Pointless or Powerful: The Case for Oaths of Office

Abstract

The practice of making oaths comes from ancient times, a tradition common to virtually all peoples and cultures. Recent calls for ethics reform have included questions about how or whether these declarations are honored. In the fraught politics of today’s secularized, pluralistic society, skepticism about oaths may be tempting, but it is insufficient as the topic deserves critical reflection. This study assesses the efficacy of oaths of office by examining them using intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual transcendental values that define excellence. The analysis offers recommendations to reinforce the significance of this once-venerable bond between the populace and public servants.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719890836
Administration & Society
1 –23
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0095399719890836
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Original Article
Pointless or Powerful:
The Case for Oaths of
Office
James S. Bowman1
and Jonathan P. West2
Abstract
The practice of making oaths comes from ancient times, a tradition common
to virtually all peoples and cultures. Recent calls for ethics reform have
included questions about how or whether these declarations are honored.
In the fraught politics of today’s secularized, pluralistic society, skepticism
about oaths may be tempting, but it is insufficient as the topic deserves critical
reflection. This study assesses the efficacy of oaths of office by examining
them using intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual transcendental values
that define excellence. The analysis offers recommendations to reinforce the
significance of this once-venerable bond between the populace and public
servants.
Keywords
oaths of office, transcendental values, ethics
The normative basis of modern public administration centers on the belief
that government is an institution of high moral purpose, with ethics at the
heart of what it is about as a professional field (Bowman & West, 2018; Perry,
2015). Accordingly, the oath of office can be seen as the foundation and
1Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
2University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jonathan P. West, Department of Political Science, University of Miami, 1300 Campo Sano
Ave., Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA.
Email: jwest@miami.edu
890836AASXXX10.1177/0095399719890836Administration & SocietyBowman and West
research-article2019

2 Administration & Society 00(0)
starting point for the exercise of power. As the predominant ethical claim
accepted by oath-takers, it binds the conscience, establishes a covenant with
the people, supports democratic values, and restrains the use of sovereignty.
The pronouncement obligates officials to uphold the Constitution and helps
ensure that they will speak the truth, keep promises, avoid corruption, and
maintain the Constitutional order. The oath defines what it means to be a
public servant and is mandated for all federal and state officeholders in the
three branches of government.1
Nevertheless, contemporary researchers suggest that the pledge does not
retain its historical meaning as an inviolable guarantee. The importance of
these declarations has diminished in recent generations, as they have lost
their authority as an integral part of governance (e.g., Boatright, 2013;
McKenzie-McHarg, 2018; Menzel, 2016). Seen as an empty, formalistic rit-
ual, the promises are often administered in a perfunctory manner and are
seldom regarded as a moral commitment (Carter, 1996, p. 108; Loonen &
Rutgers, 2016, p. 31; Rohr, 1989, p. 84). Indeed, many people have no clear
understanding of what an oath is (Sommerstein, 1999, p. 11).
Recent events have provoked questions about how and whether oaths are
honored. Among the many assertions, there have been apparent (a) violations
of the Constitution’s clauses on emoluments, faithful execution of law, sepa-
ration of powers, and protection against foreign enemies; (b) abrogation of
treaties; (c) expenditures without appropriations; (d) selling weapons without
congressional approval; (e) derelictions of duty in the disregard of responsi-
ble civic culture, informed discourse, and rule of law as the basis of deci-
sions; (f) attempts to politicize the civil service, the judiciary, the Census, and
scientific research; (g) failures to safeguard the nation’s electoral system; (h)
obstructions of justice with respect to Special Counsel and FBI (Federal
Bureau of Investigation) investigations; (i) abuses of the power of pardon in
addition to the potential use of presidential self-pardon; (j) unprecedented
declassifications of documents; and (k) apprehensions over the obligation of
cabinet members under the 25th Amendment.2 In fact, a bipartisan group of
former Senators wrote to their colleagues in office reminding them that they
took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution (44 Former U.S.
Senators, 2018). Such developments reflect the decline in respect for the oath
of office which has contributed to the deterioration of faith in government.
The purpose of this study is to consider anew the assumptions and efficacy
of oaths by utilizing a philosophical framework. It does not, however, empha-
size any particular administration and its officeholders. The discussion that
follows includes background material, identifies the methodology used,
reports the results of the analysis, and discusses implications of the findings
and future research directions in the conclusion.

Bowman and West 3
Background
This section briefly describes the oath of office, its purpose and function, and
its place in the literature. Generally, an oath is a public vow to abide by certain
principles, accompanied by demonstrative gestures that put the oath-taker’s
integrity on the line. The typical practice is composed of hand raising, hand
placing on the Bible, the attendance of high officials, and an appropriate insti-
tutional setting (Blok, 2013, p. 192). These protocols signify the code’s sol-
emn quality; it transcends contractual or managerial approaches to governance
by affirming that the pledge sanctifies a commitment to the common good.
The practice of taking oaths comes from ancient times and was customary
in Europe and prerevolutionary America (Rudd, 2009). The significance of
formal promises to the Founders is evidenced by the fact that the president’s
oath is specified in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1). Furthermore, Article
IV, Section 3, requires that all federal and state government officials “shall be
bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.” The wording of
that assurance is not specified for those officeholders (the phraseology subse-
quently would be written by national and state legislatures). Once an official
swears in the formal declaration, she is to remain true to its promise.
Despite recent increased attention in the news media (e.g., Editorial Board,
2019; Edmondson, 2019; Fallows, 2018; Graham, 2019; Lindquist, 2018;
Polman, 2018; Rubin, 2019b), the subject remains underrepresented in aca-
demic discourse. Available material in a variety of fields is helpful, but little
consideration is devoted to oaths of office and much of that is on the federal
government.3
In the political science and public administration literature, Pauley (1999)
detailed the lengthy heritage of these vows in human civilization. He found
that scholarly interest even in the presidential oath “has never been consis-
tently great,” but believed that this covenant-making is the keystone of con-
stitutional government. Yet, the presidential pledge does not “have a
particularly extensive literature and no famous Supreme Court cases overtly
turn on it or interpret it” (Wittes & Jurecic, 2017). Toobin (2012, p. 4), for
example, noted that White House attorneys realized during President-elect
Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration that there was “no single authoritative
source” on the legal importance of the profession.4
In light of this situation, Brettschneider (2018) pointed out that the
Constitution emphasizes democratic values, and that the oath demands a duty
to promote them. In a defining act of moral maturity, the investiture “is meant
to take a private citizen . . . and transform that person into a public office-
holder, whose job is to protect the Constitution and the country it governs”
(Brettschneider, 2018. pp. xvii–xviii). Broadly construed, the vow can be

