“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” — Paulo Freire (1970)

Definition

The ethic of critique is strongly rooted in the context of the struggle for the emancipation of the oppressed and the fight to preserve culture and language. It is aimed at amplifying the voices of those who lack power, privilege, or influence. It further seeks to empower marginalized communities to become agents of change by promoting a reflective evaluation of society and culture and challenging established power (Berges Puyo, 2022).

Critical ethicists are anti-dogmatic and reject absolutisms. They hold critique and dialogue as fundamental values. As Freire (1970) argued:

If the structure does not permit dialogue the structure must be changed… Any situation in which some men prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence… To alienate humans from their own decision making is to change them into objects.

One of the primary goals of critical ethicists is to create space for people affected by systemic inequities to express their opinions, contribute their points of view, be heard, and, ultimately, bring about changes that make the situation more equitable (Langlois, 2011). They seek to uncover instances in which one person or group benefits at the expense or detriment of others.

It is an ethic centred on increasing accessibility, awareness, and change. It is focused on empowerment, equity, diversity, and increasing cultural proficiency (Vogel, 2012). Moreover, it aims to eliminate exploitation of others, which requires leaders and educators to engage in advocacy efforts and, at times, take risks. Thus, critical ethicists are not concerned with rules, laws, or programs aimed at benefit maximization. Rather, they challenge notions of democracy and fairness and are concerned with linguistic and cultural survival, regardless of the size of the group or whether the group is of the majority.

One of the core principles of critical ethicists is, not surprisingly, ‘critique.’ Critique involves a thorough evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of a subject or system. Educational leaders who are guided by an ethic of critique are primarily focused on critiquing institutional bureaucracy and educational systems, which “propagate social reproduction, dehumanize, oppress, marginalize, and alienate” (Wood & Navarez, 2014, p. 70). Leaders examine bureaucratic elements by searching for claims of uniform fairness and accountability, including:

• uncovering sexism or racism during the hiring process
• prejudice towards other cultures
• unfair representation on committees
• distribution of tasks based on gender
• implementation of policies without genuine engagement from those impacted
• inequitable distribution of resources
• restricted access to professional networks based on social status (Langlois, 2011)

The summary table below highlights the main objective of an ethic of critique, core principles, and benefits of adopting this framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas.

Historical Origins

The ethic of critique was first proposed by Robert J. Starratt (1991), who emphasized ethical behaviour as that which addresses inequities among individuals and groups who experience discrimination due to factors such as race, class, gender, and ability. When these factors impact one’s power, voice, treatment, and access to resources and benefits, it is considered unjust.

Frankfurt School and Marxism

The roots of this ethical paradigm date back much further than Starratt’s original work in the 1990s to the 1920s and 1930s when a group of scholars known as the Frankfurt School in Germany articulated critical theory. Critical theory was formulated by such key thinkers as Iris M. Young, Jurgen Habermas, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno, among others (Langlois, 2011). They sought to “liberate human beings from circumstances that enslave them” (Horkheimer, 1982, p. 244)

Critical scholars were particularly concerned with understanding and critiquing the social, political, and cultural conditions of their time, especially due to the rise of fascism and the spread of mass media and consumer culture. After World War II, many members of the Frankfurt School emigrated to the United States, where they continued to develop and refine critical theory.

One can go back even further in time to find critical influences from 18th century Marxist philosophy. Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848/1888), which focuses on the critique of capitalism, the role of ideology in maintaining dominant social structures, the analysis of class struggle, and how these concepts inform the development of society. Marxism seeks to understand the underlying structures of society, particularly the economic base (the means of production) and the superstructure (the institutions and ideologies that arise from the economic base) and how these structures shape social relations and history.

Robert J. Starratt and Paulo Freire

While Marxism tends to focus more narrowly on economic factors and class struggle, critical theory broadens the scope of analysis to include other forms of oppression, such as those based on gender, sexuality, race, ability, neurodivergence, and other social categories. From the perspective of the critical ethicist, Starratt (1991) argued that:

no social arrangement is neutral. It is usually structured to benefit some segments of society at the expense of others. The ethical challenge is to make these social arrangements more responsive to the human and social rights of all the citizens, to enable those affected by social arrangements to have a voice in evaluating their results and in altering them in the interests of the common good and of fuller participation and justice for individuals (pp. 189–190).

Starratt’s (1991) framing of critique moved from that of critical scholars’ focus on the political and social arena to that of educational systems. His theory was also influenced by critical emancipatory scholar and pedagogist Paulo Freire (1970), whose work was deeply rooted in the idea of conscientização, or critical consciousness. Freire argued that education should not be a process of mere transmission of knowledge from teacher to student but rather a dialogical process in which both teachers and students engage in critical reflection and inquiry. His approach challenged traditional power dynamics in education and aimed to empower students to become active participants in their own learning and in the transformation of society. For Freire, education should not only equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to understand the world but also empower them to take action to change it.

