INTRODUCTION
A terrible abuse of position and power has been in the news recently.
There are a number of things you can do when there has been a terrible abuse of power and position. However, they are all hard. As one ethics consultant stated “it takes effort to be ethical. He made the point explicitly that Lemont made implicitly, that is, it’s hard to bring about ethical change. It can make you unpopular. It can require changes in yourself. Ethical change is hard and it’s a long process. It is not a matter of simply reading a book on Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.”
BACKGROUND
Years ago I used to teach a little dispute resolution, and I used to publish articles in the area. I also lectured a bit here and there on ethics and was interested on how the two meshed. Three books really stood out.
- Mistakes were made (but not by me) (link is to the Wikipedia article).
- The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse (link is to an essay about the seven signs and the way you counteract each of them)
- Dealing with an Angry Public. (Link to essays on the points in the book),
The first book on Mistakes deals with cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and other cognitive biases. It uses these psychological theories to illustrate how the perpetrators (and victims) of hurtful acts justify and rationalize their behavior. It describes a positive feedback loop of action and self-deception by which slight differences between people’s attitudes become polarized and how things go off the rails.
The second book on Collapse explains how well intended organizations end up crossing the line from ethical to unethical. It notes that heavily hierarchical organizations are especially prone to problems of this sort because of problems in allowing for pushback and how positive points in one area are used to justify failures in another.
In the third book it is explained that Anger is a typical reaction to governments’ or companies’ attempts to cover up mistakes, conceal evidence of risks, make misleading statements, or lie — to avoid saying “I’m sorry.”
FRAMING
If a wild bear was wandering your city and eating someone two or three times a year, would you ignore it just because there were more hand gun deaths or more drunk drivers killing people than were eaten by bears?
That is how the public reacts to efforts to portray the abuse that slips through the cracks in a church or other organizations. Yes, the organization does good. Yes, abusers are scattered across every part of society and in every social class. Yes, other groups have sex scandals too. They are in the news everywhere (even in my backyard).
None of that matters. All of that is like saying that other cities have problems or that wolves sometimes eat people just like bears eat some people, or that sometimes lightning strikes out of the blue or people die from other causes like falling out of bed. So what? It doesn’t mean that a bear running around loose eating people isn’t a problem or that the public is going to ignore the two or three people eaten a year by the bear just because more people die from other causes.
Just like people won’t ignore the bear, people won’t ignore a sexual predator in your church or your hierarchy or your school.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT A PREDATOR IN THE NEWS?
First you have to express care for those hurt, and then explain steps you will take to solve the problem and never attempt to reassure people that you deserve trust. If you have to say it, instead of show it, you’ve lost.
He adds they should always start by expressing care for those affected, and then explain how they plan to solve the problem.
“Many chief executives start by trying to reassure people their company can be trusted, and that’s a huge mistake,” he says.
Take Eileen Downey, a manager at Britannia Hotels, who appeared on the BBC’s consumer affairs programme Watchdog in 2011, following criticism of Pontins holiday parks.
The show had received more than 100 complaints over issues such as stains on bedding and mould in apartments.
But Ms Downey went on the defensive arguing that “99.9%” of Pontins apartments were of a high quality, and refused to say sorry.
“It was a master class in how not to deliver the message that you care about your customers,” Mr Mason says.
from “How to Handle a Scandal”
Second, do not delay. Those who have survived scandals often agree with Peter Fankhauser, who, as noted: “Chief executive Peter Fankhauser later said delaying the apology was his “biggest mistake”.” Delay is as bad as going on the defensive.
Third, avoid half measures. That includes public relations statements that include “insipid self-congratulation—using pasteurized, sanitized words that don’t mean anything.”
From How to Survive a Scandal.
All delay and insipid responses do is confirm to outsiders that you don’t care and are the cause of the scandal, not the solution.
Fourth, then you do something meaningful (again, from How to Survive a Scandal). That is, you have to explain steps you will take to solve the problem and then take those steps.
