Compromising Public Health for a States' Rights Ideology: The Governor of Arizona Nullified a Federal Law during a Pandemic

On October 27, 2021, I rode on two mass transit buses in Phoenix, Arizona. Both drivers were knowingly and willfully violating the federal regulation (42 CFR sec.s 70-71), which requires transit operators to wear masks during the pandemic even when they are situated behind a plexiglass barrier. One of the drivers, whom I had twice before seen not wearing a mask, again had lowered the plexiglass window pane between the driver and customers paying.  The first time, I had asked her to put a mask on, given the federal regulation and her proximity to the passengers boarding. Replying as if making an announcement, she said, “If anyone feels unsafe on the bus, they can get off and wait for the next bus.” That prompted a passenger to insult me. The company subsequently backed up the driver's refusal by saying that the federal law doesn't apply to buses in Arizona. It did, so the company violated federal law with impunity.

 

I reported this incident to the regional bus authority and the city of Phoenix. Nevertheless I saw her maskless more than a week later and then during the following week. I did receive a voicemail from TransDev, a bus-operating company contracted by Metro Valley, informing me that regardless of the federal law, the company policy does not require bus drivers to wear masks. In fact, a representative from Metro Valley defiantly declared on a subsequent phone call that drivers can let maskless passengers board—again, in violation of federal law. Company policy apparently can nullify federal regulations in Arizona, a U.S. state with special needs. 

Even though the FBI told me that it looks to local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal regulations, a supervisor at one of the police sub-stations told me that his department would not enforce the regulation. “Oh, so they want to dump it on us,” he said. Astonishingly, he claimed that only law passed by his state’s legislature is “real law in Arizona.” About a week later, a police transit supervisor told me that the chief of police had told the non-supervisory patrol employees not to enforce the federal regulation, and this directive had come down from the governor.

As shocking as such corruption is, the immature, even pathological behavior of the second maskless bus driver I witnessed on the morning of October 27, 2021 told me after I had asked her to put on a mask that she didn’t care if a federal regulation requires drivers to wear masks. “I don’t care. Go ahead, call the FBI,” she said with a daring tone of presumed impunity. She also encouraged me to call the local police after I said I would contact them too. “They don’t wear masks either,” she shouted. Yes, shouted. I replied that I was ending the conversation, which she ignored until I went to the back of the bus. She then accused me of threatening her. “Get off my bus!” she exclaimed angrily even though she kept the bus in motion. She was clearly making up an excuse to get me in trouble for having asked her to comply with U.S. law. What a strange, absurd mentality, at least outside of Arizona. Not surprisingly, she had let a maskless man ride. While walking to the back door to exit the bus, the maskless old male passenger felt entitled pick up the baton from the driver and shout “I’m vaccinated; I don’t have to wear a mask” at me. I knew he was ignorant so I did not comment. Nevertheless, she kept shouting his presumed factoid to me as he got closer. After he left, the driver once again began shouting insults at me, having dismissed my statement that I was done with the conversation. She called me a dumbass and a weirdo, and told me in a dismissive and hostile tone, “Go back to your institution!” My stop was coming up, so I could not get off the bus, but I did not want to hear any more from the childish driving having a temper-tantrum. So I began repeating, “I don’t talk to local creepers.” I had said this to the maskless passenger too.  “I won’t let you ride on my bus ever again,” the driver said. It is significant that she referred to her bus, in repeating, “I won’t let you ride my bus ever again,” when in actuality the city of Phoenix owns the bus and she does not have the authority to ban anyone from ever riding “her” bus ever again. Even were the bus her own, she would still be required to follow federal law, though she clearly believed otherwise.  She even put her two hands to her ears while operating the bus like a kid would do, and angrily repeated, “I know you are, I know you are,” after I declared that I do not talk with local creepers.  It was surreal that any bus driver would behave like a four year-old. “What are you in kindergarden?” I replied. Even when I was walking out of the bus and then outside of the bus, the driver was yelling insults, so I continued repeating my line. It was incredibly pathetic that a four year-old’s mentality would stop her temper-tantrum only to pick up her phone to call her supervisor, and yet the bus company’s customer service does not allow passengers to speak with a supervisor of the drivers in real time even when a driver is not only abusing his or her authority, but is having a temper-tantrum. It is precisely because the drivers know that they can misbehave with impunity that they go on the offensive even more by claiming that a passenger is misbehaving. It is not surprising that drivers tend to presume impunity in violating a federal regulation geared to ending a pandemic. It is not surprising that several drivers in 2020 and 2021 felt entitled to ignore the local and federal laws, respectively, requiring that passengers and drivers wear masks. Some drivers actually wore their masks to cover only the chin area as if that constituted compliance. Arizona’s pre-college education ranked 49^th out of the 50 states at the time. Go figure. Presumptive arrogance combined with astounding ignorance is a toxic combination.

