Dear Reader,
Almost four years ago, I wrote a CAFE Note called, “Never Let Your Skill Exceed Your Virtue.” It was about the special responsibility borne by lawyers, in particular, not to become complicit in efforts to undermine democracy by providing a veneer of legality for unethical, corrupt, or illegal acts. This past week, two prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon and her colleague, Hagan Scotten, followed this maxim by resigning after receiving an order from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to dismiss the charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams for purely political reasons. More importantly, they did not resign quietly; both wrote letters explicitly calling out their reasons for refusing to be complicit in the Justice Department’s actions. In so doing, they embodied the Greek ideal of the classic truth-teller, or parrhesiastes – an example that should guide all of us as we consider our own responsibility as citizens during our current descent into autocracy.
The term parrhesiastes comes from the Greek word parrhesia, which means “fearless speech.” According to the ancient Greeks, a truth-teller has five characteristics. First, duty: They believe they have an obligation to speak the truth. Second, frankness: They speak freely and directly. Third, truthfulness: They speak all that they know. Fourth, criticism: They speak truth to those in positions of power. And finally, danger: They tell the truth despite the consequences – in other words, they are willing to take a risk in order to reveal the truth. (By the way, quick shout out to Professor Jennifer Mercieca, a scholar of rhetoric and the author of Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump, who introduced me to this concept.)
This last characteristic, danger, is key to being a genuine truth-teller. Importantly, the risk taken by a truth-teller need not involve physical danger – though in authoritarian regimes it almost always does, as we see from murdered journalists in Russia and jailed dissidents in Hungary. It can be anything from social opprobrium to losing your job, as was almost guaranteed to happen to both Sassoon and Scotten if they hadn’t resigned first. The point is that in speaking the truth, you stand to lose something you hold dear – which means that a true truth-teller is willing to take accountability for their words and bear the consequences of them. (By contrast, remember “Anonymous” during Trump 1.0? He turned out to be Miles Taylor – who has indeed been a truth-teller since he revealed his identity after the publication of his book – but I wouldn’t have classified him as one before that).
In short, a parrhesiastes has what we would typically call moral courage. I’ve been diving into moral courage in my research into complicity, trying to understand what drives some people to become enablers, and others to speak out. I’ve studied the profiles of truth-tellers and whistleblowers across different contexts, including Tyler Schultz and Erica Cheung from the Theranos scandal, Frances Haugen at Facebook, and of course John Dean from Watergate, to name a few of the more famous examples. They have several common characteristics which have helped me develop a behavioral profile of the kind of people who are willing to take risks for the truth – one that both Sassoon and Scotten fit to a T.
First, those who show moral courage are motivated by a commitment to higher principles. Both Sassoon and Scotten invoke such principles in their letters, appealing to equity, fairness, and impartiality and their duty to pursue justice “without fear or favor,” as the Justice Department requires. Morally courageous people also tend to feel less constrained by tribal loyalties or “fitting in”: Notably, both Sassoon and Scotten clerked for conservative judges (including Justices Scalia and Roberts, respectively), but it’s clear that to the extent this conservatism influences their political views, neither is willing to let partisan considerations shape their actions. Those who exhibit moral courage believe that they have agency, and that their actions can have an impact. Both Sassoon and Scotten could have resigned without speaking out (especially knowing that their letters were unlikely to persuade their superiors at the Justice Department), but they documented their reasons publicly because they understand that exposing Bove’s actions to sunlight can shape public opinion. Finally, morally courageous people have an other-regarding, rather than self-preserving, orientation. Here, Sassoon and Scotten know that the rule of law is the pillar on which our other democratic values rest, and that everyone (and indeed our entire “system of ordered liberty,” to use Scotten’s words), is vulnerable once it is eroded.
As I observed in my earlier-referenced Note, lawyers are the first line of defense when it comes to fighting tyranny (that’s the reason underlying the famous Shakespeare quote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”). But they aren’t the last. Authoritarians hate courageous people because courage is contagious – and you can bet that the danger of speaking up, and speaking out, will only increase in the months and years ahead. Eventually, you may have to make a choice like the one Sassoon and Scotten made, and the stakes could be much higher. Before you get to that point, it’s worth reflecting on whether you fit the behavioral profile of a truth-teller, and what you would be willing to risk – and lose – to be a true parrhesiastes.
Stay Informed,
Asha