Most crises are not resolved through rhetoric. They are resolved through operations. What’s more ethical, doing what Exxon did and recognize after Valdez that the PR war was over—and then they spent 25 years investing in double-hulled ships and radically overhauling their safety procedures, and they’ve never had a major incident since …
SEEMS SIMPLE? — JUST BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLE DOESN’T MEAN IT IS EASY OR OBVIOUS
Remember:
QUESTIONS
So, in response to Sexaual Assault scandal involving Mr. Bishop, how would you:
- Express care for those hurt?
- Explain the changes you will take to solve the problem and keep it from happening again?
- Avoid delay or half measures or things that look like you are trying to divert attention or attack the victim?
- Do something meaningful — implement changes?
It should be interesting to compare what our readers speculate about in their comments with what the professionals in this case actually do.
Wheat & Tares 
Stephen, In view of personal experience with the unreliability of news media and in view of past experience dealing with the hysteria and dishonesty and misunderstandings of the nature of memory that surrounded the “recovered memory” mess of some decades ago, I don’t think I will attempt responding to your questions. However, they have set me thinking about those issues. Thanks for that. It seems you may be suggesting that commenters imagine themselves in the place of the “professionals” who may have dealt with or may still deal with the Bishop matter, and not merely what they would do from their own position. Is that right? Which “professionals”? Church PR? GAs? Local priesthood leaders? Police? (department or individual?) Lawyers? (whose?) Judge? Therapist? Psychologists? Psychiatrists?
Is it possible to avoid looking (to some) like one is attacking the alleged victim when still in the process of trying to form an opinion on credibility of conflicting witnesses? Even in a well presented trial that can take time. Unless one is the perpetrator and/or knows exactly what was done, how can some investigatory delay be avoided?
The possible professionals you might refer to may have different assigned roles, or even multiple and possibly conflicting roles. As you know, there are vast differences between the role of an attorney and that of a judge or jury. There are similarly vast differences between a pastoral or therapeutic role on the one hand and a Church disciplinary role on the other. These can also come in conflict, and not only when a particular “professional” has responsibility to both the accused and the accuser (which doesn’t seem to be the current case). I hope to see some comments that articulate responses to your questions while making their own assumptions clear and keeping those issues and conflicts in mind. I am glad I am not one of the “professionals” who must deal with the scandal around Bishop and his accuser.
Pie in the sky, but:
– Acknowledge current problems in the internal investigation system (including a failure to follow up on earlier allegations), express support in and belief of victims, and encourage any additional victims to come forward. Implicit in this: someone needs to yank on the leash of Bishop’s son and get him to stop saying things about the accuser. It’s just not helpful or right at this point.
– Develop and make public a more transparent system of abuse investigation, with listed consequences even in cases of “Well, we couldn’t determine yes or no either way.”
– Do this quickly (particularly telling the younger Bishop to knock it off)
– Develop a longer-term plan of investing more authority in women leaders, including mission presidents’ wives and Relief Society presidents, either removing or supplementing the current system that gives male priesthood holders sole authority over woman and the expectation that they will meet with women alone to discuss deeply personal matters.
What will actually happen? I suspect Church leadership and “President Newsroom” will paint this as a specific, tragic instance that is entirely the fault of a single individual, and not identify any need for systemic change.
I should point out: I was never completely on the fence with this issue, but news outlets reported last night that Bishop admitted some culpability in a police report. There’s not a lot of room left for speculation about his conduct, I think.
Number one thing, “To protect and assist the women of our church who might have potentially been harmed, we are doing an in-depth search of those who were under his stewardship to find out if there are any additional victims.”
Those are great points, Stephen. I hope this post somehow makes it into the LDS leadership email chain or morning report. I’m afraid they don’t always get good information or advice from the staff.
This reminds me so much of the Penn State scandal with Coach Jerry Sandusky. Yes, some reports to the police were made. And some of the higher-ups were notified. But no substantial actions were taken for years. Meanwhile Sandusky continued abusing young people.
