Polarization, career development professionals, and the ethical decision-making model

In the two years since the “Career Development in 2040” (Russek & Thornton, 2024) report was released identifying “political polarization” (p. 27) as a rising concern, the international changes discussed in it have continued including the politicization (Thatcher et al., 2023; Moynihan, 2025) of liberal democratic institutions once considered independent. In Canada social issues continue to be used for political support (McCurdy et al., 2025; Greenberg, 2025) and the use state power to influence independent institutions (MacKinnon, 2025) is being encouraged. These actions are called “elite political polarization” (Wilson et al. 2020 p. 225) which can fuel a cycle leading to “ideological polarization” (p. 223) of individuals. 

The local impact of this for career development professionals (CDP) is that they may have more clients who have become polarized and whose views the CDP considers worrying or even extreme. CDPs must have an ethical way to support those they disagree with and may even be discussing barriers to the client resulting from their views. The Ethical Decision-Making Model (Model) in the Code of Ethics for Career Development Professionals (CCDF, 2021) provides this with six guidelines paraphrased as “Beneficence… Fidelity… Nonmaleficence… Autonomy… Justice… Societal Interest” (CCDF 2021, p. 7-8). 

How do the guidelines help us support those we disagree with? Though it is tempting to begin with the concept of Beneficence, that we support our clients because they are our clients, should they be espousing extremism we would then need to consider how Beneficence to someone with extreme views conflicts with acting in the best Societal Interest. Starting our ethical understanding instead with Justice and the “dignity of all persons” (p. 8) resolves this potential conflict in the Code. The Model uses Universality and the concept of equal respect for persons, based in Immanuel Kant’s work, by specifically requiring the CDP to consider “Would I make the same decision for everyone, given the circumstances involved / identified /? If every CDP made this decision, given those contexts would it be a good thing? [Universality]” (p. 9) a reference to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant expands that therefore people must not be “valued merely as a means to the ends of others… but as an end in himself” (Kant, 1991, 3:435) and everyone therefore has a “dignity… by which he extracts respect” (3:435). This brings together the fair treatment concept of Justice with the Universality question. For example a CDP could not steer someone away from a career because of their politics because ‘using my influence to prevent others from accessing work when I do not like their politics’ is not universalizable. 

If we treat our clients as ends rather than as mere means we are treating them justly and fairly; but, it’s not enough for us to treat them as ends, we should support their ability to be ends in themselves and not be used as mere means by others. This should lead CDPs to support their client’s self-agency and self-determination, what the Model calls helping them towards Autonomy. Autonomy helps to break the polarization cycle by enabling them to not be a mere means for those who wish them polarized. To do so is not to indoctrinate them into something new, but rather to encourage their critical thinking about who they are and their purpose, core concerns for a CDP, and to think critically about the purposes others have for them. It is from this starting point in Justice that we support Autonomy and Societal Interest. Beneficence, Fidelity and Nonmaleficence follow naturally if we are truly promoting Justice and Autonomy. 

Noah Arney is a Certified Career Development Professional and a PhD student and Fellow with the Centre for Mindful Engagement at the University of British Columbia where his research focuses on educational philosophy, policy and curriculum in post-secondary education. He has a BA from UFV, a BEd from UBC, and a MEd from the University of Calgary. 

References 

Canadian Career Development Foundation (CCDF). (2021). Code of Ethics for Career Development Professionals. https://cdpc-cedc.ca/wp-content/uploads/code_of_ethics.pdf 

Greenberg, C. (2025, October 19). DEI is ‘illiberal, anti-merit,’ says analyst as Poilievre pushes to end government DEI programs. National Post. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/poilievre-push-end-government-dei  

Kant, I. (1991). The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and Ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press. 

MacKinnon, P. (2025, January 3). Peter MacKinnon: A stark warning about the state of Canadian academia. National Post. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-mackinnon-a-stark-warning-about-the-state-of-canadian-academia 

McCurdy, P., Clarke, K., & Cammaerts, B. (2025). From social awareness to authoritarian other: The conservative weaponization of woke in Canadian parliamentary discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 24(6) 910-933. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.24126.mcc  

Moynihan, D. P. (2025). Rescuing state capacity: Proceduralism, the new politicization, and public policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 44, 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22673 

Russek, H., & Thornton, J. (2024). Career Development in 2040: 10 Major Changes Impacting the Futures of Work and Workers in Canada. CERIC. 

Thatcher, M., Sweet, A. S., & Rangoni, B. (2023). Reversing delegation? Politicization, de-delegation, and non-majoritarian institutions. Governance, 36(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12709  

Wilson, A., Parker, V. A., Feinberg, M. (2020). Polarization in the contemporary political and media landscape. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 223-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.005