Scapegoat

     Few people seem to know the etymology of the word "scapegoat". It is in fact a contraction of "escape goat", a sacrificial animal that in certain cultures was sent into the wilderness, presumably to be eaten by wolves, and taking the community's wrongdoings with it. Hence, the modern practice of "throwing someone to the wolves" to assuage consciences and erase a wrong.

     These days, however, the people tend to see through such attempts to shift the blame. If an oil company, for instance, causes damage to the environment, they can't get away with simply firing one executive, as if he or she was the only one at fault. And so when people want to persuade the public to go along with their scapegoating, they have to be sneaky. They have to play on our natural suspicion towards them.

     Take this case, where Evelynn Hammonds, a dean involved in the Harvard email searching fiasco, is resigning. The flak from those events is reportedly "not a motivating factor" in her decision. My first reaction to that was, essentially, "Oh, right. This has NO connection. I totally believe it, she must be guilty." My second reaction was "Wait. Why the heck did I just think that?" If the majority of the populace doesn't have that second thought (not an improbable occurrence, as comparatively few people second-guess themselves), then Harvard has quite neatly created itself a scapegoat, without technically doing anything of the sort. What does this say about our trust, or distrust, of public figures and institutions? Does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply in official courts of law, and not in public opinion? 

     Also, Dr. Hammonds is both the first female and the first African-American dean at Harvard. Do certain groups make better scapegoats than others? What would have happened if Dr. Hammonds was a white male?

     Lastly, note what it says on the Harvard coat of arms: "Veritas", which is Latin for truth. Is Harvard living up to its ideal? If Dr. Hammonds' resignation really isn't motivated by the email incident, but is perceived that way regardless, who is lying: the university, to the people, or the people, to themselves?