And yes I respect that some people would say that a comparison to the Catholic Church is more relevant.
And I remember the scriptures in 1 Nephi 13:
[7] And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
[8] And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
The LDS Chruch has historically interpeted this to mean the Catholic Church, although that stance has been softened in the last 2 or 3 decades.
But now we learn of an MTC president making harlots out of sister missionaries.
No. Please don’t call a victim of sexual abuse a harlot, not even in the context of making this point.. Can you imagine how that would feel to a woman who’s been abused?
ReTx I fully accept your point. I should have used a better term. Maybe… But now we learn of an MTC president forcing sister missionaries against their will to perform sex acts.
I was thinking more that this would help understand how professionals work and act in a situation like this to better appreciate part of it.
And was curious about what people would do if they were responding.
I appreciate the comments and thoughts.
My sister was badly abused, in every way possible, by her then – husband. Seeing her go thru this awful situation taught me that in most abusive situations, the abuser takes great care to make sure it is one person’s word against another’s. Our legal system in the US is based on witnesses, and many times there was simply nothing my sister or her lawyer could do, because it was he said/ she said.
Within the Church, we also have a discipline system based on witnesses. Although in theory, one could argue that the Holy Ghost could break a tie as a witness, in practice, I have rarely seen that occur. In the case of my sister, her ecclesiastical leaders had no witnesses, so in essence, they did nothing. The stake president was a friend of her husband, & told my sister he found it difficult to believe her accusations. He did not take away her husband’s recommend, but neither did he take away hers. It was small comfort at that time, but now she looks back with a different view, through the lens of being a social worker, & sees that he had no training & no evidence, & simply could not believe his friend had done this. At the time, she felt the stake president took his side, but from a distance, he did nothing because he had no witnesses. She has told me that she now believes there are some things that cannot be fixed on earth, but that can only be fixed by the Savior, on the other side.
The elder Bishop is just that – elderly & apparently medicated. The son is defensive; the attack is against his father, but he was NOT THERE, and thus cannot know what happened. The sister has dealt with the ramifications of an assault for years. Even if the Church is looking for other victims, that would not be made public by the Church – even if some are found. Likewise, if the elder Bishop were disciplined, that would also not be made public by the Church. I would hope this is receiving the attention it should within the system, but checking the news to find out is futile.
Marivene — I am so sorry.
I’ll grant that there are some really good “salt of the earth” people within the LDS Church; many of whom have not, and probably will never sit in the Big Velvet Chairs in the Conference Center. In fact, it’s been my life experience that the very best people are those who quietly go about living their lives, raising their families, working hard and really not too concerned with title, station or power. Also, it is true that the LDS Church does build beautiful (and very expensive) Temples and plants lots and lots of pretty flowers.
However, what “The Church” no longer has, and is frankly losing at a rate which may in fact be life threatening……is CREDIBILITY. As far as I’m concerned their behavior (expecially out of LDS Newsroom and Public Relations) has been disgusting; and stomach turning. Now don’t get me wrong, they’ve conducted themselves just like any other large American corporation would in cases such as this i.e. protect the organization at all costs, confuse the narrative with “nicely sounding legal terms” and deflect attention from the core issue for as long as possible – or until the storm blows over…….but, as for representing God’s kingdom on earth…..Well, not so much.
I have a VERY HARD time believing that the great creator of heaven and earth, spends much time at 50 East, North Temple, Salt Lake City – Utah…these days.
i thought this was a very well-thought-out piece by Stephen Marsh. I also see Marivene’s point, that at this time, like in the case of her abused sister, there is little that can be done to really rectify the wickedness of MTC President Bishop. Even significant institutional changes take time to be implemented.