4 Administration & Society 00(0)
regarded as three in one: an oath of purification (to affirm that the office was
obtained fairly), a political oath of loyalty (to the Constitution), and a profes-
sional oath (to perform with integrity; Rutgers, 2010, p. 434). Inculcating a
sense of responsibility, the pronouncement is a mark of being a public ser-
vant, it is a part of what he or she is. Beyond technical competence, what
makes the official a professional is a swearing to ethical competence
(Bowman, West, & Beck, 2010).
Thus, the practice of public administration, Rohr (1989, p. 87) argued,
must be grounded in the objective of the vow: to uphold the Constitution.
This focus provides the basis for a moral community, the foundation of “eth-
ics for bureaucrats,” and the rationale for professional autonomy. In fact,
Rutgers (2010), in evaluating the history and content of oaths, in addition to
their role in the profession, saw these officials as public service guardians—a
function at risk as civic virtues get subordinated to New Public Management
practices which have no tradition of evaluating the implications of its values
(also see Bowman & West, 2019; Steen & Rutgers, 2011; Stensöta, 2010).
In short, oaths of office do not receive much consideration in books and
periodicals on American government and public administration.5 As described
below, the present study builds upon what has been done by offering an initial
exploration of oath-making that calls upon substantive values.
Method
Prominent examples of Constitutional oaths (Exhibit 1) are those sworn by
the President as well as all federal and state elected, appointed, executive,
legislative, and judicial officeholders.6 George Washington (1789) envi-
sioned the ideal that people of character and competence—the hallmarks of
professionalism—would fill the ranks of his administration. Rather than mere
employees, the Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) refers to officers of gov-
ernment. Imbued with an obligation of civic duty, the job of serving the
nation’s citizens was understood to be more than simply the application of
business practices. The public service would be what Benjamin Franklin
(1787) called “posts of honor” that would be essential for democracy.
Exhibit 1: Governmental Oaths
Presidential
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the
President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve,

Bowman and West 5
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (Constitution, Article
2, Section 1)*
Federal and State Elected, Appointed Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial Officials**
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitutions of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to do the same; that I take this obliga-
tion freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I
will well and faithfully discharged the duties of office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God. (5 U.S.C. & 3331).***
__________
*George Washington added “so help me God,” a phrase used by all subse-
quent presidents.
**and by extension local officeholders.
***Some states have multiple oaths for different officers, while others
have only one oath (for further analysis, Bowman & West, 2019).
__________
Yet, as noted in the Introduction, many commentators believe that more
than a few governmental personnel do not take their pledges seriously (also
see Editorial Board, 2019; Newland, 2019; Polman, 2018; Rubin, 2019a,
2019b; Will, 2019). This does not, however, justify a conclusion that the ini-
tiation is pointless and should be discarded. Rather, as discussed below, such
ethical minimalism fails to fulfill the spirit and letter of the Constitution,
thereby undermining the rule of law.
Reflecting Enlightenment ideals, oath provisions, as supplemented by the
Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, embody
liberty, freedom, and justice as well as values of popular sovereignty, free
speech, representative government, rule of law, public office as a public trust,
and impartiality (Exhibits 2 and 3). Containing some of the most recognized
passages in the English language, these documents embrace truths that are, as
the Declaration of Independence insists, “self-evident.”
Exhibit 2: Preamble to the United States
Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,

6 Administration & Society 00(0)
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States.
Exhibit 3: Declaration of Independence (Excerpt)
In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just pow-
ers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
_________
Accordingly, and echoing William of Ockham’s (1285–1347) principle of
parsimony, succinct statements, like these oaths, cut to the essence of an issue
and add elaborations only as absolutely necessary; to do otherwise makes the
argument less elegant, convincing, and correct. “Simplicity,” as Leonardo da
Vinci observed, “is the ultimate sophistication” (cited in Brokaw, 1931).
“Some of the greatest wisdom in life is simple,” Morris (1997) believes, “but
is both profound and practical” (p. 93). The Constitution stipulates in precise
language what the President must pledge. Taking less than a minute to repeat,
the declamation is “short, simple, and majestic” (Pauley, 1999, p. 221), sug-
gesting that its letter and spirit are to be contemplated. Surely Pythagoras,
who famously said, “The oldest, shortest words—yes and no—are those
which require the most thought.” The clarity and brevity of Constitutional
oaths is such that any statements beyond the oath and the conscientious per-
formance of duty were deemed unnecessary.
A variety of strategies could illuminate whether or not oaths are simply a
formality or a foundation, but one is particularly useful: the philosophical ele-
ments of the human condition. In his best-selling If Aristotle Ran General

Bowman and West 7
Motors, Morris (1997) urged the recognition of four dimensions of life—intel-
lectual (truth), aesthetic (beauty), moral (goodness), and spiritual (unity)—
which enrich humankind and create meaning in life (Exhibit 4). These timeless,
transcendental factors, which have been empirically documented (Schwartz &
Porath, 2014), contribute to individual and collective flourishing. This four-
part framework is applied to the oaths of office below to scrutinize their vows.
Exhibit 4: Transcendental Dimensions of Human
Experience and Foundations of Excellence
Dimensions Foundations
Intellectual Truth
Aesthetic aims at Beauty to produce excellence
Moral Goodness
Spiritual Unity
Source: Adapted from Morris (1997, p. 20).
The purpose here is to use the Morris taxonomy to reveal features of the
oath of office itself. Exclusive of other primary and secondary historical mate-
rial, the objective is to see whether reaffirmation of Constitutional values in
oaths is warranted, and, if so, how that might affect conduct in office. The goal
is not a critical interpretation of all founding documents; rather, it is to ascer-
tain the utility of the four transcendental values in assessing the oath’s code of
honor. As will be seen, this inquiry is necessarily speculative and anticipatory,
as empirical work by the authors is only now getting underway.
Findings
Intellectual Dimension
The intellectual component of the framework refers to the capacity for ratio-
nal thought, the groundwork of which is truth. Truth, disturbing or comfort-
ing, is a phenomenon or state of being that adheres to reality, that is, the
quality of a concept is exactly what it purports to be. Feelings are not facts.
Believing in something is not the same as knowing something. Rather, truth
emerges from the judicious, disinterested study of discernible reality. For
Morris (1997),
the capacity to handle the truth, the ability to get at it, and the skill to use it well
brings with its exercise great power . . . It is extremely difficult to escape the