I submit that this last driver was so brazen at least in part because there really is no accountability in the local mass transit system, which includes Metro Valley, the regional transit authority and TransDev, a private subcontractor that operates the buses, which are owned by the city of Phoenix. Both Metro Valley and TransDev have told me that their policies allowing maskless riders and drivers invalidate the federal law. By the way, a local police patrol employee informed me (when he was off duty) that bus drivers are not federal employees to the federal law does not apply to them. “So you locals are ok with the federal money you get from the feds for your mass transit, but that doesn’t obligate you to follow their regulations,” I concluded. He gave a thumbs up. Three weeks earlier, a patrol supervisor informed me that the only “real law in Arizona is that which goes through the state legislature.” There is virtually no enforcement of masks on the light rail by security guards either. They illegally impersonate police officers by wearing silver badges, yet have admitted that Metro Valley won’t allow them to enforce the local ordinance in 2020 and the federal regulation in 2021. I think the guards are more interested in intimidating passengers to feel the pleasure of being dominant (albeit certainly not superior in any way) than in enforcing even federal law.

It is strange seeing three or four guards on one half of a car yet not one of the Allied Security employees are enforcing the federal law as it is even stated on on-board signs declaring, “Per Federal Law, Masks Are Required.” Once when I heard a train’s operator make an announcement at every stop, I pressed a red button at an intercom with the driver. The drivers want passengers to report problems, so it was ironic that a young black guard rushed to me (I had not seen him in the back) and demanded to know what I had been talking about. I asked him twice to lift his mask from his chin to cover his mouth and nose. He obviously felt entitled to break the law even though signs on the doors and windows were obvious. Without even waiting for me to answer his question, he became very hostile toward me and declared that if he ever sees me use the intercom again, he would kick me off the train. As I was leaving the train, I passed by the operator’s open window. “Of course we want you to use the intercom to report things like you did—that many passengers are ignoring my announcement!” I asked her to report the guard.

In short, the arrogance, corruption, and incompetence at the state, city and mass transit levels at least in Phoenix are such that someone who is not used to such a sordid, ignorant, and hostile culture cannot but be astonished—jaws-dropped astonished. Not only does the bus company ignore reports of illegal behavior; the company claims that its policy, which contradicts federal law, is the only thing that the company acknowledges as valid. How could anyone at a company believe that a company policy nullifies a federal law? How could a police chief tell her police force not to enforce a federal law, when according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the F.B.I. routinely relies on local law enforcement to play a role in enforcing federal law. Yet in Phoenix, Arizona, a police supervisor specializing on transit refused to acknowledge that state officials ever enforce federal law. “They want their laws enforced? They will have to send feds to enforce them.”

