Assailing the Fortress, Part III

I've made some specific points about some downsides of "assailing the fortress," but let me make one more, that of reputation.

Reputation is almost everything in this world. It's easy to lose, as any adolescent, many former celebrities and a number of major corporations can tell you.  Reputation takes a long time to regain; in fact, they say that it takes at least 3-1/2 years to regain a good reputation, once lost. As long as your reputation is positive, the world is full of opportunity. If it's negative, doors are shut either in front of you, or behind you as you're pushed out.

I learned as I grew up that negative gossip was the equivalent of stealing--stealing someone's reputation and good name. But I think that extends further. You can also kill or steal the good name of an organization or system by telling a tale or airing an opinion unfairly, resulting in the loss of a person's trust or positive regard in that organization or system.

Note that I used the word, "unfairly." There are legitimate reasons to share information regarding a person, organization or system. One reason I can think of, offhand, is to protect another individual from harm or loss. But in such a case it strikes me that you'd better be very sure that your tale is true, that you have carefully checked it out, and that your comments are specific rather than containing sweeping generalizations.

It's a burden, checking out the truth of a tale. It takes time, it takes a lot of work, and it takes the courage to confront that person or entity, or to do careful research. Hmm. Does this sound like the process described in Matthew 18 of the Bible?

For example, let me return to the three examples mentioned in Part II of this series. If I have not done my research and obtained credible documentation that President Obama indeed belongs to the Muslim faith, then I have no right to pass on that inflammatory e-mail. If I have not taken the time to talk with my senator's office about the state budget, to understand all difficult issues connected to balancing the budget, then I'd better not paint sweeping criticisms of how it's being done.  If I am a book publisher and I don't check out every detail of an author's manuscript, including personally contacting and listening to people who could be negatively perceived by others as a result of what is written in the book, then I have no ethical business publishing that book. If I am a journalist covering famous people, and I simply repeat the "dirt" on those people without checking my facts and with no regard to the positive things those people do, then I am functioning somewhat as a zit upon the face of Mother Earth.  (Sorry, but I rather liked that metaphor.)

Having worked in various educational organizations over the years, I have found that people view these organizations (and their leaders, as well) as fortresses. They pass on comments that are not carefully considered, assuming that the fortress will still stand unhurt, no matter what they say or how ill-informed it might be. It's like throwing mud at a concrete wall and assuming the wall will not budge and the mud will wash off.

If you believe the fortress-assailants, I have worked at a "less classy school," a "party school," a "liberal school," and a "small, dumpy school." In each case, I would not have recognized those descriptions from my experience working at the school. I would have described these very schools as "the friendliest school with the best parents," the "school in a gorgeous location providing excellent academics," the "best school if you want your kid to experience a combination of robust spiritual life and high academic standards," and "the school with a close family feeling."  Unfortunately, each of those schools suffered harm from the "sticky" negative message that was passed on in chatter by some people.

At a more personal level, people also contribute unfairly in my world to reputations of some teachers, ...although I will admit that some teachers create their own weather on this count. Still, no teacher is a fortress.  And none of us sees the entire story about another human being. In light of the span and breadth of person's life experience, we know that we perceive others only from little snippets of experience or conversation with them. So how can we truthfully characterize them?

When you contribute to a negative reputation, be it that of a person or organization, you ethically bear a solemn and heavy culpability for having assailed the fortress--a "fortress" that may not in truth be as strong or as impervious as you assume.

(to be continued)