I frame it in terms of acculturation vs. assimilation. You have to decide what your corp. policy is and make it explicit, something that I think did not happen here.
The conversation is something like 'if you join us, you do your thing BUT our way" or "if you join us, you do your thing YOUR way". Then folks coming in understand the ground rules.
I would say most corps will prefer option 1 but some (most?) folks coming in for roles like "Ethics" expect option 2 - which is NOT unreasonable. I don't know that this conversation happened (explicitly enough) here.
All of that aside, like I said in the parent comment, it is critical to consider that no one side gets to frame the position alone in situations like this where the job is literally, to come in and shake up status quo - everyone with a seat at the table has a say that should have equal-ish weight.
Also, note, corp in this specific case thought that that they are enough of a "tribe" to bring them inside the fence with a 'unique' label that makes that 'tribe' explicit. Witness what is going on here.
Labelling them as "spoiled kids" is "the missing part of the point" I was alluding to.
These folks have a different way of doing things. In bringing them in, you don't get to force them to align to your vision of how to do things (not what to do which you get to define as the employer). This is because you brought them in specifically and explicitly because they were different and bringing something different to the table that you did not have before.
If it was a set of skills, capabilities - whatever - that you could have grown in-house, you would have done so.
If you think that a 'tribe' can contribute value, you have to be able to deal with the pieces of their being 'different' from you that rub you the wrong way without labelling them if it is a key component of their identity.
More explicitly, don't blame ethicists for reacting in ways you don't expect to ethical issues.