Anonymity - How Necessary Is It?

There was an interesting article in the New York Times this past weekend reporting that New York State had broken a pledge to protect the anonymity of employees (and others) who reported concerns about supports and services to people with developmental disabilities. There's a lot more to it then that but I think you get the gist. This was a discussion about whistleblowers, fear of reporting and how systems have been established to protect certain people from abuse and neglect.

This comes on the heels of a national debate about the importance of taking action when someone sees something illegal and harmful happening. It comes after of my own discussion on this blog about a culture of silence. The report itself is not a bad one but I do think reporters and journalists have a certain bias toward anonymity since, many times, it plays such an important role in their work. What I'm not sure of is if journalists think very much about the distinctions between their experience with anonymity and how it may play out in other settings. This is an area that I have struggled with for a long time and I know there are many others who are constantly trying to figure out the right and wrong of it because they live with it on a daily basis.

The first issue is that there is an assumption that very bad things will happen if the person reports a situation that is clearly wrong and that needs correction. I'm not sure that assumption should always be made. If a person has factual information that can be backed up, in a perfect world, they should be able to come forward. There are circumstances where leaders of organizations or institutions don't welcome challenges to their authority. We all know them and we've all probably experienced them. These are people who tend to manage by fear, don't invite debate or diversity and who probably have manipulated their leadership authority along the way. It happens and it exists. But in general, people do want to do the right thing and that includes supervisors and leaders within organizations. Sometimes there's a breakdown (witness Penn State), it does happen.

Here's where we get into some conflicts however. News journalists need to and have a right to protect their sources. The important point though is that there is a source to be protected. There's an actual person that the journalist knows exists and who provides information that the journalist can and hopefully will verify. This is much different then the anonymity that many times people want to talk about and protect and the difference is significant. I'm talking about the anonymous note or call where a person refuses to identify themselves purportedly for fear of retaliation. In these cases facts are sketchy, corroboration is difficult, and innuendo seems to be the standard. What is usually presented is akin to the worst conspiracy you can imagine. Now I think people should be able to distinguish between those two situations.

The reality is that people do need facts to investigate allegations of abuses of any kind. People also need the courage to stand up to injustices and speak out clearly about what they see and what they know. If people need protections, they should be able to articulate them and the people reported to need to be honest about what they can and can't provide. The discussion about these things is almost as critical as the pursuit of the truth. If there is historical evidence of retaliation it should be brought forward and identified and it should be real vs imagined.

Personally I don't like anonymity. I think it can and has been a cop out in too many cases. There is however a place for it but the standards for its acceptance should be very high. I fear that is not the case and that people find it easier and easier to make allegations that tweak people's interest in gossip and general mistrust. Personal responsibility in speaking up and taking action should in my mind always be the first choice.

Post Script
For a different perspective go to David Grandeau and Associates' blog here: http://davidgrandeau.blogspot.com/ and read about what Joe Pa Could Learn From Danny Hakim.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Grandeau, his opinions and his work for more transparent and ethical government. I would point out that we may want to be just as concerned about the promises that have been made to people with developmental disabilities and their families by NYS and the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities.