TRANSPARENCY vs. LOSHON HARAH

I am asked from time to time to write letters of reference for congregants or past students.  This can place me in a quandary, as they may not really be suitable for the position to which he or she is applying.  For example, if they are lazy, I could not write that in a letter, as I would risk losing a congregant or friend or damaging the relationship with a past student.  One does not want to lose a friend, even if they are a lazy friend.

So one makes use of a book, best known by its acronym, The Lexicon of Ingenious Ambiguous References.  One could write, for example, “You will be fortunate to get this person to work for you!”   

In RSA today, because of labour regulations, one cannot safely write anything beyond the position a person held and for how long.  One may damage a reputation and be guilty of defamation or libel.  The rights of the individual receive total protection.

This is quite astonishing when you consider the temperament of our society.  The media is a pervasive influence and the media runs on shock value and scandal.  Crime, corruption and obscenity are its staples, with the carnage of war and ups-and-downs of the economy as sidebars.  Investigative reporting, exposes and scoops are the highlights.  The public rubs its collective hands in glee, when the high and mighty are exposed and deposed. 

This raises the vexed question of what to do when the uncomfortable spotlight falls on one of our own.  It does happen from time to time.  It may be financial improprieties, either questionable business practices or even criminal acts.  Or it may be moral sins, again, sometimes criminal and at others, acts that break a higher moral code and are as such reprehensible. We have witnessed both financial and moral breeches in recent days and weeks.

What is the correct approach?

The venerable Justice Dennis Davis writes in this week’s Jewish Report that we live in an open democracy and as such transparency and accountability are paramount values. Name-and-shame is an appropriate response and the public’s need to know is inviolate. 

On the other extreme is Chief Rabbi Goldstein and the rabbis of the Beth Din who say that the prohibition of Loshan Harah – gossip prevents giving publicity to the crimes and sins of individuals.

Who is right?

Of course, I am not going to side against the rabbis.  But I would like to clarify their position with one qualification and I think this will make it understandable.

The prohibition on Loshon Harah is not a blanket prohibition, like the RSA regulation on negative letters of reference. If there is a need to know, one may share negative information.  If, for example, an employer approaches you and wants a reference on someone who is not suited to the position.  In RSA practice you may not say anything.  In Jewish law, you not only may say, you have an obligation to protect the employer by sharing the information.  That is a need to know.   But that doesn’t mean that you are allowed to broadcast the negative info to all and sundry, as there is no need to know. 

Applied to our current, much talked about situation, the same would apply.  Is there a need to know?  For the families affected there is.  For the community affected there is.  For the decision-makers there is.  For me and you there are no practical implications and as such we need not know details.

Was there accountability?  Most certainly.  The individual was removed from his position. 

Was there transparency?  To the people that were affected – yes, and that is all that counts.  A voyeuristic public has no right to information or need in this situation. 

Name-and-shame?  Newspapers have to sell copies.  We have to ensure that we do not morally sell ourselves short.  Name-and-shame would also devastate the innocent family members and is not wise. 

May we face no more serious dilemmas that letters of reference for lazy friend

© Copyright 2007/5768 Northcliff Hebrew Congregation