Autonomy, Ethics Scandals, and the Madness of Crowds
Image
When faced with ethical misconduct scandals, are churches, or any other organizations, obligated to involve outside investigators? Should the volume and fervor of public outcry guide an organization’s response to ethics scandals?
I hope to be somewhat persuasive in answering these questions, but mostly I want to be clear. With that in mind, I’ve structured my thoughts here debate style.
Thesis
In response to purely ethical scandals, organizations should not view themselves as obligated to involve any third parties; further, they should be wary of attaching too much significance to public outcry.
Definitions
- Purely ethical scandals: situations where it is known to the public that individuals have accused others of wrongdoing, but the accusations do not include any allegations of illegal conduct.
- Obligated: required, mandatory, as opposed to optional (optional meaning the organization may consider it on a case by case basis, evaluating the merits).
- Third parties: individuals or groups other than the organization (including its constituents) and alleged victims. The general public, the press, advocacy groups, and “the Internet” are just about always third parties (or maybe umpteen-million-and-twenty-third parties!).
- Constituents: persons who are part of the organization, whether members, volunteers, shareholders, staff, or executives.
These definitions aren’t offered as authoritative; they are here as explanation of what I mean by the terms I’m using. If it helps avoid distraction, consider them stipulative.
Summary of Arguments
- Argument from the preservation of excellence (you can’t go the extra mile if all the miles are required).
- Argument from the proximity of understanding (contrary to popular belief, those closest to a problem usually understand it best).
- Argument from the inherent limits of authority and responsibility (everything isn’t everybody’s business).
- Argument from disenfranchising of the truly vested (giving votes to those who aren’t entitled devalues the votes of those who are).
- Argument from the risk of feeding a fire (efforts to appease an angry crowd can lead to more demands and more loss of control).
- Argument from unhelpful empowerment (yielding to a third party’s demands can create expectations that increase the third party’s power in the future).
- Argument from the unwisdom of crowds (a stampede must be respected, but not as a source of insight).
Notes on the Arguments
Preservation of excellence: If all best practices are deemed obligatory, what can a group do to be generous toward alleged victims and interested third parties? How does one exceed expectations? Given that tendency, it’s best for an organization to maintain its sovereignty over its own affairs and frame any decision to involve outsiders in that light: “Dealing with ethics violations by our people is our responsibility; we choose to invite this team to investigate to assist and advise us” or “… because it’s our desire to go the extra mile in helping people understand the importance we attach to this matter.”
Argument from proximity: It’s popular in our culture to think that cubicles full of experts hundreds of miles away can best determine what ought to be done locally. History doesn’t bear this out. Other things being equal, those closest to the problem best understand its extent, causes, and remedies. (It’s why the founding fathers supported federalism, why Edmond Burke admired it. Russel Kirk emphasizes local control in the eighth of his ten conservative principles.)
Argument from inherent limits: This argument alone could make the case. It should be beyond dispute that not everything is everybody’s business. We have the acronym MYOB for a reason. That raises the question, how is it decided what matters are who’s business? Since power, in human hands, tends to try to grow itself, both individuals and organizations have to put some energy into protecting their boundaries (a.k.a., autonomy). A matter does not become somebody’s business just because they’re interested and have strong opinions about it. It’s sometimes OK — even wise — to tell the opinionated outsider (preferably with a calm, resolute tone and a smile) to take the proverbial long walk off the short peer.
How do we determine who gets a vote, so to speak, and who doesn’t? A rule of thumb might be this: the less personally invested an individual or group is in an organization, the less entitled that person or group is to influence its affairs. (Again, we’re talking about purely ethical issues here, not matters of law.)
Argument from disenfranchisement: Every organization has constituents who are personally and substantially involved in the organization’s activities. It’s patently unfair for an organization to give an angry Internet or cadre of complaining celebrities the same (or greater) power over its internal discipline than it gives to its own membership or employees. To draw an example from literal voting, does anyone think it would be just to extend the vote to citizens of Mexico and Canada in the next U.S. election? If an organization voluntarily chooses to employ outsiders to assist and advise, the rightful influence of its own constituency is not violated.
Argument from the risk of fire: Sometimes making concessions leads to calm and getting back to business. Sometimes it only adds fuel to a fired-up mob that doesn’t really want anything but destruction. We’ve all seen it happen. Social media has given fired up and uninformed masses more power than ever in matters that are none of their business. Now, more than ever, people who love truth must learn to shutter out the Twitter tempests and Facebook frenzies so that cooler heads can prevail. (Heather Wilhelm has some poignant thoughts on this topic today. Read Only the Strident Survive.)
