The Measure of Integrity Reaches Deeper Than Honesty

Asheville Citizen-Times, pp. A9-10

July 11, 2004

By Casey Hurley

Shortly after crossing the South Carolina border on Interstate 26, a billboard shows a man standing in an auto repair shop. The sign reads, “Couldn’t fix it. Refused money.” Below is the word “Integrity” against a red background.

The “Integrity” billboard is provocative because the virtue of integrity is different from other virtues. We can recognize different levels of courage, compassion, perseverance, and dedication, but integrity is more complex. There is no universal “integrity scale.” Instead, integrity, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

The dictionary gives three synonyms for integrity. The first is “honesty.” The second is “undivided.” The third is “completeness.” So integrity goes beyond honesty.

Both integrity and honesty are subjects of debate in today’s society. Honesty is a major issue in the media, politics, sports, and business.

In the area of political commentary, Bill O’Reilly promotes his television show as a “no spin zone,” suggesting that other shows are not as honest as his.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Al Franken’s bestselling book is entitled “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” which describes dishonest statements made by political pundits.

In the world of sports, AC-T sports editor Bob Berghaus (AC-T, 6/10/04) recently warned WCU basketball star, Kevin Martin, to be suspicious of what he was told by NBA teams because, “General managers lie all the time. It’s part of the job.”

In the world of business we know that public accountants and leaders of some of our largest, most acclaimed companies cooked the books and lied to stockholders, employees, pensioners and federal authorities.

For example, although Enron leadership was considered exemplary in a 2001 textbook I use, since the Enron scandal, no professor uses Enron as an example of effective leadership. Many of my students are quick to point out the irony within that part of the book.

But we all know that politicians and pundits “spin” their statements, and that high-ranking members of multi-million dollar organizations lie when millions of dollars are at stake. And, about the world of professional sports, many of us would say, “Of course general managers lie. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake during salary negotiations.” As Berghaus said, “It is part of the job.”

So, although we expect dishonesty in varied situations, it is still popular to publicly accuse others of being dishonest. O’Reilly does it. Franken does it. Berghaus does it.

Integrity, which goes beyond honesty, is also a hotly debated virtue, partly because we all hold different standards for what it means to be “undivided, and “complete.” The nature of integrity is such that an argument can be based on facts, but it can still lack integrity if it has holes or includes irrelevancies.

Two recent opinion pieces in the mass media provide examples of honest arguments that fall below my integrity standard. The first is Mark Ruscoe’s column (AC-T, 7/3/04) about the terrific job President Bush has done in Iraq. The second is Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11.

I am not saying that either Ruscoe or Moore lack integrity. I don’t know either of them. I am saying, however, that their recent works do not seem to me to have a high degree of integrity.

Ruscoe wrote a column that cited the total number of Iraqi deaths caused by Saddam’s regime. He calculated an annual average of 40,000 victims per year. Then he wrote that the 10,000 deaths caused during the “difficult year of liberation” actually “represents a human life savings of 30,000.”

Does Ruscoe expect readers to accept a conclusion based on a misleading mathematical average? Although 40,000 represents the mathematical average of annual Iraqi deaths, does anybody believe that is how many deaths Saddam would have caused in 2003, while the United Nations was combing the country for weapons of mass destruction?

A column with integrity would be based on a more complete understanding of the actual situation in Iraq during the spring of 2003, and a more complete understanding of when it is misleading to cite mathematical averages. Citing an average that ignored the actual situation created a big hole in Ruscoe’s argument.

Even so, some might agree with Ruscoe’s point. Even if the American attack did not net a “human life savings,” the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, and we owe it all to President Bush. In this case, the end justified the means.

But let’s look at this case. Ruscoe makes the point that Bush is responsible for hypothetically saving 30,000 lives -- a figure that is based on an average, and a figure that ignores what was happening in Iraq during the spring of 2003. He also admits that Bush is responsible for 10,000 actual deaths.

His column fails to meet my integrity standard because, based on his own use of mathematics, if there ever was a time when the end did not justify the means, this was it.

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, also fails to meet my standard. Moore says his movie is an Op-Ed piece. As such, it is a film whose purpose is to persuade others of questionable Bush administration motives and an ineffective war on terror.

Moore took this position in response to criticisms that his movie was more political propaganda than documentary. He had to admit that it was not a documentary, but he couldn’t admit that it was propaganda, or the film would have failed the “honesty test.”

But as an Op-Ed piece, this film needs to also meet the integrity standard of being honest, undivided, and complete. After watching the movie, and reading some of the internet debates about the film’s honesty and integrity, I had the following thoughts about the film.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is based on honest facts, but it lacked integrity by overstating it evidence and by being unfair to President Bush.

The film implies that members of the Bush administration were conspiring to make themselves richer whenever they shook hands with Saudi rulers. Moore shows scene after scene of these greetings. Does he think the audience does not realize that presidents and their cabinets greet foreign leaders all the time in order to carry out necessary diplomatic relations of all types?

The film goes to great lengths to show the documents that support Moore’s accusations of a Bush – Saudi connection, and an attempt to cover it up. The documents speak for themselves, but integrity suffered in the editing and narration that portrayed the Bush-Saudi connection.

Similarly, juxtaposing President Bush’s words with those of cowboy actors in “B” Westerns detracted from the film’s integrity. It suggested, unfairly, that President Bush is like a cowboy fighting in the old west.

Most moviegoers know this is a cheap shot -- an attempt at humor. But it was unfair to President Bush, thereby damaging the film’s integrity.

We all struggle with recognizing and understanding integrity. Each of us has a different standard. Some believe the mechanic on the I-26 billboard is a chump, others think he is a man of principle.

Maybe it is asking too much to expect integrity that goes beyond honesty. I am not sure; but I am sure that most of us want a mechanic like the one on the I-26 billboard.

Readers who want more information on the “virtue” billboard campaign can go to http://www.oaaa.org/news/release.asp?RELEASE_ID=1360.)