On the Role of Business in a Societal or Global Catastrophe

While it is obvious that a business or industry can affect and be affected by its environment, such as by polluting a river and a hurricane, respectively, it is less well known that a business or an entire industry can cause or facilitate a societal or global crisis. Whereas polluting a river can be answered with government regulation, the very legitimacy (and thus ongoing operations) of a company or even an entire industry is arguably at risk in knowingly creating or significantly worsening a societal/global crisis. The latter role goes beyond the scope of government regulation and corporate social responsibility, although broadening or just enforcing anti-trust laws may be sufficient to deal with the lost legitimacy. That is to say, what I have in mind is another genre or type of problem.
For instance, Exxon funded its own scientific studies on the effects of the oil industry on the Earth’s climate as early as in the 1950s. Certainly by the 1970s, the company’s management knew that the ongoing release of CO2 into the atmosphere would cause severe climatic problems, and yet the company’s public-relations lied to the public that the company’s studies were not decisive. Given the industry’s clout/money with members of Congress and even presidents, the company could keep the government from legislating and regulating geared to an expected crisis. Exxon (and the entire industry) played a major role in causing global warming, which could result in the extinction of our species, not to mention reduce the production of food-stuffs and trigger mass-migrations and even wars such as over water-rights.
Business ethicists can be expected focus on the ethical principles violated lying and the related willingness to be a major contributor to a planetary crisis as regards habitability. In other words, what should Exxon have done? Scholars of business and societal culture focus on the incompatibility of corporate and societal cultural norms and values. Within that field of business and society, advocates of corporate social responsibility design company charitable programs oriented to specific societal problems, especially if the company had contributed to the ongoing (rather than crisis) problems. Operating a food bank for the poor is not like saving the planet, or our species. Political economists cover the legislative and regulatory capture by an industry and the resulting muted regulations. Systems theorists can explain how all of these parts work together—an entire system with a fatal flaw in its basic design and operation. The ability of business to cause or even greatly facilitate a societal or global crisis is perhaps so new in the twenty-first century that this sort of problem has not yet been studied.
In 2007-2008, mortgage producers and investment banks created sub-prime mortgages and made high-risk bonds based on the risky mortgages. Investment banks even sold insurance for holders of the bonds. The financial derivative and insurance markets became so large that when they collapsed, a financial crisis occurred. An industry had put the world’s financial system itself at risk of collapse. Financial regulation was not sufficient; a gigantic financial infusion from the Congress and the Federal Reserve was necessary. Unlike the banking crisis of 1907, more than a socially responsible J.P. Morgan would be needed. Society, through its government, had to step in both for the U.S. economy and the global economy. The crisis was that large. That the financial sector was culpable and yet could receive federal money without strings (so even bonuses could be paid!) suggests that the notion of a few large companies or an industry creating a major societal-level (e.g., the economy) crisis was new. Wall Street money as electoral campaign contributions doubtless played a role in the refusal of Congress and the U.S. president to break up the big banks, but the larger question of what to do when a business or industry creates a societal crisis rather than localized typical problems had not been considered in its own right.
To be sure, a government can enable a company to create a societal crisis. Take, for example, the public-health crisis during the coronavirus pandemic that began in 2020. In Phoenix, Arizona, the regional transit authority and the two subcontractor companies ignored local law requiring that masks be worn on the buses and light-rail. A significant proportion of bus drivers went maskless and/or allowed passengers to ride without wearing masks even when federal law required masks even of operators behind a plexiglass shield. A representative of TransDev, one of the subcontracting companies, said that the law didn’t matter because of the company’s policy, which permitted masks and presumably overrules federal regulations. A representative of Metro Valley, the regional authority, refused to enforce the federal regulation on the light rail as well as against the willful bus drivers (and passengers). A transit supervisor on the police force told me that the chief of police had told police employees not to enforce the federal regulation even though, according to the FBI, local law enforcement is regularly relied on to enforce federal law. “They are federal; we are state,” the police supervisor told me. He also told me that the governor had told the chief not to enforce the federal regulation. That federal money goes into the mass transit system in the Phoenix metropolitan area is apparently no reason to follow federal law on mass transit. One police employee told me that “bus drivers are state employees (which is false) so they are not bound by federal regulations. A second police patrol supervisor had told me that the only real law in Arizona is that which “goes through the state legislature.” All three men were not only sure that they could not be wrong, but were extremely rude and dismissive towards me. I concluded that Arizona is in need of federal oversight.
At the company level, TransDev has been knowingly misleading its bus drivers into thinking that they don’t have to wear a mask and that passengers need not either—in spite of the company’s own signs, “Per federal law, masks are required on the buses.” A representative from Metro Valley, the regional authority, told me to ignore the signs. This mentality within at least two organizations is itself a problem. In fact, with Arizona having the highest infection rate in the U.S. on at least November 3, 2021, the mentality and the resulting patchwork of masks on the local buses and light rail can be said to be a significant cause of the ongoing pandemic locally. At the very least, the positive correlation is troubling, though conveniently not to the governor, chief of police, regional transit authority, or TransDev company.  The brazenness alone is enough for informed minds to question the legitimacy of at least the local police department (which was being investigated by the FBI for having intimidated and stopped peaceful political protesters) and the TransDev company. The matter of the higher officials, including the governor, the mayor of Phoenix, and the city manager, is of course more political. I had spoken with the mayor’s office manager and had sent an email to the manager’s office (my request to speak with a managerial-level staffer resulted in a call from an intern). Besides the sheer willfulness, lack of respect for federal law, and ignorance all around, the culpability of a company (TransDev) in giving the ok for bus drivers and passengers to go maskless, and another company (Allied Security, backed up by Metro Valley) to allow security employees to go maskless and allow passengers to go maskless on the light rail when the state ranks highest in the pandemic-danger in the U.S. suggests that companies can create or severely worsen a crisis with impunity both within the companies themselves and in a corrupt and ignorant political culture. The question of legitimacy is in this case broader than just for a few companies.
Company managements are not always above lying to the public. The case of Boeing involves a management lying to its pilots, customers, and the public, resulting in preventable deaths, a significant decrease in the company’s reputational capital, and arguably even a societal-level crisis at an early stage regarding aviation. The company installed new software that could be influence by a sensor that could malfunction. Saving the company the cost of training the pilots, the company’s management did not inform those employees of the addition. The ethical dimension is pretty clear (consider Kant’s dicta about lying). What is less clear is the matter of a company being of such size in a market and the latter being so salient in society that the company can unilaterally cause a crisis at the societal level. Announcing a program in corporate social responsibility, such that helps children to keep up in school, wouldn’t suffice; the harm in a societal crisis is so much greater than are the societal problems to which CSR is geared. At the very least, the board and upper management could have been replaced by a law; the company’s response was to replace the CEO with the “Plan B” insider on the board. That is, playing a significant role in causing a societal crisis could justify the intervention of a government, rather than leaving it up to a company’s shareholders. Where the government is itself corrupt, such as in Arizona, the needed intervention can come from a federal government (e.g., U.S. and E.U.) or even other countries against both the government and the particular company involved. Corporate social responsibility and business ethics are geared to a lesser scale of harm. Causing a societal or global crisis does not reduce to unethical business and is not redressed by corporate social responsibility. Instead, society has more legitimacy to intervene and in a more drastic way, given the nature of a crisis.