Argument from empowerment: Giving in to the demands of third parties in these situations can unintentionally legitimize claims of rights where no rights exist. The result is that down the road, the empowered entities believe they are now entitled to expand their say on matters that weren’t their responsbility to being with. It’s like the kid who lets her brother tell her what to do. Once that ground is given up, it can be disproportionately hard to get it back. (Starbucks’ response to events in Philadelphia is insightful. They don’t seem to even know yet how much they have surrendered. The company was already well beyond the extra mile in promoting and protecting diversity.)
Argument from the unwisdom of crowds: This one shouldn’t be a hard sell. A raging stampede has too much destructive power to ignore, but it has nothing to contribute to understanding the best path to follow. Stampedes of humans may involve less dust, trampling, and fleeing cowboys, but they’re at least as loud, emotional, and stupid. In fact, it takes intelligence to be really, truly, foolish. Worked up crowds of humans are unsurpassed in their ability to employ intelligence selectively in pursuit of destructive and self-defeating goals.
Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is old book, but you can still get it on Amazon. It may not have all its facts straight, but the most remarkable thing about the book is that none of its accounts of popular bad judgment are at all hard to believe.
Conclusion
These are seven reasons that no organization should view alleged ethics violations as automatically requiring some kind of third party intervention. They’re also reasons for attaching little weight to public opinion as a factor in the pursuit of truth.
I haven’t argued here that involving a third party to investigate and/or make recommendations is necessarily a bad idea. It’s an option that has much to commend it as an option. Sometimes it’s helpful; sometimes it isn’t.
I also haven’t argued that public opinion should be ignored. Depending on the nature of the organization, it may be dependent on public good will for entirely practical reasons. In these cases, reassuring the public or rebuilding its trust is important for the sake of outcomes — not at all because the public has insight into what the organization ought to do or has a right to influence it. (Note: in the case of government entities, the public does have a right, though I remain skeptical of its insight.)
The secondary thesis that churches have even more reason to safeguard their autonomy is another topic, but all the above arguments apply, with the addition of a biblical mandate to recognize only Christ as their Head.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 33 views
Still waiting to see an example of any organization that doesn’t follow “my plan.”
Meanwhile… a little evidence (for anyone to whom this is not already obvious) that third parties can be wagon circlers, too: Union covering for teacher who had sex w/student
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Sorry, but thankfully, most organizations do NOT follow your advice. I guarantee you that if you showed your advice to most Title IX coordinators or sexual harassment staff in companies, they would immediately throw it in the circular file where it belongs. What you are not getting is that if a policy contains the presumption that certain types of testimony are inherently less valuable than others, or that certain actions are not required, you’ve prejudiced the investigation against certain complainants and against certain types of intervention. Real Title IX documents state clearly that outside information is welcome and encouraged. Yes, I’ve read one—MSU’s.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Title IX applies only to educational institutions that receive Federal financial assistance. This is because Title IX, along with Clery Act and Violence Against Women Act has broad non-discrimination requirements, including the concept of an educational environment that is not hostile to women.
A good intro at Dept. of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix
Title IX does not require or specifically encourage that outside investigations be conducted for all misconduct allegations. Most universities conduct internal investigations first. Cleary Act (and I think parts of VAWA) includes mandatory reporting requirements of statistics, etc. , but again, doesn’t encourage or require outside teams to investigate.
You can read more about it at DOJ https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix#D.%C2%A0%20Sexual%20Harassment
and Dept of Education:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf
The closest thing to that is language in the Federal DOE guidance that encourages use of a trained investigator and the requirement that there be no conflict of interest.
” In every investigation conducted under the school’s grievance procedures, the burden is on the school—not on the parties—to gather sufficient evidence to reach a fair, impartial determination as to whether sexual misconduct has occurred and, if so, whether a hostile environment has been created that must be redressed. A person free of actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases for or against any party must lead the investigation on behalf of the school. Schools should ensure that institutional interests do not interfere with the impartiality of the investigation. An equitable investigation of a Title IX complaint requires a trained investigator to analyze and document the available evidence to support reliable decisions, objectively evaluate the credibility of parties and witnesses, synthesize all available evidence—including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence—and take into account the unique and complex circumstances of each case.”
