---

“When you say ethical leadership… Do we need to put ‘ethical’ in there? Leadership should be ethical to be begin with, right? It’s one and the same.” — Mixalhíts’a7

---

Foreword

This chapter reflects a cross-cultural conversation between the book authors (Alana, Olubukola, and Rumana) and two St’at’imc matriarchs (Mixalhíts’a7 and Grizzlypaws). We have chosen to maintain the integrity of that conversation by sharing portions of the dialogue, oral stories, and lessons embedded within them to reflect and honour an Indigenous epistemology that is relational and dialogic in a way that demonstrates our commitment to decolonizing research methodologies (Smith, 2023).

The conversation that follows discusses Indigenous leadership approaches from a St’at’imc perspective. Rather than presenting the transcribed conversation verbatim, we themed portions, removing some of the small talk, filler words (e.g., “like” and “hmmm”), and unfinished thoughts that naturally occur when friends gather to ruminate on complex topics like leadership.

You will notice that we interspersed the conversation with short thematic paragraphs that we saw emerge from the conversation. We acknowledge that the need to organize and categorize information to make the lessons explicit reflects a Western epistemology that has a preference for reductionist ideologies. This theming may detract from the typical circular, interconnected style common to many Indigenous peoples (Wilson, 2008). However, we verified that these themes accurately reflect the intent of the conversation and made changes based on our conversations with Mixalhíts’a7 and Grizzlypaws.

Author Introductions

Laura Grizzlypaws proudly identifies with her ancestral name, ‘Stálhalamcen — Grizzly Paws’ and is of St’át’imc descent. From the ancestral lands of her people, she emerges as an ardent advocate for Indigenous knowledge and education. With a Master of Education in Education Foundation Land-Based Education, a bachelor’s degree with minors in Linguistics and First Nation Studies, and a Bachelor of Education in Curriculum Development and Instruction, Grizzlypaws is deeply committed to academic excellence. Her dedication has earned her recognition, including a Language Heroes award for her contributions to the British Columbia Salishan language family. Beyond academia, Grizzlypaws excels in music and athletics. Her albums “Come Home” and “Muzmit.stumc” reflect her commitment to language preservation and cultural expression. In athletics, she has achieved remarkable success in fitness competitions, earning medals and accolades. Grizzlypaws recently authored “Sulyalesta,” a children’s book celebrating St’át’imc language and culture, further solidifying her impact in Indigenous education. Currently pursuing her Doctor of Education Leadership at Simon Fraser University, Grizzlypaws continues to merge traditional practices with contemporary education, leaving a profound legacy in Indigenous knowledge and academia.

Mixalhíts’a7, a proud member of the St’at’imc Nation and a devoted mother of three, embodies the values of her Indigenous culture in all facets of her life. She has a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Education degree from Simon Fraser University and a master’s degree from the University of British Columbia; she is also a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Waikato in New Zealand under the supervision of esteemed scholar Dr. Linda Tuhiwai Smith. Her research intertwines academia with ancestral wisdom, centering on storywork, a profound method of healing and reclaiming narratives, focusing on the experiences of her mother and two sisters at residential school and their subsequent journey to healing. Through her research, she seeks to amplify Indigenous women voices, honour intergenerational research and resilience, and contribute to the ongoing process of truth and reconciliation. Mixalhíts’a7 is deeply committed to language revitalization efforts within her community. She is currently entering her third year in the language mentor-apprentice program for St’at’imcets. Her experience as a former classroom teacher in Indigenous-based schools further informs her research and advocacy work, grounding her academic endeavours in the realities of Indigenous education. Guided by Indigenous values of reciprocity, respect, and interconnectedness, Mixalhíts’a7 continues to be a trailblazer in the field of Indigenous education, weaving together traditional knowledge with contemporary scholarship to create meaningful change.

Historical Impacts of Colonization on Indigenous Leadership Practices

Indigenous communities have been practicing leadership since time immemorial. As Herns Jensen (2024) asserted, “Indigenous peoples’ history did not begin with colonialism.” However, when we engage in a conversation about Indigenous leadership, specifically St’at’imc perspectives of leadership, it is essential that we consider the impacts of colonization in Canada and how colonialism has (mis)shaped systems of governance and leadership within Indigenous communities. Kenny (2012) reminded us that Indigenous leadership has taken on many forms: “autonomy, imperialism, colonization, resistance, and renaissance” (p. 1). Here, we offer a discussion between two St’at’imc matriarchs on the ongoing processes of colonization and decolonization that influence leadership and governance in Canada, including gender roles; the relationship between land, language, and leadership and identities for Indigenous communities; and efforts to regain traditional matriarchal leadership models amidst the ongoing struggle to integrate Indigenous knowledge and practices within a predominantly Western educational system.

— Mixalhíts’a7: You have a system where women are the decision-makers. And then, you are forced to construct a system that is alien — a system that is patriarchal in nature. Sadly, the matriarchal conception of leadership changed with the Indian Act and with residential schools. Colonizers forced patriarchal systems upon us. Now, it seems men think, “women are below us”; that we’re toxic during our moon time. Now, women must cover their bodies so that we can’t see their cleavage; they must wear long skirts. That makes my mom so upset. When she was young, women didn’t have those restrictions. They didn’t have to cover their bodies; women weren’t body shamed for showing skin. They weren’t ashamed of their bodies. Colonial ideologies have changed how women are perceived; women have been devalued.

— Grizzlypaws: Some of the concerns that arise from ethical leadership stem from historical challenges in our Indigenous communities, including the oppression that Indigenous communities have faced… centuries of colonization, oppression, and marginalization. It still creates hurdles for many Indigenous leaders to assert their role and be heard. There is a lack of representation of Indigenous leaders within their communities. Even amongst Indigenous community members, there are biases and lateral violence because of colonization, which are perpetuated by misunderstandings and persistent discrimination from non-Indigenous peoples.

— Mixalhíts’a7: Electing a chief and council on the reserve was a forcibly imposed colonial idea of leadership. This was how the Canadian government communicated that they did not want to promote a matriarchal system. It gave a lot of power to men and allowed that alien patriarchal system to infest on our reserves, infecting our communities. Where men were now feeling like, “Oh! I run the show!” Colonial teachings are still present and are reflected in our day-to-day life. For example, my mom talked about how we pray. She explained that when we pray, St’at’imc people do not stand up and bow our heads. But we see that happening a lot in our communities. Traditionally, we used to sit on the floor, touch Mother Earth, and look up at the sky. This causes confusion — people don’t know how to behave — which has created an internal conflict within our communities. Some people will say, “Look, she’s not standing while praying.” But it is because we’re trying to go back to the actual traditional way of doing things. The misconceptions are still strong.

Decolonization and Indigenization in Educational Leadership

The constructs of learning and leading are contextual: geographically, culturally, linguistically, and socially. Students’ learning is deeply influenced by their identity: how they see themselves and how the world sees them. Yet, as Herns Jensen (2024) argued, “Western models of education still continue to devalue and de-legitimize Indigenous knowledge systems, and public-school systems still systematically discriminate against Indigenous parents and children.” Alternatively, from a St’at’imc perspective, learning is a communal endeavour. Yet Western educational systems are individualistic, competitive, and, as a result, adversarial (Blackstock, 2007).

From a St’at’imc perspective, intergenerational learning is highly valued. McLeod (2012) described an intergenerational framework for female First Nations leadership based on an adaptation of medicine wheel teachings that positions the leader as a learner informed by personal reflections on experiential relationships and connections. Yet Western educational systems often ignore students’ prior learning and the learning developed through family and community connections (Chrona, 2022). As Grizzlypaws and Mixalhíts’a7 discuss, the challenge of decolonizing systems inherently designed for oppression requires a paradigm shift and reconciliation between two divergent worldviews; this requires that we go beyond superficial measures and open our minds to new ways of viewing learning and leadership. It means adopting a holistic approach to educational leadership that recognizes the interconnectedness of land, water, and all living things, encompassing physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

— Mixalhíts’a7: How do you decolonize a system that was meant to oppress?

— Grizzlypaws: Power imbalances within educational institution create challenges for Indigenous leaders, educators, and learners, and it has impacted what we have seen and experienced serving on university committees and trying to engage in decision-making processes. There is a hard imbalance between the traditional Indigenous approach to education and Western educational systems. There are already limited resources and a lack of support, which negatively impacts cultural preservation. Institutions set up 10-year strategic plans outlining a commitment to truth and reconciliation but then make it impossible for Indigenous leaders to follow their way of leadership. To move in the direction of Indigenous ways of leadership, we must commit to decolonization, cultural responsiveness, and inclusivity within educational institutions. It involves creating space for Indigenous leaders to be able to thrive and for non-Indigenous peoples to provide them with support without taking over or imposing their own beliefs of what “good” leadership looks like. We need to look at polices to facilitate truth and reconciliation and honour self-determination of Indigenous peoples.

— Mixalhíts’a7: Nothing is truly Indigenous unless you are out on the land, speaking the language, and following the principles and worldviews of the local Indigenous nation.

— Grizzlypaws: The diversity of Indigenous peoples is important with regards to the land and being the stewards of our land. For our Indigenous communities, we teach each student that it’s the interconnectedness of the land, water, and all living things and that holistic approaches to education encompass physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of well-being. There must be integrity and accountability for institutions. There must be a demonstration of actions that respect the traditional knowledge systems of any cultural group. There must be a relationship based on trust, honesty, and reciprocity that benefits the local Indigenous communities and advances the institution toward honouring reconciliation. That’s pretty much it.

— Mixalhíts’a7: The university says they want to decolonize Robert’s Rules of Order. How do you do that? What does that look like? Do we have an Elder here? Do we have the voice of students? Are we doing that in an authentic way? Sometimes, it’s okay to have Robert’s Rules or another type of meeting structure. It has its place in the setting; it does its job, and we must do what we must do. But we can’t just do something to say we decolonized it just to get the check mark. “Look at us, we decolonized our meetings and we’re sitting in a circle and we’re taking turns talking,” but shouldn’t we be doing that anyways? It doesn’t need to be a decolonial Indigenous thing.

— Grizzlypaws: Not all Indigenous knowledge should be shared with institutions. Institutions are always grabbing and taking Indigenous knowledge for their advantage, or what they perceive as Indigenous knowledge. We must make sure there is cultural sensitivity and an environment that respects but also honours the diversity of Indigenous cultures, languages, and traditions.

— Mixalhíts’a7: I chose the University of Waikato, New Zealand, as my university to do my PhD research because I didn’t want that tokenism from another Western institution to hold space for the story that I wanted to share and the story of my mom. That give-back piece. Giving back to my mom because she’s the one that drove me to education. I grew up with the belief that you need to get an education to survive and walk in both worlds. The University of Waikato is based on Indigenous knowledge. My supervisor (Linda Tuhiwai Smith) is renowned, and I knew that our story would be safe.

St’at’imc Leadership Ethics

Kenny (2012) starts her chapter on “Liberating Leadership Theory” by calling us to “let the children lead” (p. 2) and to envelope them in the wisdoms of the land, ancestors, elders, and story. This theory of leadership is based on the belief that children are inherently good and that it is our duty to recognize and nurture their strengths (Chrona, 2022).

Alana recalls experiencing this strengths-based perspective firsthand; she has been transformed by three immersive experiential learning opportunities focused on St’at’imc family, culture, and teaching and learning. During these immersive experiences, her teachers did not tell her how to be inclusive; they modeled inclusivity, and she felt included. It was in the way they described a son as observant rather than anti-social or a daughter as brave rather than shy — with the emphasis placed on their strengths rather than perceived weaknesses. It was how events were structured so that everyone could participate in song and dance, regardless of age, skill, or access to resources. She will never forget when a St’at’imc child handed her a drum so that she could join the circle. She had never drummed before, as she was not a member of the St’at’imc community, but she felt welcomed and like she belonged.

Ethical leadership also involves cultural sensitivity and inclusion. In “Elders’ Teachings on Leadership,” Leon (2012) reminded us that “providing relevant cultural content is essential in Indigenous leadership education” (p. 55). This includes acknowledging and respecting the diversity of Indigenous cultures and ensuring that Indigenous knowledge is appropriately integrated and protected within educational settings.

— Mixalhíts’a7: Leadership is looking at the strength of an individual and providing a safe space and opportunities to flourish, and we need to do that right to make strong leaders that are going to be thoughtful of others. I notice the things that students gravitate towards and give them space to honour their strengths based on their personality traits and skills. I had one student that was always raising his hand, always questioning, always engaged with the topics that I was teaching. I saw him as taking a spokesperson role when things came up. I gave him opportunities to go up in front of class because that’s where he really shined. Whereas others… maybe that’s not their strength. Maybe they’re more artistic. Our job as matriarchal leaders is to help students find their passions and their strengths and to create opportunities for them to become a leader in terms of the things that they are passionate about. We notice something in somebody, and we want them to be good at it. Like an artist, if they’re carving and that’s their passion; the other people might be carving too, but you notice something in an individual and so you start their training. They train to be the master of a skill that is innate but needs to be nurtured. You notice a sparkle in someone, so you make sure that they have every opportunity to be the best they can be.

— Grizzlypaws: It involves rooting leadership in the values and traditions of cultural practices of Indigenous communities. Some of the key principles of ethical leadership are looking at respecting culture, and recognizing values, culture, and traditions of that specific community. Making sure that knowledge is integrated into the community programs or the educational institutions that they are engaged with, even the curriculum decision-making processes. Cultural sensitivity must be acknowledged for ethical leaders to promote inclusion in educational settings. Leaders need to seek the input of Indigenous community members, including Elders, parents, even students, and Knowledge Keepers, and involve them in decision-making processes. St’át’imc women historically held leadership roles in their communities. For thousands of years, many Indigenous communities followed a matriarchal form of leadership and governance. Women’s deep cultural knowledge and innate abilities helped create peace and prosperity within their communities. Many Indigenous women face ethical dilemmas in educational and leadership roles, including balancing cultural responsibilities with the demands of operating within a colonial framework. Much work needs to be done to reclaim and honour traditional matriarchal roles in the face of colonial influences.

— Mixalhíts’a7: When you say ethical leadership… Do we need to put “ethical” in there? Leadership should be ethical to be begin with, right? It’s one and the same.

— Grizzlypaws: Indigenous women have historically held important leadership roles within our families, communities, and society. Now, we are re-teaching our families and community members and advocating for the rights of Indigenous women. Indigenous women are trying to mend our daughters, our children, our aunties, and our grandmothers so that we can regain our cultural knowledge and traditional ways and laws. Indigenous women must undergo our own healing and reconciliation process to address the historical traumas and loss of our traditional ways. A lot of the work that I do involves taking responsibility and accountability for my community’s grief and loss. This involves taking accountability for the impact of colonization and oppression.

— Mixalhíts’a7: The older generation — my mom’s brothers — they know that the aunties and the woman are the ones that make decisions about family, schools, and education. The men sit and listen, and then they go and make it happen. They go and build the school or whatever needs to be done, but it’s always based on the direction of the women. Leadership is communal, but the women know. They make empathetic ethical decisions. It’s ingrained in them as a woman.

— Grizzlypaws: As members of historically matriarchal communities, women are reclaiming their role. There is an Indigenous movement of women advocating to reclaim their identities as leaders. Education is one component of reclaiming my life as a matriarchal leader. Those that do the hard work of being accountable for their grief are the ones that are going to create change.

— Mixalhíts’a7: When you reflect on what it means to be an Indigenous matriarch, it encompasses the four quadrants of spiritual, mental, physical, and emotional. It means being strong and uplifting others. How are you living in relation to those four quadrants on a day-to-day basis? If you’re not actively looking after yourself then how can you be a good leader? How can you make good decisions when you’re eating five bags of chips? As a matriarch, you must set a good example for other women. You must actively learn your language and know your songs. You might not be an expert, but you’re working at it. It’s the same with your health. Like Grizzlypaws said, women must take responsibility and accountability for their actions. We need to constantly be checking in on these types of things so that our children have the capacity to be the best that they can be. I had a conversation this morning with a colleague who is BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, person of colour) about leadership and taking on leadership roles, but we have no desire to be in those positions because we would be emotionally drained. We would have to conduct ourselves in a way that was inauthentic. I would struggle daily trying to maintain myself as an Indigenous person or leader. If we gave preference for an Indigenous student, or Indigenous issue, it would be seen as playing favourites. Yet, no one questions leaders who prioritize dominant norms. I see my leadership role as being in my community, focusing on teaching the Indigenous content with my children and the students. That is how I show up as a leader.

Ethical leadership from a St’át’imc perspective involves respecting and integrating Indigenous values, traditions, and knowledge systems into educational practices and decision-making processes. Ethical leaders strive to empower and uplift learners using a strengths-based lens. The summary table below highlights the primary objectives of St’at’imc matriarchal leadership, including the core principles, which are based on the St’at’imc Seven Laws of Life (see Bull (in press) for an in-depth review of these laws), and the benefits of adopting this framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas.

Summary Table: St’at’imc Matriarchal Leadership

Primary leadership style	Matriarchal
Frame of reference	Relational, holistic, strengths-based
Objective	Prioritizing relationships; self-determination and cultural preservation
Core principles	Health Happiness Generations Generosity Power Pity/Compassion Good mind/Quietness
Benefits	Emphasis on consensus-building Sustainability and stewardship Intergenerational knowledge transfer Spiritual and cultural grounding

Recommended Readings

• The St’at’imc Seven Laws of Life as Rylee Bull by Rylee Bull (2022), Knowledge Makers, Volume 9.
  
• Daughters of Copper Woman, by Anne Cameron (1981), Press Gang Publishers (available on Internet Archive)

• Indigenous women’s approaches to educational leadership: Creating space for Indigenous women in education by Robin Starr Zape-tah-hol-ah Minthorn and Heather J. Shotton (2019), International Journal of Human Rights Education  

References

Blackstock, C. (2007). The breath of life versus the embodiment of life: Indigenous knowledge and western research. World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium Journal, 4(1), 67–79. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=62c3a8948620060677d50b30d7b29b34bc10ee99

Bull, R. (2024). The St’at’imc seven laws of life as Rylee Bull. Knowledge Makers Journal, 9(1). https://knowledgemakers.trubox.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2024/09/Volume-9-Final.pdf

Cameron, A. (1981). Daughters of copper woman. Press Gang Publishers.

Chrona, J. (2022). Wayi wah! Indigenous pedagogies: An act for reconciliation and anti-racist education. Portage & Main Press.

Herns-Jensen, J. (2021). Home. Engaging With Indigenous Research 101. https://indigenousresearch.trubox.ca/

Herns-Jensen, J. (2024). Situating ourselves. Engaging With Indigenous Research 101. https://indigenousresearch.trubox.ca/module-1/ethical-interactions/

Kenny, C. (2012). Liberating leadership theory. In C. Kenny & T. N. Fraser (Eds.), Living Indigenous leadership: Native narratives on building strong communities (pp. 1–14). UBC Press.

Leon, A. Y. (2012). Elders’ teachings on Indigenous leadership: Leadership as a gift. In C. Kenny & T. N. Fraser (Eds.), Living Indigenous leadership: Native narratives on building strong communities (pp. 48–63). UBC Press.

McLeod, Y. G. (2012). Learning to lead kokum style: An intergenerational study of eight First Nation women. In C. Kenny & T. N. Fraser (Eds.), Living Indigenous leadership: Native narratives on building strong communities (pp. 17–47). UBC Press.

Minthorn, R. S. Z., & Shotton, H. J. (2019). Indigenous women’s approaches to educational leadership: Creating space for Indigenous women in education. International Journal of Human Rights Education, 3(1). https://repository.usfca.edu/ijhre/vol3/iss1/6

Smith, L. (2023). Decolonizing research methodologies (3rd ed.). Zed Books.

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.

---

The importance of “the language of rights, is that it enables individuals and groups to demand attention from others for points of view that have been neglected”
— Fiona Robinson (1999, p. 64)

---

Definition

The ethic of justice emphasizes individual human rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and the values of fairness and justice (Frick et al., 2012; Shapiro et al., 2014). Beckner (2004) referred to this ethic as rule-based, as it attempts to objectively resolve ethical dilemmas through pre-established principles, rules, and laws. In this way, the ethic of justice is deontological and non-consequentialist, where the morality of an action is judged based on whether it adheres to a set of rules rather than the consequences of any action taken to resolve the dilemma.

Individuals who adhere to the ethic of justice prioritize impartiality, objectivity, and the fair treatment of all individuals based on universal principles and legislated human rights (Beckner, 2004; Robbins & Trabichet, 2009; Skoe & von der Lippe, 2002). From this perspective, the concepts of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ involve treating all individuals equally based on the assumption that equal access to opportunities and resources will lead to a fair and just outcome for all. In other words, a ‘fair solution’ is one based on general principles applied to all situations, and little consideration is given to context-specific issues, such as a person’s economic status or family situation.

Consider the classic moral quandary where a person steals bread to feed their family. On one side, the act of stealing is illegal, as it violates the rights of the bread’s owner. On the other side, the person’s motivation is driven by a desperate need to provide for their starving family, highlighting a situation of extreme necessity and survival. This dilemma pits the principles of justice against the principles of care, raising questions about the morality of actions taken under dire circumstances.

Business ethicists Chryssides and Kaler (1996) outlined five types of justice in their analysis of corporate responsibility and equal opportunities legislation:

• Procedural or “due process” — treats individuals in an impartial, unbiased, and fair manner based on application of rules and laws.
• Substantive — critically examines whether rules and laws result in inequitable outcomes for certain individuals or groups.
• Retributive — aims to right wrongs by punishing those who have violated existing rules and laws.
• Remedial — aims to right wrongs through remediation or reparations to counterbalance injustices that have occurred.
• Distributive — aims to ensure the fair allocation of benefits, opportunities, resources, and wealth among individuals in society and is concerned with how the outcomes of social policies are distributed among members of a community, with an emphasis on the good of the majority.