Educational Systems, Community, and Culture

McKerrow and Bullerdieck (2006) expanded upon the notion of critique in education through their work on non-dominated discourse, which they described as “an inclusive process for democratizing educational organizations, avoiding hierarchical bureaucracy, and appreciating legitimate decision-making authority in every context” (p. 199). In a non-dominated classroom, the “teacher loses the position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leader of group activities” (p. 59).

Community consultation is a common expectation of educational leaders today; however, critical ethicists demand that leaders move beyond simple consultation to true engagement through meaningful dialogue. Freire (1970) believed that “Leaders who do not act dialogically, but insist on imposing their decisions, do not organize the people – they manipulate them. They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”

Glass and Martinez (1993) defined legitimate social choice as “one that has the consensus of a community of citizens and that consensus was reached in open and undominated discourse” (p. 10). For McKerrow and Bullerdiek (2006), this requires that:

First, the interests of each individual must be fairly considered… Second, each individual should have a fair influence over decisions emerging from the discourse… Third, those affected by a decision should be a part of the decision-making process… Finally, accountability must be directed toward those who are directly affected by any decision… for example, professors and teachers would be primarily, but not exclusively, accountable to their students. Administrators would be accountable to their faculty (p. 199).

This conception of leadership is reinforced by the governing principles of the Okanagan people and based on The Four Chiefs Enowkinwixw Discourse (Armstrong, 1999), which follows a philosophy of voluntary cooperation. The term Eníowkin refers to “coming to understanding through a gentle integrative process” (p. 1) to restore wholeness to a community fragmented by colonization. From this perspective:

Real democracy is not about power in numbers, it is about collaboration as an organizational system. Real democracy includes the right of the minority to a remedy, one that is unhampered by the tyranny of a complacent or aggressive majority (Armstrong, 1999, p. 4).

The ethic of critique is linked to the notion of culture and concerned with the role that educational systems play in passing along culture to youth. More specifically, it is concerned with cultural preservation. From a critical perspective, an educational system that fails to respect and uphold the worldview(s) held by the people it serves constitutes, as Freire (1970) admonished, “cultural invasion, good intentions not withstanding.”

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

Educational leaders who follow a critical ethic are committed to uncovering, challenging, and overcoming inequities through social justice. Their primary mission is to emancipate and empower the oppressed. They see their primary role as educators to “transform educational institutions into locales for empowerment; rather than factories which fulfil the hierarchical needs of a stratified society” (Wood & Navarez, 2014, p. 70). Educational leaders’ responsibility is thus to “to uncover, expose, and redress such injustice via social justice” (p. 73), which begins first by critiquing one’s own assumptions, biases, privileges, and influence in society.

Berges Puyo (2022) demanded that educational leaders question their own representation of power to illuminate flaws within the educational system and to ask themselves:

• Are the laws, rules, and regulations fair?
• Are constitutional rights protected?
• Is there any discrimination allowed for any reason?
• Are the rights of all students, faculty, and staff protected? (p. 145)

Collegial Governance

The ethic of critique and collegial governance in higher education are both concerned with promoting democratic values and fostering a culture of critical inquiry and shared decision-making. Collegial governance refers to a model of governance in which decisions are made through collaborative processes involving faculty, staff, and students. This model emphasizes shared responsibility and participation in decision-making, rather than top-down authority. Collegial decision-making thus involves “conferring, collaborating, and gaining consensus” (Austin & Jones, 2016, p. 125).

Clark et al. (2009) argued that “University governance is marked by a level of decentralization that is matched in few other organizations. At every level, consensus is the holy grail of decision-making” (p. 73). Traditionally, the professoriate is granted authority and responsibility for academic matters as individual professionals and through internal academic bodies. Collegial governance is fundamentally a process in which faculty and administrators make decisions concerning academic matters in an open, responsible, and democratic process.

In higher education, collegial self-governance is realized through department meetings and a committee structure — hiring committees, tenure committees, curriculum committees, and so on. Collegial governance involves the rights and duties of faculty to contribute to open debate and decision-making and the obligation to participate in governance processes. In Western educational systems, Robert’s Rules of Order are often embedded in governing bylaws (“Robert’s Rules of Order,” 2024). These rules of order are designed as vehicles to carry out the majority’s will, which can create disparity and injustice for the minority. As a result, this can lead to division, polarity, and ongoing dissension. As Armstrong (1999) argued, “This type of process is in fact a way to guarantee the continuous hostility and division that give rise to aggressive actions that can destabilize the whole community, creating uncertainty, distrust, and prejudice” (p. 4).

