Alfred Dawes | Licky licky agencies for the greater good

The trigger for this column is the scandal at the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA). However, we are not going to delve too much into the sordid details of that affair.

Instead, I wish to explore the underlying issues why those charged with the health and safety of those in their charge felt it okay to turn a blind eye to serious allegations that reflected poorly on the character of a key partner, who had access to vulnerable minors. Pleading ignorance is out the door. Miscalculating the tangible threat, a poor excuse. No parent in their right mind would allow their children around a possible sexual predator. In this circumstance, it was allowed. Enabled even. Clearly those who understood the risks chose instead to be wilfully blind as to the potential harm to which they were exposing their wards. As seen here and in other organisations, it was the benefits from the arrangement that subdued their innate desire to do the right thing.

I do not believe that those with the authority to break off the relationship made a malicious decision to put the children at risk. Instead, individually or collectively, they decided that they would deliberately overlook the character of the man and tell themselves a story that in looking past his transgressions, they were working for the greater good. So many minors would benefit from this partnership that the morally just thing to do is to continue it, with the hopes that history would not repeat itself.

According to a report by the Office of the Children’s Advocate, “The CPFSA knew of Robanske’s antecedents from early 2018. It also knew that it had children accommodated at The Father’s House.” The report tabled in Parliament went on, “The residents of The Father’s House were not only accessible to Robanske but were very receptive to him, perhaps because of the gifts and the attention that he would give to them.” Clearly Robanske was a valuable partner and he was doing good work. That was enough to allow those who knew of his character to turn a blind eye, even while lecturing the rest of Jamaica about being careful who they let around children. They are not evil people. They were just following what they convinced themselves to be morally just.

UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHY

Utilitarian philosophy argues that obtaining the greatest good for the greatest numbers is morally just. That philosophy allows us a clear conscience to oversee the persecution or disadvantaging of a few, for the benefit of a large number within a group. Whereas there is some utility in it, such as the suspension of individual rights of criminals through incarceration, utilitarianism also gives a free pass to those who commit unspeakable crimes against a minority in the name of the greater good for the majority.

I am pretty sure that the greater good of having happy children was enough to allow risking the possibility of sexual deviance, since the latter was seen as an intangible that could not be measured. In other words, they were licky licky and got sold for what Carl Robanske gave them. As they were getting this freeness, they adjusted their morality to accept it and the demons that came with it. Unfortunately, this is the way of the world in which we live.

I have previously written about the strings attached by international donor agencies, who set priorities that may not align with our local imperatives. I will not be the mythological Cassandra and say anything else about this, except that collectively, licky licky can lead to national colic. The phenomenon is seen abroad as well. Many international organisations receive donations that are earmarked for projects favoured by special interest groups. The result is that priorities of the receiving organisations are skewed towards the interests of the donors. Sacrificing equally important areas is done easily with the justification that if you don’t get the money, then the work of the entities cannot go on, and the beneficiaries suffer.

GREATER GOOD

The need to publish groundbreaking, practice-changing studies is the greater good that trumps the independence of scientific journals that prioritise studies in favour of their funders and pull high-quality, peer-reviewed research that go against a popular narrative. It is the greater good that demands that the lives of countless people be lost through the denial of efficacious medical treatments that would disrupt a pharmaceutical industry that saves a far greater number of souls.

Even when it is solely self-interest that is being served, our remarkable brains can concoct stories to justify why we do what may be considered morally unjust. If we don’t take the money, someone else who will not do as great a job as us will get it and everyone will be worse off.

We seldom follow the Kant tradition of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Instead, even if we do the right thing, it is a self-serving motive or someone is watching. Knowing that having a possible sexual predator among your vulnerable children is not the right thing to do. We all have a conscience that does not rely on the laws of man, but a deeply entrenched desire to protect and help others even if it requires acting against our own interests. When we lose that part of us that makes us human, it is the beginning of the end of our individual well-being and the sustainability of society on a whole.

- Dr Alfred Dawes is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and CEO of Windsor Wellness Centre. Follow him on Twitter @dr_aldawes. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and alfred.dawes@gmail.com