right extremists from church leadership.

In other words, as it would seem in this context, true professional ethics, and committed ethical leadership, sometimes requires rejection of ethical norms and expectations–in the name of a greater ethical calling. Can they really afford to give even an inch to these extremists?

Read more

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.


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: May 2024

A New Profession to Consider: The Voting Public 

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

I write to ask, plead, for rationality in a world where the confluence of misinformation, demagoguery, and dangerous allusions bombards us. Seriously, what are we to do? Let’s begin by acknowledging that this is not new. We are reminded of FASPE Journalism Faculty member Andie Tucher’s recent Not Exactly Lying: Fake News and Fake Journalism in American History. Demagogues are not new, including in the United States. 

However, are the stakes higher today? Is this misbehavior more rampant, even more predominant and effective now? Does social media amplify while supposedly mainstream media is too often complicit (even in the name of supposedly cautious objectivity)? Yes, yes, and yes. 

Read more

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.


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter. Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: April 2024

Ethical Risks of Self-Reinforcing Groupthink; the Elite and Prestigious are Not Immune

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

FASPE examines professionals who behave(d) badly; and asks why? We see normal people whose familiar motivations can lead to what seems obviously unethical to the casual observer. Money, status, competition, success, solving problems—and on and on. But, let’s here consider what may be even more insidious and alluring: the power, the draw, of the group. Consider the following:

We regularly see professionals within the world’s prestigious institutions engage in clearly unethical activities. 

Not Bernie Madoff in his self-made robbery, but lawyers at the great law firms issuing tax opinions and designing structures that reek of the unethical; editors at the most revered news organizations who willingly ignore the most basic tenets of ethical journalism; engineers and algorithmists at the most innovative tech companies who ignore the most obvious of future unintended consequences; doctors at our most renowned research hospitals whose research methods scream ethical failure; consultants at the most recognized consulting firms who define success without regard to ethical consequences; senior officers at America’s most honored military units whose actions are inexplicable by any measure; the great accounting firms, trusted businesses, and on and on—where senior executives violate any known ethical smell test.

Why? How do we explain this? No, the answer is not that elite institutions are constitutionally or inherently unethical or that they breed bad people. In many respects it is to the contrary.

Read More

 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. 


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: March 2024

Would We Watch Marcus Welby and Cliff Huxtable Today?

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

The authority and influence with which we imbue our professionals translates into leadership; and that leadership extends, for example, beyond just the individual doctor/individual patient relationship. As we create health policy, for example, we rely on medical professionals, not, say, police professionals, to help fashion that policy. We grant authority to the doctor because she is a professional in the medical profession. That concept seems self-evident and fundamental to a well-functioning society. My question: do we still believe that?  

 Does our expectation of diversity and our rejection of the very notion of elitism mean that we must also deny the concept of the professional? That is, is there a role today for Marcus Welby and Cliff Huxtable–the iconic representations of professionals, here doctors?

For some, this question may seem bizarre–of course we recognize the influence and importance of our professionals. But, the challenge to the entire idea of the professional has been teed up by those who understandably see that the concept has been co-opted and misunderstood by those who improperly apply an anachronistic (and unethical!) view of the professional. 

Presumably Drs. Welby and Huxtable both went to an Ivy League college and a “fancy” medical school. Dr. Welby was always well-coiffed, conservatively dressed–he likely slept either in suit and tie or white coat. Dr. Huxtable was always either in white coat or fabulously stylish sweater. They lived in perfect homes, with perfect wives, perfect children. We can easily imagine Welby on the golf course; we know that Huxtable was active on the courts–basketball and tennis. While we cannot be sure, they likely attended religious services but not at a mosque, synagogue or mandir (to name a few). 

And, they were trusted.

Read more

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. 


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: February 2024

Is "Trust But Verify" Now Obsolete?

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

We were all a bit bemused when Ronald Reagan frequently used the phrase (interestingly, without noting that it is in fact, ironically, an old Russian proverb) in discussing nuclear disarmament treaties with the Soviet Union. We took the need for verification as an unfortunate but necessary concomitant under these particular circumstances when trust, alone, would normally have sufficed. Fair enough.

Fast forward to 2024 when the whole concept of trust seems so old-fashioned, so quaint. Nowhere is this felt more than in our professions and in our professional institutions, namely the pillars of a functioning society. These foundational pillars become fragile when we do not trust the individuals inside of them.

One might wonder which came first–the breakdown in trust or our clearly dysfunctional society? Does it matter? The fact is that dysfunction thrives on a lack of trust; and that is what we have now.

The FASPE Reunion this year is focusing on the concept of trust within the professions. Namely: what are the core causes of the breakdown in trust? What is the impact of that breakdown?  Why does trust matter? And, most importantly, what can the individual professionals, our Alumni (!), do to play a role in the restoration of trust?

Read more

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.


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


Considering Professional Ethics: January 2024

Who's on First; the Ethics of Participating in a Democracy?

Comments from David Goldman (FASPE Chair) 

In 2024, voters in 64 countries representing nearly one-half of the world’s population (over 60% if we eliminate China from the denominator) will be electing their countries’ leaders. The percentage decreases only a few percentage points if we include only free and fair elections, thus eliminating Russia from the denominator.

Quite a responsibility! Along with enormous potential for good (or not so good). 2024 is truly a consequential year for democracy, for basic geopolitical, cultural and democratic considerations.

I am reminded of two of my friends. One whose political views I generally share, one maybe not so much. Let’s call them “Abbot” and “Costello”; we can each decide who was on first, which was on second. 

I had a continuing argument with Abbot during a recent senatorial election. One of the candidates (let’s call him “Jacob”) was a member of our party of choice, his voting record was almost always as Abbot and I favored. But, both Abbot and I knew, for certain, that Jacob was objectively corrupt; irrespective of this or that acquittal (yes, he had been prosecuted), we both knew that he was corrupt and unapologetically so. Abbot insisted that “we” must vote for Jacob. “Yes, ok, he is corrupt,” Abbot would say, “but we need his vote in the Senate; and, more, we might lose the majority in the Senate if he loses.” Abbot insisted that his vote for Jacob was the right thing to do because of Jacob’s voting record and because of the implications around the balance of power in the Senate.

Read more

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. 


"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.

Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts.
Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.


When the Call Comes from Inside the House

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.

Time’s Up for the “Gay Panic” Defense

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.

Are Google’s Publishing Profits Fake News?

Written by FASPE Journalism Fellows: Ian KullgrenChristine 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.

Giving Beyond the Pews

Written by FASPE Seminary Fellows: Cornelia DaltonFr. 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.

Life Sentence or Gift of Life? Organ Donation and Incarcerated Individuals

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.

Houses of Worship Must Remind the World of Things We Vowed Not to Forget

Written by FASPE Seminary Fellows: Cornelia DaltonDeacon 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.

Outsourcing Ethical Limits

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.

Socially Responsible Investing: Passive Activism or Active Change?

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.

Is it Time to Say Final Goodbyes to Our Definition of Brain Death?

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

This year marks the 50th 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.