Part VII: The Future of Public Administration as a Scholarly Field David H. Rosenbloom is Chair Professor of Public Management at City University of Hong Kong and Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at American University in Washington, DC. His research focuses on public administration and democratic constitutionalism. E-mail: rbloom313@hotmail.com Rosemary O’Leary is Distinguished Professor of Public Administration and the Howard G. and S. Louise Phanstiel Chair of Strategic Management and Leadership at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Her current research projects concern col- laboration as a management strategy. E-mail: roleary@maxwell.syr.edu Joshua Chanin is a doctoral candidate at American University. E-mail: joshuachanin@yahoo.com S314 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue David H. Rosenbloom American University and City University of Hong Kong Rosemary O’Leary Maxwell School of Syracuse University e Future of Public Administration and Law in 2020 I n 1992, the state of Washington’s Corrections Center for Women, which housed about 270 convicted women felons, implemented a random search policy to control the movement of contraband through the facility efficiently and effectively. e administrators called the searches “pat downs,” but a reviewing court later found that the searches involved not “patting,” but rather sexually abusive “rubbing,” “squeezing,” and “kneading.” On the initial (and only) day of implementation, one of the first inmates searched, a woman with a long his- tory of sexual abuse by men, suffered severe distress. She grabbed the bars so tightly during the search that her fingers had to be pried loose. She was so sickened by the ordeal that she vomited after returning to her cell block. at same day, several inmates who had similar reactions (85 percent of whom had a history of sexual abuse by men) filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, with remarkable speed, obtained an injunction halting the searches. e inmates argued that the search policy violated their constitutional rights. Eventually, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s finding that the searches were indeed unconstitutional, but the appel- late court was split between judges who thought the searches violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and those contending that they transgressed the Eighth Amend- ment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punish- ments. Regarding the Fourth Amendment violations, one judge wrote, [T]he conduct challenged here violates the fourth amendment as well as the eighth. . . . e precise fourth amendment interest that is vio- lated is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches.” . . . [W]hile privacy is the primary interest un- derlying the fourth amendment . . . that amend- ment also protects persons against infringements of bodily integrity . . . and personal dignity. . . . e [Supreme] Court refers to these interests together as “dignitary interests.” It is the privacy and dignitary interests of the female inmates that are violated here. (Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F. 2d 1532–1541 [9th Cir. 1993]) Concerning cruel and unusual punishment by these public servants, another judge compellingly wrote of the dangers of unchecked administrative behavior: A bland American civil servant can be as much of a beast as a ferocious concentration camp guard if he does not think about what his actions are doing. Single-minded inspector Javert is a monster, even though he focused only on his duty. Half the cruelties of human history have been inflicted by conscientious servants of the state. e mildest of bureaucrats can be a brute if he does not raise his eyes from his task and consider the human beings on whom he is having an impact. Here the blind spot in the warden’s mind—his inability or unwillingness to take into account the indecencies he was commanding his male guards to commit— constituted indifference, indifference to the suffering he was going to inflict on the helpless persons placed within his responsibility. Such indifference was wanton and it was obdurately maintained even when a flood of light was cast on the subject. It was unconstitutional pun- ishment. How did a civilized country and a civilized state like Washington get into this fix where it takes federal judges to tell a responsible state official to stop his approval of indecency because he is violating the Constitution? (Jordan v. Gardner, 1544–1545) is is but one of hundreds of U.S. court decisions seeking to check bureaucratic abuse. In cases dealing with clients, customers, government employees and contractors, prisoners, public mental health patients, and individuals involved in street-level regulatory encounters, public administration historically has Joshua Chanin American University