Can One "Unnamed Politician" Ruin a University's Reputation?4862868

De BISAWiki

Wow! What a question. Wondering where that came from and why. Recently I read a question that topped an article online; the question was, "Did "unnamed politician" Damage the Reputation of Harvard Law School?"

As I read that I figured that it is just an article bringing someone's attention to those articles. Any article with the name "unnamed politician" in it now, has to be an attention-seeking article. But even so, it did get my attention enough for me to click on the article and see what it was about.

And of course, as always, I have my own answers to questions and my own opinions. So what is your answer? What do you think about the topic? You have lots of thoughts, ideas and opinions yourself. Here, in this article is my own opinion about that one question (not about the entire topic of "unnamed Politicians " but only about that one question):

Let's take the name "unnamed politician" out of the article and use anyone else's name. For example, suppose that was your uncle? If you uncle did what the "unnamed politician" did, would he ruin your family's reputation? Would he ruin your own reputation? No. He would not. To most sensible human beings, people are not what their friends are, they are not what their family is and in this case, Harvard Law School is not the "unnamed politician".

Think about this logically. Do you have any idea of how many millions of people have attended HLS over the years since it was first in operation? Do you think that there were never any drug-addicts, alcoholics, criminals, mentally-ill individuals who have attended the school? Do you think that Spitzer was the only HLS graduate or alumni that ever went to a hooker?

Before your raised eyebrows reach Heaven's gate, think about this. Humans attend schools; they attend every single school in the nation. And therefore, the graduates and alumni of any school in this nation are composed of humans. So, ANYONE could have and would have graduated or attended HLS. Now, I hear what you are thinking. But HLS, like many other ivy-league schools have standards and they only let certain people enter into their halls. Well, standards are only set by what is visible. In other words, no one knows the secret life of everyone. Anyone can be everyone or anyone. In other words, there are no guarantees of anyone's purity, life, lifestyle or sanity just because someone attend HLS. And if you doubt that, then explain how "unnamed politician" graduated, yet, he is not the perfect human being at all. By today's standards, perhaps now with his history, if he was applying for HLS, perhaps he would not be accepted. (But then no one knows).

What I am saying here is that a school, any particular school, no matter how ivy-league it is - does not guarantee the future character, morals or lifestyle of any individual human being. The school has no control over what happens to that human and the school has no control over how a student grows or does not grow in that student's own future.

The "unnamed politician" ruined his own reputation, not anyone else's. A person can only ruin their own reputation. That is a fact. Yes, many people can try to ruin someone's reputation but without that own person's help, the rumor-monger will be quite unsuccessful.

You can ruin only your own reputation. That is all the power you have. If someone begins a rumor about you or if someone tells a story about you, that might ruin your reputation for the second that they tell the story. But without your help, that rumor will die down and your reputation will be intact. How do you help them? By repeating the rumor or story, you are helping to ruin your own reputation. If you hear a rumor or story about yourself or about someone else, the very best thing for you to do is to stop it, crunch it, basically ignore it and do not repeat it to anyone.

Getting back to "unnamed politician", If that article was about an "unnamed politician" a pro-"unnamed politician" article, it defeated its' purpose by bringing up the topic again. The best thing for "unnamed politician" to do is to stop the story-spreading (Which he has done by making no comments), and the best thing for "unnamed politician" fans or followers to do is to also stop spreading the original rumor.

What "unnamed politician" did was a criminal act (He was a "john" with a prostitute), and he will eventually go to trial and perhaps serve a sentence or two, depending on our city's reaction and the judge that rules. But if he lets the story die down -by continuing to "not comment", that is best for him. And as far as the reputation of HLS, I did not even know he went there, and I am sure there are thousands that did not know he attended there. So, the article in itself is what feeds the "bad reputation" of anything if that will happen at all. Now, we are aware that Sptizer went to HLS. And now everyone makes their own opinions about that.

So, the facts are these:

The "unnamed politician" committed a crime and the story will be in the news for quite some time until people get tired of hearing the details. For now, it is selling papers to those who want to read about crime, sensationalism and the downfall of a New York public official. Everyone who writes an article about it or anyone who writes a letter to the editor about the topic is continuing the story. (And, I'm not saying that we should discontinue it but stating that just because sometimes people defeat their own purpose. Those trying to help Spitzer by their articles or by their craft, will not be helping him at all as long as they spread more of the story. Silence is truly golden and the "unnamed politician" has insisted on making no further comments, then he will drop the story faster than anyone else will. I am not saying that the article was pro-"unnamed politician" or anti-"unnamed politician, these comments are in general about any and all of any articles written about the topic. Knowing that the man has all this money and still has some power, if there is a trial it probably will go on for quite some time as his lawyers stall and try to make it an "untrial".

Personally, before this story about him came out, I happened to like the "unnamed politician's " 'style of government because he seemed to, appeared to be a crime-fighter, and he did much for the memories of crime victims. But that was all I knew about him and now as the news stories go around, I notice that he is part of the crime story.

What's the crime?

Not judging here but stating the facts, only the facts. SO here are more facts for your own reading:

Some say that this is his own "personal life" Going to a hooker is nothing personal at all -- ever. Unless you are in a state that permits prostitution (which we are not), being a hooker or going to a hooker, paying a hooker or using a hooker's services --is still a crime. So that is the crime. So, when a politician, ANY politician commits a crime, that is not "personal life" but it is a public matter. Adultery is kind of a crime in that you can get a divorce on those grounds, so is that a fact or not? If the "unnamed politician" frequented the very same hooker all the time, is that not some kind of adultery, even though it is paid for?

To me, perhaps the biggest crimes committed were the crimes of betraying his children (if he has any), and betraying his own wife --his own family. Society is too easy to make these kinds of crimes "personal". Just how much can a person do in his life to damage his own reputation, damage the truth, trust and honesty of his family by betraying them --and still get away with that calling it "personal business" or "personal life". It is time that society wakes up and realizes that when people get elected into office, when they betray their families, wives and children, then this is no longer personal business - because they are public officials. But society has not woken to that fact yet.

Society thinks that anything to do with sex, hookers, affairs --can be considered a person's "personal life" --even if that person is supposed to uphold the public trust, even if that person is supposed to display honesty and be honest, even if that person holds the fate of our own city in his hands, society is under the mistaken belief that a public officials betrayals is considered "personal life".

Well, there are many who do not think that same way.

So, did he ruin the reputation of HLS? Did he ruin his family's reputation? Did he ruin his pastor's reputation or his churches reputation? Did he ruin the reputation of the schools or people that he has visited over the years? Did he ruin the prostitutes reputation? No, this "unnamed politician" has ruined only his very own reputation. And, he has not ruined HLS reputation either. HLS will have to do that itself. One individual cannot ruin the reputation of an entire university, not on this planet! He cannot ruin his school's reputation any more than he can ruin his children's or wife's or pastor's reputation.

You ruin your own reputation. Even if someone borrows it for a bit, you are the only one that can ruin it for an entire lifetime. That is a fact.

I wrote this article months ago, but just updated it in November 2008.