Editor’s Note: This week’s PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Columnists Gary T. Klugiewicz and Jack E. Hoban. In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. If you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members, simply send us an email with your story.
By Gary Klugiewicz and Jack Hoban
Police1 Columnists
In a recent Ethical Warrior column, a vignette called “The Bully” was used to illustrate why philosophy is important for the law enforcement officer — and all of us. In case you missed it, here’s “The Bully” again.
You are a kid in the schoolyard. You see a bully. He thinks he is the “top dog.” That is fine. That perception is a relative value. But when his relative value supersedes the life value of another kid — in other words, when the bully picks on and/or punches the other kid — this is wrong and must be stopped. Here is the rule: relative values, no matter how “great,” cannot supersede the life value.
You see the bully picking on the other kid. You feel — in your gut — that this is wrong. Congratulations, you are moral. By the way, most people are moral — they know the difference between right and wrong. Now... you see the bully picking on the other kid. You overcome the “freeze,” you overcome the embarrassment, and you go tell a teacher. Congratulations! You are ethical (ethics are moral values in action). Now... you see the bully picking on the other kid. You overcome the “freeze,” you overcome the fear, and you go to the aid of the kid being bullied. You put yourself at risk. Congratulations! You have the makings of an Ethical Protector.
Philosophical clarity is a lot more important than we sometimes acknowledge. It helps guide our actions under stress; and it helps us make sense of confusing events that we witness or hear about.
We can apply this concept to the Penn State situation where a coach is alleged to have raped a 10-year old boy in the showers. Someone saw it and told his leader, the revered Joe Paterno — JoePa. Nothing happened — until now.
Is JoePa moral? Yes, he is undoubtedly a very moral man. He surely knew that what was going on was wrong. Was he ethical? Well, it is said that Joe did “tell the teacher” when he reported the allegation up his chain of command. So we would have to say that he was ethical. But was he an Ethical Protector? No, he was not. Was he required to be? Are you, as a law enforcement officer required to be? Yes. LEOs are required by law to act positively to protect and serve. But is there an internal, natural-law requirement for us all to act as ethical protectors?
The screaming and yelling of the students in support of JoePa is understandable, perhaps, but misguided. These poor students, fed morally relativistic intellectual mush their entire college careers and trained into a tribal loyalty for their team, are philosophically confused. They don’t understand the importance of clarity in values, morals and ethics. Most are certainly moral, but overwhelmed by their emotions, they are failing to recognize any basic responsibility to protect all others, especially innocent others. Would they feel differently if the outrages had happened to them or their little brothers? You bet they would.
So, is there an internal, natural-law requirement for us all to act as ethical protectors — if we can? When people put their emotions aside and think logically, we think they will come to the conclusion that the answer is “yes.” We think JoePa thinks it, too.
What JoePa did was a “crime” of omission not commission. That is why he is so sad and disappointed in himself. Because, given his stature, he could have done more. And he didn’t. We can feel some sympathy for JoePa, but what he did cannot be overlooked. He had the responsibility to do more because he could have done more. We all have that responsibility.
Sorry, JoePa.
