Rob Hahn recently ignited an important conversation about the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) decision to significantly modify Standard of Practice 10-5, a rule initially established to prevent harassment based on protected characteristics. While NAR’s move to restrict 10-5’s scope solely to REALTORS’ professional activities has been welcomed as a step toward safeguarding free speech, Hahn highlights another critical dimension needing attention: restitution for those previously penalized under its broader interpretation.
According to Hahn, now that NAR acknowledges the overreach of the initial rule, it owes apologies and possibly reparations to REALTORS previously sanctioned under it. As Hahn emphasizes, individuals like Brandon Huber, Wilson Fauber, Chad DeVries, and Jamie Haynes faced serious professional and personal repercussions for actions now clearly outside the revised scope of harassment. These repercussions included damaged reputations, career setbacks, and financial losses from legal defenses. Hahn calls for immediate revocation of any sanctions, restoration of membership, and financial reparations to make these individuals whole.
Hahn’s point raises broader questions relevant beyond real estate: How should professional bodies rectify past injustices when they recognize a rule was wrongly applied? History offers guidance. For example, when the American Bar Association (ABA) revised its ethical standards in response to changing views on lawyer advertising and free speech, it effectively nullified earlier disciplinary actions against attorneys previously punished under the outdated rules. Similarly, medical professionals once disciplined for practices later recognized as acceptable or even beneficial, like certain alternative treatments, often sought and received reversals of prior sanctions.
The conversation Hahn sparks compels us to consider the ethical responsibility organizations have to right historical wrongs once policies evolve. Should NAR follow suit, issuing formal apologies and monetary restitution to affected REALTORS? Moreover, should those who weaponized the rule inappropriately face accountability?
Hahn strongly argues they should. He asserts those who used the original rule as a political weapon should themselves face ethical scrutiny under the revised 10-5, suggesting this accountability is vital to restore trust and unity within the REALTOR community.
As this discussion unfolds, it prompts critical reflection across all professional industries: When policies change and previous “wrongdoings” are now exonerated, how far must an organization go to make amends?
Rob Hahn’s challenge to NAR is clear: “Peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” Whether NAR responds by embracing this deeper reconciliation remains to be seen—but the conversation around accountability, restitution, and ethical responsibility is one all industries can benefit from exploring openly.