Personal responsibility

Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.

At a time when so many issues seem beyond the control of any one person, it’s important to remember that the institutions capable of changing the status quo are made up of folks like you and me. In other words, individuals can change the world by changing the institutions they drive and keep running. A teacher can reorient a school. An engineer can alter a company. An organizer can upend a community. That said, an individual’s efforts will only bring about collective change if that one person gives others opportunities to join them.

The importance of courageous contrarians and the collaborators they attempt to inspire to join them became all the clearer during my two-week tour of Berlin and Krakow with Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE).

On that trip, I learned about Lothar Kreyssig, a district court judge at the time of Hitler’s reign and an example of a courageous contrarian. Early in 1940, the Nazi regime launched Operation T-4, which involved the killing of individuals unfit and unworthy of Aryan race due to epilepsy, schizophrenia, asocial behavior, and “mental enfeeblement.” Many professionals--including doctors and lawyers--made those killings possible. Yet, Judge Kreyssig dared to steer members of the legal community away from perpetuating this system.

Judge Kreyssig soon realized that patients sent to Operation T-4 killing sites never returned. In response, he did not merely hope that the institution would suddenly reverse its ways. Instead, he took all available actions to protect those under his care as their legal guardian and provided others with an opportunity to join him in ending a horrific practice. First, he instructed the State Hospital to not release any of his wards without his approval. Second, he traveled to one of the killing sites to again order that none of his patients be transferred to that location. In short, he recognized that his individual actions--though just a ripple--could catch the attention of others and bring about a wave of institutional reform.

Sadly, such a wave never formed. Others refrained from supporting Judge Kreyssig’s efforts. Soon he found himself forced into retirement--unable to prevent thousands of killings under Operation T-4.

One could interpret Judge Kreyssig’s courageous stand as a failed effort. He stood up to a killing machine that simply evolved, grew larger, and succeeded in many of its worst goals. Still, Judge Kreyysig opened a door to resistance that others could have followed. The mere act of creating such an opportunity reduced the odds of catastrophe--though his gamble did not pay off it could have and that’s all any individual can hope to do.

To bring things into the modern era, Frances Haugen--the Meta whistleblower--provides an example of a courageous contrarian who managed to place a winning bet on upending an institution. Haugen and Judge Kreyssig both risked their jobs and reputations to encourage the reform of massive institutions--in Haugen’s case, others shared her courage and followed her lead. Members of the press picked up her story. Congressional officials gave her a platform. Her former colleagues verified her allegations and, to some extent, affirmatively responded to the concerns she raised.

A lack of change cannot and should not be blamed on institutional rigidity and resilience--every institution is just the sum of a finite group of individuals. Each of those individuals have agency and, consequently, power over that institution. At a minimum, they can choose to reject an assignment, to delay a duty, or to otherwise poorly perform their job. Such actions may not seem revolutionary but such actions can cause ripples that turn into waves of reform.

Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think institutions are too large to change, then they will carry on as is and your power to leverage your influence will go unrealized. Some are better positioned than others to take risks that may jeopardize their lives and their well-being. But all of us bear a responsibility to take whatever actions are necessary to disrupt institutions that sow discord, foment inequality, and divide our communities. The risks you take may spark another to contribute to the movement--a pattern that, when repeated, can result in institutional change and societal reform.