It is not assumed that compliance to this requires an outside investigator. I’ve read a fair number of university police department policy manuals, and Title IX investigations are quite commonly conducted by Univ. departments of public safety.
It is true that some colleges use outside teams to investigate for Title IX (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/09/some-colleges-opt-outsou…), but even these apparently usually reserve that for sexual assault cases, not your general category of sexual misconduct or harassment.
Campus Threat Assessment Teams are a common approach (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/12175296/campus-threat-assessm…)
None of this alters in the least what I’ve been saying. Institutions, even universities that accept public funding, make their own evaluations of accusations to decide if or when to bring in outside investigators.
I have yet to a see a policy of mandatory outside investigators in every sexual misconduct case as standard operating procedure, and remain skeptical that more than a handful of these could possibly exist. This approach would be impractical and unwise for reasons I’ve already mentioned, and more.
(There might be some states that impose additional requirements on their universities. But public institutions are not in the same category at all as private businesses, nonprofits, and churches.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The closest thing to that is language in the Federal DOE guidance that encourages use of a trained investigator and the requirement that there be no conflict of interest.
Aaron, that’s the whole point that Bert and I are making. A church that handles matters like sexual abuse “in house” have an inherent conflict of interest. That’s why people like Rachel Denhollander are pushing for independent investigations and reviews of Sovereign Grace Churches and Michigan State University.
Well, you might say, the investigation is being managed by someone in the church with no ties to the person in question. But they do have a conflict simply because they are investigating their own church.
Furthermore, neither of us are arguing that all investigations must be handled by third parties - simply that there are times when it’s warranted and even wise. Again, if the church is going to be the pillar and ground of Truth, then we ought to have nothing to fear from investigations or criticisms, because we don’t hide the truth and because we want to be as good as we can be when it comes to protecting the innocent and prosecuting the guilty.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
From Wikipedia:
A widely used definition is: “A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.” Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officer. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests.
Or Merriam-Webster:
legal Definition of conflict of interest
1 : a conflict between the private interests and the official or professional responsibilities of a person in a position of trust
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay] Furthermore, neither of us are arguing that all investigations must be handled by third parties - simply that there are times when it’s warranted and even wise.That seems to be what Aaron was saying as well. He wrote “I haven’t argued here that involving a third party to investigate and/or make recommendations is necessarily a bad idea. It’s an option that has much to commend it as an option. Sometimes it’s helpful; sometimes it isn’t.’ It seemed to me he was speaking out against those who would claim that a third party investigation is needed in ALL cases of ethical misconduct scandal in a church. He used the word “obligated” in his thesis and defined it as “required, mandatory, as opposed to optional (optional meaning the organization may consider it on a case by case basis, evaluating the merits).”
But if Bert and I aren’t saying that, then who is? Why introduce that into this discussion at all? Even Rachael Denhollander and many of those victims from MSU don’t say this.
There are big differences between:
Third party investigations should happen in particular instances (SGC, WCC, BJU, MSU, etc).
And
We must always have a third party review of every allegation.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
There are big differences between:
Third party investigations should happen in particular instances (SGC, WCC, BJU, MSU, etc).
And
We must always have a third party review of every allegation.
Yes, there are. Initially — and for quite some time thereafter — the position Bert was taking was that churches (and everyone else) should always bring in third party investigators.
He denied the validity of the category “internal affairs” here
In response, I explained here that churches, and indeed most other organizations, have autonomy over ethical issues that are not matters of law. They set their own ethics standards, investigate violations themselves, and enact remedies/discipline themselves.
I added that organizations may seek assistance from outside investigators when they think it maybe helpful, but they are not obligated and the public doesn’t have authority to demand this, and organizations do not have to obey public demands. An excerpt from that comment:
Now it would be wise for the church leadership to provide carefully constructed communications to the general public, as they seem to be inclined to do at this point. But if it’s all ethical (vs. legal) they have obligations to those harmed. They are are in no way answerable to the public in general.
They could even voluntarily bring in a third party investigator, if they believe there is value in that, but they should make it clear that this is something they are volunteering to do.
Bert declared this to be “a perverse doctrine” and has proceeded to hack away at straw men ever since.
The simple fact is that organizations of any kind that care about ethics, truth, and their mission, must balance their desire to maintain their own ethical standards and their desire to stay in control of their pursuit of their own mission with the demands of the public and the media.
