Shortly after his inauguration in January 2017, President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend an executive order imposing a temporary ban on refugees from countries connected with terrorist activity. Ms. Yates explained her position in a letter claiming that she was not “convinced” of the legality of the law.
Some legal authorities argued that Ms. Yates did not provide adequate justification for her refusal, failing to demonstrate or even claim that the order was unconstitutional. Apparently, it was her own personal bias, rather than the actual legality of the executive order, that influenced Ms. Yates to make her decision.
This episode hearkened back to September 2015, when County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples as required by newly passed marriage laws in Kentucky. Ms. Davis cited her religious beliefs as the reason for her refusal.
Not surprisingly, the same conservatives who applauded Kim Davis for her act of conscience castigated Ms. Yates for hers; and the same liberals who cheered on Ms. Yates were outraged by Ms. Davis’ contempt for the law.
From an ethical, rather than a political perspective, who was right?
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons why the two cases are similar.
List two or three reasons why the two cases are dissimilar.
Did the two women have another option?
Having weighed the options, what would you have done?
Gray Matters
If you had difficulty articulating a difference between the two cases, congratulations on your intellectual integrity. From a purely objective, nonpartisan viewpoint, it’s hard to find a substantive argument to differentiate between them.
It’s disingenuous, therefore, to either defend or condemn one of these women and not the other. Although civil disobedience and acts of conscience are both core values in American tradition, from an ethical perspective the action of either woman is difficult to justify.
An oath of office is administered because public service is an act of public trust. We are allowed to disagree with our lawmakers, even challenge them and lobby against them, as long as we do so within the boundaries of the law. If you find yourself in a situation where you cannot serve both your conscience and your duty, then your only ethical option is to resign your position.
But neither woman chose that option. Each wanted to keep her position while declaring the demands of performing it unjust. But you can’t have it both ways; and attempting to do so leads to anarchy. If you want to make a statement of conscience, make it all the way or not at all. otherwise you are exploiting conscience in the service of ideology.
And that is profoundly unethical.
At times, ethical duty may indeed require us to break the law. But that same code of ethics requires us to accept the consequences of our actions, not try to hide from them behind a mask of questionable integrity.