While the ethic of justice considers all five types of justice as defined by Chryssides and Kaler, it is primarily focused on procedural and distributive justice (Wood & Hilton, 2012). For this reason, the ethic of justice is closely aligned with transactional forms of leadership, with its focus on rules and regulations, structured environments and processes, defined tasks, and clear expectations. A study by Simola et al. (2010) of leaders and followers at a Canadian university showed that leader propensity toward an ethic of justice was significantly positively related to follower perceptions of transactional leadership but not transformational leadership.

Transactional leadership is concerned with the benefits that individuals accrue (economic, political, and psychological) through a social exchange, such as that of a leader and follower (Northouse, 2021). Transactional leaders employ a system of reward and punishment to motivate followers that align with established standards. The ethical values congruent with transactional leadership are also closely related to the individualist underpinnings of an ethic of justice (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The following summary table highlights the main objectives of the ethic of justice, core principles, and benefits of adopting this framework for analysing ethical dilemmas.

Summary Table: Ethic of Justice

Primary leadership style	Transactional leadership
Frame of reference	Adherence to universal laws, rules, and codes
Objective	Uphold fairness and individual human rights
Core principles	Impartial and objective Fairness and equality Rule of law Protection of universal human rights Democracy
Benefits	Reduces institutional liability and legal risk Maintenance of good standing with regulating bodies (e.g., accreditors and government) Consistent application of rules Clear expectations, rewards, and punishments Individuals have right to “due process”

Historical Origins

The ethic of justice has long been informed by a Western worldview; as such, it has been dominated by an individualist ontology, assuming that each person is autonomous, has moral agency, and is responsible for their own actions. Two contemporary scholars are often attributed for our current understanding of the ethic of justice in education: John Rawls and Lawrence Kohlberg.

John Rawls

American philosopher John Rawls (1971) sought to create a framework for moral reasoning based on objectivity (free from personal biases, emotions, and subjective influences) and impartiality (a system that treats all people and perspectives fairly and equally, without favouritism or bias). In 1971, Rawl’s Theory of Justice outlined the concept of “justice as fairness,” where he argued that individuals should select principles of justice behind a “veil of ignorance.” By being ignorant of our circumstances (e.g., social status, religious beliefs, class, race, gender, and (dis)ability), he believed that people could make objective decisions about how societies should function and agree upon a “social contract” to govern how the world should work. Rawl’s proposed social contract was designed as a general agreement by representatives of all adult members of a society; as such, the point of view of justice was represented as an agreement by free and equal persons (Freeman, 2023).

Rawls (1971) outlined several stages for developing and implementing this social contract:

1. Original position — where individuals select principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance, ensuring impartiality by hiding their personal characteristics and social status.
2. Constitutional convention — where individuals partially lift the veil of ignorance so they can understand their societal context but not their personal identities. They then draft a constitution based on the chosen principles, ensuring majority rule and equal liberties for voting and holding government positions.
3. Legislation — where lawmakers, still unaware of their personal circumstances, formulate laws that comply with principles of liberty and difference (described below).
4. Implementation — where judges apply these laws, with the veil of ignorance fully removed.

Two primary principles supplement Rawls’ veil of ignorance, as described by Freeman (2023): the liberty principle and the difference principle.

• Liberty principle — based on the belief that the social contract should try to ensure that everyone enjoys the maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others.
  • Basic liberties include freedom of conscience, thought, expression, and association; freedom and integrity of the person with the right to hold personal property; and equal political liberties and rights protected by the rule of law.
• Difference principle — based on the belief that the social contract should guarantee that everyone has an equal opportunity to prosper.
  • If there are any social or economic differences in the social contract, they should help those who are the worst off.
  • It requires economic inequalities of income, wealth, powers, and prerogatives to be arranged to maximally benefit the least advantaged members of society, making them better off than they would be in any alternative economic system.
  • To ensure that these opportunities are genuinely fair, the state is responsible for providing essential services like education, training, basic income, and healthcare for all citizens.

Lawrence Kohlberg

Twentieth-century American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is often credited for his influence on our current understanding of the ethic of justice. Like Rawls, Kohlberg (1973) viewed moral conflicts as abstract logical problems that could be resolved by following pre-determined laws and rules, or a social contract. According to Kohlberg, contextual factors such as someone’s personal situation, emotional condition, or difficulties in performing tasks should be eliminated from the decision-making process, and people should face the consequences of their actions when they break the social contract.

Kohlberg’s (1973) model of moral reasoning enhanced Rawls’ theory of justice by offering a developmental perspective on how people come to adopt just principles. While Rawls’ theory outlined the principles of justice chosen from an original position behind a veil of ignorance, Kohlberg’s developmental stages explained the cognitive and moral progression that enables individuals to understand and apply these principles.

Kohlberg (1973) suggested that abstract reasoning based on universal ethical principles represented the highest developmental stage of moral maturity. He outlined three levels of moral reasoning:

1. Pre-conventional — individuals base their moral decisions on personal consequences, such as avoiding punishment or seeking rewards.
2. Conventional — marked by a focus on societal rules and norms, where individuals aim to uphold laws and social conventions.
3. Post-conventional — involves abstract reasoning guided by universal ethical principles like justice, equality, and human rights, which go beyond specific laws and social agreements.

Critique of Rawls and Kohlberg

Kohlberg’s work has been critiqued from a gender-based perspective, most notably by Carol Gilligan (1982), a student of Kohlberg, who challenged his lack of inclusion of women and girls in his research and therefore, his assumption that what is just and unjust is the same for everyone. Gilligan further critiqued Kohlberg for focusing on hypothetical dilemmas rather than using real-world examples in his research to support his model of moral reasoning.

Alternatively, Gilligan studied women who were confronted with real dilemmas and, through her research, discovered the ethic of care — a relational ontology for moral reasoning that emphasizes interconnections between people and seeks creative ways to benefit everyone involved rather than focusing on individual rights and self-interest (Simola et al., 2010). Gilligan further argued that men have a tendency to make decisions from a justice orientation, whereas women have a propensity to make decisions from a care orientation (and some research supports this claim). However, cultural background has been found to be a more accurate predictor of justice and care orientations (see Strater (2023) for a gender-based analysis of the ethic of justice).

Emerging research and postmodern scholars have demanded that justice be reframed from an individualist ontology to a relational and care-based one, while others have argued for an ecological perspective. For example, Thomas E. Randall (2023) called for a critical rethink of the ethic of justice framework and argued that an individualist ontology is antithetical to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948). Randall believed that structures of power and dependency promote or impede access to basic human rights in a global context and, therefore, human rights should be viewed through a relational ontology, where “an individual’s interests are intertwined with those around them” (p. 562).

Others have called for an ecological framing of justice, which stretches beyond that of human rights to consider the rights of all living things, including the land. As Blackstock (2007) noted, “Western thought places importance on individuals and the fulfilment of individual rights” (p. 5). As a result of an insatiable desire for human advancement, growth, and dominance, humans face danger from climate change, which will affect basic rights to life, health, and subsistence and “increase the number of people suffering from death, disease and injury from heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts” (Confalonieri et al., 2007, p. 393), particularly among poorer nations. Climate change threatens the basic rights of individuals. Arguably, a paradigmatic shift is required; one which is more closely aligned with Indigenous worldviews that “hold the land and life knowledge in a sacred trust for the generations to follow” as opposed to “many Western peoples [who] believe they can own land and knowledge and use it for individual benefit with little concern for future generations” (Blackstock, 2007, p. 1).

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

Leaders whose moral reasoning is informed by a justice paradigm emphasize legal compliance, ensuring actions and decisions are grounded in established laws and ethical standards. They prioritize due process and procedural justice, treating all parties in disputes fairly (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). They may acknowledge the imperfections of certain rules, yet they abide by and enforce them until improvements have been made. This is perceived to be an objective way to resolve dilemmas because contextual factors (e.g., personal, cultural, and historical) are not taken into consideration.

Smith (2000) argued that the ethic of justice offers a set of rules at the general level from which leaders can begin their moral deliberations, but he cautioned that other ethical paradigms (e.g. care) should inform moral decision-making. For example, culturally diverse contexts can be seen as an obstacle to universalism and individualism, which underpin the ethic of justice. Educational leaders who work within multicultural and increasingly globalized contexts are called to adopt equity, diversity, and inclusion policies and work towards decolonization and Indigenization in response to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2007) and, in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (2015) Calls to Action.

Therefore, it is important to question the true universality of so-called universal principles. These principles are often established from a specific reference point, and if multiple perspectives are not included in their formulation, their universality is questionable (Engster & Hamington, 2015; Makoff & Read, 2016).

Benefits of Ethic

While the ethic of justice has been presented as non-consequentialist — where the morality of an action is judged based on whether it adheres to a set of rules, rather than the consequences of the action — in today’s world, educational leaders are called upon to acknowledge, examine, and address the systemic inequities inherent in educational systems. When leaders analyze the outcomes of actions taken and view justice through a consequentialist lens, there is potential to provoke policy changes and embrace relational and ecological ontologies of justice (Zembylas, 2010).

The importance of “the language of rights,” as Robinson (1999) highlighted, “is that it enables individuals and groups to demand attention from others for points of view that have been neglected” (p. 64). As previously discussed, calls for a relational framing of justice have the potential to address the limitations of an individualist frame. For example, Jan Hare (2022), an Anishinaabe scholar and educator from the M’Chigeeng First Nation, called for a relational approach to justice and made the case for a rights-based approach to Indigenous education, grounded in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly, 2007). Hare argued that Indigenous rights to education, language, and culture must be advanced on Indigenous terms. Teacher education in ‘right’ relations with Indigenous people requires that post-secondary institutions comply with their obligations to live up to responsibilities when part of a relationship (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2021).

Drawbacks of Ethic

Much of what has been written about the ethic of justice is based on a Western philosophical framing of liberal and individualistic ideals first positioned by white male European and American philosophers and enshrined in human rights legislation. For example, Rawls’ (1971) theory of justice was based on a representative group of “adult members” and “free and equal persons.” As Botting (2016) noted, these rights have historically been limited to “white, middle-class, tax-paying, property-owning male subjects who wished to enjoy the powers of self-governing republican citizens” (p. 40).

Much of the literature lacks a critical awareness of the relational contexts of power and privilege. As a result, universal and liberal rights are based on a Western perception of reality that ignores issues of class, gender, race, sexual orientation, eco-justice, and capitalism. In this vein, human rights are defined from a Western perception of morality and positioned as superior to other cultural and ethical variations, such as humans’ relationship with the land and the rights of LGBTQIA+, immigrants, and refugees. Notably, as Engsjö-Lindgren (2021) argued, universal laws and human rights were initially defined at a time when women and Indigenous peoples were not seen as full members of society and anti-LGBTQIA+ laws saw the criminalization of people who did not follow heteronormative standards.

Our current understanding of the ethic of justice is based on an anthropocentric worldview, where the rights of humans supersede all else, often to the detriment of other species and the environment. The ethic of justice has been heavily critiqued by scholars of the ethics of care, community, and critique for its narrow focus on Western thought, which was spread by European imperialism and colonization and has led to forms of epistemic injustice, where the ideas of the colonizers are treated with respect and those of the colonized are belittled, ignored, erased, or persecuted.

The ethic of justice has also been critiqued for being impersonal and detached, failing to adequately consider the emotional or relational aspects of ethical dilemmas, which could lead to decisions that lack empathy and compassion (Alolo, 2006). By focusing primarily on abstract principles and rights, justice-based ethics run the risk of dehumanizing individuals and reducing moral considerations to legalistic or rule-based frameworks (Engster & Hamington, 2015). This can undermine the recognition of the unique worth and dignity of each person.

Recommended Readings

• Episode 1 – Futures of Indigenous Education: Living in Right Relations [32:09 min] by Dr. Jan Hare (2002), Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne
• “A Care Ethical Justification for an Interest Theory of Human Rights” by Thomas E. Randall (2023), Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
• “Transformational Leadership and Leader Moral Orientation: Contrasting an Ethic of Justice and an Ethic of Care” by Sheldene K. Simola et al. (2010), The Leadership Quarterly

References

Alolo, N. (2006). Ethic of care versus ethic of justice? The gender-corruption nexus: Testing the new conventional wisdom. Ethics and Economics, 4(2). https://hdl.handle.net/1866/3380

Bass, B. M. & Steildmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

Beckner, W. (2004). Ethics for educational leaders. Pearson/A and B.

Blackstock, C. (2007). The breath of life versus the embodiment of life: Indigenous knowledge and western research. World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium Journal, 4(1), 67–79.

Botting, E. H. (2016). Wollstonecraft, Mill and women’s human rights. Yale University Press.

Chryssides, G. D. & Kaler, J. H. (1996). Essentials of business ethics. McGraw-Hill.

Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Rais Akhtar, K. L., Ebi, M. H., Sari Kovats, R., Revich, B., & Woodward, A. (2007). Human health. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 391–431). Cambridge University Press.

Engsjö-Lindgren, M. (2021). Creating a caring union: Examining the possibilities, and advantages of replacing the ethics of justice with the ethics of care as the moral framework of the European Union [Master’s thesis, Linköping University]. DiVA. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1575165&dswid=3322

Engster, D., & Hamington, M. (Eds.). (2015). Care ethics and political theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716341.001.0001

Enomoto, E. K. (1997). Negotiating the ethics of care and justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X97033003005

Freeman, S. (2023). Original position. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Frick, W. C., Faircloth, S. C., & Little, K. S. (2012). Responding to the collective and individual “best interests of students”: Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and ethical imperatives in special education leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 207–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12463230

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Gram-Hanssen, I., Schafenacker, N., & Bentz, J. (2021). Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations.’ Sustainability Science, 17, 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Hare, J. (2022, October 26). Episode 1 – Futures of Indigenous education: Living in right relations [Video]. Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. https://education.unimelb.edu.au/worldviews-in-education/episodes/episodes/episode-1

Kohlberg, L. (1973). Stages and aging in moral development—Some speculations. The Gerontologist, 13(4), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/13.4.497

Makoff, R., & Read, R. (2016). Beyond just justice–Creating space for a future‐care ethic. Philosophical Investigations, 40(3), 223–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12138

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

Randall, T. E. (2023). A care ethical justification for an interest theory of human rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 26(4), 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1774184

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://archive.org/details/theoryofjustice0000rawl

Robbins, S., & Trabichet, L. (2009). Ethical decision-making by educational leaders: Its foundations, culture and more recent perspectives. Management in Education, 23(2), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020609104810

Robinson, F. (1999). Globalizing care: Ethics, feminist theory, and international relations. Westview Press.

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773339

Shapiro, J. P., Stefkovich, J. A., & Gutierrez, K. J. (2014). Ethical decision making. In C. M. Branson, & S. J. Gross, Handbook of ethical educational leadership. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203747582.ch14

Simola, S. K., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2010). Transformational leadership and leader moral orientation: Contrasting an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.013

Skoe, E. E., & von der Lippe, A. L. (2002). Ego development and the ethics of care and justice: The relations among them revisited. Journal of personality, 70(4), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05016

Smith, D. M. (2000). Moral geographies: Ethics in a world of difference. Edinburgh University Press.

Strater, P. P. (2023). Leading from an ethic of care or an ethic of justice during a crisis: Residential higher education student affairs leaders’ ethical perspective relative to student wellbeing during the Covid-19 pandemic (Publication No. 30424999) [Doctoral dissertation, Marymount University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights.

United Nations General Assembly. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: calls to action.

Wood, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). Five ethical paradigms for community college leaders: Toward constructing and considering alternative courses of action in ethical decision making. Community College Review, 40(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112448818

Zembylas, M. (2010). The ethic of care in globalized societies: Implications for citizenship education. Ethics and Education, 5(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2010.516636

---

“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.

Summary Table: Ethic of Critique

Primary leadership style	Moral leadership
Frame of reference	Critical theory
Objective	Social justice
Core principles	Critique of power and privilege Dialogue Emancipation Empowerment Transparency
Benefits	Cultural preservation Increased awareness of unjust systems and practices Increased representation and amplification of voices historically silenced and oppressed Promotion of justice Greater access to education and information

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.

---

“There is a difference between merely recognizing students’ struggles or offering a generic kindness for kindnesses’ sake, what renowned feminist and educator Nel Noddings would call “caring-about” instead of “caring-for.”” — Janice Niemann (2024)

---

Definition

The ethic of care emphasizes the role of empathy, compassion, and responsiveness in determining moral conduct. According to Noddings (2013), it is “an invitation to see things from an alternative perspective,” (p. 32), thus calling on leaders to look beyond their own needs to those of others. The ethic of care emphasizes a relational and context-sensitive approach to professionalism and is focused on the nuances of interpersonal interactions (Gilligan, 1982) and the interdependence between individuals.

Care ethics stress the real-world application of ethics, in contrast to other moral theories that prioritize theoretical concepts or idealized situations. According to Held (2006), providing care necessitates making moral choices in real-would circumstances based on an awareness of the dynamics and connections at play. Traditional ethical theories that place a higher priority on impersonal laws, norms, and individual rights, such as the ethic of justice, are antithetical to the ethic of care. Leaders who follow an ethic of care abhor notions of superiority and the hierarchical approach that dominates classrooms, boardrooms, and managerial structures. Instead, a feminist lens is applied to leadership and pedagogy (Arrey & Reynolds, 2023).

Moral theories like utilitarianism and deontology, which frequently place a higher value on universality and impartiality than on connections and care, are especially criticized by care theorists. According to Tronto (1993), a stance of care is in opposition to an unbiased, neutral viewpoint and is instead based on paying close attention to and responding to the needs of others.

Leaders who follow an ethic of care practice empathy and are attuned to their emotions and the emotions of those in their care. Leaders foster a culture of empathy and relational accountability, and they prioritize the well-being and development of their students and colleagues. Louis’ (2016) review of the literature on the ethic of care identified three characteristics of caring relationships:

• Situational — where care is not universalistic or rule-bound but rather specific to the situation in which it might be offered.
• Motivational displacement — where the person providing care behaves in a selfless way such that the need of the other person supersedes their own needs.
• Authentic — where caring requires genuineness by the person offering care and must be experienced as genuine by the person receiving care.

Instilling a care ethic has long been a component of education. According to Noddings (2012), the ethical philosophy of care dictates that educators’ professional behavior be driven by a crucial dedication to the academic and general well-being of their students. Noddings contended that educators must embrace and take responsibility for fostering close, meaningful, and caring relationships with their students, given the degree to which the quality of care affects students’ learning and academic success.

Educational leaders who follow an ethic of care demonstrate compassion for others, encourage open communication with students, work collaboratively, and offer support in the form of affirmation and encouragement (Owens & Ennis, 2005). The ethic of care approach to educational leadership is not without difficulties; while caring relationships should ideally be reciprocal, relationships between a teacher and a student and educational administrator and faculty and staff are inherently unequal.

The summary table below highlights the main objective of an ethic of care, its core principles, and the benefits of adopting this framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas for decision-making in educational leadership.

Summary Table: Ethic of Care

Primary leadership style	Feminist leadership
Frame of reference	Others’ well-being
Objective	Take action to benefit others; challenge the status quo
Core principles	Interdependence Empathy and compassion Contextual understanding Responsiveness to needs and relationality Place the needs of others above those of the self, potentially sacrificing personal well-bring for others
Benefits	Emphasis on relationships Nuanced understanding of moral dilemmas encourages flexibility in decision-making The needs of vulnerable or marginalized individuals and groups are prioritized Enhanced social well-being and racial inclusion

Historical Origins

Care has deep roots in human history, evident in ancient societies where individuals cared for family members and community members. In ancient Greece, care was often associated with the concept of philanthropy, which encompassed notions of benevolence, kindness, and concern for others’ well-being (Nussbaum, 1996). Philosophers such as Aristotle emphasized the importance of care in the context of ethics and moral philosophy. Aristotle’s concept of philia — or love, friendship, and affection — underscored the significance of interpersonal relationships and the moral obligation to care for others (Aristotle, trans. 1999).

Foundation of Care Theory

The ethic of care was developed in response to traditional moral theories that ignored feminist critiques of them (Baier, 1994; Held, 2006, 2015; Walker, 1989). Research has shown that women tend to engage in caring more than men (Barnes, 2012), and it has been established that women consider care a moral virtue (Hanen & Nielsen, 1987; Kittay & Meyers, 1987). Dimensions of the ethic of care can be traced back to the work of feminist philosophers and social theorists in the 1970s and 1980s, who critiqued initial studies that gendered moral judgements and perpetuated discriminatory beliefs about how relationships of care and connection influence decision-making; for example, where a boy would make a “just” decision, a girl seemed “unsure” (Gilligan, 1982, p. 204). Exploring individual caring relationships that lead to understanding how and why moral decisions are made, regardless of gender, became the foundation of care theory (Mays, 2020). It is based on the idea that moral judgments should be made with others’ welfare, empathy, and compassion in mind (Kohlberg, 1984).

Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and Other Care Scholars

One of the leading figures in the development of the ethic of care is Carol Gilligan (1982). In her influential book In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Gilligan argued that there is a different moral voice or perspective that women tend to rely on when making decisions. This voice is centered upon relationships, empathy, and care rather than abstract moral principles. Gilligan identified that educational leaders who follow an ethic of care tend to risk self-harm and their own self-interests as they advocate against the injustices of institutional policies.

The ethic of care in relation to education is commonly associated with feminist, educator, and philosopher Nel Noddings (2002), who, for the past 35 years, has been studying and developing an ethic of care, prioritizing the importance of relationships in education. Noddings (2015) argued that “all teachers are moral educators [with a responsibility to produce] better adults” (p. 235). Noddings (2003) further developed the concept of care in her book Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Like Gilligan, she argued that care is a fundamental aspect of human nature crucial for ethical living and that ethical actions should be guided by the principles of care, compassion, and empathy, rather than universal rules. From Gilligan (1982) and Nodding’s (2013) perspective, an ethic of care encompasses a wide range of dimensions, including physical, emotional, and social.