That means, as far as outside investigations go, sometimes conditions would call for that but it’s still the decision of the organization whether to do it or not. Bert seems to think the only sane thing to do is insist on outside investigation in every single ethics case… if he has changed his mind on that, then we really don’t disagree, other than that I have more general regard for the value of autonomy and more general skepticism toward the alleged wisdom of shouting mobs.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I added that organizations may seek assistance from outside investigators when they think it maybe helpful, but they are not obligated and the public doesn’t have authority to demand this, and organizations do not have to obey public demands.
Aaron, I think that when an organization like SGC or BJU has flubbed the handling of abuse cases, it is incumbent on the ‘public’ (alumni and supporters) to demand changes so that it doesn’t happen again. I get what you are saying because you’re probably thinking of the public as in non-believers and enemies of those institutions. But as Christians and as alumni, we ought to hold these places to the standard of “it must never happen again here” as stakeholders (however loosely) in that organization’s purpose and mission. Isn’t this what the NIU debates were about?
I have to admit that I find your position a little contradictory, as the purpose of SI is to:
Our aim is to provide a place where Christians can interact thoughtfully and respectfully on a wide range of topics, including our articles and the news items and blog samples we post daily.
And yet now you say things like:
The simple fact is that organizations of any kind that care about ethics, truth, and their mission, must balance their desire to maintain their own ethical standards and their desire to stay in control of their pursuit of their own mission with the demands of the public and the media.
If the purpose of SI is to foster a community of Fundamentalists that doesn’t talk about issues like Paige Patterson’s tolerance of physical abuse or his objectification of college co-eds, then why run and maintain a discussion board at all? I say this as your friend and former co-worker, not as an enemy or someone who wants to burn the whole thing down. We just have to have the dross burned off, and we ought to welcome that dross being removed. It’s better that we do it to ourselves than God does it to us or unbelievers do it to us as well. We ought to welcome radical transparency and owning our mistakes / errors.
I get not bowing to the ignorant mobs demanding blood from Christians that have messed up. I’m not convinced that the people here fall into that category, or that other Christians should just ignore these things and look away. Doing that fosters all the wrong things that allow abuse to spread and continue.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Aaron, once again, and I’ve said it before, I’ve not argued what you’re claiming.
Now read carefully this time. My objection to your writing is that it does indeed prejudice those who take your position against the very notion of outsiders coming in. You state, without evidence (and against evidence I’ve presented) that insiders know better that’s going on than outsiders. You state, without evidence and against evidence I’ve presented, that those objecting from outside suffer from “madness of crowds” and that it is “shouting mobs.” You start the discussion by saying something is “not required”, and understood in context of how we work in fundamentalism, that means “it won’t get done.”
That’s why I object to what you say. It’s not the same thing I’m saying at all, because you are loading the discussion with perjoratives that any organization is going to act on.
Now let’s phrase it in a better way, and pay close attention this time.
1. Although outsiders by definition do not have an insider’s view, they often see things that insiders overlook. Insiders overlook things because they have gotten used to them, and quite frankly because overlooking certain things is often an implicit condition of membership in the group.
2. Because outsiders see things that insiders overlook, and because they do not have a reason to shade the truth to retain membership in the group, their participation in dealing with ethical or other issues is generally a valuable tool. This is why sensible organizations have routine audits by outsiders in mission critical areas so they can find their blind spots before those blind spots erupt into major issues. (e.g. ISO, financial audits, Title IX audits, etc..)
3. Hence any organization that speaks perjoratively of the influence of outsiders is being foolish.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Someone has a problem with reading comprehension.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Just sayin’. That note without evidence is a pot-shot.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I, and about 40 other managers from my agency, had to attend a two-day seminar on leadership this past week. One major problem I saw, as we worked in groups to tackle issues within our agency, is that people are reluctant (for some reason) to go beyond abstractions. For example, here is a literal recitation of how a group conversation went (and, bear in mind we’re all senior leaders, with years and years of management experience):
- FACILITATOR: The employee survey says we’ve got a problem with information sharing, so we have to find a way to fix it.
- PEOPLE: Agreed!
- FACILITATOR: How can we fix it? Let’s brainstorm … [ten minutes of madness ensues, during which time about 30 different problems are brought up]
- ME: This is too abstract. I don’t know what we’re talking about
- FACILITATOR: What do you mean?
