Changing culture: the moral blunderbuss

My old high school has been in the news, and not in a good way. A young man was tried for the charge of raping a freshman girl, age 15, shortly before he was to graduate, on his way to Harvard. It seems he had asked this girl out as part of a school "tradition" called the "senior salute", which involves bedding as many underclass women as possible before graduation. It's not clear exactly what happened, but things clearly went over the line: they went into a utility closet, the girl  -- at a minimum -- felt violated.

The tradition is despicable. But is the boy despicable? He was just doing what was expected, indeed admired, by those around him. For that matter, the girl herself was caught in this powerful social web: she was flattered to be asked out, and in her own account didn't want to "rock the boat " or seem like a "drama queen" by reacting too strongly to his advances. Though I know little about the details, there is no reason to think that this is an evil boy, someone who enjoys hurting others. He appears to be, on the contrary, one who plays the game and wants to win - whether that game is getting into Harvard or sleeping with a virgin. Most of the time we applaud those who play to win.

This is a classic situation in which the rules are changing. The rules need to change, of course; but we also need to ask: what's the best way to change them?

The approach here was to pull out a moral blunderbuss: to treat act the act as a criminal violation, which carries the full weight of moral condemnation of the community. It would destroy the young man and serve as a dire warning to others who might be tempted in such a direction.

But doing it this way may only slow down the process of change. Instead of fostering learning, this approach fosters fear. Young men I know now, even the best of them, are confused and frightened and even angry; they feel that if they cross some line that they can't even see, they may be destroyed. They are not gaining respect for women; they are feeling like lab rats threatened by some mad scientist's random shocks.

The moral blunderbuss is a poor weapon. It doesn't destroy the bad beliefs it aims at. The true believers are infuriated, like a bear shot with an old rifle, and may turn viciously on the accusers. Many others - those who have gone along, just trying to find their way - grow defensive, cynical, and tend to withdraw from the fray. That describes a lot of our political scene today.

As it happens, the jury was unwilling to pull the trigger. They acquitted the accused of the most serious charge of rape, but convicted him on a lesser charge of enticing a minor on the internet. It seems they wanted to signal that something was seriously wrong here, but they didn't feel the kind of unmixed moral condemnation that would justify the most severe sentence. They found it a difficult case.

Perhaps this opens the path to something better. Everyone is talking about the problem now. On the school campus , the headmaster promises a combination and deepening of discussions about the issues. "When we first learned of these disturbing events", he writes, " ... we pledged that we would use this case and the issues raised by it to learn more about ourselves and to make our School better." 

Now it's a question of what kind of discussion there will be. If it is one-way hectoring and lecturing,  we know how kids -- and people of all ages -- react: they will shut down and withdraw. But if they have a chance to express and explore their confusions, to ask their questions in an atmosphere of thoughtful dialogue, such conversations may be able to tip the moral balance - so that the cool kids will have a code different from the "senior salute". And we may be able to minimize the collateral damage, the destruction of lives and communities, that accompanies unrestrained righteousness.