In 1990, Collins framed the ethic of caring within Black feminist theory as foundational to African American women’s epistemology, which, she argued, encompasses history, culture, and experiences with expressiveness, emotion, and empathy. In 2009, Bass’s study of five female African American school principals showed a tendency to assume the role of “other mother” in students’ lives, and they frequently admitted to breaking the rules in the best interests of the children they cared for, risking their own self-interests and making sacrifices to combat injustices in institutional policies.

Social Justice and Culture

Care is increasingly recognized as a central component of social justice movements. Care ethics makes the case that moral behavior ought to consider each person’s wants and interests in addition to advancing justice and fairness (Held, 2006). Joan Tronto (1995) developed a framework for understanding care as a political and ethical practice, essential for building more just and equitable societies. She argued that

Care may be ubiquitous in human life, but it has remained hidden from the conceptual lenses of social and political thought. As a result, to place care at the center of human life requires that we rethink many of the assumptions that we make about social and political theory. At the outset, care begins from a different understanding of human nature and human interaction (p. 142)

It is important to note that different cultures have their own understandings and practices of care, shaped by cultural norms, values, and traditions; for example, some Indigenous cultures prioritize collective forms of care that extend beyond individual relationships to encompass community and ecological well-being (Nouwen, 2012). Within the Secwépemc nation, for example, the yecwmín̓men were considered the caretakers of the surrounding lands and resources; the Secwépemc recognized, respected, and honored one another as family and relatives throughout Secwepemcúĺecw (Ignace & Ignace, 2017).

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

---

“Social inclusion, respect, care, and social justice are at the heart of the ethical city.” — Barrett et al. (2016, p. 5)

---

Although Gilligan and Nodding’s ethic of care is based on the relationship between the educator and the student, their ethical framework can also be applied to educational leadership, as it has important theoretical consequences for leaders in educational settings. The ethic of care has the power to influence educational leadership and promote an empathetic and compassionate culture. For example, during the 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic, several inspirational female leaders selflessly led countries and universities through crisis by centering relationships, generosity, and ingenuity. New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Arden (Simpson et al., 2021), and British Columbia’s provincial health officer, Bonnie Henry (Hayhurst, 2020), were applauded for their care-based approach.

Care-oriented leaders use restorative practices — which put healing, understanding, and accountability first — to resolve conflict or harm within the learning community (Wachtel & McCold, 2000). To mend fences and promote a sense of community, leaders provide forums for discussion, empathy, and atonement (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Jean Lipman-Blumen’s (2000, 2017) connective leadership theory, which aims to build and sustain community through reciprocal relationships, offers a complementary leadership model for the ethic of care. Similarly, Gerri Perreault’s (2005) metaphor of leadership as friendship, while admittedly idealistic, offers a beacon of hope for educational leaders with its optimistic view of human nature.

Feminist Leadership

Stajkovic and Stajkovic (2023) viewed ethics through the presence of a female leadership advantage — a concept first proposed by Helgesen (1990), which suggested that women, in comparison to men, might be more effective leaders when organizations are in crisis — and an ethics of care, which they dubbed an ethics of care leadership. Within their framework:

ethics means that care is wanted and unobtrusive, care is a value, and leadership is the practice of attentiveness toward others, responsiveness to their needs, and cultivating caring relationships (p. 700).

Stajkovic and Stajkovic’s (2023) empirical research showed that an ethics of care leadership in the context of the urban revitalization crisis in the United States was associated with better economic health, including the reduction of education and poverty gaps and evidenced leadership that balances social and economic prerogatives. Results from 272 US cities over nearly four decades revealed that cities with female mayors were associated with greater racial inclusion and better economic health. They found that ethics of care leadership (ECL) occurs as:

an activity that involves expenditure of physical and mental energy; it is not a mere attitude, such as “I do not care for this or that”, nor is it just a warm feeling for someone. ECL is a behaviour aimed toward the well-being of a relationship and those in the relationship… the interests of those caring and those who are cared-for are interwoven rather than independent or competing, and caring is voluntary rather than contractual (p. 702).

Educational Leaders and Care Theory

The culture of educational institutions is greatly influenced by those in formal leadership positions. Educational leaders who follow an ethic of care deal with injustices by using their power to bend the rules and regularly risk their reputations for those they serve who can offer them little in return (Bass, 2009). They prioritize building strong relationships with faculty, students, and other members of the community to create the groundwork for cooperation, trust, and effective communication, which helps leaders understand the needs and concerns of the members of their community (Beatty & Brew, 2018).

Care ethics-guided educational leaders understand that students are multifaceted people with a range of needs and experiences. By attending to students’ academic demands and their social, emotional, spiritual, and physical requirements, leaders can assist in supporting students’ and colleagues’ holistic development and well-being (Woloshyn et al., 2019). Advocating for fairness and inclusion and removing systemic barriers to learning and opportunities for achievement are key components of care-oriented leadership in education (Giroux, 2005).

Benefits of Ethic

One of the central tenets of care ethics is the cultivation of empathy and compassion. Noddings (2003) contended that caring requires individuals to attune themselves to the experiences and emotions of others, leading to a more compassionate and empathetic approach to moral deliberations. Viewing leadership through the lens of care can help individuals make ethical choices that prioritize the well-being and interests of others. By considering the potential consequences of their actions and the impact on others, individuals can make more informed and considerate decisions. This empathy has been shown to positively impact individuals’ personal and professional relationships, leading to increased compassion and support (Raab, 2014). A care-based approach to leadership requires open, honest, and empathetic communication. By actively listening to others and seeking to understand others’ needs and concerns, research has shown that educational leaders demonstrate enhanced communication skills and ability to resolve conflicts (Lin, 2023).

Some critics have argued that the emphasis on personal relationships and contextual responsiveness may be less relevant in situations involving large-scale social, political, and economic structures and that care theory may not always be applicable in complex situations where multiple stakeholders are involved, for example, in resource allocation decisions. However, recent research by Stajkovic and Stajkovic (2023) provided credible evidence to counter this claim, showing that female mayors practicing an ethic of care leadership across 272 regions in the United States resulted in improved social and economic well-being for both givers and receivers.

By prioritizing the needs and feelings of others, individuals can experience increased satisfaction, happiness, and overall improved mental well-being (Tronto, 1993). Caring involves “a relationship between at least two persons, the cared-for and the caregiver” (Tronto, 1993), which leads to the development of a sense of community and cooperation within groups. By promoting empathy and concern for others, communities can become more cohesive, resilient, and sustainable (Barret et al., 2016).

Drawbacks of Ethic

The ethic of care has been criticized for its limited applicability beyond certain contexts, such as intimate relationships or caregiving professions, raising questions about its adequacy as a comprehensive ethical theory (Held, 2006). Critics further argue that leaders who practice an ethic of care may undervalue the individual autonomy and agency of others, particularly in situations where caring obligations conflict with individual rights or freedoms, as was argued by Kittay (2011), who advocated for the rights of people with disabilities, including the right to make independent decisions even if they need the physical assistance of others.

Other scholars have argued that care ethics provides inadequate guidance for resolving complex moral dilemmas or conflicts of care and lacks clear principles or decision-making procedures (Walker, 2007). Unlike other moral theories that offer clear principles or rules to guide ethical decision-making, care ethics may be perceived as lacking clarity in providing specific moral guidelines (Sander-Staudt, 2011). This ambiguity may make it difficult for individuals to apply care ethics consistently across different contexts. Care theory has also been criticized for prioritizing emotions over rational analysis and impartiality (Baier, 2005), which critics have cautioned may result in inconsistent and unpredictable moral judgements and favouritism (Sander-Staudt, 2010). When individuals rely on empathy and emotions to guide their ethical judgments, they may inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes, which can result in discriminatory behaviours.

Some scholars have argued that care ethics perpetuate gender essentialism by associating caring virtues with femininity and overlooking the caring contributions of men (Noddings, 2013; Tong, 1998). This gender essentialism may reinforce traditional gender roles and limit opportunities for gender equality. Despite the recognition that gender and caring qualities exist on a continuum rather than a male/female binary, recent research suggests that care work in the academy falls disproportionately on women, which was particularly true during the global pandemic, and as a result, women are at risk of higher rates of burnout (Clarke Gray, 2020).

Clarke Gray reiterated the disconnect between academic expectations and personal well-being. She highlighted inherent contradictions within higher education, where students are expected to excel academically and manage their mental health and personal challenges. This pressure can lead to a toxic environment that exacerbates mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression. Clarke Gray argued that universities often fail to create an environment that values and supports all students, regardless of their backgrounds or identities. While more attention has been given to the well-being of students in recent years, there continues to be a disconnect between academic goals and personal well-being (both faculty and students).

Recommended Readings

• “Fostering an Ethic of Care in Leadership: A Conversation with Five African American Women” by Lisa Bass (2009), Advances in Developing Human Resources
• “Is Teaching a Practice?” by Nel Noddings (2003), Journal of Philosophy of Education
• “Ethics of Care Leadership, Racial Inclusion, and Economic Health in the Cities: Is There a Female Leadership Advantage?” by Kayla Stajkovic and Alexander D. Stajkovic (2024), Journal of Business Ethics

References

Aristotle (Irwin, T.). (1999). Nicomachean ethics. (2nd ed., T. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.

Arrey, T., & Reynolds, C. (2023). “I definitely would appreciate a little more validation”: Toward an ethics of care in college newsrooms and journalism education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 78(2), 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958231153267

Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–260. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381376

Baier, A. C. (1994). Moral prejudice: Essays on ethics. Harvard University Press.

Barrett, B. F., Horne, F., & Fien, J. (2016). The ethical city: A rationale for an urgent new urban agenda. Sustainability, 8(11), Article No. 1197. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111197

Bass, L. (2009). Fostering an ethic of care in leadership: A conversation with five African American women. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(5), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422309352075

Bass, L. (2012). When care trumps justice: The operationalization of Black feminist caring in educational leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.647721

Beatty , B. R., & Brew, C. R. (2004). Trusting relationships and emotional epistemologies:1 a foundational leadership issue. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 329–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000266954 

Bergmark U. (2019). Rethinking researcher–teacher roles and relationships in educational action research using Nel Noddings’ ethics of care. Educational Action Research, 28(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2019.1567367

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

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (1st ed.). Routledge.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? Jossey-Bass.

Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary West. University of California Press.

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

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (2005). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (2004). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern/Modern divide: Toward a pedagogy of democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 31–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478412

Hayhurst, J. (2020, July 14). Dr. Bonnie Henry is a masterclass in authentic leadership. Douglas Magazine. https://www.douglasmagazine.com/dr-bonnie-henry-is-a-masterclass-in-authentic-leadership/

Hanen, M. & Nielsen, K. (Eds.) (1987). Science, morality, and feminist theory. University of Calgary Press.

Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195180992.001.0001

Held, V. (2015). Gender, care, and global values. In D. Moellendorf & H. Widdows (Eds.), The Routledge book of global ethics. Routledge.

Ignace, M., & Ignace, R. E. (2017). Secwépemc People, land, and laws: Yerí7 Re Stsq’ey’s-kucw. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Kittay, E. F. (2011). The ethics of care, dependence, and disability. Ratio Juris, 24(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00473.x

Kittay, E. F., & Meyers, D. T. (Eds.). (1987). Women and moral theory. Rowman & Littlefield.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages (Vol. 2). Harper & Row.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Lin, F. (2023). Conflict management and communication styles of educational leaders in Guangdong Business and Technology University: Towards a leadership development training program. International Journal of Open-Access, Interdisciplinary and New Educational Discoveries of ETCOR Educational Research Center, 2(1),128-165. https://philarchive.org/rec/LINCMA-6

Louis, K. S., Murphy, J., & Smylie, M. (2016). Caring leadership in schools: Findings from exploratory analyses. Education Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 310–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×15627678

Mays, R. (2020). Care theory. In J. Egbert & M. F. Roe (Eds.), Theoretical models for teaching and research. Pressbooks. https://opentext.wsu.edu/theoreticalmodelsforteachingandresearch/chapter/care-theory/

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press.

Noddings, N. (2003). Is teaching a practice? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00323

Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed., updated). University of California Press.

Nouwen, H. J. (2012). A spirituality of living: The Henri Nouwen spirituality series (J. Mogabgab, Ed.). Upper Room Books.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1996). The therapy of desire: Theory and practice in hellenistic ethics. Princeton University Press.

Owens, L. M., & Ennis, C. D. (2005). The ethic of care in teaching: An overview of supportive literature. Quest, 57(4), 392–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2005.10491864

Raab, K. (2014). Mindfulness, self-compassion, and empathy among health care professionals: A review of the literature. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 20(3), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2014.913876

Rothenberg, P. (1997). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. bell hooks Women of Color and the Multicultural Curriculum: Transforming the College Classroom. Liza Fiol-Matta , Mariam K. Chamberlain Campus Wars: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Difference. John Arthur , Amy Shapiro [Book review]. Signs, 22(3), 738–741. https://doi.org/10.1086/495195

Simpson, A. V., Rego, A., Berti, M., Clegg, S., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2021). Theorizing compassionate leadership from the case of Jacinda Arden: Legitimacy, paradox, and resource conservation. Leadership, 18(3), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/174271502110552

Slote, M. (2007). The ethics of care and empathy. Routledge.

Stajkovic, K. & Stajkovic, A. D. (2024). Ethics of care leadership, racial inclusion, and economic health in the cities: Is there a female leadership advantage? Journal of Business Ethics, 189, 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05564-0

Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (with Robb, G.). (2013). Implementing restorative practices in schools: A practical guide to transforming school communities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Tong, R. (1998). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction (4th ed.). Westview Press.

Tronto, J. C. (1995). Care as a basis for radical political judgments. Hypatia, 10(2), 141–149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810286

Wachtel, J., & McCold, P. (2015). Restorative justice in everyday life. In J. Braithwaite & H. Strang (Eds.), Restorative justice in civil society (pp. 117–125). Cambridge University Press.

Walker, M. U. (1989). Moral understanding: Alternative “epistemology” for a feminist ethics. Hypatia, 4(2), 15–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3809803

Woloshyn, V., Savage, M. J., Ratkovic, S., Hands, C., & Martinovic, D. (2019). Exploring professors’ experiences supporting graduate student well-being in Ontario faculties of education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(4), 397-411. https://doi/10.1108/IJMCE-02-2019-0028/full/html

Definition

The ethic of community is underpinned by the belief that everyone is responsible for leadership. In other words, anyone who cares about student success and what happens within a post-secondary institution recognizes that working toward social justice is a communal responsibility rather than the purview of a transformational “heroic” leader with a vision (Furman, 2004).

This ethical paradigm shifts the locus of moral agency to the community as a whole. Moral leadership is thus distributed and requires that all members of the community develop and practice interpersonal and group skills, such as working in teams, engaging in ongoing dialogue, and navigating evolving community discourse within an increasingly polarized society (Furman, 2004; Barcinas & Fleener, 2023).

In addition to being a communal affair, the ethic of community is processual, meaning that “community” is not a product nor a tangible entity but rather an ongoing set of processes led by educators and students committed to these processes. When community is defined as a process, it is based on relationships, which are dependent upon communication, reciprocity, respect, dialogue, and collaboration rather than a set of shared values (Furman, 2002).

Furman (2004) argued that it is more important to inspire commitment to these processes than commitment to the metaphor of “community as an end product” (p. 221). Informed by the concept of deep democracy (Mindell, 2002; Barcinas & Fleener, 2023), the ethic of community is an ecosystem in which the health of the system is dependent on everyone having opportunities and developing capacities to engage and practice a form of governance in conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty.

As people work together within the ethic of community framework, they are focused on enhancing the collective well-being and common good of a community over individual self-interests (Furman, 1998). Leaders who follow this ethical paradigm value the ideals of a democratic system and are committed to open inquiry and the inclusion of diverse perspectives. From this perspective, a democratic community is defined as a participatory way of life, a process “not a stagnant end” (Kahne, 1996, p. 34).

This ethical paradigm demands that leaders foster connections through dialogue, collaboration, and shared experiences rather than focusing solely on individual values or top-down decision-making. Leaders promote a collective approach to moral agency and emphasize the importance of community-building processes. The following summary table highlights the main objectives of an ethic of community, core principles, and benefits of adopting this framework for analysing ethical dilemmas.

Summary Table: Ethic of Community

Primary leadership style	Distributed Leadership
Frame of reference	Leadership as a communal responsibility and processual
Objective	Prioritize communal values over individual interests; foster a shared responsibility for leadership
Core principles	Importance of social contexts and social practices Deep democracy Social justice Communal values Shared responsibility Critique of liberal individualism and the “heroic” leader concept
Benefits	Active participation of all community members in decision-making Collective well-being Respectful of community cultural wealth Draws upon collective wisdom Enhanced communication Cultural preservation

Historical Origins

The ethic of community was originally articulated by Gail C. Furman (2004), an American educator whose research focused primarily on school leadership. However, this ethical paradigm has roots in Ancient Greece along with the concept of “the common good,” the critique of liberal individualism, the ethical theory of democratic communitarianism, John Dewey’s (1916, 1927) understanding of democracy, and deep democracy (Green, 1999; Barcinas & Fleener, 2023).

Plato’s and Aristotle’s City-State

In Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle envisioned a city-state, the former in the Republic (375 BC) and the latter in Politics (350 BC). Plato emphasized the importance of justice and harmonious functioning of the state to achieve the common good, whereas Aristotle argued that the purpose of the state is to promote the good life for its citizens. For Aristotle, the common good was the ultimate end of political life and achieved through the virtuous actions of individuals within the community. Plato and Aristotle had differing views on the organization of the city-state, with Plato focusing on a structured hierarchy based on specialization and virtue and Aristotle emphasizing the importance of political participation, balanced governance, and ethical virtue in creating a flourishing community. Aristotle believed that:

---

“a city is not simply a concentration of needs and a division of the means of production. Right from the start something else is needed — justice, the power of what is better over what is less good” — as cited by Rancière (2004)

---

Aristotle’s ideas laid the groundwork for understanding the role of communal values in the development of Western societies and influenced the ethical theory of communitarianism. The roots of communitarianism can also be found in other ancient civilizations and religious traditions. Societies depicted in texts like the Hebrew Bible, Christian New Testament, early Islamic notions of shura, and Confucianism all embraced ideas of community, shared values, and collective well-being (Etzioni, 1996, 2014). These early doctrines highlighted the significance of communal harmony, social cohesion, and collective responsibility.

Communitarianism

Communitarianism is an ethical and political theory that emerged in the late 20th century. It placed a strong emphasis on the community and the common good as central to societal well-being. Communitarians argued that individuals are not isolated entities but are inherently social beings with interconnected relationships and obligations to the larger society; they believed that a sense of community is essential for a flourishing society and that individuals should prioritize the needs of the community over their own self-interests (Chang, 2022; Etzioni, 2014; Friedman, 1994; Golby, 1997).

During the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st, liberalism and individualism were heavily critiqued, as scholars and activists advocated for the common good and shared values within communities instead of individual rights at the detriment of the community. Modern communitarianism emerged as a response to American philosopher John Rawls (1971) and his foundational work A Theory of Justice (which informed our understanding of the ethic of justice). Communitarians contested Rawls’ notion that the primary role of government is to justly secure and distribute liberties and economic resources and the notion of state neutrality, advocating for a collective understanding of what constitutes the good; they opposed universalistic strategies that aimed to force a uniform set of ideals upon heterogeneous cultures (Bell, 2024; Etzioni, 2014; Golby, 1997).

Critics of liberalism in the 1980s were troubled by the adverse social and psychological impacts of modern liberal societies, such as alienation, greed, loneliness, urban crime, and high divorce rates (Bell, 2001). These issues spurred a second wave of communitarian thinkers in the 1990s, such as Israeli sociologist Amitai Etzioni (1996, 2014) and American politician William Galston (1993), who concentrated on advocating for social responsibility and implementing policies to reinforce communal life. Their ideas were disseminated through the flagship communitarian periodical The Responsive Community and Etzioni’s Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies.

Bell (2024) articulated three forms of communal life that are commonly accepted by modern communitarians:

• Communities of place — based on geographical locations and aim to preserve the unique character of local areas.
• Communities of memory — include groups that share histories, such as nations or ethnocultural groups.
• Psychological communities — involve face-to-face interactions characterized by trust and cooperation, such as families and small work groups.

Communitarians face challenges in balancing these forms of communal life. For instance, promoting workplace communities might undermine family life. Similarly, Etzioni’s proposals for pro-family measures may conflict with his call for increased civic engagement. Striking a balance between communal responsibilities and individual rights is one of communitarianism’s central principles (Chang, 2022; Etzioni, 2014).

Although communitarians acknowledged the value of individual autonomy, they contend that it should only be used within the parameters of a common set of standards and values that advance the common good. This school of thought aims to promote cooperation and solidarity among society’s members by creating a sense of mutual obligation and belonging (Chang, 2022).

Deep Democracy

Gail C. Furman’s (2004) ethic of community was influenced by John Dewey’s (1916, 1927) understanding of democracy, which related to experience, self-expression, and ongoing learning. Dewey (1899) argued that democracy occurs through civic engagement and debate that is informed, reasoned, and deliberative. Scholars have argued that democratic methods, rules, and laws alone do not create a sense of community (Mindell, 2002); instead, what is needed is deep democracy, which Barcinas and Fleener (2023) define as “the intellectual and practical commitment to equity, freedom, and self-determination through shared power and popular participation in free and just (sovereign) communities” (p. 133).

Mindell (2002) described deep democracy as an ecosystem in which the health of the system is dependent on everyone having opportunities and developing capacities to engage and practice a form of governance in conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty. Barcinas and Fleener (2023) drew connections between this framing of democracy with adult education and lifelong learning, where students develop “capacities to navigate evolving community discourse” (p. 135) and “embrace innovation, creativity, disruption, and paradigmatic shifts as worldviews are disrupted and challenged” (p. 138).