8 Administration & Society 00(0)
conclusion that for human beings, at the deepest possible level, truth is
extraordinarily important and not something to be trifled with. (pp. 27, 45)
Humanity cannot prosper without challenging ideas; without truth, progress
perishes. Openness to transcendence is what distinguishes the disciplined
process of inquiry and dialogue, a dynamic conversation that tests old con-
clusions and develops new ones (Palmer, 2007, pp. 106, 109)—speaking
without deception trusts others to use knowledge to overcome ignorance.
The oaths in Exhibit 2 repeatedly infer that they conform to truth with their
incisive references to “faithfully execute the office” as well as “to the best of
my ability” in the presidential oath. In the proclamation taken by the others in
federal and state officialdom, key passages—“I will bear true faith”; “I take
this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”;
and “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office”—all imply
fidelity to truthfulness and transparency (see Note 6). In short, an oath is for-
mal testament in witness to the truth and the binding nature of the declaration.
Public administrators, then, are obligated to provide accurate, authentic, unim-
peachable, balanced, impartial, and timely information to superiors.
“Post-truth politics”—when feeling and emotions trump objective facts—
shows a profound contempt for democratic life by defying reality and eroding
the ability to distinguish veracity from mendacity. When the search for truth
becomes a partisan, fact-free exercise—revolutionized by artificial intelli-
gence disinformation and adulterated deepfake videos—truth is irrelevant
and fact-checking is of no significance.7 This repudiation dangerously under-
mines the very idea of objective reality,
Citizens must be up to the task of discernment to overcome self-destruc-
tive politics and use intellectual competition of ideas to advance the nation.
Engaging in fact-based deliberations and embracing democratic norms are a
minimum standard for governance. To govern is to choose what is and what
is not. Liars attempt to deceive not only themselves, but also others; in the
process, reality is increasingly distorted, and decisions are corrupted. The
truth about lies in such an environment is that even the truth may not be
believed. Indeed, the “liar’s dividend” (Harwell, 2019) prevails as exposing
lies may actually make them seem legitimate. “Reality apathy” can set in: It
is too much trouble to distinguish fact from fiction, so people stop trying and
default to pre-existing beliefs.
The consequences in the current era are declining civic discourse and self-
restraint in the exercise of power as well as increasing political paralysis,
alienation and disengagement, contempt for institutions devoted to discover-
ing truth, and uncertainty in public policy (Kavanagh & Rich, 2018; Pfiffner,
2019)—all of which overwhelms citizens, corrupts good government, and

Bowman and West 9
poisons the future. It is hard to see how officials can fulfill the “take care”
clause without reality-based decision-making. A disregard for facts, evi-
dence, and science renders the oath-taker incapable of discharging the duties
of office, which demands a basic respect for the Constitution and thus the rule
of law (Jurecic, 2016).
Aesthetic Dimension
The aesthetic factor is a quality that engages the emotions in the appreciation
of exquisite purity, flawlessness, gracefulness characterized by something of
beauty. It is of such sublimity that its excellence and grandeur inspire great
admiration. Truth, then, while essential, is not sufficient for fulfillment,
because humans are not mere intellects. People also must have something
attractive to stimulate them—beauty. There is nothing, it has been said, that
makes its way more directly to the soul than beauty (Addison, 1712). Like the
need for truth, the experience of beauty is universal, a necessary condition of
humanity. Morris (1997) elaborates,
Beauty . . . crosses over the artificial divisions in our lives and in our work. If
we can understand the importance of beauty, we can begin to take control of
some of the deepest issues of human motivation in tremendously positive
ways. (p. 84)
The aesthetic element includes external observational beauty (as in a sun-
set) and internal performance beauty (e.g., superb work); both are a “thing of
beauty,” an elegant masterpiece. Having objective and subjective features
that may not command universal agreement, it nonetheless can be validated
by transcendental appeal and widespread agreement to maximize satisfaction
and minimize dissatisfaction. Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best: “We ascribe
beauty to that which is simple; which has no superfluous parts; which exactly
answers its end; which stands related to all things; which is the mean of many
extremes.” To comprehend the aesthetic tenet, Japanese factory workers, for
instance, are encouraged to learn flower arranging, practice the highly ritual-
ized tea ceremony, and play team sports to appreciate the value of beauty,
precision, and cooperation in producing goods and services (S.A. West, per-
sonal communication, July 3, 2019).
Beauty, it follows, liberates, refreshes, inspires, and thereby nurtures well-
being. In contrast, ugliness depresses the spirit. For the administrator, beauty
can evoke the best in people; human thriving releases great energy: “Those
who contemplate the beauty of the earth,” wrote Rachel Carson (1965, pp.
88–89), “find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.”
Indeed, the real beauty of America is its “ever renewing possibility of being

10 Administration & Society 00(0)
‘more perfect’ according to ideals that remain our starting point and destina-
tion” (Stephens, 2019).
The oaths under examination reflect this important quality, most notably
in the presidential testament, by focusing on its basic goal, to “preserve, pro-
tect, and defend the Constitution . . .” and a similar phraseology in the decla-
ration recited by other officials. Furthermore, in supporting and defending the
Constitution, the oath taken by federal and state officeholders succinctly and
cogently state that this will be done “against all enemies, foreign and
domestic.”
A series of NBC podcasts devoted to the legal profession in government,
moderator Chuck Rosenberg (2019) includes revealing conversations with
high-level officials. The interviews highlight the beauty of this pivotal
moment as newly appointed officials embark on a career in public service to
represent the people of the United States. In the words of one oath-taker, “I’ll
never forget it. The most significant day of my life. I felt incredibly privi-
leged and my life has never been the same.”
Moral Dimension
The moral feature reflects the principle of being good by adhering to standards
of praiseworthy behavior. In contrast to the first two dimensions, it is con-
cerned with character and conduct rather than veracity (truth) or perfection
(beauty). Doing true, beautiful work, consequently, is incomplete, as people
must be convinced of the essential worth of what they are doing. Goodness, in
fact, might be considered a special kind of truth and beauty—it is how human-
kind values itself. Unethical work can be done with exquisite deception, just
as data can be manipulated well but fraudulently. The oaths reveal the quality
of goodness in the pledge to “solemnly swear (or affirm),” along with refer-
ences to faithfully executing duties, serving to best ability, and bearing true
faith that overlap and complement with the intellectual dimension.
Yet, humans are the only species capable of ethical awareness—and there-
fore capable of ignoring that awareness. The Founders understood that public
officials would not always be angels, and that power had to be checked and
balanced. They generally believed that the success of the republic required
leaders and citizens to honor values such as moderation, self-restraint, and
the common good. Doing right things right includes both doing the right
thing (justice) and doing things right (accuracy). The development of virtu-
ous character (exemplifying distinguished technical competence and ethical
competence) occurs “when beliefs and values are positively connected to
what is true and good . . . integrity does not . . . allow you to disregard the
demands of truth and goodness” (Morris, 1997, pp. 151–152).

