Anyone who has worked in the former Soviet nations in eastern Europe, as I have, has seen the effects of corrupted institutions upon the citizens of such countries. Their culture has been debased, crime is rampant, and theft and bribery among government officials widespread. Democracy and the rules of law are relatively weak principles and difficult to nurture in such countries. The contrast with our experience in the United States is clear.
Yet, we live in a society in which crime is an ever-present menace; corruption of public and corporate officials all too common; and the practice of democracy and adherence to law beset with problems. Still, we have institutions, such as the media, to search out corruption, and law enforcement, to prosecute crimes. We have legislative bodies to research and investigate a broad range of issues important to our society and to make law, as well as to oversee the execution of laws by government. And we have a host of public and private institutions that collectively maintain our democratic and law-abiding culture and society. A public university is one such institution.
I make these basic points to establish a context for a few observations upon the actions of William Bulger, the President of UMass and the brother of the infamous Whitey Bulger. He is reported to have received immunity for his testimony before a Grand Jury last year concerning his contacts with his brother (a report he has not denied). In early December, he asserted his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify before a Congressional committee to avoid self-incrimination.
The report of Bulger’s Grand Jury testimony said that he had had one direct contact with his brother after Whitey Bulger fled from arrest, that he had had numerous indirect contacts with his brother through an intermediary, and that he had advised him not to surrender when he spoke with him by telephone (a carefully pre-arranged conversation to avoid detection by the authorities). He is also reported to have told the Grand Jury that he would not cooperate with anyone including legal authorities in the pursuit of his brother.
Except for the grant of immunity for his Grand Jury testimony, William Bulger may well have faced federal charges for aiding in the flight of his brother. Advising his brother to flee from arrest may well constitute grounds for the disciplining if not disbarment of William Bulger as an attorney admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I emphasize that the two statements I have made above are conditional; a decision to prosecute or to seek disbarment would weigh many factors. Nevertheless, these statements are not trivial; nor are they groundless. The immunity granted William Bulger for his testimony would protect him from a federal prosecution; it does not apparently protect him from a state bar disciplinary proceeding.
There are, however, other issues raised by William Bulger’s Grand Jury testimony and assertion of his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination before the Congressional committee. These issues concern his role as president of a public university and as a high public official.
A person may be chosen to lead a university for many reasons. But, character (honesty and truthfulness), intellectual distinction and a strong sense of ethical behavior, including adherence to law, are certainly determinative factors. As a public official, the president of a state university has a special obligation to uphold the law and to ensure that faculty, staff and students under his or her direction do so as well. The same obligations apply to all officials, from top to bottom. Violating such trust merits dismissal of appointed officials, in part because such behavior materially weakens the institutional support for our democracy and law.
Does anyone doubt, if William Bulger had testified before the Grand Jury, as he is reported to have done, or taken the “Fifth” before a Congressional committee, that he would not have been selected as president of UMass? Regardless of any other qualities he might bring to the position, he would have been judged to lack the necessary character and sense of ethics to lead a public university. He would not be worthy of the public trust such a position entails.
Similarly, does anyone doubt that a chancellor, dean, faculty member or staff who acted as William Bulger has acted would not be permitted to retain his or her position at UMass?
A public relations “defense” of William Bulger has been mounted in recent weeks by his staff, some UMass administrators who owe their positions to him, and by the Board of Trustees. Their assertion that Bulger’s invoking the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination is proper because this right protects the “innocent” is disingenuous. The Fifth Amendment protects all citizens, whether law-abiding or criminal. The right is intended to prohibit the government from compelling testimony from an individual and using that “evidence” to convict her or him. It makes no distinction between the innocent and the guilty.
Their claim that loyalty to his brother motivated William Bulger to refuse to cooperate with legal authorities is similarly disingenuous as well as morally unacceptable. It would be unacceptable if such a claim is asserted by an individual or by a public official. Bulger’s brother is accused of twenty or more murders and numerous other heinous crimes. “Loyalty” to such a person is not a defense legally or morally.
Having acted in a manner that would disqualify him from consideration as president of UMass, it is disturbing that the University Board of Trustees and other state officials, including UMass faculty and staff, have failed to demand his dismissal. It is, however, encouraging that the media, students and many others who have witnessed the harm William Bulger has caused UMass and the state have been clear in their understanding of the situation and its remedy. It is also encouraging to learn that the Congressional committee’s investigation will continue, and that William Bulger may be granted immunity for his testimony before the committee, thereby obviating any Fifth Amendment claim on his part.
There are, I think, degrees of corruption; individuals as well as a society can slip almost imperceptibly from one level to the next. Massachusetts is not Bulgaria, but corruption is not unknown in the Commonwealth. In Bulgaria and other former communist countries, many citizens were complicit in the government’s corruption. Opposition was dangerous, of course; it was easier to acquiesce, cooperate and keep silent. The result was, however, a deeper and more profound corruption of both individuals and society.
At the least, William Bulger has ignored if not tolerated his brother’s activities for many years. His recent Grand Jury testimony reveals a contempt for law and a chilling disregard for the victims of his brother’s alleged crimes. Although an individual may assert the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination, a high public official such as William Bulger may not do so and continue to occupy his or her position, as a matter of policy. The contradiction between public duty and behavior is simply too large to accept. The claim of “loyalty” to a brother accused of numerous murders and other crimes provides him with no defense for his actions as an individual and certainly not as a public official. I believe that it is perilous to faculty, students, the public, the University and the state if William Bulger’s actions are tolerated. To the degree they are tolerated, we all become complicit in corruption.
Jack Archer