Social Justice

Nourishing a strong, democratic community requires continuous effort and commitment from all involved. In education, the concept of community is likened to a place of belonging, where all members feel valued and respected and are engaged in collaborative efforts.

Furman and Starratt (2002) problematized and redefined the concept of community to emphasize acceptance and celebration of difference rather than a focus on sameness and homogeneity. They argued for a new understanding of community based on interconnectedness, interdependence, and cultural capital exchange between educational institutions, the surrounding community, and the larger global community.

This redefined community is characterized by a sense of global interdependence, ecological sustainability, and global survival, highlighting the important link between educational institutions and broader social contexts. This reframing of community shifts organizations from an isolationist and competitive perspective to one focused on building strong partnerships with their surrounding communities.

Furman (2004) emphasized the connection between moral leadership and social justice education when she argued that:

---

“social justice cannot be realized given the status quo of hierarchical relationships in schools and the assumption that moral leadership is the purview of heroic leaders in administrative positions, and the dearth of opportunities for full participation and open inquiry” (p. 229).

---

Furman believed than an ethic of community could be the vehicle for working toward social justice because it centres leadership practice as a communal process.

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

The ethic of community has most commonly been associated with school leadership; however, Wood and Hilton (2012) applied this ethic to community college leaders. Furthermore, Barcinas and Fleener (2023) and others have drawn parallels between adult learning and deep democracy; therefore, it can inform ethical educational leadership practices today.

Ethic of Justice vs. Care

Western post-secondary systems are grounded in an ethic of justice, which focuses on rights, laws, and public policy for ethical guidance, and government legislation is aimed at accountability. How willing are we to acknowledge that educational institutions, both their structures and cultures, have a history of and remain, in many ways, unsupportive and/or hostile to students and their communities?

This is highly relevant in a time of truth and reconciliation, as Indigenous knowledges and ways are accepted (or not) by colonial academia (Smith & Smith, 2019) and as the globalization of post-secondary education challenges WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) views of academic integrity and plagiarism (Leask, 2007). Leaders must critically examine and question the rule of law, as it relates to service, equity, and the local community; moreover, post-secondary leaders must be prepared, when necessary, to bend and adapt rather than be rigid with policy.

Describing an educational institution as a community means acknowledging and enhancing the relationships, mutual dependencies, and exchange of cultural assets and resources among the institution, its local environment, and the broader global society (Furman & Starratt, 2002). This perspective of an educational community contrasts with common leadership structures that tend to be hierarchical and restrict participation in decision-making processes to a privileged few. Alternatively, leaders who follow an ethic of community engage with diverse viewpoints and celebrate differences.

Community Cultural Wealth

As post-secondary institutions become increasingly more diverse, it is important that educational leaders appreciate the cultural assets that students and employees carry with them. Yosso (2005) defined six types of cultural assets, referred to as “community cultural wealth,” that highlight the positive influence of students’ home communities:

• Aspirational — students’ hopes and dreams.
• Linguistic — students’ various language and communication skills (e.g., storytelling, multilingual, memorization, attention to detail, tone, and rhythm).
• Familial — students’ social and personal human resources drawn from extended family and community networks.
• Social — students’ peers and social contacts.
• Navigational — students’ skills and abilities that they use to navigate social institutions and educational spaces (i.e., how they navigate unsupportive or hostile environments).
• Resistance — students’ ability to secure equal rights and collective freedom through a historical legacy of injustice and resistance.

Yosso (2005) designed this model to capture the talents, strengths, and experiences that students from marginalized communities bring with them to university and aimed to disrupt the narrative that students are empty vessels waiting to be filled by their instructors. Rather, students bring with them prior knowledge and experience that contributes to the overall collective wisdom of the institution, including their instructors and peers.

Beware Deficit-Thinking

Unfortunately, deficit-thinking is common in Western organizational development theory (Stavros et al., 2003), social science research (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008), and performance measurement (Anderson & Smylie, 2009). Leaders must be cautious of how student success is framed because deficit thinking negatively impacts racially marginalized people.

Benefits of Ethic

Globally, a prioritization of efficiency and consumerism, such as measuring return on investment through graduate outcomes (Schneider & Peek, 2018), has shifted the focus away from an ethic of community and the cultivation of diverse cultural knowledge and histories of marginalized communities. Instead, attention is diverted to competition, global rankings, revenue generation, and labour market outcomes, as is evidenced by:

• Recruitment beyond catchment areas
• Growth in advertising and marketing
• Reduction or elimination of arts-based programming (e.g., visual arts, music, philosophy, and history)
• A burgeoning bureaucratic and managerial culture.

Driving this cultural orientation is a neoliberal philosophy of post-secondary education, which assumes that “the only knowledge worth pursuing is that with more or less immediate market value” (Busch, 2017, xii). The problem with this short-sighted thinking is that the market does not help educational leaders address the social processes aimed at coordinated efforts and commitment to quality, nor the systemic inequities perpetuated by meritocracies.

Adopting an ethic of community has been shown to reduce student isolation by fostering a sense of belonging, which in turn boosts achievement through teamwork and shared learning responsibilities and promotes collegiality among educators, encouraging deep connections and shared governance and decision-making, and can lead to a more supportive work environment (Beck & Murphy, 1996; Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Shouse, 1996). For example, Crawford (2017) found that the incorporation of the ethic of community into leadership practices when addressing concerns related to undocumented immigrants in the United States resulted in more inclusive decisions that benefitted the entire school community.

Drawbacks of Ethic

Enacting an ethic of community centred on principles of deep democracy — communal processes, lifelong learning, and shared responsibility — is not without its challenges. Recent research theorizes the erosion of democracy is caused by the rise of populism and totalitarianism and influence of a “post-truth” era (Barcinas & Fleener, 2023; Fleener & Barcinas, 2022; Hoggan-Kloubert & Hoggan, 2022; Petrie et al., 2019; Schroeder et al., 2019). Information privilege, censorship, curriculum bans (e.g., anti-SOGI movements in Canada and anti-DEI movements in the USA), and public discourse permeated with racist, xenophobic, and openly violent messages restricts our ability to meaningfully engage in rational discourse.

Additionally, Barcinas and Fleener (2023) acknowledged generational shifts driving preferences for “less ambiguity, shorter information loads, and truncated learning and decision processes” (p. 132). They further rang alarm bells about “increasingly networked and diluted/polluted adult networks and webs of communication and influence [that] are more readily influenced, pressured, and derailed with potential “viral” challenges” (p. 132). To promote a democratic ecosystem, Barcinas and Fleener wondered:

• How can we excuse vile, hateful, and aggressive ideas or actions and, at the same time, make space for opposing discourse?
• How could communities acknowledge multiple polarized contexts without sliding into violence or a breakdown of caring, civil communities? (p. 132)

Thus, it becomes increasingly important for post-secondary leaders and communities to consider how they can help members develop the necessary skills for rational discourse within an increasingly chaotic and technology-enhanced society.

Additionally, as leaders try to balance a social justice agenda with the concept of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” tensions among community members will emerge and concessions and sacrifices will need to be made. Resource allocation poses a significant challenge, as leaders must equitably distribute limited resources to meet both individual and community-wide needs. Scholars have also questioned whether it is possible to promote and engage in communal processes in institutions that are marked by political and power struggles and where strong, decisive leadership may be necessary (Furman, 2003).

Finally, the ethic of the community has been criticized for the lack of empirical evidence supporting it as a standalone paradigm. Minimal research has been conducted on the ethic of community and its benefits, and what exists is predominantly centred on schools (as opposed to other educational systems, such as post-secondary). Over the past 20 years, few studies have focused on the ethic of community as a central theme, and scholars have debated whether the ethic of community is a dimension within existing frameworks or a standalone paradigm.

Shapiro and Stefkovich (2022) argued that community is a key aspect of the ethic of the profession, with its focus on relationships between individuals and local communities. Noddings (1992) and Gunzenhauser et al. (2023) referred to dimensions of community within their definitions of the ethic of care and advocated for a community-based ethics of caring, where everyone works together to protect and enhance the integrity of the educational experience. Stefkovich (2013) argued that focusing on the ethic of community as its own paradigm, as Furman (2004) advocated for, overemphasizes processes over people, potentially sidelining individual relationships.

Recommended Further Readings

• “Adult Education, Futures Literacy, and Deep Democracy: Engaging Democratic Visioning and Anticipatory Futures for More Sustainable Futures” by Susan J. Barcinas and M. Jayne Fleener, Adult Learning
• “The Ethic of Community” by Gail C. Furman, Journal of Educational Administration
• “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth” by Tara J. Yosso, Race, Ethnicity, and Education

References

Anderson, M. J., & Smylie, J. K. (2009). Health systems performance measurement systems in Canada: How well do they perform in First Nations, Inuit, and Métis contexts? Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 99–155. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3582648/

Barcinas, S. J., & Fleener, M. J. (2023). Adult education, futures literacy, and deep democracy: Engaging democratic visioning and anticipatory futures for more sustainable futures. Adult Learning, 34(3), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231166726

Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives of a successful school. Corwin Press.

Bell, D. (2024). Communitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Busch, L. (2017). Knowledge for sale: The neoliberal takeover of higher education. The MIT Press.

Chang, Y. L. (2022). Communitarianism properly understood. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 35(1), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2021.21

Crawford, E. R. (2017). The ethic of community and incorporating undocumented immigrant concerns into ethical school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×16687005

Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society: Being three lectures. University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Holt Publishers.

Etzioni, A. (1996). The responsive community: A communitarian perspective. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096403

Etzioni, A. (2014). Communitarianism revisited. Journal of Political Ideologies, 19(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2014.951142

Fleener, M. J., & Barcinas, S. J. (2022). Democracy’s relationship with the future: Transforming society’s promise. Journal of Transformative Education, 20(3), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446221103174

Friedman, J. (1994). The politics of communitarianism. Critical Review, 8(2), 297–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819408443340

Furman, G. C. (1998). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×98034003003

Furman, G. C. (Ed.) (2002). School as community: From promise to practice. SUNY Press.

Furman, G. C. (2003). Moral leadership and the ethic of community. Values and ethics in educational administration, 2(1).

Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410525612

Furman, G. C., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 104(9), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810210400906

Galston, W. (1993). The promise of communitarianism. National Civic Review, 28(3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.4100820303

Golby, M. (1997). Communitarianism and education. Curriculum Studies, 5(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369700200010

Green, J. M. (1999). Deep democracy: Community, diversity, and transformation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Gunzenhauser, M. G., Flores, O. J., & Quigley, M. W. (2023). Race-conscious caring and anti-racist leadership: A narrative ethics for cultivating communal responsibility. Journal of School Leadership, 34(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846231174151

Hoggan-Kloubert, T., & Hoggan, C. (2022). Post-truth as an epistemic crisis: The need for rationality, autonomy, and pluralism. Adult Education Quarterly, 73(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136221080424

Kahne, J. (1996). Reframing educational policy: Democracy, community, and the individual. Teachers College Press.

Leask, B. (2007). Plagiarism, cultural diversity, and metaphor: Implications for academic staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262486

Mindell, A. (2002). The deep democracy of open forums: Practical steps to conflict prevention and resolution for the family, workplace, and world. Hampton Roads Publishing.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. Teachers College Press.

Petrie, M., McGregor, C., & Crowther, J. (2019) Populism, democracy, and a pedagogy of renewal. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 38(5), 488–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1617798

Rancière, J. (2004). The order of the city (J. Drury, C. Oster, & A. Parker, Trans.). Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1344360

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

Schneider, M., & Peek, A. (2018). Accreditation and return on investment. In S. D. Phillips & K. Kinser (Eds.), Accreditation on the edge: Challenging quality assurance in higher education (pp. 157–171). John Hopkins University Press.

Schroeder, S., Currin, E., Washington, E., Curcio, R., & Lundgren, L. (2019). “Like, share and comment,” and learn: Transformative learning in online anti-Trump resistance communities. Adult Education Quarterly, 70(2), 119–139. https://doi-org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1177/0741713619884270

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2022). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (5th ed.). Routledge.

Shouse, R. C. (1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02333405

Smith, G. H. & Smith, L. T. (2019) Doing Indigenous work: Decolonizing and transforming the academy. In E. A. McKinley & L. T. Smith (Eds.). Handbook of Indigenous education (pp. 1–27). Springer.

Stavros, J. M., Cooperrider, D. L., & Kelley, D. L. (2003). Strategic inquiry appreciative intent: Inspiration to SOAR, a new framework for strategic planning. AI Practitioner, 5(4), 10–17.

Stefkovich, J. A. (2013). Best interests of the student: Applying ethical constructs to legal cases in education (2nd ed.). Routledge

Wood, J. L., & Hilton, A. A. (2012). Five ethical paradigms for community college leaders: Toward constructing and considering alternative courses of action in ethical decision making. Community College Review, 40(3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112448818

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (Eds.) (2008). White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

---

“We behave in ways detrimental to ourselves and others because we think it an unpardonable mistake not to do as our neighbours do.” — Mary Astell (1697)

---

Definition

This chapter views an ethical approach to leadership as one concerned largely with the self and its care as an act of resistance. Our rendering of the ethic of self-care draws upon the foundational works of Mary Astell’s (1666–1731) gendering of the ethic of the self as a feminist project; Michel Foucault’s (1926–1984) ethic of self-care, which is rooted in concepts of intellectual independence and free speech; along with more modern interpretations influenced by Black feminism, eco-feminism, and critiques of wellness from notable scholars like Sara Ahmed and Audre Lorde.

Mary Astell

The ethic of self-care refers to a philosophical and moral framework that emphasizes the importance of individuals attending to their own emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being (Curry & Epley, 2021). Mary Astell (1697) advocated for practices of the self, which involved bodily practices of withdrawal and meditation. According to Astell, self-care required “disengagement from the senses, the passions, and the love (or more accurately, the desire) of material things” (Broad, 2015, p. 35). For Astell, an ethical person was one who regulated their passions and harnessed rather than succumbed to their natural desires. Thus, to be ethical consisted of mastering one’s passions and mind (Webb, 2021).

The ethic of self-care is also an act of resistance. Astell (2002) heavily critiqued the notion of “customs,” or forces of social habit. She explained:

We behave in ways detrimental to ourselves and others because we think it an unpardonable mistake not to do as our neighbours do, and part with our Peace and Pleasure as well as our Innocence and Virtue, merely in compliance with unreasonable Fashion… Custom, that merciless torrent, [accounts for] all that Sin and Folly in the World (pp. 67–68).

Astell argued that custom has taught women to devalue themselves and place their worth in bodily appearance (Webb, 2021); thus, an ethic of self-care, from a feminist perspective, aims to disrupt expectations imposed upon women in leadership and to find ways for women to break free “of the tyrannous grip of sexist custom” (p. 29).

Michel Foucault

Foucault’s perspective on the ethic of self-care is deeply intertwined with his broader philosophical views on power, knowledge, and the self. He argued that modern societies have developed a form of power that operates through the regulation and normalization of individuals’ behaviours and identities. In this context, self-care becomes a crucial practice for individuals to resist and navigate these mechanisms of power. Foucault (1997) urged us to challenge how history and ‘truth’ are constituted and presented to us; he insisted on the ethical value of curiosity: “Curiosity marks a readiness to find what surrounds us strange and odd; a certain determination to throw off familiar ways of thought and to look at the same things in a different way” (p. 325).

From a Foucauldian perspective, an ethical leader is thus one who challenges the status quo and unceasingly engages in a continuous critical practice of the self. To follow an ethic of self-care requires ongoing critical reflection on how one is governed by external forces, including how they may be influenced by societal expectations and institutional norms. Engaging in this kind of cerebral exercise can be a way to cultivate a sense of autonomy and self-empowerment, as it allows individuals to develop their own ways of thinking and being in the world.

Ethic of Self

Astell and Foucault emphasized the relationship between the self and others, noting the role of friendship as fundamental to an ethic of the self (Broad, 2015; Webb, 2021). Writing, journalling, or seeking guidance from a friend can assist in developing the self.

It is important to note that the ethic of self-care is focused on developing oneself as more morally and ethically enlightened; it is not about dictating the morality of others. Rather, it is a deeply personal exercise. Therefore, ethical educational leaders should not impose their beliefs upon others; instead, they should encourage their colleagues to engage in similar processes of self-creation and critical self-analysis, promote intellectual independence, and dismantle structures that stand in stark contrast to this goal.

Leadership

The ethic of self-care is not typically associated with a specific leadership style, as it is primarily focused on critiquing power structures and institutions through self-critique rather than prescribing specific leadership approaches. However, the concepts can be applied to leadership in interesting ways, such as exploring the relationship between intellectual independence, free speech, and anti-authoritarian leadership. The summary table below highlights key aspects of this ethic including the primary objective and core principles, and benefits of adopting this frame of reference for decision-making.

Summary Table: Ethic of Self-Care

Primary leadership style	Anti-authoritarian leadership
Frame of reference	Self-critique; the self as a continuous project
Objective	Challenge the status quo
Core principles	Self-awareness Self-discipline Intellectual independence Free inquiry Skepticism
Benefits	Personal development and transformation Resistance to oppressive power structures Lifelong learning Knowledge production

Historical Origins

Socrates (469–399 BCE) and ancient ethicists understood that caring for oneself was to exhibit an attitude not only toward oneself but also toward others and the world, attending to one’s own thoughts and attitudes in self-reflection and meditation and engaging in ascetic practices aimed at realizing an ideal state of being. In Ancient Greece, Socrates went about Athens questioning its citizens about their unexamined way of life; he spent his time prodding people into thinking (Ozmon & Craver, 1990). According to Socrates, philosophy is a practice essential to one’s ethical development, for it is a spiritual commitment to the truth that requires self-disciplined attention to the character of one’s thinking. Ancient Greeks also emphasized exercise, diet, and moderation in life as important dimensions of self-care.

The works of Mary Astell and other 17th century moral philosophers have been compared to “self-help manuals buttressed with psychology, speculative law, and religion” (Garrett, 2013, p. 30). These early texts counselled readers by offering techniques for cultivating the self and promoting happiness. While Astell’s writings were concerned with intellectual growth, her primary audience for the ethic of self-care was women. She arrived at a time when female virtue was associated with beauty. Astell (2002) was troubled by this gendering of women and advocated for women to turn their attention to their “own minds” (p. 52) and “souls” (p. 54) to increase their role in society.

Critiques

While attention to the development of the self as an ethical practice is deeply rooted in ancient traditions, it has been criticized as “something somewhat suspect… gladly denounced as being a kind of self-love, a kind of egoism or individual interest in contradiction to the care one must show others or to the necessary sacrifice of the self” (Fornet-Betancourt et al., 1987, p. 115-116). This rejection of self-care has been connected to the rise of Christianity, which emphasized salvation as the renunciation of the self. The rejection of self-care as an ethical practice has been further exacerbated by feminist ethics of care which, it has been argued, failed to theorize self-care and the affective/emotional labour of care work (Lloro-Bidart & Semenko, 2017).

Similarly, Foucault’s work has been criticized for failing to recognize how caring work “can overburden the truth-sayer with negative emotions… emotions that might be exacerbated if the educator also engages in activism” (p. 21). Zuckerwise (2024) further criticized Foucault for taking for granted one’s freedom; she challenged: “Foucauldian self-care, not unlike the Greco-Roman context that so inspired it, is thus the province of those subjects whose liberation is not in question: again, namely white men” (p. 587).

Modern Day Self-Care

In recent years, the concept of self-care has been popularized and is often associated with ideas of how people should look after themselves, such as taking a hot bath, going for a walk, doing yoga, or getting a massage. Encouragement to engage in self-care abounds and is largely targeted at women.

Webb (2021) argued that self-care “has been diluted and commodified, untethered from the political” (p. 101). As Orgad and Gill (2022) highlighted, the relationship between self-care and ‘white wellness’ is privileged in that the ability to care for oneself and one’s access to self-care resources (e.g., health insurance and benefits, fashion, lifestyle indulgences, and vacations) continues to be radically unequal. Audre Lorde attempted to call attention to this violent and oppressive culture — one that dictated how women should behave — by insisting that she and other marginalized women mattered and that they were worthy of care (Kisner, 2017).

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

For Foucault (1997), self-care involves not just physical health but also the cultivation of the self in ways that resist authoritarian forms of leadership. This includes practices of self-examination, reflection, and transformation aimed at challenging established modes of thought and behaviour. In essence, self-care becomes a form of resistance and a means of creating new forms of subjectivity that are not wholly determined by external powers.

Foucault (2002) argued that ethics should not be understood as a set of universal moral principles but rather as practices through which individuals shape their own ethical selves, which involves a continual process of self-examination and transformation, guided by the goal of achieving greater freedom and autonomy. Not surprisingly, Foucault’s work has been linked to continuing education and lifelong learning as an ethic of self-care (Rosetto & Doro, 2021).

In the context of higher education leadership, one can draw parallels between Foucault’s ethic of self-care and concepts of free inquiry, intellectual independence, and academic freedom. In Technologies of the Self, Foucault (1982) stated: “To put one’s freedom to use and thereby experience it as something other than a static condition: ‘what is ethics if not the practice of freedom?’” (p. 28). Foucault frequently cited educational institutions as sites where normalization occurs, thus calling attention to the need for educational leaders to critically examine institutional structures that inhibit resistance to these norms.

Truth in Academia

Mourad (2017) drew attention to the challenges that exist in Western higher education institutions in his essay on Social Control and Free Inquiry. Specifically, he highlighted the limitations of criteria used to validate what is accepted as truth in academia. For example, he noted the dominant preference for the scientific method and quantitative methods, works published in English, reductionistic approaches to knowledge-creation, and “highly localized or specialized topics that present a precise approximation of reality” (p. 332). Calls for decolonizing research methodologies have been occurring for decades (Smith, 2023), yet systems are slow to change.

