Anybody know if there’s some sort of conscientious objector clause for the State Department?
On one hand, anybody working for the DoS is acting in an official government capacity. That is to say it’s not about an individual’s thoughts or feelings - anybody in the job is supposed to be acting in the interests of the United States. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t like what you do. It might matter if you’re morally opposed to your tasking, but the solution to that is usually to bring it up and have somebody else to the work.
On the other hand, the United States government, and DoS by extension, is supposed to work for the people. Here, the DoS should be taking a stance that works in the best interests of the country and its citizens. If popular opinion says that there’s a misalignment, then we need a way to fix the issues so that the organization can run in a manner consistent with the people chartering it. I’m not sure individual employees are the right people to take on this role, as there’s no consistent way to act across an organization like this.
I’m not an expert here, but I can see reasonable arguments on both sides of this
Any interest in having a discussion on alternative methods to address dissent?
It’s kind of shitty for the only solution to be to walk away. That can leave apathetic or otherwise undesirable people left in positions that are still important for society.
Anybody know if there’s some sort of conscientious objector clause for the State Department?
On one hand, anybody working for the DoS is acting in an official government capacity. That is to say it’s not about an individual’s thoughts or feelings - anybody in the job is supposed to be acting in the interests of the United States. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t like what you do. It might matter if you’re morally opposed to your tasking, but the solution to that is usually to bring it up and have somebody else to the work.
On the other hand, the United States government, and DoS by extension, is supposed to work for the people. Here, the DoS should be taking a stance that works in the best interests of the country and its citizens. If popular opinion says that there’s a misalignment, then we need a way to fix the issues so that the organization can run in a manner consistent with the people chartering it. I’m not sure individual employees are the right people to take on this role, as there’s no consistent way to act across an organization like this.
I’m not an expert here, but I can see reasonable arguments on both sides of this
Yes, it’s called tendering your resignation.
That’s already happening.
Any interest in having a discussion on alternative methods to address dissent?
It’s kind of shitty for the only solution to be to walk away. That can leave apathetic or otherwise undesirable people left in positions that are still important for society.
There’s a very good primer on this topic, written almost 80 years ago by the precursor to the CIA: Simple Sabotage Field Manual by Office of Strategic Services