[lit-ideas] Re: Scrushy and the King of Arkansas
- From: david ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:44:33 -0800
On Dec 1, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Phil Enns wrote:
David Ritchie quotes and then comments: "A perceived and sometimes
real
conflict of interest can occur when ..." What does this demonstrate?
That group writing in committee is a bad idea? That with the best of
intents we often muck things up, or at least mangle language?"
I am not sure how language is here being mangled. The distinction
between what is perceived and what is real holds in virtually all
social
practices. When we are talking about justice, not only must it be
done
but it must also be perceived to be done. Isn't it possible to have a
perceived conflict of interest that isn't real? Wouldn't a perceived
conflict of interest be as problematic as a real conflict of interest?
Or perhaps I am missing the muck up.
It would be arrogant to countenance the thought that I can do better
in five minutes what a council took two hours to draft, but I'll
point you at two problems.
The drafting difficulty: as I read their sentence, conflicts of
interest, which usually exist in one of two contradictory modes of
being--real or merely perceived--but which can also be simultaneously
real and perceived, here exist as things that are perceived but only
sometimes real.
The legislative problem: no attempt has been made to define "personal
or professional relationship" or what "explore possible options"
might mean. Throw a few test cases at the pronouncement and you'll
see that, while it sounds like policy, it doesn't amount to much more
than, "do your best to avoid conflicts of interest and, if in doubt,
have a word with the provost," but all dressed up in formal clothing.
David Ritchie
Portland, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