Arizona’s Dysfunctional Business and Governmental Culture Creates a Crisis in the Coronavirus Pandemic

On January 15, 2021, the New York Times reported that Arizona had the highest 7-day daily average per capita of deaths and new cases of the new coronavirus, covid-19.[1] On one day, Arizona had 11,324 new cases.[2] “We’re the hottest spot in the U.S. and among the hottest spots in the entire world,” said Keith Frey, the chief medical officer for Dignity Health’s Arizona division.[3] “If we don’t slow this down over the course of the next days and weeks, then we will be fully into that crisis zone,” he added.[4] It would be a crisis of the state’s own making, and thus preventable but for the local culture at least in the Phoenix metro area. In other words, the crisis did not happen to Arizona; rather, the crisis was in large part homemade, and can thus be used as a window into a dysfunctional culture in the United States.

In spite of county and municipal laws and company policies on wearing masks in stores and on public transportation (buses and the light rail), many stores and the mass-transit company forbid employees from even asking incoming customers to wear a mask (or wear one correctly over the nose and mouth). Grocery stores were particularly problematic, with even their own employees walking around with impunity without masks on (properly). “We don’t enforce that requirement,” a grocery-store director told me. How, then, can the policy be considered to be a requirement? “It just is,” a store manager told me. That wearing masks was not only a company requirement, but also a city and county law was of no interest to the manager. “We don’t enforce the law,” he quipped. “But you are violating it by letting people in who are not wearing masks,” I retorted. This was not his concern.

The Phoenix metropolitan mass-transit company, and thus its two subcontracted bus-operating companies, also had a policy forbidding employees from enforcing the company’s own requirement and the local law. Some bus drivers would even not wear a mask or wear one without covering their noses and mouths! Some light-rail security employees subcontracted by the mass-transit company wore their masks over their chins too, as did a significant proportion of the rail passengers. Some security employees asked passengers to wear their masks correctly, while most of those employees did not. The notion that masks were required on the trains was a farce, and yet notwithstanding this, the company’s representatives had no problem defying logic itself by insisting that masks were required.  It was as if the company policy and the county law mandating masks on public transportation simply did not exist, and yet they did. “It’s not really a law,” a customer-service employee told me. Why? Because the county doesn’t have a legislature and only one of them can pass laws. The county board was apparently extra-governmental in nature.

Both retail and the mass transit were exploiting an exception, that of medical exceptions, to invalidate the rule. Incredibly, the stores and mass-transit company used this exception to justify refusing even to ask customers and passengers, respectively, to cover the nose and mouth area with an existing mask. People with medical conditions exempting them from wearing masks would not have masks on. The absurdity of allowing an exception (e.g., a medical condition) to condemn a requirement was permitted in the dysfunctional culture and amid a lack of accountability by regulators.

The problem was exacerbated by the political extremism that was salient in the state. A steadfast refusal to obey the law on wearing masks had a significant role in the number of people not wearing masks in stores and on public transportation. Such people could easily exploit the managerial incompetence both in retail and mass transit. It does not take long to realize that an intentionally-unenforced requirement is not a requirement, even if this point is not grasped by company managers. Yet the managerial dysfunction enabled this condition to go on for almost a year as of January, 2021. In such a political culture wherein a significant proportion of residents believe they are justified in breaking the law and ignoring company policies, it can be reckoned as inexcusable for companies to follow the invalid logic that the existence of an exception invalidates a rule (or requirement). In other words, it is negligence pure and simple. The lack of accountability, which was well-ensconced in the culture within companies as well as between businesses and local and state government, enabled the corruption that gave the virus the upper hand. It was as if the locals could not help themselves.

Moreover, the local culture wherein political extremism was salient allowed for the erroneous belief that the public good is simply the aggregate of individual wills. Where enough wills decide not to wear masks indoors in public and on public transit, the aggregate public good falls short of being above the ability of the virus to spread. The public good as merely the aggregate of individual wills thus is not good enough; it falls short of what the public good actually is (e.g., being greater than the ability of the virus to spread). The understatement of the public good can be understood too as the belief that the general will (e.g., Rousseau) is reducible to the aggregation of private wills.

The good of the whole, I submit, is more than the sum of the individual parts because some parts may even detract from the public good and thus understate it if it is taken to be merely the aggregation of individual wills. That the market value of a product is determined by the aggregate supply and demand does not mean that the public good is likewise determined. For one thing, the market value of a product is in a closed system (the aggregate supply and demand) whereas the public good is open-ended. In other words, the public good can be higher than the aggregate of the individual wills would have it because enough private-benefit-only wills can detract appreciably from what is the good of the whole. If enough people refuse to wear masks indoors in public places, and stores and even governments look the other way, the result is significantly below the good of the whole, which in this case is stopping the coronavirus. By its self-inflicted crisis, Arizona was functioning well below its own good, and a highly dysfunctional local mentality is to blame.

---

1. Jordan Allen et al, “Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count,” The New York Times, January 15, 2021.