Bowman and West 11
For the administrator, this means that people are at their finest when
engaged in a worthy task, one in which they can make a genuine difference,
doing a job that the world needs done and one that they want to do. To para-
phrase Socrates, the source of good is knowledge and the source of evil is
ignorance. The language in the oath of office is concise and decisively estab-
lishes a basis for moral agency and for a moral polity.
Spiritual Dimension
Truth, beauty, and goodness are still not enough, as humans must feel they are
a part of something greater than themselves. Not content with knowing what
they are doing, they must also know why. As Morris (1997) observes,
The ultimate target of the spiritual dimension is unity: connectedness, or
intimate integration, between our thoughts and our actions, between our beliefs
and emotions, between ourselves and others, between human being and the rest
of nature, between all of nature and nation’s course. (p. 179)
Matters of spirit, the worth of person and the community to which she
belongs, are intertwined with the past, present, and future as well as the first
three dimensions. All roads of inquiry lead toward the true, the beautiful, the
good, and unity—e pluribus unum. The spiritual precept seeks the harmoni-
ous integration and unification of the whole, a coherent totality greater than
the sum of its parts and worthy of veneration. The oath binds the conscience
with a sense of the majesty of creation which undergirds and overarches its
integral parts. The intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual foundations are
“universally accessible, pervasively applicable, and incredibly effective,”
and are ignored at one’s peril (Morris, 2011).
As might be expected, governmental oaths exhibit unity derived from the
preceding dimensions to produce excellence. This can be seen, most notably,
in the “faithfully execute the office,” “bear true faith and allegiance,” and the
“so help me God” passages. The Constitution’s one-sentence Preamble also
emphasizes unity with its admonitions—“to form a more perfect Union,”
“secure the Blessings of Liberty,” and “do ordain and establish this
Constitution”—as transcendental goals.
If the administrator (and Aristotle) ran General Motors, he would foster
integrity throughout the company by creating a culture based on the four quali-
ties—truth, beauty, goodness, and unity. Living the ethical life centered on these
virtues benefits the individual and organization. Everyone must understand their
role as a moral agent, believing anything worth doing is worth doing well. There

12 Administration & Society 00(0)
is a constitutional duty to adhere to the four dimensions by acting honestly, per-
forming superbly, deciding ethically, and serving the public interest.8
The writers of the Constitution embodied the sacrifice of personal inter-
ests for the greater good, in addition to other republican virtues—probity,
moral stamina, incorruptibility—that should remain true north for every citi-
zen in the unifying ceremony of the oath of office. In fact, “the power of the
oath lies exactly in the combination of public, personal, and symbolic ele-
ments” characterized by rational (utility maximization), norm-based (public
interest, loyalty, duty, patriotism), and affective (emotional) motives (Loonen
& Rutgers, 2016, p. 32; also see Metz, 2013, p. 230).
To honor the oath is to invoke truth, beauty, goodness, and unity. As
Rutgers (2010) states, “the oath of office . . . unites different aspects of public
values that other conceptual tools do not seem to be able to do” (pp. 440,
441). In retrospect, it might be argued that the ethical nature of these state-
ments is self-evident. However, as discussed below, the obvious can often be
overlooked; people can be blind to the obvious and blind to their blindness,
resulting in virtuous people making dubious decisions.
Discussion
As demonstrated above, the oath of public service can be defended philo-
sophically by giving it meaning on intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual
grounds. Yet, transforming this code of honor from a pointless exercise to a
powerful commitment demands more than armchair theorizing. How can it
contribute to ethical conduct in office? Understanding that effect can be con-
sidered in at least two ways: oaths as actionable, performative commitments
and oaths as implementation problems.
First, Sulmasy (1999) defines these statements as performative speech
acts—public vows that do not merely describe a state of affairs as much as they
do or perform something. The performance concept of the creed contributes to
upright conduct; affirming the declaration involves a covenant committing the
official to behave in accordance with the oath. Of high moral purpose, the pro-
nouncement cannot be trivial.9 As a means to affect change, in an extraordinary
ceremonial moment, the oath-taker becomes a public official: The oath’s raison
d’ etre is to change who one is. One’s identity, obligations, attitudes, and emo-
tions involve not only doing something, but also being someone.
This deliberate moral profession cannot predict the future, but it can change
the meaning of the future by rising above self-interest and changing the per-
son’s ideas, interests, and values (Blok, 2013; Sulmasy, 1999, pp. 334, 338).
In a marriage ceremony, for example, saying “I do” does not simply describe
the event. Rather, linking word and deed, it commits the individual to seal and
perform the marriage with its rights and responsibilities. Not a replacement for

