Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Penn State and the Milgram experiment

Perhaps the officials at Penn State should have paused occasionally in their highly structured, detail oriented lives and spent some quality time thinking about big picture issues such as the meaning of the Milgram experiment. And it wouldn't have mattered what interpretation they embraced.

From listening to the stories of the people involved, some appear to follow a more traditional interpretation: an organizational structure run by powerful individuals discouraged people from following their own moral compass. As one janitor said when asked by another whether they should report the problem, "No, they'll get rid of all of us."

Also, the ideological reverence of football, singled out in the Freeh report, discouraged some from following their own moral compass. Powerful figures may have struggled with the moral dilemma of addressing the child molesting problem versus their ideological belief in the good name and importance of Penn State and it's athletic department.

From the Freeh report:
"It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University – Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley – repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large. Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims."

We know, from the Milgram experiments, that this would have happened in most any university, not just Penn State. Sixty-five percent of them would have gone all the way.

Would it have made a difference if these powerful officials knew, understood, and thought about the meaning of the Milgram experiments? And should every organization, from universities to churches to governments, think about the Milgram experiments before writing their bylaws?

1 comment:

Big Myk said...

To see Milgram in the Sandusky episode is bloody ingenious. Considering Haslam's work illuminates the situation further. For one, Haslam tells us that hierarchies attract people who -- well -- like to support hierarchies, in other words, are company men. While universities are almost deliberately non-hierachical (recall the old joke -- Being a college dean is like running a cemetary: you've got a lot of people under you but good luck getting them to do what you want), football organizations have a strict hierarchy.

And then, not only do people join groups they like, they also grow to like the groups they join. Football demands a particular loyalty. So, it is easy for staff to identify with the football team but more difficult to identify with the at risk children served by The Second Mile.

In a related matter, where's George Orwell now that the NCAA has decide erase 13 years of victories from Penn State's record? Our own Ministry of Truth at work.