Case Study Krogh & the Watergate Scandal Egil “Bud” Krogh was a young lawyer who

Question

Case Study Krogh & the Watergate Scandal Egil “Bud” Krogh was a young lawyer who worked for the Nixon administration in the late 1960s and early 1970s as deputy assistant to the president. Military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the “Pentagon Papers,” which contained sensitive information regarding the United States’ progress in the Vietnam War. President Nixon himself tasked Krogh with stopping leaks of top-secret information. And Nixon’s Assistant for Domestic Affairs, John Ehrlichman, instructed Krogh to investigate and discredit Ellsberg, telling Krogh that the leak was damaging to national security. Krogh and another staffer assembled a covert team that became known as the “plumbers” (to stop leaks), which was broadly supervised by Ehrlichman. In September 1971, the plumbers’ first break-in was at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist; they were looking for documents that would discredit Ellsberg based on mental health. Reflecting on the meeting in which the break-in was proposed and approved, Krogh later wrote, “I listened intently. At no time did I or anyone else there question whether the operation was necessary, legal or moral. Convinced that we were responding legitimately to a national security crisis, we focused instead on the operational details: who would do what, when and where.” The break-in, which was illegal, was also unproductive. Nothing was found to discredit Ellsberg. Importantly, the ties between this break-in and Nixon were much more direct and easy to establish than the ties between Nixon and the Watergate break-in. Krogh later pled guilty to his role in the break-in and was sentenced to two-to-six years in prison. At his sentencing, Krogh explained that national security is “subject to a wide range of definitions, a factor that makes all the more essential a painstaking approach to the definition of national security in any given instance.” Judge Gesell, sentencing Krogh to serve six months in prison and remain on unsupervised probation for another two years, said, “In acknowledging your guilt, you have made no effort, as you very well might have, to place the primary blame on others who initiated and who approved the undertaking. A wholly improper, illegal task was assigned to you by higher authority and you carried it out because of a combination of loyalty and I believe a degree of vanity, thereby compromising your obligations as a lawyer and a public servant.” Krogh, who cooperated with the Watergate prosecutors and never bargained for leniency, served only four-and-a-half months of his sentence. The Washington State Supreme Court disbarred Krogh in 1975, although he successfully petitioned to be reinstated in 1980 and became partner in the Seattle law firm Krogh & Leonard. Krogh has spent much of the past 45 years supporting legal ethics education and writing and lecturing on the topic of integrity. Writing for The New York Times in 2007, he stated, “I finally realized that what had gone wrong in the Nixon White House was a meltdown in personal integrity. Without it, we failed to understand the constitutional limits on presidential power and comply with statutory law.” Discussion Questions 1. How was ethical fading a part of Egil Krogh’s eventual journey to prison? Explain. 2. At the time the decision was made, what factors caused the morality of the decision to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to fade from view? 3. Krogh has said that he went into his White House job “with tremendous enthusiasm and commitment—almost to a fault.” Do you think this is reflective of his actions in the Nixon administration? Why or why not? 4. In what ways did authority figures affect Krogh’s actions? Explain. 5. How might one guard against ethical fading in a high-pressure work environment? 6. Krogh believes that the Bush administration’s policies and practices regarding torture during the Iraq War reflect the same types of decision-making errors that he was guilty of regarding the plumbers’ operations. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

Discussion Questions

1. How was ethical fading a part of Egil Krogh’s eventual journey to prison? Explain.

Egil “Bud” Krogh was a budding lawyer working in the White House as the Deputy Assistant to President Nixon when he was imprisoned for four and half months. He also remained under unsupervised probation for two years, after his release. Krog had been involved in an illegal break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg who had leaked the “Pentagon Papers”. Krog had been assigned the task of discrediting Ellsberg who had threatened the national security of America. The motive of the break-in was to find papers or other documents relating to Ellsberg’s mental health which could be used against him. Although unethical and immoral, Krog followed the order given to him. This was eventually discovered during the investigations of the Watergate scandal, which eventually led to his imprisonment. Krog, however seemed to have regained his ‘moral integrity’ during the trials and did not deny his involvement. Moreover, in hindsight he seemed to have realized where it went wrong. “At no time did I or anyone else there question whether the operation was necessary, legal or moral. Convinced that we were responding legitimately to a national security crisis, we focused instead on the operational details: who would do what, when and where,” said Krog. Those involved in research on Behavioral Ethics would label his behavior as having been a result of ethical erosion or fading. He had disengaged himself from the moral dimensions of the task. He was too focused on the task at hand and did not bother to think about what he was doing and whether it was moral or immoral and legal or illegal.

2. At the time the decision was made, what factors caused the morality of the decision to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to fade from view?

Krog’s ethical reasoning took a backseat when he had been assigned the task. This possibly resulted from a combination of factors. For one, he had been assigned the task by his immediate superior John Ehrlichman at the behest of President Nixon himself. They were figures of supreme authority who reasoned that this was a matter of national security and needed to be dealt with. Apart from the threat to national security and being assigned the task by supreme authority figures, Krog may have also reasoned that they would not have handed him this sensitive task had they not trusted him. And, as he himself said he was far too focused on the task at hand, the way it was to be executed than about the moral dimensions.