Bowman and West 13
action, the promise is a prelude to it; once made, the vow takes on a life of its
own despite reservations that may occur to the swearer. While human perfec-
tion is unlikely, the officeholder is to be authentically engaged in an effort to
be faithful to the creed. Blok (2013) found that the performative character of
oaths can empower the person and contribute to ethical behavior, as well as
enable formal and informal controls to monitor conduct.
Second, then, to help ensure that a performative oath is effective, it must
be demonstrated that ethics constitute the core of the officeholder’s work.
Embedding the affirmation into the larger institutional framework of norms
and policies reinforces awareness of the proclamation, enables reflection on
it, and affects the meaning of behavior. Seeking an alignment between the
performative speech act and the organization requires a concerted effort to
impart the highest values of the profession. This may be done by articulating
the agency mission—in a manner that mirrors the oath—on a regular basis. If
not baked into operational routines, the truth, beauty, honesty, and unity of
promise making will be adversely affected. In fact, controlled laboratory and
field experiments in behavioral ethics reveal that unconscious habits, hidden
intuitions, unacknowledged presumptions, subtle social and organizational
pressures, and ingrained cognitive biases can jeopardize effective implemen-
tation; they are, therefore, at least as important in decision-making as ratio-
nality, logic, and calculation (see, for example, Ariely, 2012; Bazerman &
Tenbrunsel, 2011; Kahneman, 2011; Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).
Accordingly, well-documented behavioral ethics propositions, such as the
following, can affect both the taking of the oath and subsequent conduct:
 Fast and automatic (“System 1”) thinking can easily supersede think-
ing slow and deliberate (“System 2”) thinking,
 Effort aversion (taking the socially acceptable path of least resistance),
 Overconfidence bias (assuming comprehension when it does not exist),
 Decision framing (defining a situation as a business, not an ethical,
matter),
 Ethical fading (waning commitments over time, without adequate
reinforcement),
 Moral licensing (permitting bad actions because they are balanced by
earlier good ones),
 Forbidden fruit effect (prompting a reaction to rules by breaking
them),
 Ethical amnesia (professing to value morality, they are motivated to
forget their questionable actions),
 Moral disengagement (knowing ethical aspects of a decision, but
choosing to disengage and behave unethically), and

14 Administration & Society 00(0)
 Distortion of consequences (realizing an action is wrong, but constru-
ing the act as trivial).
In different ways, these subliminal blind spots can lead to the dishonesty
of honest people and the erosion of oaths. The psychological tendencies
above can override good intentions and careful judgment, allowing people to
see themselves as more ethical than they actually are (ethicality bias). Indeed,
overestimating good intentions may encourage employees to see ethics poli-
cies, including the oath, as unnecessary (Epley & Tannenbaum, 2017).
It follows that organizations need to design processes and programs based
on behavioral ethics insights. Among the many corrective measures that can
promote recognition of biases and improve judgments are (a) restructuring
the choice architecture (making the default option the socially desirable, sus-
tainable alternative and “nudging” behavior to influence decisions while
retaining choices); (b) creating “cooling off” time, consulting with disinter-
ested parties and countering cognitive fatigue (to help make the best choice);
(c) being wary of dubious, common rationalizations to avoid their seductive
nature (e.g., “no one will find out”); and (d) setting self-binding, precommit-
ment pledges along with using checklists to ensure adherence to standards
(Bowman, 2018; also see Feldman, 2017).
There are many obstacles in behavior; individuals and organizations should
not allow themselves to become one of them. The toolset above can encourage
managers to thoughtfully consider the value and durability of the oath once in
office (Exhibit 5). In short, properly understood as a “performance speech act”
and carefully implemented with decision science data, the testament of office
can be transformed from a pointless ritual to a powerful undertaking.
Exhibit 5: Management Tools in Action
Practitioners and consultants have implemented behavioral practices at all
levels of government around the world by devising new processes to improve
public service (see, for example, Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, 2017; Social and Behavioral Sciences Team, 2016; World
Bank, 2016). More than two dozen countries have decision science teams to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of programs in consumer protection,
education, energy, and the environment. Empirically based behavioral
research also has been utilized on issues like the accuracy of eyewitness iden-
tification, improving school attendance, stimulating voter turnout, and valu-
ing environmental goods (Fox & Sitkin, 2015).
Among the well-known examples of changes at little or no expense are (a) retire-
ment savings and organ donation programs (if the default is set to “opt out” rather
than “opt in,” dramatic enrollment gains occur), (b) tax compliance (switching the

Bowman and West 15
signature box on forms from the bottom to the top commits the filer to personal
honesty at the outset, thereby increasing accurate reporting), and (c) water consump-
tion (conservation is reinforced when a “social proof,” peer comparison message is
enclosed with the bill indicating how much water other users save). Furthermore,
behavioral principles have been implemented in areas such as readable financial
disclosure information for consumers (2009 Credit Card Accountability and
Disclosure Act), automatic registration in health plans (2010 Affordable Care Act),
and simplification of choices available under Medicare Part D.
As well, over 25 cost-effective projects in American cities, using random-
ized control trials, have promoted citizen enrollment in services, municipal
workforce reform, and compliance with legal notices (Behavioral Insights
Team, 2016). O’Leary and Murphy (2017) compiled successful initiatives
that incorporated behavioral sciences concepts to improve outcomes in good
citizenship behavior (voting, carpools, recycling), program compliance
(unemployment insurance, permits, licenses), and benefit program participa-
tion (prenatal visits, job training classes).
Also consult What Works Cities (https://whatworkscities.bloomberg.org/
about/), a national initiative to assist 100 mid-sized cities in their use of data to
enhance services, decision-making, and citizen empowerment (e.g., employ-
ment applications, code violations, debt collection). The Behavioral Science
Hub (www.bhub.org), a network of practitioners, offers an inventory of cases
analyzed by project goals, design, impact, and implementation guidelines.
In short, considerable potential exists, as only one dollar of every one
hundred dollars of government spending is backed with evidence-based data
(Behavioral Insights Team, 2016). As Felman and Stack (2019) write, “. . .
the evidence-based policy movement is growing, but still nascent . . . (T)he
key is to keep taking new steps to strengthen a culture of learning and
improvement.” For criticisms levied against behavioral science interventions
(e.g., sustainability, manipulation), see (Bowman, 2018).
Source: Adapted and updated from (Bowman, 2018).
Conclusion
The oath of office reinforces Constitutional mandates, professional values,
and ethical decision-making to encourage moral conduct. To consider it a
formality devoid of historical relevance and modern importance is a disser-
vice to citizens and officeholders alike. The results here can clarify and point
toward strategies that strengthen the role of oath keepers to institutionalize
ethical behavior stemming from their pledge. Thinking about ethics, then, is
not only a matter of belief, but also an issue of organizational design (Epley
& Kumai, 2019; Trevino et al., 2018, p. 60). Hence, oath values could be
incorporated into resource recruitment, selection, job duties, position