2. Alicia Caldwell and Ian Lovett, “Arizona Is America’s Covid-19 Hot Spot and on the Brink of Crisis,” The Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2021.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

Ethical Human Resources Management

Ethics applied to human resource management is typically thought to boil down to treating subordinates well. Kant’s categorical imperative, treat other rational beings not just as means, but also as ends in themselves, applies to this sense of ethical HR management. Specifically, human beings are not only cogs in a machine; they have lives outside of work that should not be expected to reduce to serving the interests of the employer. Another side of HR management also exists, however, that concerns the handling of unethical employees. Such handling can be ethical or unethical.

Front-line employees who deal with customers whether in person or at a call center are especially subject to customer complaints. The choices that such employees make on how to deal with customer complaints regarding themselves can be ethical or unethical. For instance, an employee who resists a customer’s request to speak to the employee’s supervisor acts unethically by exploiting the conflict of interest. The conflict lies in the employee putting his or her own vocational interest above the interests of the customer and even the company. Gate-keeping refers to an employee’s efforts in getting the customer to say why he or she wants to speak with a manager so if the reason reflects badly on the employee, he or she can lie about a supervisor being available or insist that the customer speak only to the employee about the issue. Such an employee is operating at a primitive level—that of self-preservation—rather than as a duty-bound agent of a principal (e.g., a company).

I contend that a company’s management that does not have adequate safeguards against such an exploitation of a conflict of interest operates unethically with respect to its human resources. Should a customer inform a supervisor of a specific employee who is exploiting the conflict of interest and yet the supervisor does not set negative consequences for the employee and notify middle-management that the company’s safeguards against such exploitation are not sufficient acts unethically too. Safeguards are possible beyond relying on individual customer complaints. The latter strategy is flawed because the complaints that actually reach a supervisor are reduced in conditions in which employees can get away with exploiting the conflict of interest. Put another way, a company is unethical in relying on individual complaints to willow out problematic employees as a safeguard because it is hampered by the exploitation itself. Interestingly, whereas exploitation of employees is a common refrain, an employee’s exploitation of customers is less commonly known.

Stronger safeguards are ethical where their efficacy cannot be compromised by an employee’s exploitation of customers. Concerning phone calls, for example, the greeting could include the following: “At any time while speaking with a representative of the company, you can press 5 should you like to report a problem you are having with the representative.” The call could go to a designated manager who acts as a safeguard. In a store, a designated desk could be identified as the place where customers can go if they have had a problem with an employee. Unlike a typically customer-service desk, the person taking the complaints should hold a rank higher than that of the entry-level employees. Unfortunately, entry-level employees may tend to cover for each other, and thus extend the conflict of interest rather than curtail it.

Internal audit departments could definitely add assessing weak as well as presumably strong safeguards. Calls to respective customer-service departments could be made, and verification could be applied not only to those calls, but also on real complaints. Problems may be difficult to detect. As a case in point, the customer service process used by the regional transit authority in Phoenix, Arizona begins with an employee in Metro Valley’s customer-service department. Complaints on bus drivers are sent to their respective supervisors, yet they are known to cover for their respective drivers rather than provide accountability. Also, drivers circumventing company policies, including those regarding the coronavirus pandemic, has also been a major problem. Bad driving, such as braking too hard, and, relatedly, driving fast to accrue enough time to take smoking breaks, have also been endemic and beyond the reach the process of accountability. Aggravating the matter of accountability, the driver-supervisors work for the sub-contracted bus-operating companies; at least one of which dismissed videos of bad braking in 2018. In short, the customer-service department’s process of handling complaints and feedback is grossly inadequate, given the behavior of enough drivers and their supervisors. An audit would ideally uncover the corruption and come up with a process that takes the problematic drivers and supervisors (i.e., the dysfunctional culture) into account. Accountability is indeed difficult in such organizations in which employees regularly flaunt company policies and the immediate supervisors enable such behavior by refusing to enforce the policies even where unsafe driving and passenger health are concerned.