Non-Dominated Discourse

Increased calls for morally sound decision-making at all levels of post-secondary organizations demand attention to what McKerrow and Bulldieck (2006) have described as the need for non-dominated discourse in educational leadership. Non-dominated discourse is a framework allowing for all voices to emerge. Additionally, McKerrow and Bulldieck ask us to be wary of:

the potential for organizations to grow and accrue economic, social, or cultural capital at the expense of individuals or groups of individuals… particular concerns are the unexamined rationalization for centering the organization at the expense of the individual, the possibility of exploitation, and the subsequent legitimization of unencumbered organizational growth (p. 199).

Alternatively, critical scholars and the Okanagan people assert that morally sound decision-making processes seek to build solidarity and outcomes that will be acceptable, by informed choice, to all who will be affected. The Enowkinwixw Discourse model is thus one that educational leaders may want to turn to as a more ethically sound decision-making process. As Armstrong (1999) described:

Its collaborative decision-making engages everyone in the process; decisions are not handed down by leaders “empowered” to decide for everyone. It is a negotiated process that creates trust and consensus because the solution belongs to everyone for all their own reasons (p. 5).

Critical scholars and educators celebrate, amplify, and empower historically silenced voices in education to support collaborative decision-making. In sum, the ethic of critique is aimed at disrupting hierarchies increasingly prevalent in neoliberal institutions today.

Benefits of Ethic

Many benefits can be derived from following an ethic of critique. It encourages individuals to think critically and analytically, leading to deeper understanding and more conscientious leadership and scholarship — a hallmark of higher education. Critique holds institutions and educational leaders accountable for their actions and decisions, requiring that their actions are in line with institutional values and strategic priorities. The ethic of critique helps leaders move beyond what Langlois (2011) described as “moral innocence,” in which one assumes that ‘this is the way things are,’ to a deeper understanding of their own potential complicity in legitimizing norms and laws designed to oppress.

A discussion on the ethic of critique in this textbook would be incomplete without mention of its connection to the philosophy of open education, which has a primary aim of affordability, inclusivity, equity, learner agency, and relevance (Roberts, 2020). More specifically, as Robert-Crews (2023) highlighted, open education asks us to consider:

• Whose knowledge is considered valuable?
• Who is centred in educational systems?
• Why do curricula centre certain histories?

Fundamentally, open education as a critical practice is about increasing representation, democratizing education, and addressing systemic barriers to information and education (Lambert, 2018; Bali et al., 2020; Robert-Crews, 2023). The idea of openness as a critical practice is about interrogating institutional frameworks that limit or restrict access to information; claiming authority over and withhold certain knowledges and restrict platforms for disseminating information; and ultimately, questioning individuals and groups that stand to profit from those who are marginalized by the system. Ethical educational leadership can emerge through the philosophy of open education, as a means for empowering educators and learners (Hylen, 2006) and increasing accessibility, affordability, and representational justice.

Drawbacks of Ethic

While the ethic of critique can be a powerful tool for promoting social justice, there are potential drawbacks to consider. Critique can lead to polarization and division, especially when those in positions of power are challenged and their influence is destabilized. This can result in an ‘us versus them’ mentality, particularly when those involved in decision-making are guided by differing ethical lenses. Notably, there is often incompatibility between those who prioritize an ethic of justice and those who follow an ethic of critique.

Educational leaders who follow an ethic of critique assume a certain degree of risk, comparable to those who follow an ethic of discomfort (see chapter “Ethic of Discomfort”). In their study of principals in Canadian French-language schools, Langlois and Lapointe (2007) found that early career principals were less likely to adopt an ethic of critique. Instead, their decisions were more heavily guided by an ethic of justice. Similarly, research by Smithers et al. (2021) found that tenured professors were unlikely to challenge dominant discourses, speak out against unfair policies, or advocate or mitigate risks for precarious non-tenured researchers in their employ.

One could posit that this is due to a sense of insecurity and reliance on the perceived protections that rules and laws provide for those in positions of power. As Smithers et al. (2021) noted, remaining silent may be a “means of safeguarding their own employment in unstable times.” Or perhaps educational leaders are hesitant to engage in critique because they lack a deep understanding of the complexities of educational systems and may be overwhelmed by the immensity of overcoming such structural challenges hindering equity; therefore, they are effectively incapacitated by the gravity of challenging the status quo. Langlois and Lapoint (2007) found that it was not until later in their careers that school principals felt confident enough to take risks and challenge social norms.

