I hear people say things like "Why should I stay part of a group that has such vile members in it?"
There is a difference, I think, between "Why should I stay part of a group that has such vile members in it?" and "Why should I stay part of a group that has such vile people in positions of authority?"
In any of the cases you are familiar with, are people (considering) leaving because peers are vile, or because leaders are vile?
I don't know of any cases where vileness in mere peers has caused any scandals, so I should like to know if you do.
The problem with vile people being in positions of authority is that, well, they're in positions of authority. Sometimes that means that their presence in those positions is endorsed by the membership, and signifies that the group as a whole has a culture-wide failiness problem. Sometimes that means they can make participating in the group sufficiently hard or dangerous for some members that leaving is necessary or advisable.
Also, I do think that voting with one's feet can be a legitimate form of protest (especially when one make public why one is leaving.) Similarly, members who confer legitimacy by their membership need to think twice about allowing an organization they have lost faith with enjoy their presence. A group of prominent members of an org I had belonged to just publicly disassociated themselves from the org when it came to light that management had conducted and gave every indication that it would continue conducting itself unethically, in ways that endangered the membership. One of those people astutely observed that his close connection to the group was widely taken as an endorsement by someone very concerned with ethics, and he dare not allow that unspoken message to go out any more.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-15 08:27 pm (UTC)There is a difference, I think, between "Why should I stay part of a group that has such vile members in it?" and "Why should I stay part of a group that has such vile people in positions of authority?"
In any of the cases you are familiar with, are people (considering) leaving because peers are vile, or because leaders are vile?
I don't know of any cases where vileness in mere peers has caused any scandals, so I should like to know if you do.
The problem with vile people being in positions of authority is that, well, they're in positions of authority. Sometimes that means that their presence in those positions is endorsed by the membership, and signifies that the group as a whole has a culture-wide failiness problem. Sometimes that means they can make participating in the group sufficiently hard or dangerous for some members that leaving is necessary or advisable.
Also, I do think that voting with one's feet can be a legitimate form of protest (especially when one make public why one is leaving.) Similarly, members who confer legitimacy by their membership need to think twice about allowing an organization they have lost faith with enjoy their presence. A group of prominent members of an org I had belonged to just publicly disassociated themselves from the org when it came to light that management had conducted and gave every indication that it would continue conducting itself unethically, in ways that endangered the membership. One of those people astutely observed that his close connection to the group was widely taken as an endorsement by someone very concerned with ethics, and he dare not allow that unspoken message to go out any more.