I see the problem as much more basic. Ethics is divided into those actions that are externally driven based on fear or laziness and those actions that are internally driven based on good for goodness sake and faith in a just God who makes it right, perhaps in the next life. For too long the LDS church has put too much emphasis on external motivation, obeying and not questioning authority. They have lost the credibility to appeal to an internal ethical stand and perhaps even the ability to do it. Most of the suggestions on how to survive a situation like this rely too much on internal strength of character and the leadership selection process weeds that out.
The LDS church needs to start by firing their attorneys. Not that they don’t have their place, but their mindset has too much influence over the leadership.( That includes President Oaks, he is not supposed to be an attorney any more, but an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.)
***
I have a large, beautiful red maple tree in my back yard near the house. It was split in half about 20 feet from the ground during a storm probably 30 years ago, before I lived here. It has a gash too big to heal. Since then it has slowly rotted from the inside out. I just can’t bring myself to pay the $2000 to cut it down, it is that big- 8 feet in circumference at waist height and close to 100 feet tall. Every time we have a bad storm, we get scared and sleep on the opposite side of the house in the basement and pray it doesn’t come crashing down and destroy our house. But a few days later we forget and the tree grows bigger and weaker.
The LDS church is just like me and my red maple tree. I just don’t have the grit to do what is right on a sunny day when I only think of the positive side of that tree. And it is too late when the storms come and so far I have gotten away with it. The LDS church will weather this storm just like my maple tree and I made it through a terrible storm earlier this week, with 30 minutes of sheet lightening and wind and torrential rain and tornadoes not far away.
Because the Church has victims of ecclesiastical abuse sign confidentiality agreements, we seldom hear how pervasive and serious the problem is in the Church. Some have kept files of LDS ecclesiastical perpetrators who have been found guilty in the courts and the list is extensive. However, most who perpetrate are not convicted or even tried in the legal system. Yes, the Church needs to apologize, express compassion for victims of abuse, and address the problem by implementing new measures of accountability. In my circle of friends, I have seen enough horrific sexual and/or physical abuse by bishops/branch presidents/stake presidents/Scout leaders, etc., to know that it is a systemic problem in the Church that is ignored and, even worse, covered up in too many instances. Unless new policies and procedures are implemented in the Church, the abuse will continue. Currently, the Church’s legal department protects the Church as a corporation and its image. I see no real attempt to listen to and respond to those in the Church who have been abused–other than to silence them.
Is scandal the problem? Or is it personal evil buoyed up an protected by institutional self-interest?
One other point. Leaders of an organization are not the audience that should be addressed when there is a problem. The things they find persuasive often offend others.
That is a terrible trap that too many entities fall into. They issue statements that persuade themselves—the one group they probably don’t need to persuade—and the one whose blindness created part of the problem in the first place.
I find it so interesting to see the LDS Church dealing with the Bishop scandal the same week Facebook is confronted with a PR nightmare. Both corporations are struggling in their response. FB was silent a day (at least) too long, allowing news outlets to control the narrative. In contrast, the Newsroom responded with a statement relatively quickly, but in terms of restoring public trust, the statement was ineffective at best. (I’m sure the lawyers approved of it though.)
To its credit Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is now out in front of cameras, admitting that Facebook made mistakes and talking about ways it needs to change. The right response for the church would be to have President Nelson sit down with Peggy Fletcher Stack and answer questions. The tenor of his remarks should be, “We don’t know what happened; we weren’t there. Our investigation is continuing, but I can say no woman or man or child should ever feel unsafe when interacting with leadership in the Church. If anyone has ever made you feel unsafe, we’re sorry. This is not Christ’s way.”
Alas, I doubt we’ll hear a peep from President Nelson on the Bishop matter. (And I’m not holding my breath for anything from Dallin “No Apologies” Oaks either.) If we’re lucky though, Sam Young’s petition might get some more signatures because of this whole affair.