16 Administration & Society 00(0)
management, training, and evaluation human resource functions as well as to
emphasize agency missions as reflections of the testament of office. The
result should be to make the oath easily remembered instead of easily forgot-
ten. Efforts to take the pledge seriously can mitigate the effects of unethical
behavior, reinforce the desire to service the public, and stimulate the respon-
sibility to act. The declaration is a deliberate act that can inform behavior and
lead to improved management strategies for maximization of its values.
Thus, for example, a fuller understanding of the role of oaths in govern-
ment would benefit from research using the following:
 different analytical frameworks,
 in-depth case studies,
 attitudinal surveys on oath effectiveness,
 laboratory and field experiments to overcome unconscious biases and
enrich evidence-based decision-making,
 studies to reveal erroneous beliefs about behavior and design policies
accordingly,
 behavioral ethics nudges to narrow the gap between declared intention
and official action, and
 tactics to mitigate moral hazards arising from stakeholder information
asymmetries (for additional discussion, consult Bowman, 2018).
This study should be viewed as preliminary in nature and limited by its
purpose: to use a philosophical framework to make the case for the role of the
oath of office today. These testimonials may be seen as pointless, but when
well executed, they can be efficacious. Research, perhaps including a replica-
tion and extension of this work, is needed on the clarity, comprehensiveness,
and enforceability of these pledges. There is clearly much to be gained by
pursuing this subject area. While scholars, practitioners, and students await
this important work, the observations below seem germane.
More than an employee, the oath-taker is a public servant, a high calling indeed.
“The only way to achieve success,” Aristotle (384–322 BC cited in Handy, 1993)
observed, “is to express yourself completely in service to society”:
Politics practiced well is the noblest of professions. No other arena requires as
much wisdom, tenacity, foresight, and empathy. No other field places such
stress on conversation and persuasion. The English word “idiot” comes from
the ancient Greek word for the person who is uninterested in politics but
capable only of running his or her own private life. (Brooks, 2017)
Public service is a means of preserving democracy, considered by many to
be one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Oath-taking—something that

Bowman and West 17
people have done for centuries—gives voice to officeholders by discerning
purpose in what one does in government (Bowman & West, 2019). Service is
something to be honored, not demeaned.
The unrelenting demonization of government—a profoundly antidemo-
cratic movement aimed at delegitimizing the American system—is unsus-
tainable.10 The moral duty of politics is to appeal to humanity’s best instincts
rather than its worst. Contemporary times, nonetheless, insinuate that it might
be a mistake to believe that history is linear, moving gradually forward from
past to present to a progressive, virtuous future. Indeed, recent events under-
mine the values of the Renaissance, which glorified human intellect, and the
principles of the Enlightenment, which recognized supremacy of fact-based
logic over belief-based passion. How this code of honor in the oath of office
is regarded today is a reflection on the entire country, its system of govern-
ment, and whether citizens are capable of rational self-governance.
The viability of the oath, in this culturally fractious and politically toxic
period, depends upon shared values and a commitment to fundamental ideals.
The written Constitution is not self-enforcing; rather, it depends upon the
voluntary adherence to unwritten norms of governing. It is those invisible
expectations built up over the years—honoring core traditions, protecting
ideals, respecting customary standards, performing institutional roles, operat-
ing in good faith—that animate the visible dimensions of government.
America is not merely a country, but an idea. In a government “by, for, and of
the people,” the responsibility for putting meaning to these documents lies
with not only those giving and taking the oath, but also the citizenry at large,
“We the People.” Formal and informal Constitutional norms—written and
unwritten—that historically have preserved democracy are at risk. What is
being learned about the nation today, for better or worse will change the
future. The question is not whether we can afford to believe that the oath of
office is relevant to these times, but whether we can afford not to.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
ORCID iD
Jonathan P. West https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0880-6370

18 Administration & Society 00(0)
Notes
1. Selected portions of this article are adapted and updated from (Bowman & West,
2019).
2. Among the many articles, see, for example, Bagley and Gluck (2018), Buble
(2019), Cassidy (2016), Clark (2019), Frum (2018), Mark (2019), Raymond
(2017), Robinson (2018), Rubin (2018, 2019c); for a complete list of news
reports, consult Bowman and West (2019).
3. Sulmasy (1999) claims that “almost nothing has been written about what an oath
actually is” (p. 230). Also see Note 5. For further discussion, see Bowman and
West (2019).
4. Accordingly, Barack Obama had to redo the oath in the White House when the
wording was incorrectly recited during the inauguration at the Capitol. It should
be noted that Toobin’s (2012) book, despite its title (The Oath), does not empha-
size the oath of office; rather, the author used the Obama incident to examine the
personalities, politics, and court cases that animated the relationship between the
president and the chief justice.
5. This is also the case for many public service ethics textbooks and course syl-
labi (West, 2017). As well, most encyclopedias, dictionaries, and handbooks
of American government do not include the subject (e.g., Farazmand, 2018;
Roberts, 2001; Schultz, 2014). Not to be overlooked, however, are contributions
from the legal literature (e.g., Horowitz, 2009; Schultz, 2014; Synder, 2001;
Vestal, 2016; Wittes & Jurecic, 2017) as well as other professions (Bowman &
West, 2019).
6. Some states have multiple oaths for different officers, while others have only one
oath (for further analysis, see Bowman & West, 2019).
7. An empirical study published in Science found that “Falsehood diffused signifi-
cantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than truth” and that “the effects
were more pronounced for false political news than for false news” on other top-
ics (Resnick, 2018).
8. The Athenian Oath from ancient Greece, taken by all 17-year-old citizens, cap-
tures the idea of truth, beauty, goodness, and community of the human spirit:
We will ever strive for the ideals and sacred things of the city, both alone
and with many;
we will unceasingly seek to quicken the sense of public duty;
we will revere and obey the city’s laws;
we will transmit this city not only not less, but greater, better and more
beautiful than it was transmitted to us.
This code of honor constitutes a public ethos, ethic, and mission that nourishes
human flourishing so that people can be and do their best.
9. The moral gravitas of an oath of office can be illustrated by the refusal of some
high officials to testify under oath.
10. The Economist (2019) Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index rates countries by
60 indicators based on electoral process and pluralism, government functioning,
public participation, political culture, and civil liberties. The United States was
recently downgraded from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy.” See http://
www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-in

