Bureaucratic Ethics and the U.S. Constitution in Public Administration

Introduction: Democracy as the Foundation of Bureaucratic Ethics

If democracy and the concept of democratic governance form the foundation of bureaucratic ethics, do administrators and public officials relate to the U.S. Constitution in that sense? Are ethical behaviors by those in public office the result of the creation and practice of democracy? Many of those who are elected to public office must take an oath to abide by the principles contained in the Constitution of the United States, but are those individuals truly ethically committed to those principles while they engage in democratic governance? This paper takes the position that while democratic governance — as embodied in the Constitution — should be understood and practiced as the foundation for ethical behavior, that is not always the case. Indeed, ethical behavior on the part of the press in the United States, which is a bureaucracy in its own right and which John Rohr alludes to, is unfortunately more rare than not.

In 1982, the National Endowment for the Humanities launched a project that would make constitutional studies part of the curriculum at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, and three reasons were presented as justification for this. The first reason is that while public administrators take an oath to "uphold" the U.S. Constitution, they are not taking it merely because it means they will obey a law (White, et al., 1982). They are taking that oath because it is more about the "supremacy of the Constitution" than it is about a basic law — the Constitution is the ultimate law because it encompasses all other laws, White writes.

Constitutional Oaths and the Gap in Understanding

White adds, however, a more pointed question: does the administrator or public official who takes the oath really understand the "constitutional heritage" that he or she is sworn to live up to? That is the most pertinent question White presents. In other words, how much do public officials and administrators truly know about the Constitution they are sworn to defend? The implication is that there is a gap between taking the oath and understanding what that oath really implies with respect to ethical behavior.

The second reason for the new curriculum relates to the need for students to explore the relationship between the "administrative state" — that is, bureaucracy — and the Constitution. The third reason is similar: professionals in the field of administration would "…do well to examine the constitutional underpinnings of our field" (White, 430). White is essentially pointing out that mindlessly taking an oath because it is part of one's job means missing the point of the ultimate law of the land. The administrative state must be grounded in genuine constitutional understanding if ethical behavior is to follow.

The Administrative State and Constitutional Underpinnings

The article by Rohr (2007–8) examines the executive powers that the U.S. president is granted by the Constitution and compares them to constitutional powers given to administrations in Spain, France, and the Czech Republic. Rohr also notes that some countries demonstrate a stronger ethical approach to freedom of the press than the United States does.

Conclusion: Ideology Over Ethics in American Governance

Bureaucratic ethics in the U.S. lack a firm foundation because the country has entered a period where ideology carries more momentum than ethics. The issue of climate change, for example, has become an ideological battleground — conservatives tend to doubt the scientific consensus while progressives accept the available evidence. The ethics of speaking the truth are left to individual administrators and public officials because there are, in practice, few checks and balances when it comes to promoting factual accuracy. Ethical behavior is, unfortunately, no longer the norm it once was in America — though there remain individuals and agencies that do value and uphold it.