Coronavirus Reveals Dysfunctional Culture in Arizona

In mid-October, 2020, when the coronavirus was again peaking in E.U. states such as France and Germany and U.S. states such as Wisconsin and New Mexico, public health experts were worried about how the upcoming flu season would interact with the new virus, especially as people gather more indoors when outside temperatures turn colder. On October 15, 2020, for instance, seven U.S. states saw record numbers of hospitalizations, according to the Covid Tracking Project, and fourteen states set records for their seven-day averages of new daily cases, according to Johns Hopkins University.[1] France and Germany had already instituted nightly curfews. On October 16, Tier 2 Restrictions went into effect in London, which include urging people to avoid public transportation. Because physical distancing is not always possible on buses, subways, and light rail, universal mask wearing was crucial. According to IHME projections at the time, universal mask wearing in general “could save the lives of more than 70,000 Americans in the next three and a half months.”[2] With New Mexico’s chief executive referring to the coronavirus situation as “the most serious emergency that New Mexico has ever faced” on October 14, it was very troubling that Arizona, which borders New Mexico, had failed to enforce laws requiring masks on public transportation. This failure is extraordinary because of the mentality behind it.
On June 19, 2020, Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area, had announced mask regulations approved by the Board of Supervisors. One of the regulations reads, “All riders and operators on public transportation must wear a mask.”[3] This bore directly on the light rail and buses, which Metro Valley, the transportation authority, either ran directly or through subcontracted operating companies and Allied Security. With enforcement of the new regulation being “the responsibility of law enforcement,”[4] Metro Valley announced that it would not use its employees and subcontracted security guards to enforce the regulation. In allowing passengers to board the buses and light rail without wearing masks, Metro Valley was actually breaking the law even during the “second wave” of the virus in June, 2020. In fact, it was not uncommon to see bus drivers and security guards either not wearing masks or wearing them around their chins rather than on their mouths and noses. It was especially common to see the riders wear masks covering only the chin.
Metro Valley’s excuse for not enforcing the “requirement,” which meant allowing passengers (and employees) to be on mass transit without wearing masks even though the regulation forbid it, was that some passengers (and employees) could not wear masks due to medical conditions like asthma. Allowing this exception to break the rule overall bespoke ignorance, stinginess, and laziness. Because at risk riders could have been accommodated with the modest requirement of having their respective physicians fill out a medical form that in turn would be necessary to obtain a special medical transit ID. Medical IDs were already issued to the disabled who had a medical provider fill out Metro Valley’s medical form. The transit authority did not have to emasculate the regulation and thus the public health on account of an exception. Talking to Metro Valley supervisors, I was struck by the near obsession on the exception to the extent that I could detect no awareness of making a requirement anything but, and in so doing, violating the regulation. Small minds should not rule large companies, for the consequent harm to the public can be large.
I was thrice flabbergasted when I listened on my phone to Metro Valley customer-service employees insist that masks were required on buses and light rail and that passengers could ride without masks was not incompatible with the requirement! Declarations by ignorance that cannot be wrong have a bad odor. Such ignorance has no legitimate basis in standing on stilts above customers (or anyone). When I pointed out the obvious point that allowing maskless riders on buses and trains means that masks are not required, the standard reply was actually corrective. “Masks are required. Riders will not be turned away for not wearing masks.” How can a mind possibly hold those two thoughts together as if they were consistent? Perhaps willful ignorance enjoys being corrective because of the little bit of power that can be enjoyed—so starved for the pleasure from power is the weak bird of prey, according to Friedrich Nietzsche.
Unfortunately, neither the county sheriff’s office nor the Phoenix police (nor that of at least one suburb) felt the need to enforce the county and various city laws on masks. “You need to call Metro Valley on that,” I was told as I sought comment. Even if Metro Valley had a policy of enforcing rather than breaking the regulation (and city laws) mandating masks on public transit, it was still the responsibility of law enforcement (i.e., not a transit company) to see that the regulation (and laws) are enforced. For law-enforcement agencies of municipal governments to rely on company policies conflates governmental law with organizational policies. The lack of accountability was staggering even as the coronavirus remained as a viable threat to the public health.
The political and educational cultures in Arizona were such that efforts to enforce the regulation and correct Metro Valley’s pathetic policy were especially important. On October 17, 2020 in a conference room at a resort at Scottsdale, a suburb of Phoenix, two presenters with QAnon “went on a long diatribe against people who wear masks to prevent the spread [of coronavirus]. It’s a way to control people, and a symbol of submission, they argued.”[5] It bears stating that in 2019, Arizona had ranked 49^th out of the 50 American states on education prior to college. Unfortunately, a culture of ignorance can easily support and spread the message of QAnon in Arizona—“inventing an imaginary threat and ignoring the very real virus” in spite of all those people who had already died from the pathogen. Such a culture can also enable a vacuous “requirement” to be perpetuated as if it were really a requirement rather than an instance of reason turned against itself with impunity. In such a culture, a significant number of riders and employees, including bus drivers, can be expected to skirt their company’s policy on mask-wearing because it is a fraud anyway. Such employees need only have told their respective supervisors that a medical condition prevents the wearing of a surgical mask without any written documentation to support the validity of the claim. In such a culture, bus drivers would rather bar riders from sitting in the front half of the buses, meaning that the riders might not be able to keep apart spatially as per governmental and even Metro Valley’s own guidelines, than bother to wear masks while driving. Why could such drivers be required to wear plastic face guards if a legitimate medical reason exists for not wearing a surgical mask? Besides the culture of ignorance, one of a lack of regard for the public health (i.e., other people) is also part of the sordid culture that has been so ensconced in Arizona.

A Metro Valley employee and a rider covering their respective chins. 

Security employees exposing their noses and mouths contrary to company policy. It is no wonder that riders did so as well, or went without masks, even though they were "required."

At times, the bus rider on the right held his green towel by his teeth, as if this were equivalent to wearing a mask. Such minimalists were common on public transportation during the pandemic.