Bowman and West 19
References
Addison, J. (1712). Divided the work will thus become brief. Spectator. http://web.
mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/addison412.htm
Ariely, D. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty. HarperCollins.
Bagley, N., & Gluck, A. (2018, August 14). Trump’s sabotage of Obamacare is ille-
gal. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com
Bazerman, M., & Tenbrunsel, A. (2011). Blind spots. Princeton University Press.
The Behavioural Insights Team. (2016, October). Behavioral insights for cities.
Blok, V. (2013). The power of speech acts: Reflections on a performative concept of
ethical oaths in economics and business. Review of Social Economy, 71(2), 187–208.
Boatright, J. (2013). Swearing to be virtuous: The prospects of a banker’s oath.
Review of Social Economy, 71(2), 140–165.
Bowman, J. (2018). Thinking about thinking: Beyond decision-making relationalism
and the emergence of behavioral ethics. Public Integrity, 20(S), S89-S105.
Bowman, J., & West, J. (2018). Public service ethics: Individual and institutional
responsibilities (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.
Bowman, J., West, J., & Beck, M. (2010). Competencies in public service: The pro-
fessional edge (2nd ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Brettschneider, C. (2018). The oath and the office: A guide to the Constitution for
future presidents. W. W. Norton.
Brokaw, C. (1931). Stuffed shirts. New York, NY: Horace Liveright.
Brooks, D. (2017, August 1). Before manliness lost its virtue. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/scaramucci-mccain-masculinity-
white-house.html
Buble, C. (2019, July 26). Republicans and democrats divided on approach to scien-
tific integrity at federal agencies. Government Executive. https://www.govexec.
com/management/2019/07/republicans-and-democrats-divided-approach-scien-
tific-integrity-federal-agencies/158746/
Carson, R. (1965). The sense of wonder. Joanna Cotler Books.
Carter, S. (1996). Integrity. Basic Books.
Cassidy, J. (2016, December 14). How to be a loyal state department bureaucrat in
the Trump administration and keep a clear conscience. Foreign Policy. https://
foreignpolicy.com
Clark, C. (2019, July 11). Does the Hatch Act need a makeover for the Trump era?
Government Executive. https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/07/does-
hatch-act-need-makeover-trump-era/158327/
The Economist. (2019). Democracy index. http://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-
index
Editorial Board. (2019, February 23). An emergency for the G.O.P. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/opinion/national-emergency-sen-
ate-republicans-trump.html
Edmondson, C. (2019, May 12). Democrats use gavel to resculpt traditional oath. The
New York Times, p. 19.
Epley, N., & Kumai, A. (2019, May–June). How to design an ethical organization.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/05/how-to-design-an-ethical-
organization

20 Administration & Society 00(0)
Epley, N., & Tannenbaum, D. (2017). Treating ethics as a design problem. Behavioral
Science and Policy, 3(2), 73–84.
Fallows, J. (2018, August 24). The greatest disappointment of the Trump presidency.
The Atlantic. https://guyaneseonline.net/2018/08/25/the-greatest-disappoint-
ment-of-the-trump-presidency-james-fallows-the-atlantic/
Farazmand, A. (2018). Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy,
and governance. Springer.
Feldman, Y. (2017). Using behavioral ethics to curb corruption. Behavior Science
and Policy, 3(2), 87–99. https://behavioralpolicy.org/articles/using-behavioral-
ethics-to-curb-corruption/
Felman, A., & Stack, K. (2019, August 20). A checklist for evidence-based govern-
ment. Governing. https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-check-
list-evidence-based-government.html
44 Former U.S. Senators (2018, December, 10). We are former U.S. Senators.
The senate has long stood in defense of democracy. And it must again. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-for-
mer-senators-the-senate-has-long-stood-in-defense-of-democracy–and-must-
again/2018/12/10/3adfbdea-fca1-11e8-ad40-cdfd0e0dd65a_story.html
Fox, C., & Sitkin, S. (2015). Bridging the divide between behavioral science and
policy. Behavioral Science and Policy, 1(1), 1–12.
Franklin, B. (1787). Dangers of a salaried bureaucracy. In B. William (Ed.), The
world’s famous orations. Funk & Wagnalls. https://www.bartleby.com/268/8/12.
html
Frum, D. (2018, September 5). This is a Constitutional crisis. The Atlantic. https://
www.theatlantic.com/
Graham, D. (2019, April 8). Analysis: Kirstjen Nielsen shows why it is impos-
sible to restrain Trump. Government Executive. https://www.scribd.com/
article/405517600/Kirstjen-Nielsen-Shows-Why-It-s-Impossible-To-Restrain-
Trump
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations (4th ed., p. 30). Penguin.
Harwell, D. (2019, June 12). Top AI researchers race to detect “deepfake” videos:
“We are outgunned.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
technology/2019/06/12/top-ai-researchers-race-detect-deepfake-videos-we-are-
outgunned/?utm_term=.80121614f54f
Horowitz, P. (2009). Honor’s constitutional moment: The oath and presidential transi-
tions. Northwestern University Law Review, 103(2), 1067–1080.
Jurecic, Q. (2016, November 23). On bullshit and the oath of office: “The LOL noth-
ing else matters.” Lawfare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/bullshit-and-oath-
office-lol-nothing-matters-presidency
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kavanagh, J., & Rich, M. (2018). Truth decay: An initial exploration of the diminish-
ing role of facts and analysis in American public life. RAND Corporation.
Lindquist, S. (2018, August 8). Has Trump violated his oath of office? A primer on
presidential duty and accountability. The Conversation. http://theconversation.

Bowman and West 21
com/has-trump-violated-his-oath-of-office-a-primer-on-presidential-duty-and-
accountability-100122
Loonen, T., & Rutgers, M. (2016). Swearing to be a good banker: Perceptions of
the obligatory banker’s oath in the Netherlands. Journal of Banking Regulation,
18(1), 28–47.
Mark, M. (2019, August 9). Here are all the people Trump has pardoned so far -and
who he could choose next. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/
who-has-trump-pardoned-so-far-arpaio-johnson-scooter-libby-2018-5
McKenzie-McHarg, A. (2018). Conspiracies, conjurations and oaths. University of
Cambridge. Unpublished manuscript.
Menzel, D. (2016). Ethics management for public and nonprofit managers: Leading
and building organizations of integrity (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Metz, T. (2013). The ethics of swearing: The implications of moral theories for oath-
breaking in economic contexts. Review of Social Economy, 71(2), 228–248.
Morris, T. (1997). If Aristotle ran general motors: The new soul of business. Henry
Holt.
Morris, T. (2011, May 25). If Aristotle ran general motors. Huffington Post. https://
www.huffpost.com/entry/if-aristotle-ran-general_b_180982
Newland, E. (2019, January 10). I worked for the Justice Department. I hope its lawyers
won’t give Trump an alibi. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.
com/opinions/i-worked-in-the-justice-department-i-hope-its-lawyers-wont-give-
trump-an-alibi/2019/01/10/9b53c662-1501-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.
html
O’Leary, J., & Murphy, T. (2017). Beyond carrots and sticks: How state and local
governments can use nudge thinking to improve outcomes (Paper, Series on
Behavioral Economics and Management). Deloitte Consulting, LLP.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Behavioral
insights and public policy.
Palmer, P. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s
life (10th anniversary ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Pauley, M. (1999). I do solemnly swear: The president’s constitutional oath.
University Press of America.
Perry, J. (2015). Revisiting the core of our good government ethos. Public
Administration Review, 75(2), 186–187.
Pfiffner, J. (2019). The Trump presidency and executive power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Polman, D. (2018, February 19). Violating his oath of office, Trump pleads bone
spurs again. National Interest. https://whyy.org/articles/violating-oath-office-
trump-pleads-bone-spurs
Raymond, I. (2017, January 20). Trump has violated his oath to the Constitution: His
first act as president. Think Progress. https://thinkprogress.org
Resnick, B. (2018). 9 essential lessons from psychology to understand the Trump
era: Motivated reasoning, bias, fake, news, conspiracy theories, and more,
explained. Behavioral Science Weekly Roundup. https://www.vox.com/science-

