When the Evidence Is There, But We Look Away

There is something deeply uncomfortable about evidence that changes what we believe about someone we know and trust. Sometimes the evidence is not a matter of interpretation. There are messages, records, documents and contemporaneous accounts that preserve what was said or done. Yet even then, we can find ways not to see what is in front of us because accepting it may require us to reconsider someone we love, respect, work with or have built a career or even life around. That is where loyalty can become dangerous.

When concerns involve a regulated professional, the stakes are higher. A professional designation, reputation or position of authority should establish confidence in someone's expertise. It should never make that person immune from scrutiny. The College of Veterinarians of Ontario provides an important example. Its guidance on conflicts of interest states that “real or potential conflicts of interest identified or otherwise raised by clients are to be treated in the same manner as conflicts identified by the veterinarian.” It also states that conflicts related to a specific client or animal should be documented in the medical record. That distinction matters. A concern does not become less important because it was raised by a client rather than identified by the professional. The responsibility is to examine the concern and determine what it means, rather than allowing the identity or reputation of the person involved to determine the response. The same principle applies to the people around that professional.

That principle matters beyond the regulator. When serious concerns are brought to the attention of a professional's colleagues, organization, spouse or others who are in a position to understand what those concerns could mean, the response matters. We do not have to decide immediately that every allegation is true. We do have a responsibility to look at credible evidence and consider what it means. Especially when abuse, exploitation or serious professional boundary violations are at issue.

A dismissive response can have consequences far beyond the person who raised the concern. It can tell colleagues, employees, students, interns and young professionals what happens when someone challenges a respected person. It can also send a message to children about what we tolerate, what we excuse and whose reputation we protect when difficult truths enter the room. It sets a particularly troubling example when documented evidence of serious wrongdoing is dismissed or minimized. The message can become that exploitation, abuse or other serious misconduct can somehow be explained away when the person involved is someone we know, love or respect. That is not the lesson we should be teaching the next generation.

I have spent more than 30 years working in communications, reputation and issues management. One of the things I have learned is that reputation is not protected by looking away from difficult information. It is protected when we demonstrate that our values still apply when the facts are uncomfortable, when the person involved is someone we know and when acknowledging what happened requires us to do something about it. This is when values stop being just words and start meaning something.

I will speak publicly, and in greater detail, about my own lived experience. I have spent considerable time deciding how and when to do that. When I do, I will speak from the evidence and records. Until then, I ask you to consider this: When evidence challenges what you want to believe about someone you know, are you willing to look at it, acknowledge what it tells you and act accordingly? Because sometimes the problem is not that the truth is hidden. It is that we can see it clearly and still choose not to act.

About the author: 

Catherine Cameron is a Toronto-based Senior Communications Leader and Strategic Advisor with more than 30 years of experience supporting healthcare and social service organizations. Her work focuses on trust, reputation, leadership communication, stakeholder engagement, crisis communications, and public confidence.