EDIT: I’ve had some feedback and critique on this post. Thank you to the people that have brought this to my attention.
The things that the people mentioned in this post have done are wrong, in all instances. None of it is excusable. It is wrong regardless of whether there is a consequence or not. It is wrong whether they factored in the risk or not.
The one person that commented said this, which is spot on:
“men shldn’t be wary of committing sexual assault just cause it might destroy their career, men shld be wary of committing sexual assault coz it’s a beyond shitty thing to do, cause they have no right to take advantage of any1 that way not just coz they might get fired if they do.”
The discussion on this post missed all of this and I apologize. The argument was more around the behavior economics concepts underlying it then the actual moral issues, which are far more important
I’m going to leave the blog below the same but please keep this edit in mind
Today featured massive scandals and news on an international, local and personal level.
The “The Silence Breakers” were announced as Time Magazine Person of the Year for speaking up about sexual assault. Across the world, many men have been called out for their misconduct.
Steinhoff lost almost R200 billion in market cap due to a massive accounting scandal. To put this in perspective, one analyst described the loss as being bigger than South Africa’s entire platinum mining industry.
On a personal note, 5 students across the courses I’ve been lecturing on have been caught for plagiarism. Some may not graduate because of this.
What struck me about these three cases was that the people making these decisions took on almost exponential levels of risk for a comparatively small gain.
The men in the sexual assault cases actively took on the risk of ruining their own careers. They will potentially end up with charges for what was ultimately a few moments of pleasure. And it must be clear, they ruined their own careers, the people stepping forward didn’t.
The executives at Steinhoff actively took on the risk of their business being destroyed by engaging in accounting fraud. They benefited from seemingly higher profits, but there is ultimately a limit to what they could gain, whereas they could lose everything.
The students in my course actively took on the risk of being expelled from the university, not receiving their degree and even being banned from higher education institutions. They did all to save a few hours on an essay that counts 15% of one of their 13 courses.
A Better Risk Strategy
The alternative to these is very simple. Remove the infinite downside risk entirely by not engaging in the activity. Even if not engaging only brings you a small up side.
The men involved in sexual assault could have either not approached their victims or could have been consensual in their actions. Both may result in no pleasure, but both strategies completely remove the risk of a scandal
The Steinhoff executives could have followed the accounting rules. They may have not made as much money, but they wouldn’t have put their whole business on the line.
And finally, my students could have either told me they weren’t able to write the essays or made an effort to write it themselves, even if it were poor. Ultimately, they would’ve lost around 0.5% off their final GPA, but they would still get their degrees.
It is essential that we are aware of what we are doing when we take on risk, and that we make sure the trade off is worth it
Image is off a cold front rolling in to Cape Town, taken earlier this year