October 2009 Archive

On the New York Times bestseller list is the book Postsecret: Confessions on life, death and God by Frank Warren.  This is his 5^th Postsecret book. They are part of the Postsecret Project, an online community art project where people mail in their secrets anonymously on one-side postcards. Someone wrote on one of the postcards

“I lied about the fact that I am depressed and suicidal because I was afraid they would not renew my pilot license.”

More than 10,000 cards have been collected so far and Postsecret.com has more than 500,000 fans on Facebook. Frank Warren believes that revealing a personal secret is therapeutic and can have a life-changing effect.

We all have secrets, our own and those that were entrusted to us. Individuals, corporations and government have secrets.

There are however circumstances when a secret has to be revealed.  Let me list two:

• When the secret has the potential of causing physical or financial harm to yourself or to others. 
• When keeping the secret violate your legal obligations.

The U.S. Government has a special office (The U.S. office of Special Counsel) that “serves as a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment.” One can file a report online!

Whistleblowers do perform important service to the community by exposing fraud and other illegalities. However in many cases their professional careers are permanently damaged. Whistleblowers Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom, Colleen Rowley of the FBI, and Sherron Watkins of Enron were named “Persons of the Year” by Time Magazine in 2002. Yet they were never again hired by neither the government nor by corporations. Cynthia Cooper created her own consulting firm and wrote a book, Colleen Rowley retired and Sherron Watkins write a blog called “The Insufferable Truth Blog.” She wrote a book as well. Could it be that people feel that someone that has been a whistleblower in the past is not to be trusted in the future?

Keeping a secret should not be difficult because the information we are given in confidence do not belong to us. It belongs to the person that trusted us with the secret. Disposing of something that is not ours is, in my view similar to stealing.

Respecting confidentially is an essential value in the profession or function of an ethics officer. Violating confidence even if it is only once can destroy the ethics officer’s reputation and ability to function effectively.

Furthermore, revealing a secret is a violation of trust and trust is at the core of all human relationships.

Unfortunately and sadly there are few people that can really be trusted with a secret. Some are careless and forgetful; others hope to gain recognition and acceptance by revealing a secret and some will do it just for personal financial gain.

King Solomon once said: “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.”

The story last week of the “balloon boy” captivated the country. The media coverage of the story was widespread. We all know that whole episode was a hoax, a publicity stunt orchestrated by the father of the boy and with the active participation of the whole family.

Here are some reflections on the incident.

It was moving to see that so many shared the anxiety for one little boy we believed was trapped in the sky. It is reassuring to see instinctive reactions of empathy manifest itself spontaneously. It indicates that people care.  No efforts to rescue him were spared. Yet, in the U.S. thousands of children die of hunger, neglect and abuse everyday but we don’t witness the same overwhelming sympathy and action.

Why?

There are many possible explanations.

One of them is that it is easier to relate to the plight of one individual, particularly if it is a child, than to relate to the despair of a large number of people.

A second explanation could be that we can become discouraged of taking any action when the demand is so overwhelming.

One way to combat such lassitude is to think of people in need in terms of individuals, not in terms of numbers. If an action we undertake helps just one person, then it is worth it. We should remember the quote attributed to the Talmud that says: “He who saves one life saves the world entire.” (This quote was mentioned in the last scene of Spielberg’s Oscar winning movie “Schindler’s List.” In that scene, Oscar Schindler, who is distraught and weeping for not having saved more lives is offered a ring by the people he saved with the quoted inscribe inside the ring.)

As to the hoax there is one question that comes to my mind:

Was Mr. Heene’s wife (the only other adult in this story) a willing participant or was she coerced?  Reports indicate that Mr. Heene has been investigated, in the past for spousal abuse. If she was coerced, to what decree was she truly responsible for her actions?

We may find ourselves in our professional and private life in a situation where we are strongly influenced, if not coerced, to do something we know is not right. We need to have the moral courage and strength to overcome our fears and simply say “no.” 

As General Douglas McArthur once said:

“The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave - it’s the aged-old struggle - the roar of the crowd on one side and the voice of conscience on the other.”

The news of his arrest in Switzerland last week was surprise and a shock to some. The media coverage in Switzerland and France was extensive. Let me summarize the facts.

Roman Polanski, a well known, some say brilliant, movie director was a fugitive. He fled from the United States more than 30 years ago when it became clear to him that he would have to serve time for the crime he committed in raping a 13-year old girl. He claims that the judge was going to ignore a plea bargain deal he had made with the prosecution and sentence Mr. Polanski to a long jail time. Mr. Polanski admitted at the time of having had sex with an underage girl.

The governments of France and of Poland (he is a citizen of both) came to his defense, as well as a large number of directors, actors and actresses.

Those reactions of support and requests that he be set free pose some serious ethical questions. Let me list just a few:

1. Does the fact that the defendant is a well-known artist in anyway diminish the severity of his actions?  In my view, if it does, it would violate the concept of equal justice.

2. Does the fact that the alleged crime happened more than 30 years ago, exonerate the defendant from having to face justice and to pay for his crime? The law does provide status of limitation for crime that may have happened a long time ago, because both the prosecution and the defense can no longer rely on people’s memory after a number of years. However, in this case, Mr. Polanski admitted having had sex with a minor, which in California is considered “statutory rape.”  Furthermore, if the document I read of the testimony of the victim is authentic, then Mr. Polanski’s action would constitute rape even if the victim has been an adult.

3. Does the fact that the victim has forgiven her aggressor reduces his culpability?

From a legal point of view, it is irrelevant because rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the State. However from a moral point of view, it is significant. The forgiveness of the victim might influence a jury in a trial and a judge in the sentencing.

4. Are plea bargains ethical? According the Justice Department, 90% of criminal cases end up in a plea bargain where the defendant admits to a lesser crime in exchange for a lesser sentence. It is, in my view an agreement of convenience. It guarantees a minimum sentence that is acceptable to the prosecution and relieves the courts from having to try in an insurmountable numbers of crimes. It also offers the defendant the possibility of a lesser sentence.  But is it justice?

I believe Mr. Polanski should take the responsibility for his actions, face the court and serve whatever sentence is imposed.

As Martin Luther King once said:

“Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.”

I believe this quote does apply to the Roman Polanski because by becoming a fugitive he denied  justice to have its course.