Much like the ethics of critique and discomfort, educational leaders who follow an ethic of self-care are motivated to attend to their relationship with the truth. Foucault (1990b) perceived ‘coming to know’ as a philosophical activity fundamentally oriented to the care of the self, for truth, he believed, is pursued in philosophy for its own good and the sake of ethical development. It would, therefore, be unethical to blindly follow the rules.

However, leaders must avoid imposing their beliefs on others; instead, they should encourage their colleagues to engage in similar processes of free inquiry, draw their own conclusions, and uphold the principles of academic freedom. Foucault (1985) was particularly distressed by external forces that “try, from the outside, to dictate to others, to tell them where their truth is and how to find it, or when it works up a case against them in the language of naive positivity” (p. 9). Thus, ethical leadership, from this perspective, is not about telling others what to think but rather creating an environment that promotes freedom of thought.

Benefits of Ethic

Foucault described the ethic of self-care as an ‘aesthetic of existence,’ or living one’s own life as a work of art — an ongoing process of self-creation and making oneself and one’s life beautiful (Webb, 2021). This process is linked to liberation and resistance against domination and oppressive power structures. By caring for oneself, Foucault argued, individuals can resist the normalization of behaviours and ideas imposed by societal norms.

Astell’s insights into the ethic of self-care are particularly salient today, with society’s obsession with one’s physical appearance, clothes, and beauty. Social media and entertainment have long defined women according to their appearance. However, from Astell’s perspective, beauty as a defining feature of women’s virtue will never be empowering, regardless of whether women feel good doing so (Webb, 2021). This philosophical viewpoint gives leaders tools to begin to unpack misogynistic beliefs and practices.

Building on Astell, Foucault, Lorde, and Ahmed’s interpretations of self-care, leaders can work to create communities and ethical friendships to collectively enact resistance and transformation.

Drawbacks of Ethic

Throughout this chapter, numerous critiques of Ancient Greek and Foucauldian interpretations of the ethic of self-care were identified. Notably, they ignore the risks that women, particularly racialized women, Indigenous, and queer scholars face in their pursuit of free inquiry and practice of decolonial pedagogies and research methodologies. Constantly fighting systems that were designed to oppress can lead to compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma, loneliness, and burnout (Bamonti et al., 2014; Beddoe, 2013; Lewis & King, 2019).

Lorde (1988) critiqued Foucault’s concept of self-care, particularly in the context of marginalized individuals. While Foucault advocated for self-care as a form of resistance against oppressive power structures, Lorde argued that for marginalized groups, self-care alone is not enough. She believed that true liberation and empowerment required collective action and solidarity. She emphasized the importance of self-care as a political act, but she also stressed the need for community support and systemic change. She believed that individuals should not be solely responsible for their well-being in the face of societal injustices. Instead, she called for a more holistic approach that included both self-care and collective action to challenge and change oppressive systems.

Similarly, Sara Ahmed who, in 2014, wrote a blog post titled Self-care as Warfare argued that:

In directing our care towards ourselves we are redirecting care away from its proper objects… And that is why in queer, feminist and anti-racist work self-care is about the creation of community, fragile communities, assembled out of the experiences of being shattered. We reassemble ourselves through the ordinary, everyday and often painstaking work of looking after ourselves; looking after each other. This is why when we have to insist, I matter, we matter, we are transforming what matters. (para. 39)

Ahmed (2014) challenged neoliberal forms of self-care that hold individuals personally responsible for their emotional well-being; without institutional protections, she argued, the act of self-care can become political warfare, with women topping the list of casualties. From this perspective, the ethic of self-care, to be fully realized, is a relational process, requiring us to not only look after ourselves but to look after each other.

Lloro-Bidart and Semenko (2017) have taken this one step further by highlighting the need to examine “how the self is constituted not only through relations with other humans, but living others and the material world” (p. 21). They called for broader conceptions of relationality that consider all living things, including nature. Additionally, they argued that an eco-feminist ethic of self-care requires that educational institutions provide “time and space for the expression of emotions as part of truth-telling” (p. 21).

Moreover, when tied to notions of wellness and well-being popularized and commodified in Western society, the ethic of self-care can reinforce existing forms of power and social stratification, as individuals with more privilege find it easier to prioritize well-being (e.g., attending a yoga class, getting a massage, and going on vacation) over those who are less advantaged. Access to resources and support for self-care are unevenly distributed, exacerbating existing disparities and inequalities, which can result in further marginalization and discrimination.

Recommended Readings

• “The Ethics of the Concern of the Self as a Practice of Freedom” by Michel Foucault (1997) in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth (edited by Paul Rabinow), The New Press
• “Toward a Feminist Ethic of Self-Care for Environmental Educators” by Teresa Lloro-Bidart and Keri Semenko (2017), The Journal of Environmental Education
• ““I Am Writing You in Reference to Myself”: White Wellness, Black Feminism, and the Politics of Self-Care” by Lena Zuckerwise (2024), Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society

References

Ahmed, S. (2014, August 25). Selfcare as warfare. Feministkilljoys. https://feministkilljoys.com/2014/08/25/selfcare-as-warfare/

Astell, M. (1697). A serious proposal to the ladies: Parts II wherein a method is offer’d for the improvement of their minds. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/B17267.0001.001 

Bamonti, P. M., Keelan, C. M., Larson, N., Mentrikoski, J. M., Randall, C. L., Sly, S. K., Travers, R. M., & McNeil, D. W. (2014). Promoting ethical behavior by cultivating a culture of self-care during graduate training: A call to action. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(4), 253–260. https://doi-org.ezproxy.tru.ca/10.1037/tep0000056

Beddoe, L. (2013). Social work education and health: Knowledge for practice. In B. R. Crisp & L. Beddoe, Promoting health and well-being in social work education (pp. 6-23). Routledge.

Broad, J. (2015). The philosophy of Mary Astell: An early modern theory of value. Oxford University Press.

Curry, A., & Epley, P. (2021). Toward a reflection-centered model of graduate social work education: Implications for enhanced practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 41(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2020.1855617

De Marzio, D. M. (2006). The care of the self: Alcibiades, Socratic teaching and ethics education. The Journal of Education, 187(3), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205740718700308

Fornet-Betancourt, R., Becker, H., Gomez-Muller, A., & Gathier, J. D. (1987). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom: An interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 12(2-3), 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145378701200202

Foucault, M. (1982). Technologies of the self. In P. Rabinow & N. Rose (Eds.), The essential Foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984. New Press.

Foucault, M. (1985). The history of sexuality, Vol. 2., The use of pleasure. Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1990a). An aesthetics of existence. In L. D. Kritzman (Ed.), Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings (pp. 47–53). Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1990b). The concern for truth. In L. D. Kritzman (Ed.), Politics philosophy culture: Interviews and other writings (pp. 255–267). Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1997). The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (pp. 321–327). The New Press.

Foucault, M. (2002). The subject and power. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault (Vol. 3, pp. 326–348). Penguin Books.

Garrett, A. (2013). Seventeenth-century moral philosophy: Self-help, self-knowledge, and the devil’s mountain. In R. Crisp & O. Han (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of ethics (pp. 229-276). Oxford University Press.

Kisner, J. (2017, March 14). The politics of conspicuous displays of self-care, The New Yorker, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-politics-of-selfcare

Lewis, M. L., & King, D. M. (2019). Teaching self-care: The utilization of self-care in social work practicum to prevent compassion fatigue, burnout, and vicarious trauma. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 29(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1482482

Lorde, A. (1988). A burst of light. Firebrand Books.

Lloro-Bidart, T., & Semenko, K. (2017). Toward a feminist ethic of self-care for environmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2016.1249324

Mourad, R. P. (2017). Social control and free inquiry: Consequences of Foucault for the pursuit of knowledge in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1379593

Orgad, S., & Gill, R. (2022). Confidence culture. Duke University Press.

Ozman, H. A. & Craver, S. M. (1990). Philosophical foundations of education. Merrill Pub Co.

Rossetto, M. S., & Doro, M. J. (2021). Continuing education as an ethic of self-care. Roteiro, 46, Article no. e22401. https://doi.org/10.18593/r.v46i.22401

Smith, L. T. (2023). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). ZED.

Webb, S. (2021). Toward a feminist ethic of the self in dialogue with Mary Astell and Michel Foucault [Doctoral thesis, University College London]. UCL Discovery. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10119457/

Zuckerwise, L. (2024). “I am writing you in reference to myself”: White wellness, black feminism, and the politics of self-care. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 49(3), 579–608. https://doi.org/10.1086/727990

---

“Equality is fine as a transitional demand, but it’s dishonest not to recognize it for what it is – the easy route. There is a difference between saying ‘we want to be included’ and saying ‘we want to reconstruct your exclusive system.’ The former is more readily accepted into the mainstream.” — Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017, pp. 184–185)

---

Definition

Leaders who are guided by an ethic of discomfort assume that discomfort, pain, and suffering (to a certain degree) can be useful in disrupting one’s “cherished beliefs and assumptions” (Boler, 1999, p. 176).

Ethnocentrism

The dominant group tends to believe that the norms they follow represent the ‘natural’ way human beings do things; thus, those who behave otherwise are judged as morally wrong. This viewpoint is ethnocentric, which refers to the practice of judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. This often leads to the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. Ethnocentrism can manifest in various ways, such as viewing other cultures as primitive, uncivilized, or inferior to one’s own.

An ethic of discomfort can help leaders question their own participation in perpetuating discriminatory beliefs and practices. It calls leaders and educators to question their complicity in reifying racist and misogynist beliefs. Leaders are further called to acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge, to be, as Foucault (1994) urged, “very mindful that everything one perceives is evident only against a familiar little known horizon” (p. 448).

Challenging ‘Safe Spaces’ and Normative Assumptions

Leaders who adopt an ethic of discomfort challenge the notion of ‘safe spaces,’ which have long been popularized as places designed to protect people from psychological harm (Wilson-Forsberg et al., 2023). Zembylas (2017) argued that:

there are no safe classrooms spaces, if one considers that conditions of power and privilege always operate in them… Safety cannot be constructed as the absence of discomfort; experiencing discomfort should not be confused with the absence of safety.

Discomfort can then be used as a tool by leaders and educators to “unsettle a comfortable narrative around a specific social issue” (Wilson-Forsberg et al., 2023, p. 346). Wilson et al. (2023) further promoted “an ethos of disruption” (p. 346) for unsettling prevailing norms. This requires that educational leaders create “disruptive moments of sharing and listening openly to each other’s stories” (Zemblyas, 2017, p. 8), as well as acknowledge the power dynamics that govern the classroom and institutional decision-making structures.

Educational leaders who follow this theory regularly interrogate normative assumptions that underpin and drive educational policies and institutional governance (Burns, 2017). Leaders question their deeply held assumptions and beliefs and engage in active rather than passive empathy, requiring not only a desire for change but also action (Zembylas, 2017).

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

Summary Table: Ethic of Discomfort

Primary leadership style	Transformational
Frame of reference	Social justice
Objective	Question and disrupt one’s beliefs and assumptions
Core principles	Embracing discomfort Critical reflection and self-awareness Active empathy Continuous learning Social responsibility
Benefits	Social change Personal growth Enhanced empathy Improved decision-making

Historical Origins

Shoshana Felman

The notion that discomfort is not only inevitable but also ethical was initially suggested by Shoshana Felman (1992) in her work on the role of crisis in listening to stories of suffering and trauma from her experience teaching about the Holocaust. Felman asked educators: “Is there a relation between crisis and the very enterprise of education?… Is there a relation between trauma and pedagogy?” (p. 18). She concluded that “when teaching engenders some sort of crisis in the student, and this is done with care about students’ well-being, then there is potential for transformation” (Zembylas, 2015, p. 164).

Felman (1992) called for educators to theorize norms and how they operate constructively or destructively in educational institutions. Discomfort, then, she argued, can be used as a tool by educators for individual and social transformation:

If teaching does not hit upon some sort of crisis, if it does not encounter either the vulnerability or the explosiveness of a (explicit or implicit) critical and unpredictable dimension, it has perhaps not truly taught . . . I therefore think that my job as a teacher, paradoxical as it may sound, was that of creating in the class the highest state of crisis that it could withstand, without “driving the students crazy,” without compromising the students’ bounds (p. 53).

Michel Foucault

The ‘ethic of discomfort’ was first articulated by Michel Foucault (1994) in his essay “For an Ethic of Discomfort.” Foucault asserted that discomfort could serve as an antidote against dogmatism and complacency. He advised:

never to consent to being completely comfortable with one’s own presuppositions. Never to let them fall peacefully asleep, but also never to believe that a new fact will suffice to overturn them; never to imagine that one can change them like arbitrary axioms, remembering that in order to give them necessary mobility one must have a distant view, but also look at what is nearby and all around oneself. To be very mindful that everything one perceives is evident only against a familiar and little known horizon, that every certainty is sure only through the support of a ground that is always unexplored. The most fragile instant has its roots. In that lesson, there is a whole ethic of sleepless evidence that does not rule out, far from it, a rigorous economy of the True and the False; but that is not the whole story (p. 448).

Foucault viewed ethics as a continuous, ongoing practice of self-reflection and a trajectory towards a more critical understanding of oneself (Omohovere, 2022). This is quite distinct from position stating, whereby a person takes a stance on a particular issue or topic. Viewing ethics as a process, then, requires that leaders become reconciled with uncertainty and embrace vulnerability and ambiguity of the self. They must, as Zemblyas (2017) challenged, “acknowledge the limits of knowing the other and the ethical claim that unknowability makes” (p. 11).

Pedagogy of Discomfort

In 1999, Megan Boler first coined the term ‘pedagogy of discomfort,’ which has since been expanded upon by Michalinos Zembylas, Claire McGlynn, and others. These social justice scholars argued that students’ experiences of discomfort are pedagogically valuable in learning about the victims of justice. This pedagogical approach is “grounded in the assumption that discomforting feelings are important in challenging dominant beliefs, social habits, and normative practices that sustain social inequities and create openings for individual and social transformation” (Zembylas, 2015, p. 163).

Teachers who adopt this approach challenge students to critically analyze their ideological values and beliefs in relation to race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. Such a pedagogy, argued Zembylas (2015), “has at its aim to uncover and question the deeply embedded emotional dimensions that frame and shape daily habits, routines, and unconscious complicity with hegemony” (p. 166). When educators and students closely problematize their habits, they may begin to identify their unconscious privileges and the invisible ways in which they perpetuate the dominant ideology (McIntosh, 1989).

Ethic of Violence and Nonviolence

In 2005, Judith Butler furthered the conversation by introducing the dual concepts of the ‘ethic of violence’ and ‘ethic of nonviolence.’ She highlighted that violence is frequently inflicted on those who do not conform to the dominant ethical norms, for example, when students or employees are forced to accept a collective ethos about what is considered ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Leaders who have failed to engage in the necessary work of unpacking the complexity and ambiguity of existing conditions, and who have not supported students and employees in this work, are guilty of ethical violence (Zemblyas, 2015). An ethical norm, therefore, becomes violent when it is imposed in the name of universal principles (e.g., democracy and justice).

If ethical violence is the insistence of uniform thinking, then, in contrast, nonviolence is the process of interrupting dominant narratives. From a Foucauldian perspective, the critique of the self is an important tool in the constitution of nonviolent ethics. Foucault (1979) advised that people should problematize manifestations of discomfort “without portraying them as acts of bad faith or cowardice, to open a space for movement without slipping into prophetic posture” (p. xxvii).

Pedagogic Dissonance

The ethic of discomfort can be linked to Jansen’s (2009) pedagogic dissonance, which occurs when one’s assumptions are shattered, and post-conflict pedagogy, which is founded on hope (Freire, 1992). As Vandeyar (2019) argued, “In a post-conflict society the former oppressor and the oppressed do not get caught up in a blaming game” (p. 1789); rather, “This kind of critical pedagogy recognizes the power and the pain at play in school and society, and their effects on young people, and then asks how things could be better” (Jansen, 2009, p. 154).

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

Although Foucault’s ethic of discomfort is based on the social and political arena, and Boler and Zembylas’s pedagogy of discomfort is situated within the classroom, their ethical frameworks can also be applied to educational leadership, as they have important theoretical consequences for leaders in educational settings.

Universities have long been positioned as places where students are exposed to a wide range of ideas, including those that may be discomforting or challenge their beliefs, to encourage critical thinking and intellectual growth. But for a long time, university campuses were relatively homogenous. With the increasing number of students from diverse cultures entering universities, the need for educators to effectively communicate across cultures has increased.

Challenging Dominant Narratives

For over a decade, social justice scholars have argued that the obligation of educational leaders to guarantee a ‘safe space’ is an impossible and sanitizing task (Boler, 2004; Zembylas, 2017). From this perspective, people should be wary of leaders who ask, “why can’t we all just get along?” As Zembylas (2015) identified, “the assumption about safe speaking in which all shared ideas can be engaged respectfully and critically is illusory due to the embodied and historical differences of students and teachers” (p. 165).

Slee (2009) cautioned that empowerment, a key concept of inclusive leadership, caters to those already empowered. Research has demonstrated that Western-centric frames dictated what was considered inclusive in an educational setting (England & Brown, 2001). Common guidelines for inclusive educational settings are often not responsive to power relations; for example, advocating for fairness by allowing equal time for all narratives assumes that all narratives have equal airtime in our everyday lives (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2016).

Some scholars have recommended restricting dominant narratives to create greater equality (e.g., see Sensoy & Diangelo, 2016). While Burns (2017) posed the question: “Perhaps the question now is not so much how do we move ‘towards inclusion’…, but what do we do to disrupt the construction of centre from which exclusion derives?” (p. 790).

From this ethical orientation, educational leaders are obligated to question hierarchical structures and power dynamics within educational institutions. They must critically examine the way decisions are made and how policies are implemented, seek to create more equitable environments, and move away from universal norms of ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ and ‘democracy.’ As leaders, they must model and promote critical thinking and questioning among students and staff. Further, they should encourage a culture of intellectual curiosity and openness to new ideas, which can lead to a deeper understanding of complex issues and a willingness to challenge prevailing norms and assumptions.

Transformational Leadership

The ethic of discomfort closely aligns with the theory of transformational leadership, which emphasizes the importance of leaders challenging the status quo and the need to critically examine existing power structures and norms to bring about transformation. Transformational leadership is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals, which requires that leaders assess followers’ motives and needs and assume that followers bring their whole selves into the workplace (Northouse, 2019). It is a relational form of leadership that emphasizes the importance of reciprocity and consideration of multiple perspectives, whereby both the leader and follower work towards raising one another’s level of morality (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, it is concerned with the collective good and calls leaders to transcend their own interests for the sake of others (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leadership has the potential to positively influence peoples’ moral identities and emotions (e.g., empathy and guilt), thereby enhancing moral decision-making and action (Zhu et al., 2011).

The role of the transformational leader is to discern how far they can push others to a point of discomfort without causing harm. Importantly, this requires that leaders have trusting relationships with others, as well as an awareness of the diverse experiences of their community, as they will need to draw upon deeply held “internalized cultural logics to create greater insight and behaviour change” (Burns, 2017, p. 791).

Note that this ethical perspective does not follow a consensus-based model nor distributed form of leadership. It assumes that there is an inherently differential power relationship between the leader and the follower, and therefore, positional authority is prioritized. Therefore, leaders must first have a critical awareness of their own attachments to particular narratives before they demand others do this work; importantly, leaders must embed themselves as participating members in the conversations, modelling vulnerability and uncertainty.

Benefits of Ethic

While there is a certain degree of risk associated with adopting this ethical frame, it has great potential for transformative change and developing intercultural understanding of leaders, followers, educators, and students. Embracing discomfort can lead to personal growth by expanding one’s understanding of the world and oneself. Experiencing discomfort can enhance empathy by providing insights into the experience of others, thus promoting a greater understanding of diverse perspectives.

Vandeyar (2019) argued that the most effective way to develop intercultural understanding and empathy is through experiential learning that fosters an ethic of discomfort and pedagogic dissonance; “such learning will create opportunities for diverse groups of academics to walk in the shoes of another and to experience discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes first-hand” (p. 790). One successful method used worldwide is the practice of Story Circles (Deardorff, 2020) for developing intercultural competencies. Story Circles focus on a process of listening, self- and other-awareness, reflection, sharing, empathy, and relationship building.

This ethic has the potential to influence social change. Many students around the world are taught in oppressive classrooms “by academics who are demeaning, unprofessional, and use their power in ways that discriminate unfairly against students” (Shay, 2016, p. 3). When educators and leaders realize that they are not merely conduits of curriculum and educational policies but rather complex beings working within and potentially contributing to value systems, they may be motivated to problematize these systems by analyzing dominant discourses and meaning-making practices within educational and administrative policies (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016).

Drawbacks of Ethic

Leaders who follow an ethic of discomfort assume a certain degree of risk, particularly those who work within polarized contexts where ethical and political ideologies are imposed by those in authority and the academic freedom of faculty is challenged by political and social structures.

In recent years, there have been more attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the United States of America, for example, Republican lawmakers have introduced 40 anti-DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) bills targeting higher education institutions since 2022, which prohibit educators from teaching about systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege (Insight into Diversity, n.d.). Similarly, in Canada, anti-SOGI protests over sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum in Canadian schools have occurred across the country. Nationalist policy agendas around the world restrict what can be taught, either covertly (e.g., fear tactics) or overtly (e.g., changes to legislation), which require leaders to interrogate their own complicity in perpetuating racist and discriminatory beliefs and practices.