His behavior was a manifestation of ethical fading, which sometimes lead even men with best intentions to take poor moral decisions. A combination of rationalization, not investing enough cognitive resources to reason the assigned task, situational factors (such as being told that it was task of national security, and being ordered by Nixon himself), and blind political loyalty, led to the breakdown of his moral integrity. The repercussion of the ethical fading was breaking into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.

3. Krogh has said that he went into his White House job “with tremendous enthusiasm and commitment—almost to a fault.” Do you think this is reflective of his actions in the Nixon administration? Why or why not?

This is reflective of his action in the Nixon administration. This blind loyalty led him to lose sight of the immoral and illegal dimensions of the assigned task. Going by the report that has been cited, not once do we find a mention of “a moral conflict”. He clearly states that he did not think once about the morality or immorality of the task. He immediately got engaged in making arrangements and deciding what to do. His job was a promising one, it was a great opportunity and he must have worked really hard to get where he was. Being a working member of the White House has its own prestige and Krog was determined to maintain his position. He had unquestionable faith and commitment which blinded him to the ethics of his duty.

            His honest admittance of his crime and his engagement in teaching legal ethics, writing and lecturing on the topic of integrity, thereafter, makes one realize that his previous actions had been an outcome of emotional fading. He even went on to mention in an international daily that “I finally realized that what had gone wrong in the Nixon White House was a meltdown in personal integrity.

            Had he not been blinded by his excess enthusiasm, over commitment and extreme faith, his ethical erosion perhaps may not have occurred.

4. In what ways did authority figures affect Krogh’s actions? Explain.

            As during the h…o…l…o…c….a….u….s……t. (This word is deemed inappropriate here at Chegg. I am sorry, I had to mention it this way, otherwise I was not being allowed to post my answer. Please correct it when when you are reading this. Sorry! ) and during the classic experiment conducted by Milgram on obedience, the role of authority figures comes to the forefront even in the case of Krog. Their insistence that this was a grave situation as the leaks would undoubtedly threaten the national security of America convinced Krog that he was only “responding legitimately to a national security crisis”. He even expounded on this issue further when at his sentencing he said that national security is “subject to a wide range of definitions, a factor that makes all the more essential a painstaking approach to the definition of national security in any given instance.”

            The authority figures had eased his task by providing him the justification or technically the ‘rationalization’. It is as if they did the moral reasoning for him, making his task easier, not leaving him the scope to doubt their intentions.

5. How might one guard against ethical fading in a high-pressure work environment?

Guarding against ethical fading is difficult to achieve due to the psychological factors at play. One does not even realize that he is morally disengaging himself from his decisions or choices. Moreover, the issue of ethical fading itself may not be a known phenomenon to many. Those belonging to the field of behavioral ethics have an important role to play in propagating this concept and making it salient in the everyday lives of people. Making behavioral ethicists a part of the training team in organizations might pave the way for reducing ethical fading. Leadership training programs should also incorporate critical constructs such as ethical fading, monitoring ones decisions, moral disengagement in their training modules. Even making people aware of this phenomenon could make them vigilant. They should be encouraged to review tasks being assigned to them, think over them, reflect upon the moral dimension of the task and then move ahead. Even a simple one liner in the message board of organizations (corporate, educational, hospitals) such as “Did you unknowingly make an immoral decision today? – Don’t fall prey to ethical fading!” – might make help. Also, programs on emotional intelligence could perhaps make us more aware of our intra-psychic processes and help in monitoring ourselves better.

6. Krogh believes that the Bush administration’s policies and practices regarding torture during the Iraq War reflect the same types of decision-making errors that he was guilty of regarding the plumbers’ operations. Do you agree? Why or why not?

            The administration takes decisions and asks a particular body to implement them. The decision taken by the administration need not been the outcome of emotional fading or moral disengagement. It could very well be labeled as state sponsored violence. However the ones executing the decision could fall prey to emotional fading and moral disengagement. This becomes possible due to the nature of one’s job as in the case of the military who are the protectors of America, and who have been time and again involved in war against various nations. Even unquestioning reliance on invocations of national security, as in the case of Krog makes emotional fading much easier to occur.

            I do not agree that the Bush administration’s policies and practices regarding torture during the Iraq War reflect the same types of decision-making errors that he was guilty of regarding the plumbers’ operations. The decision-making authorities may have had their motives, war is driven by motives, allegations, accusations, hatred, and sometimes even reasons which are difficult to fathom, unless one delves deep into the brains of the decision makers.

            As for the military - rationalization, intellectualization, call of duty, blind loyalty to the country are perhaps a few factors that eventually lead to emotional fading. I would say that they may have engaged in the torture and atrocity (which is uncalled for, immoral, and inhuman) because they had dehumanized the enemy (those whom they were made to believe was the enemy), knew they were not personally responsible for it (it was the decision makers), and most importantly it was state sponsored violence! Moral disengagement does seem to be smiling somewhere in the background.

            Would love to hear your feedback! Thumbs up or Thumbs down or a comment! :) And apologies for any spelling mistakes.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.