Institutional Courage Depends on Intelligent Compliance and
Non-Compliance

Dr. Kathryn Becker-Blease
Courage Education Advisor
Professor and Director, School of Psychological Science, Oregon State University

Changemakers working toward institutional courage must balance when to “comply with civil rights laws and go beyond mere compliance” and when to obey, in advance or at all. How do we decide what to do? Studies from the field of medicine showing how both compliance and non-compliance can support human health contain insights into how to build healthier institutions, too.

Generally speaking, when people take medicine as prescribed, they have better outcomes. At the same time, studies show that patients who “alter their prescribed therapy on a rational basis, often representing advanced therapeutic principles” - a phenomenon known as “intelligent non-compliance” - also often have good or even better outcomes. In a study on reducing unnecessary medication, some patients on medication for high blood pressure started skipping doses as they noticed their blood pressure was well-controlled with less medicine. These patients were more likely than those who obediently took the prescribed dose to successfully step down to a lower dose, resulting in a better outcome. The researchers concluded that physicians should consider that non-compliance could be rational and a good reason to reduce the prescribed dose.

Just as wise physicians empower patients to make informed decisions about treatment, courageous institutions educate their members on when and how to comply with or challenge laws. Fortunately, we have good examples to learn from. Here are a few.

Intelligent Compliance

When asked if the State of Maine would comply with an executive order, under the threat of threat of loss of federal funds, Governor Janet Mills provided a good example of intelligent compliance when she answered, “I'll comply with state and federal laws" and when further threatened with a loss of funding, ‘I’ll see you in court.”

Rather than refuse to comply, Governor Mills recentered the true meaning of non-discrimination laws and  reiterated an expectation that the laws would be upheld by courts.

Intelligent Non-Compliance

Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor, upon being told that Georgetown graduates would not be hired into government jobs if the government found the curriculum “unacceptable”, refused to change the curriculum as it reflected their Jesuit mission and that the First Amendment protected their rights.

Dean Treanor’s letter makes it clear that Georgetown will not comply. Like Governor Mills, he reiterates an expectation that laws regarding religious freedom and free speech will be followed.

Intelligent Compliance and Noncompliance

Middle school teacher Sarah Inama who was told to take down a classroom poster that said, “everyone is welcome here” initially complied, then put the poster back up, restating the purpose of public education is to literally to teach all children.

Healthy institutions depend on individuals ready to make smart decisions about what to do and why. The more we say in clear terms what demands we face; whether we are going to comply in advance, do the bare minimum, go beyond what we are required to do, or not comply; and what principle led to our decision, the more courageous institutions will be.