Similarly alarming are attacks on academic freedom — a fundamental principle of higher education that permits scholars to pursue and advance knowledge that serves society. Academic freedom involves three aspects:

• research and teaching that furthers knowledge and understanding
• adhering to the ethical and methodological standards of one’s discipline
• participation in collegial or shared governance to ensure that decisions affecting academic life in the university are based on scholarly expertise (Baugh et al., 2021)

In Europe, research and teaching are under pressure due to political constraints, including government foreign policy and societal expectations. Seckelmann et al. (2021) highlighted the following threats to academic freedom within the European context:

• the economic orientation of university governance, which emphasizes efficiency, competition, and external evaluation
• new rules concerning trigger warnings, speech restrictions, and ethics commissions

As a result, leaders who adopt an ethic of discomfort need to be cognizant of the environment within which they work and the potential risks they may be taking for themselves and their organizations, colleagues, and students. While this chapter offers a hopeful alternative to the status quo, it may require that leaders adopt a subversive approach to decolonizing educational systems.

It also may require that leaders be willing to empathize with students and colleagues who hold racist and misogynist beliefs and not be dismissive or undervalue their perspectives, in order to facilitate transformation without causing division. Zembylas (2017) described this as a willingness to make oneself “strategically sceptic in order to empathise with the troubled knowledge students carry with them, even when this troubled knowledge is disturbing to other students or to the teacher” (p. 13).

Educational leaders’ ability to understand their own belief systems and the value systems of others may affect their success in responding to diversity. Before leaders consider adopting this ethical approach to decision-making, they need to ask themselves the following questions:

• Am I ready to unlearn, re-learn, and fundamentally transform as an individual and an academic?
• Am I literate about the historical injustices and diverse intellectual debates within my discipline, within the academy, and within the community in which I live and work?
• Am I willing to address issues of power and belonging and dismantle colonized structures and practices within my institution?
• Am I willing to walk in the shoes of another and to experience discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes first-hand? (Vandeyar, 2019)

Recommended Readings

• “Ethic of Discomfort: Is Asking for Nude Lipstick Racist?” by Edgar A. Burns (2017), Race Ethnicity and Education
• “Practicing an Ethic of Discomfort as an Ethic of Care in Higher Education Teaching” by Michalinos Zemblyas (2017), Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL)
• “Respect Differences? Challenging the Common Guidelines in Social Justice Education” by Ozlem Sensory and Robin DiAngelo (2014), Democracy & Education

References

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. Palgrave Pivot.

Baugh, B., Caton, K., Fraser, L., Haggarty, P., Kamphuis, C., McCormick, R., Meyers, J., Pollock, A., Ramirez, G., & Tsigaris, P. (2021, September). Statement on academic freedom. Thompson Rivers University. https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/statement-on-academic-freedom54137.pdf

Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. Routledge.

Boler, M. (2004). All speech is not free: The ethics of ‘affirmative action pedagogy.’ In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence (pp. 3–14). Peter Lang.

Burns, E. D. (2017). Ethic of discomfort: Is asking for nude lipstick racist? Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 22(6), 788–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1417250

Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. Fordham University Press

Deardorff, D. K. (2020). Manual for developing intercultural competencies: Story circles. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370336

Eddo-Lodge, R. (2017). Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race. Bloomsbury Circus.

England, J., & Brown, T. (2001). Inclusion, exclusion and marginalisation. Educational Action Research, 9(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790100200164

Felman, S. (1992). Education and crisis, or, vicissitudes of listening. In S. Felman & D. Laub (Eds.), Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history (pp. 1–57). Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1979). For an ethic of discomfort. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984, vol. 3 (pp. 443-448). The New Press.

Foucault, M. (1994). For an ethic of discomfort. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (Vol. 3, pp. 443–448). New Press.

Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165064

Insight into Diversity. (n.d.). The war on DEI. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/the-war-on-dei/

Jansen, J. D. (2009). On the clash of martyrological memories. Perspectives in Education, 27(2), 147–157. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC87522

McIntosh, P. (1989, July/August). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom Magazine, 10–12.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publishing.

Omhovère, C. (2022). For an ethic of discomfort: Studying Canadian literature(s) from afar. L’Atelier, 13(2), 121–143. https://ojs.parisnanterre.fr/index.php/latelier/article/view/597/843

Seckelmann, M., Violini, L., Fraenkel-Haeberle, C., & Ragone, G. (2021). Academic freedom under pressure? A comparative perspective. Springer. International Publishing.

Sensoy, Ö. & DiAngelo, R. (2016). Respect differences? Challenging the common guidelines in social justice education. Democracy & Education, 22(2), Article 1. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol22/iss2/1

Shay, S. (2016, June 13). Decolonizing the curriculum: It’s time for a strategy. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/decolonising-the-curriculum-its-time-for-a-strategy-60598

Simon Fraser University. (n.d.). Equity, diversity, and inclusion. https://www.sfu.ca/edi.html

Slee, R. (2009). Travelling with our eyes open: Models, mantras and analysis in new times. In M. Alur & V. Timmons (Eds.), Inclusive education across cultures: Crossing boundaries, sharing ideas (pp. 93–106). Sage Publications.

Vandeyar, S. (2019). Why decolonizing the South African university curriculum will fail. Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, 25(7), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1592149

Wilson-Forsberg, S., Monaghan, S. R., & Corrales, D. C. (2023). Witnesses to inhumanity on shifting terrain: Embracing an ethic of discomfort for optimal learning in an international field course. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 18(3), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979221097073

Zemblyas, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: The tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2015.1039274

Zemblyas, M. (2017). Practicing an ethic of discomfort as an ethic of care in higher education setting. Critical Studies in Teaching & Learning, 5(1), 1–17. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.14426/cristal.v5i1.97

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J., (2011). The effect of authentic transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.004

Summary of Ethical Paradigms

Ethics refers to considerations about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong.’ The eight lenses help leaders determine what is right and wrong from different perspectives. There is no hierarchy among the lenses (i.e., one is not better than the other); although, at times, people have been guilty of reinforcing one lens at the expense of another. Each lens on its own has strengths and drawbacks, leaving potential gaps in our peripheral vision. The aim is to combine multiple lenses to deepen our analysis of ethical dilemmas and become more thoughtful, reflective, and ethical leaders.

An advanced understanding of ethical theories allows leaders to better understand themselves and those around them and motivates them to consider the contextual factors and concerns relevant to a given circumstance. This can provide leaders with a more holistic understanding of phenomena (e.g., competing interests, power structures, and social and cultural factors) surrounding dilemmas. This also helps leaders become more attuned to the decision-making considerations and processes adopted by others and can facilitate collaboration across groups. In the next part of this book, you will apply the eight ethical paradigms to real-world ethical dilemmas.

St’at’imc Matriarchal Leadership Ethics

St’at’imc Matriarchal leadership ethics acknowledge the inherent rights of Indigenous women in making decisions regarding their community’s health, and preserving their culture, language, and connection to the Land. Leaders who follow this ethic empower youth by nurturing their strengths and enveloping them in the wisdom of the ancestors, Elders, and Land. This ethic is based on the belief that children are inherently good and that it is our duty to recognize and nurture their strengths. St’at’imc Matriarchal leadership ethics emphasize consensus-building, intergenerational knowledge transfer, cultural preservation, and prioritize Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination.

Ethic of Justice

The ethic of justice, which forms the structure binding Western society, is a decision-making paradigm that relies upon existing codes, laws, legislation, and policies to determine the appropriate course of action in each circumstance. It is a rule-based decision-making perspective. Leaders who follow this ethic value maintaining order in society through a fair and even application of universal standards. Uniformity and universal individual rights are highly valued. All individuals are treated the same and justice is distributed with exact similitude.

Ethic of Critique

The ethic of critique is antithetical to the ethic of justice and aims to dismantle the structures that bind society in the pursuit of more equitable outcomes. Leaders who follow this ethic believe that the ‘rule of law’ was created by those in power to maintain their power and to subjugate or oppress the powerless. Leaders aim to disrupt the status quo and advocate for the interests and needs of those underrepresented and underserved in education by critiquing, challenging, and changing the social structures and systems.

Ethic of Care

An ethic of care is also juxtaposed to an ethic of justice. The ethic of care emphasizes the significance of empathy, compassion, and responsiveness in directing moral conduct; it is a relational process focused on building connection and trust. Leaders who follow an ethic of care prioritize the well-being, dignity, and best interests of those whom they serve and are motivated to act. Care-based leadership requires much more than a feeling of caring for another; it requires leaders to challenge the status quo.

Ethic of Community

The ethic of community is underpinned by the belief that everyone is responsible for leadership. Anyone who cares about student success and what happens within post-secondary institutions recognizes that working toward social justice is a communal responsibility rather than that of a “heroic” leader with a vision. This ethical paradigm shifts the locus of moral agency to the community as a whole. Moral leadership is thus distributed and requires that all members of the community develop and practice interpersonal and group skills, such as working in teams, engaging in ongoing dialogue, and navigating evolving community discourse within an increasingly polarized society. In addition to being a communal affair, the ethic of community is processual, meaning that “community” is not a product nor tangible entity, but rather an ongoing set of processes led by educators and students committed to these processes. When community is defined as a process, it is based in relationships, which are dependent upon communication, reciprocity, respect, dialogue, and collaboration rather than a set of shared values.

Ethic of Self-Care

The ethic of self-care follows the ethic of critique; however, it is aimed inwardly at the self as the vehicle for disrupting and resisting dominant ideologies. It demands that leaders actively question and resist forms of power that operate through the regulation and normalization of individuals’ behaviors and identities by challenging how history and ‘truth’ are constituted and taught. To follow an ethic of self-care requires ongoing critical self-reflection on how you are governed by external forces, including how you may be influenced by societal expectations and institutional norms. This ethic is focused on developing oneself as more morally and ethically enlightened; it is not about dictating morality to others — it is anti-authoritarian in nature. It emphasizes the moral importance of self-nourishment and resilience, a perspective that is distinct in its focus compared to other ethics that may prioritize outward responsibilities over self-care.

Ethic of Discomfort

The ethic of discomfort follows the ethic of critique and self-care in a pursuit to disrupt and challenge dominant narratives and structures that perpetuate discriminatory, racist, and misogynist beliefs and practices. Leaders who adopt this approach challenge themselves and others to critically analyze their ideological values and assumptions. To do this may require that they feel pain and discomfort by experiencing discrimination and oppression firsthand, even if artificially, and to ‘walk in someone else’s’ shoes’ to build empathy and the ability to see things from another person’s point of view. The ethic of discomfort is different from other paradigms that may seek to mitigate discomfort.

Ethic of the Profession

The ethic of the profession is a multi-dimensional approach for decision-making that considers the ethics of justice, critique, and care alongside the leader’s personal and professional codes of ethics. The ethic of the profession places the best interests of the student at the centre of all ethical decision-making. From this perspective, educational leaders are called to provide a safe, respectful learning environment, and promote quality teaching. They are informed by an established set of professional standards and must be responsible stewards of institutional resources.

Framework for Ethical Decision-Making: “Bird’s Eye View”

Drawing upon a vast body of literature, this book described eight ethical paradigms, as illustrated in figure below: St’at’imc Matriarchal leadership ethics, and the ethics of justice, critique, care, self-care, community, discomfort, and the profession. Leaders who are well-versed in multiple ethical paradigms and who consider different perspectives when making decisions are more reflective than reactive. Leaders with a strong grounding in the eight paradigms critically examine their prior assumptions, dispositions, and propensity towards certain decision-making approaches. They better understand themselves and are more effective at responding to ethical dilemmas in a culturally diverse environment.

 

Moral decision making starts first with the self by examining and interrogating our own beliefs and assumptions about what we consider right and wrong. It then expands outwards by considering those whose well-being we are responsible for (e.g., students) and then to the broader community and communities that we serve, respecting community values, supporting their priorities, language revitalization and land rights, and ensuring cultural sovereignty.

From there, we must attend to the laws, policies, and regulations of the educational profession and institutions in which we work, and the broader rules established where we live and those of our global collaborators. Once we are familiar with these laws, we must critically evaluate the ways in which they may cause harm, produce and reproduce iniquities, as well as the privileges they afford some while denying others.

Finally, we must be willing to sit within an uncomfortable reality that our actions may contribute to ableist, classist, racist, and, ultimately, systemic inequities. Educational leaders must be cognizant that every action taken or any decision made can have an immediate and long-lasting impact on the lives of people.

If we approach our work through a strengths-based lens (similar to that of matriarchal leadership) and eco-feminist views on the ethic of care:

• How might we balance the individual needs of students and advocate for more socially just educational systems?
• What might we learn from the land, our first teacher, about leadership?
  
• How might we incorporate eco-justice into our analysis of right and wrong?

Moral decision-making using a bird’s eye view starts from within and gradually expands outward, growing in focus and understanding. As we evolve and mature as leaders and as systems change and we gain more experience, decision-making must be considered as a never-ending cycle. Once we grasp the full picture, it is essential to revisit and re-evaluate our beliefs and assumptions continually and be open to humbly admitting mistakes and changing one’s course of action, when appropriate, particularly as new information arises or the impact of our actions has unintended results. As educational leaders, we have the capacity to be change agents, and the change begins within us.

The Operation Varsity Blues scandal revealed deep flaws in the admissions processes of some of the most prestigious universities in the United States, including Yale, Stanford, the University of Southern California (USC), and Georgetown (Taylor & Medina, 2019; Fry, 2019). These institutions, many of them part of the Ivy League, are known for their rigorous selection processes, which Rick Singer managed to take advantage of through what he called a “side door” (Kasakove 2021; Cowen, 2019). By forging connections with athletic coaches and recruiters, Singer manipulated admissions by falsifying athletic profiles and securing spots for students who otherwise would not have qualified (Morrison, 2021; Wilson, 2021). While university leaders claimed ignorance of the scheme, the involvement of staff members in these practices raised serious ethical questions about accountability and integrity (Taylor & Medina, 2019; Gallagher & McCooey, 2019).

Singer played a pivotal role as the mastermind of this scandal. Through his college admissions consultancy, “The Key,” he positioned himself as a trusted advisor to wealthy families desperate to secure admissions to elite institutions (Berghel, 2020). These families were motivated by societal pressures to ensure their children’s success, believing that acceptance into top universities would solidify their status and provide long-term advantages (Files et al., 2021; Wilson, 2021). Singer exploited this anxiety by presenting himself as a solution, offering a guaranteed pathway to admissions through unethical methods (Taylor & Medina, 2019; Cowen, 2019).

Families paid substantial sums of money, often disguised as donations to Singer’s fake foundation, which were then funneled to university staff as bribes (Fry, 2019). This system not only undermined the meritocratic values of higher education but also exposed systemic vulnerabilities, particularly in athletic admissions, which often operate with minimal oversight (Files et al., 2021; Morrison, 2021).

The scandal also brought attention to the longstanding practice of accepting large donations from wealthy families to influence admissions decisions (Taylor & Medina, 2019). While universities insisted that these donations were legitimate and unrelated to Singer’s scheme, the blurred lines between legal and illegal practices raised questions about fairness and privilege in higher education (Berghel, 2020; Wilson, 2021). For decades, elite universities have benefited from a system where wealth often provides an advantage, whether through legacy admissions, development contributions, or other forms of preferential treatment (Hextrum, 2021).

The scandal resulted in fines, prison sentences for parents, and the dismissal or prosecution of university staff (Kasakove, 2021; Cowen, 2019). In response, universities introduced measures to improve transparency in admissions, especially in athletic recruitment, to restore public trust. However, it highlighted the persistent privilege and inequity in higher education, fueling debates about access, fairness, and accountability (Files et al., 2021; Taylor & Medina, 2019).

Analysis of Leadership Decision

As Rehbocck et al. (2023) pointed out, when people hear the word “leader,” they think many different things. What leadership is and what it constitutes may vary depending on how it is defined. It can also vary according to the frame used to understand people´s behaviour and their positionality within a structure (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Still, it has been explained that a leader can influence a group of followers in the direction of a future vision (Yaslioglu, & Erden, 2018).

In this case study, Rick Singer was not a formal leader in any of the involved institutions, in fact, he did not work for any of them. Still, it is possible to argue that he is the person taking the leadership position since he managed, in most cases, to keep his commitment to get his clients accepted into their desired universities (Smith, 2021; Fry, 2019). One significant aspect of the case is that Mr. Singer managed to involve, manipulate, and control the actions of members of different athletic departments in those Ivy League universities (Lens, 2021; Degler & Ladwig, 2023). By manipulating laws, and also creating legal entities, Singer crafted different structures to pursue his goals of getting rich by ensuring that his clients were accepted by their desired universities (Files et al., 2021).

The decision to admit or not admit a student in each university is a sophisticated process that involves many factors that aim to provide a space for those who earn it (Burns, 2022). By creating what Mr. Singer referred to as a “side door” (Smith, 2021), he unilaterally altered the selection process, creating a disparity and an unfair advantage in favor of those who could pay for it. His decision was based only on selfish reasons: getting as much money as he could. While it could be possible to challenge that notion because Mr. Singer’s clients did have the benefit of being accepted into those universities, said argument is as tarnished as such acceptance. Instead of helping those young people improve themselves to get into their desired universities or find another way they could have been accepted, Mr. Singer took away the validity of the “achievement.” At the same time, his actions, once discovered, tarnished the institutions and the general community from those universities.

Application of Ethical Lenses

The Operation Varsity Blues case can be analyzed under the ethics of critique and justice.

Ethic of Critique

The Operation Varsity Blues scandal has highlighted longstanding inequities within the college admissions system, revealing how wealth and privilege can disrupt the path to higher education. This issue underscores the importance of critically examining the structures and practices perpetuating these disparities.

The ethic of critique is deeply committed to amplifying the voices of those who lack power and challenging the prevailing structures that maintain inequalities (Berges Puyo, 2022, as cited in Hoare et al., 2024). For example, Lens (2021) described how college leaders let wealth and privilege push aside real merit when getting into top schools. It is exactly those kinds of unfair power setups that need to be taken apart. These are precisely the types of entrenched power dynamics that critical theorists seek to dismantle, highlighting the need to rethink and reform decision-making processes within educational institutions.

Scot Cowen (2019) noted the advantage given to those who can afford extensive preparation and influence through donations, showcasing the unfair leverage of economic power in education. This highlights the need for a fairer system, as some leaders in the scandal ignored or even facilitated fraud. Hextrum (2021) explained how legacy admissions sustain racial and economic inequalities, prioritizing privilege over equity and often excusing these biases with claims of ignorance when exposed.

This perspective is crucial in understanding how decisions are influenced not only by an individual’s sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ but also by broader social expectations and norms. The narrative surrounding the scandal reflects these societal values, particularly the association of success with prestigious educational institutions. Schermele (2024) described the scandal as more than just a legal issue; it is a cultural story about who gets access to power through education. This aligns with Smith’s (2021) observation that the real issue is not a lack of colleges but a high demand for a few prestigious ones, revealing a societal obsession with elite status.

Educational systems often serve as mechanisms of social reproduction, privileging certain groups while marginalizing others (Wood & Navarez, 2014, as cited in Hoare et al., 2024). Berghel (2020) provided a breakdown of admissions demographics, showing a disproportionate representation of affluent, primarily white students in categories like athletics and legacy admissions. These statistics highlight systemic advantages that skew fairness in admissions, underscoring the need for policy reforms to reduce bias and promote greater diversity and equity in college admissions.

Moreover, Cowen (2019) highlighted societal complicity in maintaining privileged access to education, urging a systemic overhaul that includes more voices in governance. This aligns with the ethic of critique’s emphasis on the role of power dynamics and the importance of voice in the decision-making process. Similarly, Berghel (2020) and Paris (2019) emphasized that educational leaders must consider the broader implications of their decisions on societal values and the distribution of opportunities. These reflections encourage transparency, accountability, and a commitment to equity in redefining educational opportunities.

In conclusion, analyzing the Operation Varsity Blues scandal through the lens of the ethic of critique exposes how deeply rooted inequalities shape access to higher education. This lens highlights the ethical responsibility of educational leaders to challenge systems that privilege wealth over merit and to foster equity and inclusion. By addressing these disparities, the ethic of critique underscores the need for education to amplify the voices of those who, lacking privilege, are often denied opportunities in a system accustomed to being corrupted by wealth and influence.

Ethic of Justice

The ethic of justice proposes the prioritization of the rule of law (Patel, 2024) by accepting the idea of justice as blind and, hence, equal to every person (Siegel, 2018). In this case study, there are different laws and regulations involved. These regulations impact several aspects of the case and deserve their own analysis.

While the admission process to Ivy League universities follows certain internal rules, the way in which those rules work gives the decision makers such large room for personal influence that they allow intentional manipulation of the results, which ends up contradicting the entire idea of a fair and blind process (Files et al., 2021). In this case, the ethic of justice could challenge the fact that the lack of clarity in the rules means that there are no rules; hence, while the decisions made by leaders in the admissions departments present themselves as ethical and fair, under the justice lens, they are actually based on selfish and self-centred behaviour.

However, the most relevant aspect of the justice lens in this case, involves the behaviour of Rick Singer. He offered the parents of the students who wanted to get into these universities several illegal options. Those options involved obtaining fake medical certificates to make sure that students with preferential conditions take the standardized tests, having someone else take those tests on the students’ behalf, paying bribes to coaches and faculty members of different universities, among other things. To make matters worse, a large portion of these actions were committed using mail, which turns the illegal actions into federal crimes with harsher punishments (Lens, 2021).

The ethic of justice lens makes it clear that any way in which a law is broken is contrary to the ethical standards. The fact that there were tens of criminal convictions clearly shows that the conducts and decisions were unethical.

Alternative Solution to the Case

The Operation Varsity Blues case shed light on systemic inequities in elite college admissions. Rick Singer, having observed that the conditions for getting into these high-ranking schools are stringent and had loopholes, decided to create a “side door” to conduct his acts (Smith, 2021). However, there are alternative solutions that can mitigate against the actions that led to the scandal. The alternative solutions are rooted in the ethics of justice and community.