A bus driver wearing his mask to cover his chin. I called Metro Valley to report the unsafe practice, and yet two months later, the driver was still leaving his mouth and nose exposed (see photo immediately below). Moreover, the continued prevalence of drivers without masks or not wearing them correctly is an indication that Metro Valley and its subcontracted operator companies have been managerially incompetent in holding drivers accountable. The continued bad driving (e.g., stopping abruptly rather than coasting to a light already red) also points to managerial negligence. 

Two (of several) other bus drivers not wearing masks, hence violating company policy. Were they medically exempt, presumably they would be wearing face coverings instead. 

Seats being held/blocked contrary to Metro Valley's policy by drivers. A plastic divider between the drivers and the seats is supposed to be sufficient protection for the drivers. Their efforts at over-protection, incredibly even by maskless drivers, can be at the expense of passengers being able to maintain physical distance between each other. Even though restricting the seating violates company policy and the company is aware of the practice, accountability has been a problem. 

A security guard starring at me taking a picture (which is legal) perhaps to intimidate me while literally overlooking the maskless rider stretched out on three seats. Starring at innocent riders to intimidate them while ignoring infractions of train policies (e.g., lying over three seats) epitomizes the local police/security culture. 

Four security guards in one-half of a train car, and four in a train car on a routine basis. Such excessiveness intimidates paying customers and leaves other trains without any protection. This epitomizes the local police/security culture in which as many of three backup police cars are used for police giving a traffic ticket. Meanwhile, the police departments refuse to enforce the laws on mask-wearing in retail stores and on public transportation. Hence, "bipolar" aptly characterizes the culture, wherein minor matters deprioritize more important ones. 

A security employee prohibited by Metro Valley even to instruct riders how to wear masks correctly. 

Perhaps the overriding question is how such a badly managed mass transit company (including its subcontractors that operate the buses) could continue in such a condition of ineptitude. In 2019, I had shot lots of videos of aggressive bus drivers, bad driving (e.g., stomping on the brake pedal at the last minute), and excess security on some trains (hence with none in others). The city of Tempe’s Transportation director invited me to attend a meeting with Tempe’s transit director, representatives from Metro Valley and the director of one of the bus-operating subcontractor companies (First Trans) in the room. Reflecting the local culture, the director dismissed all of my videos because one of them shows speeding of only six miles-per-hour above the speed-limit. To my utter astonishment, the other people in the room let him get away with the illogical effort to invalidate all of the videos—even those showing aggressive bus drivers shouting at passengers (the drivers generally viewed their ridership as lower class than themselves, which would have to be pretty low). Tempe’s representative lied to the director, “The city of Tempe has no problem with the driving,” after only months earlier having told me that speeding is a real problem (to which I added hard braking). Perhaps bribes helped reinforce the pathetic inter-organizational culture there.
Also up for grabs is why the local law enforcement would decide not to enforce a law so relevant to the public’s safety/health, and let the mass transit company (and its contractors) violate the law by allowing passengers to ride without wearing masks. It seems that in Arizona, the local law enforcement agencies have too much discretion over which laws they will enforce. Anyone calling in a noise complaint there knows this to be true. 
Ironically, and reflective of the bipolar culture, residents in poor and middle-class areas have had to endure police departments' excess reliance on low-flying police helicopters, which have routinely interloped beyond their respective jurisdictions (such as a city helicopter flying over county land), flown outside of designated air corridors for fly-through traffic, and flown around more expensive neighborhoods.  
On the evening when I published this essay at a coffee shop, a police car passed by as I was about to go to the shopping center's parking lot, and a few minutes a police helicopter flew over diagonally. Both seemed to be on a routine basis and duplicative rather than on a coordinated search. Then a mile away, just after I had stopped at a grocery store, another police helicopter was making at least ten wide circles over a nice looking residential neighborhood before flying away. Then just before I reached my apartment, several miles away, I saw yet another police helicopter (with yet another in the distance). The next morning on my way to the coffee shop to edit this essay, I again saw a police helicopter. The local residents may be used to living in a police state, but we others are not and it doesn't take long for us to notice it on account of its excessiveness, just as we new-comers notice the proclivity of the local police departments to refuse to enforce certain laws. To be sure, surveillance and so many back-up police cars for traffic tickets do take up resources, including personnel. If half the effort were applied instead to enforcing masks on public transit when the E.U. and many U.S. Midwestern and Northeastern states were coronavirus hotspots, Arizona would have been in a better position going into the winter.  

[1] Christina Maxouris and Jason Hanna, “The US Has Reached 8 Million Covid-19 Cases, and the Pace of New Infections Signals a Tough Winter,” CNN.com, October 16, 2020.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Board Approves Mask Regulations Due to Community Spread of COVID-19,” Maricopa County Communications Office, June 19, 2020.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Donie O’Sullivan, “Analysis: A CNN Reporter Went to Two Different QAnon Events. Here’s What He Found,” CNN.com, October 19, 2020 (accessed same day).

