Archive

ShareThis Page
Editorial: AG Shapiro challenges institutional power | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: AG Shapiro challenges institutional power

by TRIBUNE-REVIEW
| Friday, September 28, 2018 5:33 p.m.
283506GTRshapiro1092818
Shane Dunlap | Tribune-Review
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro discusses topics with the Trib Total Media Editorial Board on Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 at the newspaper offices in Greensburg.

How powerful do we want our institutions to be?

It seems like it would be great to have organizations that have authority and clout. We want to work for places that have weight. We want to be a part of something with scope.

But in an editorial board meeting with the Tribune-Review on Thursday, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro noted institutional power as one of the areas he has been challenging.

The most obvious example with the Office of the Attorney General is the Catholic Church, which was confronted with 1,000 points of failure to protect children from predator priests in a grand jury report Shapiro released six weeks ago. Since then, 1,181 more people have contacted the OAG with their own horror stories.

That’s just one of many areas the AG is addressing, however. He is part of — or leading — lawsuits and investigations that are taking aim at a number of large-scale organizations across the country. There is targeting of opioid manufacturers. There is protection of consumer data. There is his strike at the nation’s largest student loan private servicer, Navient Solutions LLC.

The common thread is about tackling institutions where an imbalance of power appears to prey on the weak: children, the sick, the poor.

“I don’t know why anyone would want to give institutions more power,” Shapiro said. “There is no reason any entity should be off-limits.”

And that’s true. Everything about how we order our society tells us that.

We want our kids to go to great schools, but we want those schools to be answerable to the people. We want to work for great employers, but we want them to be responsible actors who follow the rules and treat their employees fairly. We want to worship in the faith we follow, but we want to know that our faith leaders are not sweeping up the breadcrumbs to cover their trails.

No matter how high the authority, it is crucial to know that we are all not just playing by the same rules, but playing the same game and for the same stakes.

Power isn’t inherently good or evil. It’s not the size of the company or the scope of the organization that makes it questionable. It’s what it does with that power that makes the difference, and recent history has too many examples of how that has gone wrong. The mortgage collapse. Harvey Weinstein. That diocese grand jury report.

The size and scope can be beneficial, and we can’t penalize an organization just because they are successful. That’s not what this is about. We have to remember that the net worth doesn’t automatically equate to nobility.

In the words of John Dalberg-Acton, a Catholic British baron with ties to Pittsburgh’s Andrew Carnegie, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is something about being unchecked that makes people, or other entities, feel that they do not need to answer to anyone.

Sometimes they need to be reminded that they are actually answerable to everyone.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.