skeeter,
I know some of the founders were against slavery, but I don't think you get a free pass for saying nice things when you own them and get the women pregnant no matter what you say publicly (especially later on). They didn't have to free all the slaves, but they could have freed their own. IMO some of these guys did NOT fully grasp the immorality of it or they never would had slaves to begin with. They'd have hired employees. They were dolts and they were even 80 year old dolts.
I think we all know what happened at Penn State.
Most of those in charge knew Sandusky was a piece of shit, understood exactly what happened, and knew what their moral obligation was. Then they looked at the financial and other implications of coming clean and decided sweeping it under the rug and hoping it was a one time affair was their best option.
That's what happens is all these cases.
There is a huge downside to the institution's reputation, individuals in charge, possible huge lawsuits etc... even if they did nothing negligent and come clean immediately. So there isn't much of an incentive to come clean and do the right thing other than keeping a clear conscious and being a decent human being.
Once they bury it once successfully, there is an even bigger incentive to bury it again because they are totally screwed if they get caught burying it once (as we see).
Perhaps we need to eliminate lawsuits against institutions in these cases unless there are clear cut indications of negligence and/or they don't come clean immediately. Then there would little risk or downside to doing the right thing immediately and a big downside for not.
There is a reason intelligent and otherwise decent people in churches, universities, day care centers, public schools etc... don't come clean when this happens. It has to be because the perceived downside of coming clean is greater than not coming clean. And it's greater by enough that some people totally lose their moral compass and do a terrible thing - which is nothing. |