Critical ethicists are willing to forgo one’s own well-being and self-interest to right historical wrongs. However, rarely have educational leaders in North America gone beyond performative measures. This is in part because it requires the decentring of settler colonial perspectives and the repatriation of Indigenous land and life (Tuck & Yang, 2012). Perhaps this is also due to the risk of burnout that many critical scholars experience; constantly challenging existing norms and structures can be emotionally and intellectually draining (Clarke Gray, 2020).

Recommended Readings

• “The Four Chiefs Enowkinwixw Discourse” by Jeannette C. Armstrong (1999) in Ecoliteracy: Mapping the Terrain (edited by Zenobia Barlow), Centre for Ecoliteracy (available on Simon Fraser University’s website)
• Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire (1970), Continuum International Publishing Group
• “Best Practice for Ethical Educational Administration: Non-dominated Discourse” by Kelly McKerrow and Erin Bullerdieck (2006) in Unbridled Spirit: Best Practices in Education Administration — The 2006 Yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (edited by Frederick L. Dembowski and Linda K. Lemasters), Pro>Active Publications (available on the ERIC database)

References

Armstrong, J. C. (1999, February). The four chiefs enowkinwixw discourse. In Z. Barlow (Ed.), Ecoliteracy: Mapping the Terrain. Centre for Ecoliteracy. https://www.sfu.ca/ced/economic-reconciliation/transformative-storytelling/grounding-economic-systems-in-culture/the-four-chiefs-enowkinwixw-discourse.html

Austin, I., & Jones, G. A. (2016). Governance of higher education: Global perspectives, theories, and practices. Routledge.

Bali, M., Cronin, C., & Jhangiani, R. S. (2020). Framing open educational practices from a social justice perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2020(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.565

Berges Puyo, J. G. (2022). Ethical leadership in education: A uniting view through ethics of care, justice, critique, and heartful education. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 5(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2022.24

Clark, I. D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M., & Trick, D. (2009). Academic transformation: The forces reshaping higher education in Ontario. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Clarke Gray, B. (2020). The university cannot love you: Gendered labour, burnout and the Covid-19 pivot to digital. In S. Koseoglu & G. Veletsianos (Eds.), Feminist Critical Digital Pedagogy: An Open Book. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/feminist_digital_ped/zXHDRJAq

Freire, P. (with Macedo, D.). (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed., M. Ramos, Trans.). Continuum International Publishing Group.

Glass, G. & Martinez, B. A. (1993, June 2–3). Politics of teacher evaluation. Proceedings of the CREATE Cross-Cutting Evaluation Theory Planning Seminar (ED364581, pp. 121–134). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED364581.pdf

Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory: Selected essays (M. J. O’Connell, Trans.). Continuum Publishing Company. (Original work published 1972)

Hylén, J. (2006). Open educational resources: Opportunities and challenges. OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/37351085.pdf

Lambert, S. R. (2018). Changing our (dis)course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v5i3.290

Langlois, L. (2011). The anatomy of ethical leadership: To lead our organizations in a conscientious and authentic manner (D. Marcus, Trans.). AU Press. https://read.aupress.ca/read/the-anatomy-of-ethical-leadership/section/d384bca6-a0d9-46b8-8bdc-4cd6a0542af4 (Originally published 2008)

Langlois, L., & Lapointe, C. (2007). Ethical leadership in Canadian school organizations: Tensions and possibilities. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207075391

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1888). The Communist manifesto (F. Engels, Ed., S. Moore, Trans.). Charles H. Kerr & Company. (Originally published 1848)

McKerrow, K., & Bullerdieck, E. (2006). Chapter 22: Best practice for ethical educational administration: Non-dominated discourse. In F. L. Dembowski & L. K. Lemasters (Eds.), Unbridled spirit: Best practices in education administration — The 2006 yearbook of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (ED523724, pp. 198–205). Pro>Active Publications. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523724.pdf

Roberts, J. (2020, October 8–9). Open education: Do better [Keynote address]. ASCCC 2020 Academic Academy, Virtual.

Roberts-Crews, J. (2023). The black feminist pedagogical origins of open education. Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, (1). https://cuny.manifoldapp.org/read/the-black-feminist-pedagogical-origins-of-open-education/section/f46578ee-e6b4-4d4d-b356-dda3f3cd1806

Robert’s rules of order. (2024, May 7). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order&oldid=1222674200

Smithers, K., Harris, J., Goff, M., Spina, N., & Bailey, S. (2021). Ethical responsibilities of tenured academics supervising non-tenured researchers in times of neoliberalism and precarity. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2021.1881458

Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X91027002005

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630

Vogel, L. R. (2012). Leading with hearts and minds: Ethical orientations of educational leadership doctoral students (EJ1186561). Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 10(1), 1–12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1186561.pdf

Wood, J. L. & Nevarez, C. (2014). Ethical leadership and the community college: Paradigms, decision-making, and praxis. Information Age Publishing Inc.