MTodd’s comment on what the manner and tenor of the Church’s response to the “leaked” tape and transcript should have been seems right to me. I have heard from some non-lawyer, non-priesthood leaders who read the newsroom release to include the same content MTodd suggests should have come from President Nelson. But even if that is so, the tone and emphasis of the newsroom release (e.g. on the Church’s actions and on Bishop’s denial, without acknowledging his admissions on the tape) were quite different from MTodd’s suggestion. Some have read the tone of the newsroom release as defensive, others as matter-of-fact, but the content appears primarily concerned with whether and when Bishop should be subjected to Church discipline and what reporting to civil authorities was done by the Church, and very little concerned with the current accuser/victim, and not at all concerned with the other victim or victims Bishop admitted molesting. Even if a “matter-of-fact” reading of the tone were a correct reading, and even if the MTodd-suggested content is included, the content of the release as a whole looks to be primarily designed to say something while avoiding admissions that might negatively affect the Church’s financial position in a lawsuit anticipated from the fact that it was the accuser’s lawyer who presented the Church with a copy of the tape. MTodd’s suggestion accomplishes that just as well while placing the emphasis where it belongs coming from a Church leader.
I have wondered what Lefthandloafer would identify as the “core issue” the Newsroom release was to deflect attention from. Maybe it was Bishop’s admission of molesting others — completely ignored by the Newsroom.
I’ve been considering several candidates for “core issue” at a more general level: the one-on-one priesthood leader encounters, the failure of any alleged “gift of discernment” or background investigations relative to the “calling” of some priesthood leaders, the no-mistakes-in-the calling-of-church-leaders teaching (October 2017), the sometimes encouragement of trust in/following Church leaders in abdication of personal responsibility/conscience, the assumption by some that a priesthood leader is so much more credible than an accuser that no investigation is called for, the combination of pastoral and judge roles in a single person (bishop or stake president) …. There are probably more candidates for “core issue”.
JR:
Add this one to the list if core issues:
Our church was started by a sexual predator and perpetuated primarily by sexual deviants. Who were in some other ways courageous and heroic. (including my ancestors). It has been playing catch-up ever since. We should celebrate the progress already made.
Well, Mike, that one (including my ancestors) is certainly at an even more general — or at least historical level — than I was thinking! When you say “primarily” are you including the last 3/4 of the 20th century and current perpetuaters (missionaries, etc.)? What kind of celebration do you have in mind?
Rumor has it that Sam Young was threatened with discipline for starting that petition. Am I mistaken? Anybody know for sure? I must say, that’s certainly not comforting to victims.
Angela – in effect, yes he was told to stop “pushing the issue” as doing so he is an apostate. https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/sam-protect-our-children-mormon-church-you-are-apostate/
On Friday evening the church issued an update to their statement. It appears they have been listening to feedback. This update acknowledges that Bishop made admissions on the police report that he needs to be held accountable for. (It is implied that the church first saw these admissions after a less-redacted version of the BYU Police report surfaced this week. The police report initially released to the public was heavily redacted and did not show Bishop’s admissions. Only after a local news organization filed an appeal was a much less redacted version released.) The church’s update acknowledges that a second victim came forward in 2010 about abuse by this MTC president (before any other news organization discovered that info). It also urges local leaders to take allegations of abuse more seriously.
The update is way better than the original statement, but there still isn’t really any admission of culpability. It was local leaders who ignored accusations of abuse. It was local leaders who opted not to discipline the abuser. As an institution, I don’t see indication that there will be any changes. It’s like, “If those local leaders would’ve done what they were supposed to do, none of this would have happened. So we just need to make sure local leaders follow the rules better.” There’s no recognition that anything inherent about the system might be contributing to the problem.
Was anyone else slightly startled to read Jan‘s assertion that there is an extensive list of LDS eclessiastical leaders who have been convicted of abuse in count and that the Church pays the victims to be quiet?
Even worse – the assertion that most perpetrators in leadership are never tried and convicted, and that abuse is system problem in the Church.
Those are extremely damaging accusations. Jan do you have data/evidence to back them up, or are just extrapolating based on the experience of acquaintances?