Should Van Jones have resigned?

Green jobs adviser out of White House

Amid controversy regarding statements he made about Republicans and a petition he allegedly signed insinuating the U.S. government may have allowed 9/11 to happen, Van Jones, the green jobs adviser to the Council on Environmental Quality, has resigned.  Some accounts indicate the White House was not especially protective of Jones and may have even tacitly encouraged his departure.

Should Van Jones have resigned (or been forced to do so)?

Ethical debates around issues of public conduct are a unique problem.  As previous posts have discussed, public officials seem to be bound by all kinds of duties, some only tangentially related to the execution of office.

At one end of the spectrum are personal problems, such as extramarital affairs, that are seen to either impugn a public official’s character or create distractions that damage governance.

At another end are breaches of duty deeply related to office, such as divulging confidentiality, embezzelment, or disobeying superiors.

What did Van Jones do?  Was it wrong?  Where does it fall on the public conduct scale of shame?

There are at least two main “offenses.”  First, YouTube discloses that Van Jones called Republicans “assholes” for their stance on environmental legislation back in February (before he was affiliated with the White House).

Second, Jones allegedly signed a petition asking for investigation into whether senior-level U.S. officials were complicit in 9/11.  Although this may strike some an extreme position, some other notable individuals were also signatories.

As controversies go, these seem somewhat mild–if a bit unsavory.  In fact, the problems they pose are probably more practical than ethical.

Using fighting words to refer to one’s rivals, who must also be one’s putative partners, is not good form and at least disrespectful.

But the real offense is that Jones’s statements escalate partisan tensions at exactly the wrong time.  The Obama administration is in the midst of the health care fight of its life and needs  to minimize controversy, not add to it.

The 9/11 petition has a similar character.  Not exactly inappropriate, but not exactly helpful, either.

It’s difficult to argue that Van Jones violated the obligations — express and tacit — of his office.  Yet it’s equally hard to suggest he lived up to the role.

At the end of the day, he may have done nothing wrong morally speaking, but he was still the wrong man at the wrong time for an administration under strain.

–Sam

Related posts:

  1. Palin, we hardly knew thee
  2. An uncertain climate
  3. What morality “means”
  4. Federalism — sexy again?
  5. Obama follows the Public Philosopher

September 8, 2009 · Filed Under Obligations/Duties, Personal vs. Public Morality, Politics, Sam

Share

Comments

Leave a Reply




  • Editors

    Jacob Bronsther is a law student at NYU, a former Fulbright Scholar to Mauritius, and a graduate of Cornell University. He has an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • Sam Gill is a consultant in Washington and a graduate of the University of Chicago. He studied Political Theory at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Marc Grinberg is a Presidential Management Fellow with the U.S. government and a graduate of Princeton University. He earned an MPhil in Political Theory from the University of Oxford.

  • John Rood is the founder of Next Step Test Preparation and a graduate of Michigan State University. He has an AM in Political Theory from the University of Chicago.

  • Luke Freedman is a student at Carleton College, pursuing a double major in Philosophy and Political Science.


  • Sign up for the TPP Weekly Rewind



  •

  • Share us