Democracy Held Hostage: The Case of a Street Name

Claims of systemic racism can also be attacks on democracy itself. In fact, if overdone, such claims may themselves be racist. The situation would then be that of racists holding democracy ransom in the mistaken belief that the whole must be consistent with the interests of one of its parts to be legitimate; otherwise, the democratic principle of majority rule is itself presumed to be invalid. The case of the change of a street's name in Kansas City, Missouri, can serve as a case study.

On November 5, 2019, voters in Kansas City voted overwhelmingly (nearly 70%) in favor of restoring the name of a street to The Paseo (inspired in 1899 by Mexico City’s mayor, Paseo de la Reforma). A mere two months before the vote, the City Council had changed the street name to honor Martin Luther King, Jr, an American civil-rights leader in the turbulent 1960s. Members of the Save the Paseo movement said that their motive was historical preservation rather than racism. According to one member, the Paseo was “historical I people’s memory” rather than just on paper.[1] The members “were upset that the council [had] made the change without input from those who [lived] along the street.”[2] A city statute required such input, according to the members. The mayor admitted that the city had not engaged with “enough different community members.”[3] The key word here is different, for the campaign to change the street’s name to that of the civil-rights leader had been led by black pastors. So the city council made the change based on the advocacy of a segment of the population with a vested interest in the change, rather than reaching out to first ascertain whether the sort of unity that Martin King had preached could be achieved on the measure. In short, the council had put a part ahead of the whole.

For its part, the part, represented by Rev. Vernon Howard, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City, claimed that racism was the main motive of the opposition to retaining the King name. “This is a white-led movement that is trying to dictate to black people in the black community who our heroes should be; who we honor; where we honor them and how we honor them,” Howard said. “This is the pathology of white privilege and that is the epitome of systemic structural racism,” he added.[4] In other words, the pathology of white privilege is the epitome of systemic structural racism. Had the reverend sought to provide a religious rather than a psychological account, he might have claimed that certain social structures are evil whereas others are sacred. A Unitarian minister in my hometown had once insisted to me that certain social structures (i.e., egalitarian systems) are sacred. I countered that a human claiming that a human artifact is divine constitutes self-idolatry.[5] He dismissed my counter-claim instantly, as if he presumed that he could not be wrong whereas I must be so. Had he also insisted that societal structures that contain inequality are pathological, I would have pointed to the over-reach of his religious basis onto psychology.

I submit that in dismissing the meaningfulness of The Paseo to people generally in Kansas City, Howard’s reductionism to racism is erroneous. Essentially, he was claiming that cases in which majority rule does not dovetail with his interpretation of black interests, the democratic principle itself is culpable as part of systemic structural racism and thus is pathological in nature. In other words, the particular interests of one segment of the whole must be consistent with the majority for the democratic principle of majority rule to be devoid of the stain of racism and thus valid.

Furthermore, in so closely relating “white privilege” to systemic racism, the reverend overlooked or dismissed outright the racism in the black community. On the morning following the vote, for example, I endured fifteen minutes of racist insults from a black woman on a local bus in Phoenix, Arizona. Her voice could be heard throughout the bus as she claimed that “whites are ugly when they age, whereas black people age good.” Furthermore, whites are red-necks whose “dominance will end someday.” As she declared herself to be a racist, I noticed that the driver, also a black women, was refusing to stop the woman. Such passive aggression can be considered tacit racism. That was not the only instance in which I had observed black racism on a Phoenix bus. Once a driver had decided not to intervene as a black woman shouted insults at a Caucasian man until the woman called the driver a racist for not having kicked the man off the bus! The reputation of the local bus drivers in the phoenix metro, including Tempe, was sordid in terms of their attitudes and bad in terms of their driving, and accountability at least regarding the latter was deliberately obstructed by First Trans, a sub-contractor of Valley Metro. The subcontractor was in denial concerning the role of its pathetic hiring of people with bad attitudes to drive the buses. Such a flawed system enabled black racism (as well as reckless driving, such as in going from 40 or 50 mph to zero in a turn lane). Put another way, systemic structural racism can be due to black privilege (and facilitated or enabled by a corrupt, incompetent organization).

The reverend’s partial account can be taken as confirmation of being a part within a whole not reflecting the whole or its interests. Holding majority rule subject to such a partial perspective is not in itself in the interests of a whole. In Kansas City, the municipal government followed a flawed process (of input) in changing the street to Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. Such a flaw is not racist even if the segment that benefitted from the flaw no longer benefits once the flaw has been corrected by the voters. In fact, for an electorate to correct its delegated government is laudable from a democratic standpoint, as the People, as the popular sovereign, is the basis of a republic. For that basis to somehow be held ransom by a part thereof undermines the foundation of democracy, whether direct or representative.

---

[1] William Cummings, “Kansas City Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Mesure to Drop Martin Luther King Jr.’s Name from Street,” USA Today, November 6, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] See the last chapter of my book, God’s Gold, for an elaboration on self-idolatry.