It will be interesting to see
the reactions to a 60 Minutes report alleging that A-Rod leaked
information about drug-taking by the
Brewers’ Ryan Braun and the Yankees’ Francisco Cervelli. A-Rod has denied the allegation but,
assuming that it’s true, how are people likely to react? And how should they
react?
Well, it used to be considered
wrong to “squeal” on a member of one’s group. Think of the Blue Wall of Silence
among the police, the omerta of the Mafia, and every teenager’s knowledge that
it is wrong to be a “snitch.” Undoubtedly, people in many other sectors
would agree, including baseball players. John Harper of the Daily News
reports that “the view from inside the clubhouse is that doing PEDs doesn’t compare
to ratting out other players, particularly a teammate.”
This “Honor Code” is not
new. It has been passed down for generations. I can see
loose-lipped cavemen being clubbed to death for inappropriate grunting and
pointing. In fact, a forthcoming study by a noted neuroscientist at
Rockefeller University suggests that “honor among thieves” -- which would
prevent ratting out one another – is actually hard-wired into our brains.
Hard-wired or not, what does
this Code accomplish? At one level, it supports solidarity and openness
among people in the group, and ostensibly this is beneficial. But
it also underlies a combative “us against them” mentality that is not so
beneficial. Moreover, it allows colleagues to get away with punishable,
if not criminal behavior and avoid public exposure. Thus even if it is a
“benefit” to a select group, it could be positively harmful to a large number
of people outside the group. From a utilitarian perspective at least, one might
conclude that the Code should not exist.
Moreover and perversely, the
Code makes the “whistle blower” into the bad guy, while the perpetrator of
indisputably bad acts becomes the aggrieved, good guy. For
instance, let’s take an iconic example. Without touching at all on the religious
aspects and significance of the biblical story of Adam and Eve or on the
perceived misdeeds, what if Adam had sought out a meeting and “ratted out”
Eve? Would that fact alone have changed the historical perception of Eve,
and for that matter, Adam?
So, looking at the overall
picture anew today, is this code of silence something people should publicly
embrace or argue against? In fact, have there been any public statements
against it? Maybe, if it is hard-wired, we should accept it.
There still remain many
questions, however. Would one want to see the Code adopted by a brother
or sister, one’s children, friends? Is there a gender difference on how
the Code is perceived? Would a mother give the same advice to her
children as the father would? Would parents give the same advice to sons
and daughters? Does income matter? What about ethnic origin?
Is this something about which many of us remain conflicted? Or, if
there is conflict, is it because some of us are for it and some against?
And how does A-Rod fit into all
of this?
· Some criticize his
self-interested motive. But isn’t self-interest a motive for many, if not
most leakers? Isn’t there almost always personal aggrandizement for
the leaker and/or the reporter, and consequent better ratings or sales for a
media outlet? Are those morally better motives than whatever A-Rod’s
motive may have been?
· What if A-Rod leak’s leak
informed the MLB for the first time that these two players used PEDs?
This type of disclosure has been an accepted reason to reduce prison sentences
and players’ suspensions. Perhaps telling the public something that the
MLB already knew, and thereby causing personal reputational harm is less
worthy. But don’t most people applaud whistle blowers who tell the public what
the organization already knew, and that often causes serious harm to the people
involved and their families?
· The New York Times and some NGOs have
applauded transparency. Should
they issue statements in support of A-Rod?
· Would or should people be more
upset with A-Rod’s revelations about his Yankee teammate than about a member of
the Brewers? Is the Code more tribal than universal?
How many people came to a quick
and easy decision on how to view A-Rod’s alleged leak? If we change
the name of the leaker to the Washington Post, would people react
differently or similarly?
Many questions to think
about. Maybe too many.
One thing is fairly certain,
however. Life is easier when things are black and white, and when we find
it easy to quickly identify the good guys and the bad guys. Of course,
easier may not be better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment