Movie buffs will remember the scene in "Casablanca" where Captain Renauld pockets his gambling wins, while closing Rick's cafe for illegal gambling: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" says the captain. It seems that many of us are also shocked, shocked to find that well connected students were given preferential treatment in admissions. Are we hypocrites?
While all the details may have been known by only few, tens of university employees must have known that politically connected applicants were given special treatment. This includes president, chancellor, provost, most if not all deans, associate deans and their administrative assistants, and many employees in the admission office. Hundreds of university employees would have had good reasons to believe that some applicants, in particular, applicants connected to influential donors, received special treatment. This includes development officers and unit heads that are involved in development (I include myself, as former department head). The reaction of faculty when the Chicago Tribune came out with its scoop seems to indicate that few were surprised to find out that politically connected applicants got preferential treatment. Our president told us that this is business as usual that happens on any campus, before becoming shocked, shocked that such things happened here; his early reaction was much more believable than his later one. So the answer is, yes, we are hypocrites. Is this bad?
Some hypocrisy is necessary for the good functioning of any society. Machiavelli, the great father of political sciences, taught us that "every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word." Even if we reject Machiavelli's precepts as too cynical, we are likely to agree, as most ethicists do, that deception is ethical in some cases. Every US President, every political leader and every top executive will, at times, justly resort to deception and will perform actions they believe are beneficial, but are better kept secret.
There are obvious risks to such a behavior. Machiavelli warns us that "in a well-ordered republic it should never be necessary to resort to extra-constitutional measures; for although they may for the time be beneficial, yet the precedent is pernicious, for if the practice is once established of disregarding the laws for good objects, they will in a little while be disregarded under that pretext for evil purposes."
This risk did not materialize in our case: Nobody accused White or Herman to have personally benefited from the scandal. It seems that the I list was handled carefully, in what people believed was the best interest of the University. However, there is another risk to such covert behavior; namely the risk of being discovered. By this I do not mean the personal risk to the person that disregarded the rules; but the damage done to society when such disregard is found out. Hypocrisy is necessary, because we have to believe in institutions even while knowing, in the back of our mind, that they are not perfect. When the contradiction between principles and reality is exposed, we suffer from a cognitive dissonance; our respect for the institution and our willingness to identify with it are diminished. This holds true in our case. The damage from accepting a hundred or so students that are less qualified is quite minimal, and, arguably, an acceptable price to pay in order ensure continued support to the University from corrupt but influential politicians. But the damage done to the University once this behavior became public is quite significant.
When hypocrisy is exposed, proper order and trust in institutions is restored by finding a scapegoat. In the old days, all the sins of the people of Israel were cast once a year on a scapegoat. The scapegoat was sent to the wilderness, carrying all the sins of the people; the community was thus purified, and life returned to normal. In modern times, a community purifies itself by casting its sins on a leader; the leader takes the blame and go; he resigns for the good of the institution, or is fired if he does not resign. This does not necessarily mean that the leader is guilty and should be punished. Being a leader means taking the blame even if you are not at fault, because taking the blame and leaving will benefit the institution.
I applaud White for his resignation. Not because White did wrong: his actions might have been wrong, but it is hard to judge given the limited available information; but because, once these actions became a public scandal their leadership was weakened; and the institution is weakened until a scapegoat is sent to the wilderness. A resignation may be a personal tragedy for a leader that did his best. But it is a necessity for the intitution.
While all the details may have been known by only few, tens of university employees must have known that politically connected applicants were given special treatment. This includes president, chancellor, provost, most if not all deans, associate deans and their administrative assistants, and many employees in the admission office. Hundreds of university employees would have had good reasons to believe that some applicants, in particular, applicants connected to influential donors, received special treatment. This includes development officers and unit heads that are involved in development (I include myself, as former department head). The reaction of faculty when the Chicago Tribune came out with its scoop seems to indicate that few were surprised to find out that politically connected applicants got preferential treatment. Our president told us that this is business as usual that happens on any campus, before becoming shocked, shocked that such things happened here; his early reaction was much more believable than his later one. So the answer is, yes, we are hypocrites. Is this bad?
Some hypocrisy is necessary for the good functioning of any society. Machiavelli, the great father of political sciences, taught us that "every one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word." Even if we reject Machiavelli's precepts as too cynical, we are likely to agree, as most ethicists do, that deception is ethical in some cases. Every US President, every political leader and every top executive will, at times, justly resort to deception and will perform actions they believe are beneficial, but are better kept secret.
There are obvious risks to such a behavior. Machiavelli warns us that "in a well-ordered republic it should never be necessary to resort to extra-constitutional measures; for although they may for the time be beneficial, yet the precedent is pernicious, for if the practice is once established of disregarding the laws for good objects, they will in a little while be disregarded under that pretext for evil purposes."
This risk did not materialize in our case: Nobody accused White or Herman to have personally benefited from the scandal. It seems that the I list was handled carefully, in what people believed was the best interest of the University. However, there is another risk to such covert behavior; namely the risk of being discovered. By this I do not mean the personal risk to the person that disregarded the rules; but the damage done to society when such disregard is found out. Hypocrisy is necessary, because we have to believe in institutions even while knowing, in the back of our mind, that they are not perfect. When the contradiction between principles and reality is exposed, we suffer from a cognitive dissonance; our respect for the institution and our willingness to identify with it are diminished. This holds true in our case. The damage from accepting a hundred or so students that are less qualified is quite minimal, and, arguably, an acceptable price to pay in order ensure continued support to the University from corrupt but influential politicians. But the damage done to the University once this behavior became public is quite significant.
When hypocrisy is exposed, proper order and trust in institutions is restored by finding a scapegoat. In the old days, all the sins of the people of Israel were cast once a year on a scapegoat. The scapegoat was sent to the wilderness, carrying all the sins of the people; the community was thus purified, and life returned to normal. In modern times, a community purifies itself by casting its sins on a leader; the leader takes the blame and go; he resigns for the good of the institution, or is fired if he does not resign. This does not necessarily mean that the leader is guilty and should be punished. Being a leader means taking the blame even if you are not at fault, because taking the blame and leaving will benefit the institution.
I applaud White for his resignation. Not because White did wrong: his actions might have been wrong, but it is hard to judge given the limited available information; but because, once these actions became a public scandal their leadership was weakened; and the institution is weakened until a scapegoat is sent to the wilderness. A resignation may be a personal tragedy for a leader that did his best. But it is a necessity for the intitution.
1 comments:
I was not only shocked - I was also surprised.
Post a Comment