22 Administration & Society 00(0)
and-health/2018/4/11/16897062/political-psychology-trump-explain-studies-
research-science-motivated-reasoning-bias-fake-news
Roberts, R. (2001). Encyclopedia of government ethics. Greenwood Press.
Robinson, E. (2018, October 15). Trump subverts our democracy with his lies. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com
Rohr, J. (1989). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on laws and values (2nd ed.).
Marcel Dekker.
Rosenberg, C. (2019, April 30). The oath. MSNBC.
Rubin, J. (2018, October 18). A perfect example of why Republicans should lose.
The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/
wp/2018/10/18/a-perfect-example-of-why-republicans-should-lose/
Rubin, J. (2019a, February 18). The feeble Republicans will not fulfill their oaths.
The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/18/
feeble-republicans-will-not-fulfill-their-oaths/?utm_term=.0834eff0961a
Rubin, J. (2019b, June 14). One public servant follows her oath, while another violates it.
The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/14/tale-
two-women-one-follows-her-oath-other-violates-it/?utm_term=.306fba0ff80e
Rubin, J. (2019c, June 13). Trump betrays his country again. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/13/trump-promises-break-
law-invites-foreign-interference/?utm_term=.f7aab00d5c20
Rudd, J. (2009). Our oath of office: A solemn promise. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
78(9), 23–32.
Rutgers, M. (2010). The oath of office as public value guardian. The American Review
of Public Administration, 40(4), 428–444.
Schultz, D. (2014). Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy. New
York, NY: Facts On File, Inc.
Schwartz, T., & Porath, C. (2014, June 30). The power of meeting your employees’
needs. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/06/the-power-of-meeting-
your-employees-needs
Snyder, V. (2001). You’ve taken an oath to support the Constitution, now what?
The Constitutional requirement for a Congressional oath of office. University of
Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 23(4), 897–923.
Social and Behavioral Sciences Team. (2016, September). Annual report. Executive
Office of the President.
Sommerstein, A. (1999). Introduction. In A. Sommerstein & J. Flecher (Ed.), Horkos:
The oath in Greek society (pp. 1–10). Bristol Phoenix Press.
Steen, T., & Rutgers, M. (2011). The double-edged sword: Public service motiva-
tion, the oath of office, and the backlash of an instrumental approach. Public
Management Review, 13(3), 343–361.
Stensöta, H. (2010). The conditions of care: Reframing the debate about public sector
ethics. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 295–303.
Stephens, S. (2019, August 23). America the beautiful. The New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/america-founding-ideals-liberty.html
Sulmasy, D. (1999). What is an oath and why should a physician swear one?
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 20(4), 329–346.

Bowman and West 23
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge. Caravan.
Toobin, J. (2012). The oath: The Obama white house and the Supreme Court. Random
House International
Trevino, L., Haidt, J., & Filabi, A. (2018). Regulating for ethical culture. Behavioral
Science and Policy, 3(2), 57–70.
Vestal, A. (2016). Regarding oaths of office. Pace Law Review, 37(1), 292–325.
Washington, G. (1789, May 21). Letter to Mary Wooster. As cited in S. A. Cook and
W. E. Klay. George Washington’s president’s legacy of the American republic’s
founding public administrator. Administration & Society, 47(1), 75–95.
West, J. (2017, October 11–13). Analysis of 53 course syllabi focused on ethics and
government [Paper Presentation]. Annual meeting of the Network of Schools
of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration, Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill,
Washington, DC.
West, S, A. (2019, July 3). Personal communication.
Will, G. (2019, January 23). Why do people such as Lindsey Graham come to
Congress? The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-
people-such-as-lindsey-graham-come-to-congress/2019/01/23/9830a174-1e68-
11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story
Wittes, B., & Jurecic, Q. (2017, March 3). What happens when we don’t believe the
president’s oath? Lawfare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-happens-when-
we-dont-believe-presidents-oath
World Bank. (2016, February 23). Policy research talk: Exploring the second strand
of behavioral economics. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/58921456159432291/
PRT-KH-2-2316.pdf
Author Biographies
James S. Bowman is a professor of public administration at the Askew School of
Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University. Noted for his work in eth-
ics and human resource management, he has also published in quality management and
environmental administration literatures. He is author of more than 140 journal articles
and book chapters. He is coauthor or coeditor of nine books. He served as the inaugural
editor-in-chief of Public Integrity (1995–2014), an American Society for Public
Administration journal cosponsored by three other professional organizations. A past
Network Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration Fellow, as well
as a Kellogg Foundation Fellow, he has experience in the military, civil service, and
business. He was elected to the National Academy of Public Administration in 2017.
Jonathan P. West is a professor of political science and a director of the graduate public
administration at the University of Miami. He served as chair of the Department of Political
Science for more than two decades. His research interests include human resource manage-
ment, ethics, local government, and productivity. He has published nine books and more
than 150 scholarly articles and book chapters. He served 16 years as managing editor of
Public Integrity and is a member the editorial boards of three other professional journals.
He has experience as a management analyst working for the Office of the Surgeon General,
Department of the Army. He previously served as a faculty member of political science at
the University of Houston and of public administration at the University of Arizona.