The ethic of justice stems from the idea that fairness is achieved by ensuring that rules are in place and followed while emphasizing equal opportunities and rights to address systemic inequities (Paris, 2019). Using the ethic of justice to address the Operation Varsity Blues case by setting clearer rules and eliminating incentives for loopholes focuses on creating a transparent, equitable, and consistent admissions framework. This approach ensures that fairness prevails, and opportunities are not distorted by privilege, corruption, or manipulation (Cowen, 2019). The ethic ensures rule clarity and loophole prevention. This is achieved by having rules based on clear and objective admission criteria. It also aims to eliminate subjectivity and minimize vague criteria like “cultural fit” or “institutional needs,” which are susceptible to bias. Another major tool is abolishing legacy and donor preferences and banning policies that prioritize children of alumni or large donors. Rules should be enforced ensuring applicants are evaluated solely on merit and equitable considerations, as this was considered a major loophole.

Athletic recruitment should be aligned with the same admissions criteria, preventing exploitation of sports programs for non-athletes. There should be a transparent system for applicants to ensure a fair and open appeals process. Clear, accountable, and published rules eliminate confusion and reduce perceptions of bias or favoritism, which will eventually restore public faith in the admissions system. There will be potential resistance on these rules as alumni and donors accustomed to legacy benefits may push back against changes. Balancing strict merit-based criteria with the need to address systemic inequities could generate tension.

The other ethical lens considered as an alternative solution is the ethic of community. This aims to prioritize the well-being of the larger community over individual interests, fostering inclusivity and addressing systemic disparities. It can be achieved by evaluating applicants not just on academic merit but also on their potential contributions to their communities. Ensuring that there is a community representative on the admission panel—where representatives from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds are incorporated into admissions committees to have a broad perspective in decision-making—is a good tool to consider. This might be a complex process as it will be difficult to balance community priorities with traditional academic criteria. But the end game is to reduce overemphasis on privilege and wealth by valuing community-oriented achievements (Wilson, 2021).

Summary Table: Comparison of the Alternative Approach

Ethical Lens	Key Focus	Proposed Actions	Outcome
Ethic of Justice	Fairness, transparency and accountability	Clear, publicly defined criteria and weighting for all applicants.	Transparent and standardized across all boards Mitigates systemic inequities, promotes transparency, and rebuilds trust in admissions integrity.
Ethic of Community	Collective welfare and relationships	Holistic evaluations, community quotas, service commitments, and input panels	Stronger institutional ties to society, encouragement of noble values

Conclusively, integrating the ethics of justice and community ensures that the admissions process can evolve into a fairer, more inclusive system that aligns institutional priorities with societal values.

Authors’ Positionality

Our group’s personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and academic training shaped how we looked at the ethical dilemmas in the Operation Varsity Blues case. Some of us come from places where fairness in education is highly valued, so we felt frustrated by how the system was manipulated. Others have seen how privilege and inequality often play a role in opportunities, so we approached this case with a focus on the larger systemic issues. Our studies in education and leadership helped us see how important accountability and fairness are, especially in institutions that claim to value merit.

At the same time, we recognize our own biases. Some of us tend to focus on fixing broken systems, which might mean we do not hold individuals accountable enough. Others might put too much weight on individual choices without fully considering the bigger picture. Working together helped us balance these views.

Each of us brought different perspectives to the discussion. Some highlighted the universities’ role in allowing this to happen, while others focused on the societal pressure that pushed parents to make unethical choices. Looking at the case through different ethical frameworks helped us see how both individual actions and systemic changes are needed to address problems like this.

Each team member contributed uniquely to our understanding of the dilemma. Olivia provided an in-depth exploration of the case, and Matias critically analyzed the leader’s decisions, highlighting key ethical concerns. They also applied multiple ethical lenses, such as the ethic of critique and the ethic of justice, to evaluate both individual actions and systemic implications while also working together to connect these frameworks to practical scenarios. Bukky developed alternative solutions, offering actionable recommendations that addressed both immediate and long-term challenges. Chalani synthesized these contributions, integrating diverse viewpoints into this author’s positionality statement. This collaborative approach allowed us to examine the ethical dilemma holistically, balancing individual accountability with a systemic critique.

References

Berghel, H. (2020). A critical look at the 2019 college admissions scandal? Computer, 53(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2019.2951211

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Burns, D. P. (2022). University admissions, justice, and virtue. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 29(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.7202/1094134ar

Cowen, S. (2019, April 8). We are all complicit in the college admissions scandal. Higher Education Today. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2019/04/08/complicit-college-admissions-scandal/

Degler, A., & Ladwig, C. (2023). “Operation Varsity Blues”: Preventing Future College Admissions Scandals. Journal of Critical Incidents, 16, 85–87.

Files, L. B., Meiners, R. E., & Morriss, A. P. (2021). Corruption in university admissions and the administrative allocation of scarce goods. Brigham Young University Law Review, 47(1), 1–66. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss1/6

Fry, N. (2019, March 13). The college-admissions scandal and the banality of scamming. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-college-admissions-scandal-and-the-banality-of-scamming

Gallagher, B., & McCooey, S. (2019, April 1). Students say scandal worsened their view of Yale. Yale Daily News. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2019/04/01/students-say-scandal-worsened-their-view-of-yale/

Hensley, E. (2021). Double counting: The effect of wealth on college admissions [Economics and accounting honors thesis, The College of the Holy Cross]. CrossWorks. https://crossworks.holycross.edu/econ_honor/35

Hextrum, K. (2021). White property interests in college athletic admissions. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 46(4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/01937235211015352

Kasakove, S. (2021, October 9). The college admissions scandal: Where some of the defendants are now. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/us/varsity-blues-scandal-verdict.html

Lens, J. (2021). Operation Varsity Blues and the NCAA’s special admission exception. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 31(1), 147–200. https://doi.org/10.18060/24923

Morrison, W. B. (2021). Country club sports: The disparate impact of athlete admissions at elite universities. Brigham Young University Law Review, 46(3), 883–920. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss3/9

The New York Times. (2019, March 14). College admissions scandal: Your questions answered. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/college-admissions-scandal-questions.html

Patel, R. (2024). Ethic of justice. In A. Hoare, O.B. Osuntade, & R. Patel (Eds.), Ethical educational leadership: Untangling ethical dilemmas and imagining alternative futures. TRU Open Press.

Paris, D. C. (2019). Scandal! Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 51(4), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1618136

Rehbock, S. K., Hubner, S. V., Knipfer, K., & Peus, C. V. (2023). What kind of leader am I? An exploration of professionals’ leader identity construal. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 72(2), 559–587. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/apps.12389

Schermele, Z. (2024, December 18). ‘Please admit’: Rampant donor preferences alleged in college financial aid lawsuit. USA Today. https://universitybusiness.com/please-admit-rampant-donor-preferences-alleged-in-college-financial-aid-lawsuit/

Siegel, R. B. (2018). Blind justice: Why the court refused to accept statistical evidence of discriminatory purpose in McCleskey v. Kemp—and some pathways for change. Northwestern University Law Review, 112(6), 1269–1292. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol112/iss6/3

Smith, C. (Director). (2021). Operation Varsity Blues: The college admissions scandal [Film]. Netflix Original.

Taylor, K., & Chen, D. W. (2019, June 12). Stanford coach avoids prison in admissions scandal. Have colleges avoided blame? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/stanford-coach-college-admissions-scandal.html

Taylor, K., & Medina, J. (2019, May 1). Chinese family reportedly paid $6.5 million to consultant for spot at Stanford. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/yusi-zhao-stanford-university.html

Wilson, G. (2021). The legal college admissions scandal: How the wealthy purchase college admissions to the nation’s elite, private universities through donations. BYU Education & Law Journal, 143(1), Article 5. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byu_elj/vol2021/iss1/5

Yaslioglu, M. M., & Erden, N. S. (2018). Transformational leaders in action: Theory has been there, but what about practice? The IUP Journal of Business Strategy, 15(1), 42–53.

Content Warning
This case contains discussions of sexual violence, which may be distressing to some readers. Please engage with the content at your own discretion and consider seeking support if needed.

---

Stephanie Hale’s Journey: Overcoming Adversity in the Pursuit of Education

Education is a universal aspiration that empowers both individuals and society. Higher education, in particular, represents a pathway for those eager to broaden their horizons, realize their dreams, and soar to greater heights. Stephanie Hale was one such student, driven by her desire to become an engineer, support her family, and contribute to her nation. Enrolling as an engineering student at UBC Okanagan, she set out to bring her dreams to life. However, life had different plans in store for her.

Her dreams were shattered when her classmate, Ethen Palmiere, sexually assaulted her after a party, leaving her with deep mental and physical trauma. Though she reported the incident to university officials, it took three years for them to inform her of the complaint process, providing no guidance in the meantime. Moreover, Hale’s forced interactions with her assailant severely impacted her mental health. Four years later, she challenged the university’s reporting procedures and filed a discrimination complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which she won. This case is notable because of the court’s decision to acknowledge Hale’s voice years after the incident, highlighting the challenges she faced at the university.

An examination of the case history highlights that University President Stephan Toope, along with the dean to whom Hale reported the assault, failed to offer her the essential support and guidance required during the complaint process (Benedet et al., 2016; Ehrich, 2012). As educational leaders entrusted with fostering a safe and inclusive campus environment, they not only let Hale down but also failed the broader student community.

Impacts and Implications

This case prompts critical reflection on the responsibilities of educational leaders and institutions. What role should universities play in ensuring a secure and supportive environment for their students? How can leaders effectively address and support students during such crises? Furthermore, this case provides valuable insights into the ethical dilemmas faced by educational leaders when addressing sensitive and high-stakes issues. As Hutcheson and Lewington (2017) highlighted, numerous policies complicate the process for students to report sexual assault, including intricate legal requirements, unclear reporting mechanisms, and varying institutional responses across countries.

In this case, it becomes evident that the leaders failed to uphold the core ethical principles of their profession—the ethics of care, community, and justice. The lack of prompt and effective action to address Stephanie Hale’s complaint demonstrated a significant breach of ethical standards. By failing to create a supportive and safe environment, they neglected the ethic of care, which prioritizes the well-being and dignity of individuals under their leadership. Similarly, their inability to foster a sense of trust and inclusivity within the student body reflects a disregard for the ethic of community. Lastly, the leaders’ inaction or mishandling of the case compromised the ethic of the profession, which obligated them to act in ways that safeguarded the rights and interests of students. Examining official statements that downplayed the severity of the issue reveals the shortcomings of existing policies and contributes to silencing the voices of those who lodge complaints (Hibberd, 2017).

The ripple effect of these ethical failures in decision-making affects not only the individual student but the entire student body, diminishing trust in institutional systems and potentially deterring others from reporting misconduct. Such neglect risks creating a culture of silence and impunity, further jeopardizing the educational environment.

Analysis of Leadership Decision

In Stephanie Hale’s case, the university administration—especially the dean and President Stephan Toope—failed to respect the fundamental ethical values of fairness, compassion, and professional accountability, which are crucial when dealing with delicate subjects like sexual assault. Hale was denied timely access to justice and a fair grievance procedure by the leadership, who failed to assist her in interpreting university policies and delayed informing her of the complaint process for three years. In addition to ignoring the ethic of care, their inaction demonstrated a lack of empathy and a disrespect for Hale’s well-being by forcing her to make contact with her attacker in joint classes, leaving her to suffer from severe trauma without institutional help. Furthermore, by neglecting their professional responsibility to maintain a safe and inclusive environment, the leadership eroded trust within the institution, underscoring a profound ethical failure in their duty to protect and support students.

Critique of the Decision-Making Process

The decision-making process was marked by a lack of transparency, bias, and an absence of ethical reasoning:

• Bias and assumptions — The leadership likely operated under implicit biases that deprioritized the severity of Hale’s experience or assumed the status quo was sufficient to address it. These biases perpetuated a culture of inaction.
• Gaps in reasoning — There was a clear failure to assess the long-term consequences of neglecting Hale’s case. The leadership did not account for the mental health implications of her repeated interactions with her assailant or the broader community trust eroded by inaction.
• Failure to act — The leaders’ passive approach reflected a reactive rather than proactive stance, ignoring the ethical responsibility to ensure justice and care for survivors of assault.

Short- and Long-Term Impacts

There were short- and long-term impacts on various parties, including:

• On Stephanie Hale — The immediate impact resulted in mental and physical trauma, which was compounded by the leaders’ failure to provide guidance. In the long term, Hale faced severe psychological repercussions and lost trust in institutional systems.
• On other students — Female students, in particular, experienced a loss of trust in campus safety and leadership, potentially deterring them from reporting similar incidents. This created a chilling effect, perpetuating a culture of silence around sexual violence.
• On faculty and leadership — The university’s credibility and reputation suffered significantly. Faculty members may have experienced decreased morale, questioning whether their administration prioritizes ethical leadership.

Dominant Ethical Frame of Leadership

The dominant ethical frame guiding the leadership appears to be consequentialism, though it was applied poorly. Leaders may have assumed that avoiding immediate action minimized conflict and institutional backlash. However, their inaction demonstrated a flawed understanding of long-term consequences, as their decisions prioritized administrative convenience over the well-being of students. Evidence supporting this argument include:

• the protracted delay in informing Hale of the reporting process highlights a disregard for procedural justice (Greer, 2023)); and,
• the absence of measures to ensure Hale’s mental health and safety during shared classes illustrates a lack of care (Taylor et al., 2019).

Application of Ethical Lenses

The Stephanie Hale case highlights major leadership shortcomings at UBC Okanagan that can be analyzed from the perspectives of professional ethics, community ethics, and justice ethics. Each viewpoint offers a different set of insights and criticisms into the leaders’ choices and a more thorough comprehension of the moral conundrums at play.

Ethic of Justice

From an angle of the ethic of justice, Hale’s legal and moral rights were gravely violated by the leaders’ actions—or lack thereof. Equality, impartiality, and the guarantee that people obtain the rights and remedies guaranteed by laws and policies are all necessary for justice. The three-year gap in educating Hale about the complaint procedure and the absence of proactive advice in this instance constituted a systemic denial of procedural justice. Hale’s anguish was further exacerbated by being made to attend lessons alongside her attacker, which showed a lack of respect for her right to safety and dignity.

Stewart (2023) addressed the issue of the ethic of justice by exploring how the acceptance of rape myths and sexism impact the perception and treatment of women who have suffered sexual assault. Stewart critiqued social norms and stereotypes that perpetuate distrust towards victims and hinder their access to justice. The leaders’ disregard for these problems compromises the fairness standards that ought to guide institutional decision-making. The institution’s responsibility to provide fair treatment for all students and to aggressively address sexual abuse is highlighted by Hale’s eventual triumph before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The university’s failure to offer survivors of sexual assault with timely and easily accessible justice processes is criticized via this lens.

Ethic of Community

Community ethics place a strong emphasis on connection, communal well-being, and the duty to foster trust. Hale’s story demonstrates a violation of fundamental moral obligations. In addition to harming her personally, the absence of institutional support damaged the confidence of other female students in the university’s capacity to offer a secure environment. The leadership undermined the social cohesion of the university community by neglecting to cultivate an atmosphere of concern and responsibility. The BC Human Rights Tribunal said in its ruling that the university’s method of investigating non-academic misconduct exacerbated Hale’s post-traumatic stress disorder and caused her harm to the point that she could not participate in the process (Greer, 2023).

The greater consequences of poor leadership are revealed under this lens because the case sent a message to other students that their safety and concerns may be overlooked as well. Hale’s situation is not only an injustice to one person but also the entire community. A vibrant academic community depends on mutual respect and a sense of belonging, both of which are threatened by this neglect. Using this perspective highlights the necessity for open policies that put the welfare of all members first and criticizes the leadership’s inaction as a breach of their ethical obligations to the community.

Ethic of the Profession

The focus of professional ethics is on leaders’ responsibilities to uphold the competence, honesty, and accountability norms that are inherent in their positions. It is the professional responsibility of university administrators to make sure that institutional rules and procedures safeguard students and promote an atmosphere that supports education and individual development. The leaders’ behaviour violated their duties by disregarding Hale’s complaint and neglecting to provide suitable support and reporting channels. According to Marley (2019), educators and institutions alike must implement ethical practices that prioritize the safety and well-being of victims, ensuring a supportive and respectful environment. Professional ethics is defined as the responsibility of educational institutions to proactively address rape culture and sexual violence. The leaders’ inability to serve as ethical role models is likewise criticized by this lens. Professionals have a duty to act decisively and compassionately in ethical situations, yet the leadership’s inaction caused harms to continue. This perspective on the issue emphasizes how important it is for leaders to uphold moral standards and put in place strong safeguards against repeat occurrences of the same mistakes.

Comparative Perspectives

The ethic of community emphasizes how leadership choices affect relationships and society, whereas the ethics of justice concentrates on individual rights and procedural fairness. On the other hand, professional ethics criticize violations of professional obligations and standards. When combined, these viewpoints highlight how complex the moral conundrums are in Hale’s situation. Professional ethics demands accountability and integrity in leadership, community ethics calls for the restoration of trust, and justice ethics stress systemic improvements. Leaders can create more thorough answers to difficult problems and obtain a more comprehensive grasp of their ethical obligations by combining these viewpoints.

Alternative Solution to the Case

In the Stephanie Hale case analysis, a notable lack of support from the university and some entities that did not provide the necessary tools to establish adequate and appropriate measures is evident. For this reason, it is required to integrate, through ethics, comprehensive solutions that promote safety, respect, and well-being in educational institutions. The ethic of the profession, ethic of justice, and ethic of community must be considered in this case. Under this framework, universities must establish solutions and proposals that are implemented, disseminated, and last over time.

After analyzing the case, one potential alternative solution is that when Stephanie Hale reported the incident, the authorities could have provided her with adequate resources and support to proceed with the case effectively. The news article and court ruling reveal that the dean and the president failed to assist or facilitate access to university resources that could have helped her manage the situation (Hale v. University of British Columbia Okanagan and another, 2018). Moreover, the authorities forced Stephanie to share classroom space with the assailant, significantly exacerbating her mental trauma. These circumstances could have been avoided if the dean had acted with professionalism and ethics by appointing an internal inquiry board to investigate the matter thoroughly. Such a board could have confidentially gathered testimonies from the victim, the assailant, and witnesses, ultimately arriving at a well-informed decision. In the meantime, the dean could have exercised their authority to ensure that Stephanie and the assailant did not share the same space. For instance, the assailant could have been required to attend classes online until the inquiry was concluded.

After the inquiry, since the assailant was found guilty, the university could have escalated the case to government authorities and relevant agencies as per its policies and procedures. Additionally, they could have advised the student to report the incident to the police for further investigation and action, supported by the findings of the internal inquiry report. This approach would balance considerations for both the victim and the assailant while addressing the severity of the offense. Given that the sexual assault was intentional, reporting the assailant is essential to prevent similar incidents in the future and to foster a safer university environment. Such a decision would have strengthened students’ trust in the university, demonstrating its commitment to accountability, safety, and justice.

Authors’ Positionality

Reshma Santhakumari Isman

In this case, I analyzed the situation through the lens of both an international student and a mother, adopting an ethical approach rooted in professionalism and empathy. While I recognize the potential for biases that may lean toward the victim’s perspective, I made a conscious effort to critically assess the university’s decisions, the mental and physical trauma Stephanie Hale endured, the significant changes in her life following the incident, and the constraints of university policies. My personal and professional values prioritize maintaining professionalism, taking responsibility for decisions, and consistently advocating for constructive criticism.

Pankhuri Kumari

My focus on procedural justice and community trust in this case is shaped by my leadership and educational backgrounds, which place a strong emphasis on cooperation and equity. This could, however, influence me to favour systemic remedies over temporary solutions. My understanding of the interconnected duties of leaders, emphasizing the necessity of integrity, inclusivity, and justice, has grown as a result of engaging with various ethical lenses, such as ethics of justice, ethics of community, and ethics of profession.

Elizabeth Tirado

My life experiences in Colombia, a country marked by gender violence and genocide, have shaped my sensitivity to power dynamics, structural inequalities, and the protection of vulnerable groups. My academic training in psychology provides an ethical perspective focused on the emotional well-being of victims and the impact of trauma; however, it risks prioritizing individual needs over institutional demands. This perspective leads me to criticize leaders’ decisions when empathy and support for victims seem overshadowed by institutional prestige.

Priyanka Rathi

With 12 years of experience working with young children, I am committed to fostering safe and supportive environments. This background shapes my view of Stephanie Hale’s case, emphasizing justice and compassion while criticizing delays in leadership action. Though I understand leadership challenges through ethical lenses, I prioritize proactive responses that safeguard well-being and build trust in institutions.

---

Diverse cultural backgrounds, ethical perspectives, and personal and professional codes of ethics enabled us to critically examine this case in depth with an eagle’s eye and identify some practical and feasible solutions.

References

Benedet, J., Anderson, S., Butterwick, S., Clark, N., Hunt, S., & Lorenzi, L. (2016). Sexual assault at the University of British Columbia: Prevention, response, and accountability. University of British Columbia. https://socialwork.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2016/09/USAP_Report.pdf

The Canadian Press. (2017, September 15). University of British Columbia faces new sexual assault human rights complaint. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-sex-assault-1.4292307

CBC News: The National. (2015, February 10). UBC sex assault reports out of sync with police statistics [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/2VPUQhzB0Do?si=wLv4lkeNvw5RmI4V

CBC News: The National. (2015, February 17). University of Toronto investigating handling of sexual assault report [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/zuUnvjZyw3M?si=uUlnYXtwyvFrzT1l

Ehrich, L. C., Cranston, N., Kimber, M., & Starr, K. (2012). (Un)ethical practices and ethical dilemmas in universities: Academic leaders’ perceptions. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 40(2), 99–114.

Gill, A. (2022). Student experiences of sexual violence at the University of British Columbia through a trauma and violence-informed framework [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia]. University of British Columbia Library. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0407450

Gray, M., & Pin, L. (2017). “I would like it if some of our tuition went to providing pepper spray for students”: University branding, securitization and campus sexual assault at a Canadian university. Annual Review of Interdisciplinary Justice Research, 6, 86–110.

