Highest Standard of Leadership

“Almost always, the creative, dedicated minority has made the world better.” (Martin Luther King Jr., source unknown)

Civil engineers provide creative solutions to complex problems, thus improving the nation’s infrastructure and making society more livable. Although the above quote will resonate with most civil engineers, it was declared by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

While attending the 2011 ASCE Annual Conference in Memphis, I had the opportunity to visit the National Civil Rights Museum. The museum is located within the Lorraine Motel, the site of Dr. King’s assassination in 1968. It is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally draining. The tour of exhibits climaxes with a view of Dr. King’s room and the balcony on which he was shot.

Having visited the museum after three days packed with leadership seminars and talks about sustainable infrastructure, I began to draw parallels between ASCE’s leadership role on infrastructure and Dr. King’s public campaigns. Civil engineers and Dr. King both worked to improve society in the face of powerful resistance. A highly regarded institution within the professional community, ASCE’s collective opinion carries great weight, but efforts to lobby for change must be measured so as not to undermine the public trust. Likewise, Dr. King’s nonviolent protest succeeded where violent confrontation failed because violent overreaction by the authorities, caught on tape, gradually earned the movement favorable public opinion. To lead as Dr. King did, civil engineers must continue to cultivate a strong ethical responsibility to the public welfare.

The conference session featuring the 2011 winner of the Daniel W. Mead Prize for Younger Members, Peter J. Jonna, and Certificate of Commendation recipient Brad Jansen provided the moral arguments that make this comparison possible. Each year the authors of the best ethics essays are invited to present their papers at the conference. This year’s topic was “Is it ethical for engineers to develop an infrastructure report card when their industry will likely be the ones rewarded financially for addressing the resulting infrastructure concerns?” In a surprising move, the Committee for Younger Members invited two engineers with opposing viewpoints to present their case: Jonna (2011) argued in favor of ASCE’s role in preparing the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure (see ASCE 2010), while Jansen (2011) urged caution in matters that test the public trust.

“All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.” (Martin Luther King Jr., source unknown)

In April of 1968, Dr. King went to Memphis to support striking garbage workers and other victims of economic inequality. Black workers received lower pay and fewer perks than their white counterparts. The death of several garbage workers due to dangerous working conditions sparked outrage. By this time, Dr. King was a famous figure, and his presence changed the tenor of the protest. In public marches, he risked personal safety and the chance that he would upstage the core message of an event. Nevertheless, Dr. King believed in the Memphis garbage workers’ message and knew that he could advance their cause.

In much less dramatic circumstances, civil engineers undertake the largely thankless pursuit of designing and maintaining the infrastructure that supports our modern society. It is an important labor that uplifts the nation, but engineers do benefit financially from government allocations. Jonna concluded that there was no implicit conflict of interest in civil engineers assessing the state of the nation’s infrastructure. Civil engineers are the only professionals qualified to prepare such a report. Further, it is their ethical responsibility to advocate for expenditures that maintain the public safety. In contrast, Jansen argued that by entering the political discourse, the ASCE Report Card risks compromising the dignity of the profession.

It was interesting that both speakers identified recent events in the financial sector in their speeches. Jonna pointed out the obvious difference between ASCE and its Report Card versus Goldman Sachs’s more-than-cozy relationship with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Arguing against unrestrained advocacy, Jansen highlighted the public backlash against financial institutions manifested in the Occupy Wall Street movement. In one startling graphic, Jansen compared the bank bailout to the many-times-larger infrastructure budget advocated by ASCE.

Coincidentally, my visit to the National Civil Rights Museum corresponded with the gathering of Occupy Memphis protesters and participants in the Ghandi–King Conference on Peace and Justice for a brief ceremony to honor Dr. King. It is likely that Dr. King would have viewed the Occupy movement as a continuation of his own campaign against economic inequality.

“Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions.” (Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963)

A lively debate among session attendees followed the prepared remarks by the Mead Award finalists. Some perspective on the Report Card was offered, but the most interesting comments drilled into the purpose and effectiveness of ASCE’s current campaign to promote infrastructure spending. Several younger members thought that the work pursued in recent jobs bills failed to promote the intelligent design that should be the top priority for the profession. Public backlash against the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) illustrates the pitfalls of short-term investment. While shovel-ready highway maintenance projects put people to work immediately, they failed to address the broader systemic issues.

There remains one way to sidestep the political quagmire: Civil engineers must be excellent at their jobs. They must approach work every day like Dr. King, with conviction and grit. They should seek solutions that improve quality of life, even if those solutions are politically unpopular and do not provide instant gratification.

Jonna offered a hybrid funding solution at another 2011 conference session (“Case Studies in Revolutionary Sustainable Solutions,” Oct. 20, 2011). Public–private partnerships rely on user fees to help cover construction and maintenance costs of infrastructure projects. Such schemes admittedly face questions of equity for disadvantaged infrastructure users who lack the means to pay for service. Proponents point out that free alternatives are a perquisite. If such partnerships were implemented as idealized, they may actually force communities to offer expanded public infrastructure options. Greater access to infrastructure helps the underserved improve their own economic circumstances.

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.” (Martin Luther King Jr., Papers, Vol. 1)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. graduated high school at age 15 and eventually earned a doctoral degree from Boston University. He could have become a high-powered lawyer or worked on Wall Street. Instead, Dr. King devoted his life’s work to attaining social equality and improving lives.

Engineers are highly sought after by law schools and trading companies. Our innate capacity to visualize complex problems and an education that emphasizes problem solving together produce valuable doers. Those who stay within the civil engineering profession likely do so out of a passion for the humble people-serving role civil engineers play in maintaining society.

The ASCE (2006) Code of Ethics sets a high but necessary standard for professional conduct. Even the suggestion of violating these tenets could impeach the standing of the civil engineering profession in the public’s eye. With the Code of Ethics in mind, both Mead Award finalists presented similar solutions for improving the objectivity of the Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. More peer review could be implemented. International experts could be engaged. Members of academia and the public sector could better balance the input of those contributors receiving direct compensation from government expenditures. Young civil engineers could receive more training on ethical standards.

My experience at the National Civil Rights Museum and the 2011 ASCE Annual Conference fused two formerly separate issues in my mind. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader of character and conviction whose actions helped forge a better society. Civil engineers aspire to contribute as much to our communities. To do so requires advocacy for intelligently designed solutions to America’s failing infrastructure. However, the way in which the profession promotes infrastructure spending will be highly scrutinized by the public. Civil engineers must be guided by their code of ethics and hold paramount the health and welfare of the public, because no one else is in a better position to take that responsibility.

Dr. King’s words resonate with civil engineers and serve as guideposts for committed leadership. It is inspirational to hear future leaders like Peter J. Jonna and Brad Jansen speak about their professional responsibilities. It is this adherence to ethics that props the character of civil engineers and enables us to be designers and caretakers of America’s infrastructure.