- ME: I mean, what specific information isn’t being shared? We can’t figure out a solution until we figure this out. And, I was in the two-day focus group of people from all over the agency, from all levels, that went over this survey. Everybody agreed information sharing was a problem, but nobody could actually explain what that meant. I’m not even convinced it’s a real problem, at this point
- FACILITATOR [looking skeptical]: Well, let’s just continue with what we have …
It shouldn’t surprise you to know we accomplished nothing on this alleged problem. Another example:
- FACILITATOR: We’re here because the Chief Deputy wants us to figure out how to take better ownership of our programs.
- ME: What does that mean? Are we not taking ownership? How are we failing? Is this an organization-wide failure, or are specific divisions struggling? I don’t know what this means; it’s too abstract, but it sounds good on a PowerPoint, to be sure!
I could go on, but you get the point. I’ve seen this over and over, throughout the years, in a variety of contexts (both ecclesiastical and secular). That’s the case with this discussion, here. I see well-meaning, impassioned arguments about how to handle serious situations inside local churches; situations where law enforcement may have to be notified. That’s lovely, but we’re stuck spinning our wheels on theoretical problems.
- I get what Aaron is saying, and I agree with it.
- I’m not quite sure what Bert wants local churches to do
- I’m not sure if there really is a substantial disagreement between the two viewpoints, at this point
Unless and until we work through a case study, we’ll get nowhere in advancing this discussion. I’ve come to the point, in a variety of contexts, where I think it’s a waste to spend a significant amount of time dealing in theoretical abstractions. Think of a plan of action and response in general terms - that’s fine and necessary. But, put it down on paper and get down to brass tacks as soon as possible. Work through realistic scenarios and test whether your theoretical plan is workable or prudent.
Bert, I must be honest, I have no idea what you are saying local churches should do, and under what circumstances they ought to do it. Please tell me, as specifically as you can, what your idea looks like for an independent Baptist church with a membership of 35.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Just ignore the people that are here to stir the pot. This is a worthwhile conversation, and like others, I do think that Aaron, Bert, Tyler and I are all a lot closer than it may seem - we’re just approaching it from different angles.
Tyler, how would you manage a situation in your hypothetical church like the ones Bert or I suggest? Or, for that matter, if Larry Nassar had been a pastor in a church instead of a medical doctor, or something like the ABWE fiasco? Would you want an outside review by GRACE or someone like that? I think I’ve been pretty vocal that for something like ABWE, an outside review is almost mandatory due to the scope of the issues there. Aaron, same question for you.
For a hypothetical church of 35, I think I’d ask elders/pastors from a church of like faith and practice to come in and review the situation, our policies, and anything else that they felt the need to look into. I think they should seek the input of fellow believers that are outside of the church to review their issues and situation.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay:
Nassar was a medical professional, and I can’t conceive of a parallel situation where a pastor would be giving medical examinations to young women in a church. But, let’s say a pastor is sexually assaulting young girls. Fine.
You wrote:
For a hypothetical church of 35, I think I’d ask elders/pastors from a church of like faith and practice to come in and review the situation, our policies, and anything else that they felt the need to look into. I think they should seek the input of fellow believers that are outside of the church to review their issues and situation.
A few questions:
- Are you speaking from the perspective of the situation already having been resolved, or is this hypothetical man still the pastor?
- Are you, in effect, recommending a council of elders from the local Baptist association or pastor’s fellowship get together with the Deacons of this congregation to do an after action report?
- Who else from outside the church would you ask to come in? Are you referring to specialists (in something, not sure what), or just nice Christians? What are their credentials or expertise? What do you expect to get from this outside consultation? That is, what is the scope of their consultation and what do you want at the end of it?
- What kind of documentation are you looking for, about these consultations (either the local association or an outside group)? Would you make these consultations public? If so, how? If you would provide written reports on these consultations in a public manner, why?
- If you want written reports from these consultations, how would you mitigate charges of cover-up from victims in the community? After all, it was just other pastors who got together with you to talk about your procedures; they’re on “your side,” right?
- If you’re actually recommending an outside organization to do these consultations, how do you expect a congregation of 35 will pay for these services, and do think a church this small needs this kind of formal consultation?
- Do you actually expect a church with a membership of 35 to survive in a community if the pastor sexually abuses young girls? The church may die very very quickly, which would make the steps you outlined superfluous.
I’m ignoring the parachurch organizations, right now. They aren’t churches.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Featured Resource
Discussion