Greer, D. (2023, September 9). ‘I can move forward’: Former UBC Okanagan student feels free after winning discrimination case. CTV News. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/i-can-move-forward-former-ubc-okanagan-student-feels-free-after-winning-discrimination-case-1.6555063

Hale v. University of British Columbia Okanagan and another, 2018 BCHRT 34.

Hibberd, A. J. D. (2017). How university policymakers problematize sexual violence on their campus: A policy discourse analysis [Master’s thesis, McGill University]. eSholarship@McGill. https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/ks65hf74j

Hutcheson, S., & Lewington, S. (2017). Navigating the labyrinth: Policy barriers to international students’ reporting of sexual assault in Canada and the United States. Education & Law Journal, 27(1), 81–98, X–XI.

Lindebaum, D., Al-Amoudi, I., & Brown, V. L. (2018). Does leadership development need to care about neuro-ethics? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0220

Lale, B. (2021, September 14). London, Ont. police investigating sexual assault allegations at Western University. CTV News. https://london.ctvnews.ca/london-ont-police-investigating-sexual-assault-allegations-at-western-university-1.5583806

MacKenzie, T. K. (2018). Exploring inequality in relation to rates of reporting sexual assault at Canadian post-secondary institutions. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 9(2).

MacKinnon, C. A. (2015). In their hands: Restoring institutional liability for sexual harassment in education. The Yale Law Journal, 125(7), 2038–2105. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/in-their-hands-restoring-institutional-liability-for-sexual-harassment-in-education

Marley, E. (2019). Crowdsourcing resilience: Discourses of rape culture and sexual violence at the University of British Columbia [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia]. University of British Columbia Library. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0378393

People v. Turner. (2024, October 18). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_v._Turner&oldid=1251787267

Quinlan, E., Quinlan, A., Fogel, C., & Taylor, G. (Eds.). (2017). Sexual violence at Canadian universities: Activism, institutional responses, and strategies for change. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Shariff, S., & Eltis, K. (2017). Addressing online sexual violence: An opportunity for partnerships between law and education. Education & Law Journal, 27(1), 99–117, IX–XII.

Stewart, J. (2023). Rape myth acceptance, sexism, and mental representation of women who have experienced sexual assault [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia]. University of British Columbia Library. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0433822

Taylor, E. A., Jones, G. J., McCray, K., & Hardin, R. (2019). Creating ethical decision-makers: The influence of education on perceptions of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Sport Management Education Journal, 13(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2019-0004

Tenbrunsel, A. E., Rees, M. R., & Diekmann, K. A. (2019). Sexual harassment in academia: Ethical climates and bounded ethicality. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102945

University of Toronto & Governing Council. (2022). Policy on sexual violence and sexual harassment. https://governingcouncil.utoronto.ca/secretariat/policies/sexual-violence-and-sexual-harassment-policy-january-1-2023

In 2015, Vijay Chokal-Ingam, an Indian man, pretended to be Black in his medical school application. He changed his appearance and claimed to be Black to take advantage of affirmative action policies. According to Diaz (2015), Chokal-Ingam said his goal was to reveal flaws in the admissions system, but his actions sparked debates about whether what he did was ethical and how fair affirmative action policies really are. This case brings up tricky questions about racial identity, the purpose of affirmative action, and fairness in admissions. While this topic is sensitive and controversial, we decided to analyze it because it shows a complex ethical dilemma. This case study is not meant to decide who or what was right or wrong but, instead, to explore the logic and challenges behind these issues. We hope it helps others better understand the situation and approach it more calmly and rationally.

Policy Background

Affirmative action policies in higher education aim to improve equity and give more opportunities to underrepresented groups. Many schools, like Saint Louis University School of Medicine, use these policies to help students from marginalized communities access quality education. Gutierrez and Green (2004) argued that these policies are essential for reducing systemic racism and promoting equality. Stulberg and Chen (2014) also pointed out that diversity in schools can encourage better cross-cultural understanding and reduce prejudice.

However, affirmative action is controversial. Critics argue that it conflicts with merit-based admissions and is not always fair. Arcidiacono and Lovenheim (2016) discussed how these policies, while promoting diversity, sometimes lead to mismatches between students and institutions. Chokal-Ingam’s case shows how policies like this can be misused and harm the reputation of diversity actions. Even if affirmative action was not a factor in his admission, his actions cast doubt on these policies. Universities may need stricter rules to prevent this kind of misuse and protect marginalized groups from more harm.

Case Details

Chokal-Ingam said that he shaved his head and pretended to be Black because he thought it would help him get accepted. This directly challenges affirmative action policies. Williams (2015) and Diaz (2015) reported that Chokal-Ingam explained his actions by saying he wanted to show problems in the admissions process.

Chokal-Ingam’s actions caused a lot of debates. People who support diversity policies said he hurt the fairness of affirmative action and harmed real minority applicants. On the other hand, some people thought his actions were a way to question whether these policies let people use their identity for personal benefit. Jaggar (1997) also talks about the conflict between focusing on individuals and group-based policies, which relates to this case. Some people even said that what Chokal-Ingam did might have just been a publicity stunt, and affirmative action might not have affected his admission at all.

In addition, the media played an important role in how people viewed this case. Liblik and Govindasamy (2016) wrote in The Queen’s Journal that affirmative action is meant to create equal opportunities, but it is sometimes seen as unfair, especially to those who feel left out. However, many also believed that Chokal-Ingam’s actions made affirmative action look bad and strengthened stereotypes about race-based admissions.

Chokal-Ingam himself added to these debates. In an interview with The Pitt News (Montgomery, 2016), he called affirmative action “racist” and said he wanted to show the flaws in the system. But many people criticized him, saying his actions seemed selfish and not a real attempt to improve anything.

This case also brings up bigger questions about how universities check identity in applications. Racial identity is different from academic records because it is often self-reported, which makes it easier for people to lie. Ahmed (2016) wrote about “reverse passing” and said cases like this make it hard to define racial identity and for schools to apply these policies fairly. Without better rules, cases like Chokal-Ingam’s might make people lose trust in affirmative action. This could hurt the groups these policies are meant to help.

Value of This Case

Chokal-Ingam’s case shows how difficult it is to balance fairness and diversity in race-conscious admissions policies. Affirmative action is supposed to help underrepresented groups. However, cases like Chokal-Ingam’s, where someone fakes their racial identity, goes against this goal. Actions like his take opportunities away from people who need them. They also make it harder for others to trust these policies. This shows that schools need better rules to stop this kind of behaviour.

At the same time, this case brings up ethical questions about racial identity and honesty. Chokal-Ingam mixed up the idea of identity as a personal experience with identity as a tool to get into school. This makes it harder for schools to decide who has a “real” racial identity and how to check it. Sturm (2020) suggests that if affirmative action focused more on helping a wider range of people and supporting mobility, it might solve some of these problems. Even though Chokal-Ingam said his goal was to criticize affirmative action, it seems like he did this more for his own benefit than to help others. This case shows that admissions policies need to be fair and stop people from misusing them while also encouraging honesty and good behaviour.

Analysis of Leadership Decision

The hard part about this case is that there is not enough information from the university’s side to know whether Chokal-Ingam was admitted because of his fake racial identity. The university said his admission was based on his grades in standardized exams (Williams, 2015), but it us fair to wonder if those grades were good enough in such a competitive process. Medical schools are tough to get into, and even great grades do not always guarantee admission. Because of this, it is hard to say if university leaders should be blamed. However, we can think about their roles in two possible scenarios.

Possible Scenario 1: Affirmative Action Influenced Admission

If the university considered Chokal-Ingam’s racial identity when admitting him, then affirmative action played a role. This would mean the policy was misused, and leaders made a mistake by not doing a thorough background check. While their goal was to promote diversity and inclusiveness, which is commendable (Gutierrez & Green, 2004), they still had a responsibility to verify information carefully. Without proper checks, such manipulations can happen.

Possible Scenario 2: Admission Based Solely on Academic Merit

If the university admitted Chokal-Ingam based on his academic performance alone and did not consider race, then his admission was deserved. In this case, the controversy around his racial manipulation would not reflect the university’s decision-making or affirmative action policies. However, the university should still verify all applicant information, even if it does not affect the final decision. For example, Stulberg and Chen (2014) highlight the importance of maintaining fairness and transparency in race-conscious admissions policies, suggesting that inadequate verification processes can hurt the admissions process’s integrity and lead to unnecessary controversies.

Application of Multiple Ethical Lenses

The most appropriate ethical lenses to explain the ethical dilemma concerning Vijay Chokal-Ingam’s case study are the ethics of care, justice, and critique.

Ethic of Care

To begin with, the ethic of care influences critique based on how decisions made directly influence interpersonal relationships (Hoare et al., 2024). Its main focus in decision-making is enhancing empathy, compassion, and sympathy at all times. According to the case study, Chokal-Ingam showcases a high disregard for the requirements of this ethical lens. This is because he does not consider his impact on the affected individuals in the admission process (Pearson, 2015). Furthermore, it means that individuals who rely on affirmative action when it comes to the college admission process may experience unintended treatment (Timoney & Shatsoff, 2022). This perspective of critique of this case study aligns with that of the ethic of justice, which greatly emphasizes matters of fairness (Hoare et al., 2024). According to this critique, there is a need to always promote trust and honesty to ensure our decisions do not negatively influence others in society. Therefore, the racial manipulation done by Chokal-Ingam to easily enter the medical school undermines the ethic of care since it reduces the chances of genuine admission of other students into the college.

Ethic of Justice

Secondly, the ethic of justice is an ethical theory suitable for critiquing decision-making policies regarding distributive justice. Generally, the ethic of justice primarily focuses on fairness, equity, and impartiality (Hoare et al., 2024). Affirmative action here is centred on promoting justice to combat inequities among marginalized individuals. According to this case study, Chokal-Ingam posed as a Black-American man determined to enter medical school (CBS News, 2022). He believed that affirmative action favored underrepresented groups like Black-Americans. He altered his appearance and joined a Black student organization. This gained him an acceptance letter. However, he faced racial discrimination.

Posing as a Black man presents a critique undermining the ethic of justice objectives that primarily focus on fairness, equity and impartiality. Chokal-Ingam claims that affirmative action harms other racial groups’ opportunities, causing misunderstanding on its role in equity. By altering identity, he distorted fairness in the admission process at St. Louis University. Based on the case study, the ethic of justice critique greatly aligns with an ethic of care that emphasizes empathy and compassion when making decisions (Hoare et al., 2024). Hence, the actions of Chokal-Ingam represent an ethical dilemma that critiques the ethic of justice intended to ensure equity and fairness.

Ethic of Critique

Lastly, the ethic of critique plays a key role in describing the college admission system based on affirmative action. This is because this ethical lens determines the level of equity, equality, and justice within this specific system based on how students are directly influenced by their social class, gender, and race (Hoare et al., 2024). Specifically, the ethic of critique boldly discourages systems that use power to showcase inequality and injustice. Even though Chokal-Ingam’s deception using racial identity had a personal gain, it does raise concerns about the authenticity affirmative action since it highly promotes racial identity manipulation (Darr & Doss, 2022). This reveals that the college’s admission system, which could be considered one in power, does not embrace fairness. The ethical lens also strongly backs the ethic of justice that promotes equality and equity in the allocation of resources (Hoare et al., 2024). In this regard, the ethic of critique exposes the negative impact of diversity-driven university admissions practices as they have little concern for the influence on other students. This is because Chokal-Ingam’s manipulation shows that other students are given more chances than others, which also challenges the competency of the admitted students in medical school.

Alternative Solution to the Case

The case of Vijay Chokal-Ingam reveals the complexity of racial identity and affirmative action in admissions processes. As a team, we propose a multifaceted and inclusive alternative solution that prioritizes integrity, fairness, and the original intent of affirmative action. Drawing from our diverse backgrounds (African and Asian), we bring unique cultural, academic, and ethical perspectives to address this challenge. To achieve this, we draw from the three ethical lenses that our work has been grounded upon thus far: the ethics of care, justice, and critique.

To start with, we propose two alternative solutions on the grounds of the ethic of justice, which focuses on structural equity, thereby ensuring fairness and impartiality in policy implementation (Gutierrez & Green, 2004). We propose the following:

• Revised Affirmative Action Framework — This framework not only applies to the ethic of justice but also to the ethic of critique. This solution is a “double-edged sword” because, on the part of justice, maintaining the integrity of affirmative action is primary; hence, achieving this involves broadening its criteria to include socio-economic, first-generation college status, and geographical disadvantage with regard to racial identity. This revision goes in support of Sturm’s (2020) call for affirmative action policies to focus on mobility and participation rather than solely racial identity. This approach reduces incentives for individuals like Chokal-Ingam to manipulate their racial identity while still addressing systemic inequities that exist across various demographics. On the part of critique, expanding the framework is also primary as it critiques the traditional race-focused approach, which can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes or exclusions. By including additional factors, as depicted in the approach to the ethic of justice, this solution challenges and redefines the institutional structures shaping admissions policies.
• Enhanced Identity Verification — This solution is another key alternative solution to the ethic of justice. Verification ensures fairness by preventing individuals from exploiting the system, thereby upholding equity for genuine applicants. Institutions should implement robust but non-invasive verification processes while respecting privacy and individual dignity. This can include affidavits supported by non-coercive evidence—such as cultural affiliations, community references, and background checks—that confirm the applicant’s self-reported identity. Ahmed (2016) highlights the pitfalls of unchecked self-reporting in identity-based admissions, suggesting that better mechanisms can enhance trust in affirmative action policies.

For the ethic of care, we propose two alternative solutions:

• Comprehensive training for admissions committees — Drawing from Hoare et al. (2024), we propose mandatory training for admissions officers to address biases and increase their understanding of diversity beyond superficial markers. As diverse members of our team, we see this as a crucial step toward combating stereotypes and ensuring that committee members assess candidates holistically. The ethic of care supports this initiative by emphasizing empathy and the ethical consideration of all applicants’ lived experiences.
• Community engagement initiatives — This solution is strategic because, if implemented appropriately, it will yield excellent results. The community will be receptive to proposals that benefit the community. Encouraging dialogue about affirmative action fosters a sense of collective care and understanding, reducing alienation and biases. These forums allow stakeholders (community members, students, faculty, and others) to voice their concerns and build trust, enhancing the relational dynamics the ethic of care champions.

Lastly, we propose one alternative solution for the ethic of critique alongside the revised affirmative action framework plan previously explained:

• Regular outcome assessments — Regular evaluation of affirmative action outcomes is necessary to ensure the policy’s goals are met without unintended consequences. Metrics like graduation rates, student satisfaction, and post-graduate success can help identify areas for improvement. Gutierrez and Green (2004) advocate for transparency and accountability in higher education policies, which align with the ethic of critique.

Potential Outcomes to the Alternative Solutions

Before suggesting our proposed solutions, we were able to analyze futuristic outcomes that implementing our solutions would lead to. For example, there will be increased inclusivity. By expanding criteria, diverse groups facing systemic barriers beyond racial identity will benefit, thereby promoting wider participation in higher education. The credibility of affirmative action as a tool for equity will be greatly restored because implementing enhanced verification protocols will not only discourage fraud and identity manipulation, it will also build trust in the process (Monaro et al., 2021). Training admission committees will reduce unconscious biases, and lead to true and fair admission evaluations. As previously explained, an open dialogue with stakeholders builds understanding, makes community members receptive to positive changes, and reduces controversies around affirmative action policies. Conducting regular audits provides data to refine policies and address gaps, ensuring the original goals of affirmative action are met effectively.

Ethical Trade-Offs and Challenges

History has been our guide in this discussion as implementing changes, more often than not, leads to transformative shifts in societal norms. Addressing systemic inequities whilst facing resistance and challenges tests the resilience of such reforms. Therefore, we provided three potential trade-offs and challenges:

1. Implementation cost — Adding verification layers and training programs might increase operational costs, but the long-term benefits of trust and fairness outweigh this expense.
2. Complexity in application — Broader criteria might complicate the admissions process, but clear guidelines and stakeholder involvement can mitigate confusion.
3. Resistance to change — Traditionalists might resist expanded affirmative action criteria, but ongoing dialogue can address their concerns.

Summary Table: Comparing Current and Proposed Approaches

Aspect	Current Approach	Proposed Alternative
Focus of Affirmative Action	Primarily race-based	Expanded to include socio-economic and geographic disadvantage
Identity Verification	Self-reported, minimal verification	Attestation system with non-invasive verification mechanisms
Admission Committee Training	Limited to basic policies	Comprehensive cultural sensitivity and bias training
Evaluation Metrics	Not standardized	Regular audits of student success and diversity outcomes
Community Engagement Initiatives	Minimal	Active forums and discussions on affirmative action policies

Authors’ Positionality

Our cultural backgrounds, academic training, and personal experience significantly influenced our perspectives and critiques of this case study. We are believers in fairness, equity, and impartiality because of our culture. Specifically, these three cultural beliefs are believed to be the roots of legitimate success in life. Additionally, this perspective has been backed up by the ethical standards we have learned in our academic training. This is because of the ethical theories learned in class that require people to align their actions with social ethics.

In this regard, academic training has nurtured our minds to always engage in critical thinking before making decisions. This is because it offers us the most appropriate environment to evaluate the impact of our decisions based on the demands of ethics. Furthermore, it means that if we were in the state of Chokal-Ingam, we would have considered fairness, equity, and impartiality and maintained our racial identity to guarantee us equity in the admission process. Generally, Chokal-Ingam’s actions conflict with the objectives of affirmative action, fairness, and impartiality, yielding negative stereotypes among Black communities.

Each team member greatly contributed to the solid understanding of this ethical dilemma. This is based on how well each member articulated the three ethical lenses to inform the decisions made by Chokal-Ingam. Apeh Chioma contributed to the understanding based on the ethic of justice, Elvis Ogbuji articulated the ethic of care, and Yujin Mi explored the ethic of critique.

References

Ahmed, M. (2016, July 19). Reverse passing: From Rachel Dolezal to Vijay Chokalingam. The History of Black Writing. https://hbw.ku.edu/blog/reverse-passing-rachel-dolezal-vijay-chokalingam

Arcidiacono, P., & Lovenheim, M. (2016). Affirmative action and the quality-fit trade-off. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(1), 3–51. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.1.3

CBS News. (2022, November 1). Reporter creates social media accounts for fake Americans to show “how we’re being targeted” with disinformation. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bbc-reporter-fake-social-media-accounts-americans-us-politics-disinformation/

Darr, C. R., & Doss, E. F. (2022). The fake one is the real one: Finstas, authenticity, and context collapse in teen friend groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac009

Diaz, E. (2015, April 7). Mindy Kaling’s brother: I said I was Black to get into med school. BET. https://www.bet.com/article/b1gpbj/mindy-kaling-s-bro-said-he-was-black-to-get-into-med-school

Gutierrez, K. J., & Green, P. C., III. (2004). Re‐examining race‐based admissions processes of American institutions of higher education using multi‐dimensional ethical perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410525621

Hoare, A., Osuntade, O. B., & Patel, R. (2024). Ethical educational leadership: Untangling ethical dilemmas and imagining alternative futures. TRU Open Press. https://leadershipethics.pressbooks.tru.ca

Jaggar, A. M. (1997). Gender, race, and difference: Individual consideration versus group-based affirmative action in admission to higher education. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 35(S1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1997.tb02206.x

Liblik, K., & Govindasamy, M. (2016, January 12). Affirmative action: Helping hand or harmful measure? The Queen’s Journal. https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/affirmative-action-helping-hand-or-harmful-measure

Monaro, M., Zampieri, I., Sartori, G., Pietrini, P., & Orrù, G. (2021). The detection of faked identity using unexpected questions and choice reaction times. Psychological Research, 85, 2474–2482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01410-4

Montgomery, A. (2016, November 4). Q&A with Vijay Chokal-Ingam: Affirmative action is racist. The Pitt News. https://pittnews.com/article/113150/opinions/columns/qa-vijay-chokal-ingam-affirmative-action-racist

Pearson, M. (2015, April 8). Mindy Kaling’s brother poses as a black man to get into med school. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/living/feat-mindy-kaling-brother-affirmative-action/index.html

Stulberg, L. M., & Chen, A. S. (2014). The origins of race-conscious affirmative action in undergraduate admissions: A comparative analysis of institutional change in higher education. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713514063

Sturm, S. P. (2020). Reframing affirmative action: From diversity to mobility and full participation. University of Chicago Law Review Online. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/reframing-affirmative-action-diversity-mobility-and-full-participation

Timoney, M., & Shatsoff, S. (2022, July/August). Fighting fake identities: How the U.S. Federal Reserve’s synthetic identity fraud resources protect the financial
sector. Fraud Magazine. https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4295019499

Williams, M. E. (2015, April 6). Mindy Kaling’s brother’s lousy “almost Black” stunt completely misses the point on affirmative action and merit. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/mindy_kalings_brother_is_a_bad_spokesman_for_merit

2nd Annual Ethical Dilemmas Roundtable Symposium
November 26, 2025

The following resources are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike.

Tools for Facilitating ‘Good Trouble’ Conversations

These index cards can be used as reminders for table moderators who are responsible for facilitating the roundtable conversations.

Facilitating Good Trouble Conversations_Austin (PDF)

Inaugural Ethical Dilemmas Roundtable Symposium
November 22, 2024

The following resources are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike.

Final Report and Moderator Guides

The report includes an overview of the process, summary of themes that emerged during roundtable discussions, detailed ethical dilemmas, and guides for Table Moderators and Note-takers.

2024 Ethical Dilemmas Symposium Report (PDF)

Symposium Presentation Slides

The PowerPoint presentation slides include the Symposium agenda, overview of ethical educational leadership, rules for engaging in roundtable discussions, description of two ethical dilemmas, and debrief prompts.

Presentation_Ethical Dilemmas Roundtable Symposium (PDF)