The Strangers Public Option: A Call for CMCs Secret Society to Go Public

The following is a memo that was written for and circulated among the Strangers as an attempt
to forge a best path forward with the group on CMCs campus. After a number of discussions
with a variety of individuals, it became clear that the organizations secrecy is unsustainable for
a variety of reasons, for all parties. Months later, we have not seen significant action by the
group to address these concerns.
By releasing this information in the public domain, we hope to further motivate, not undercut,
the groups progress on the issue, as there has been some headway. Yet, there remain strong
feelings and deep misunderstandings on both sides of this issue, as well as valid concerns
regarding their continued secrecy. The Strangers historyand humans self-interested nature
dictate that inaction by Strangers and non-members will doom CMC to repeat past conflicts.
Inaction is CMCs worst option.
Lastly, it is likely hypocritical to anonymously release a memo critiquing a secret society.
However, after much deliberation, the risk of retribution is too high to publish on the record.
Hopefully this detail will not detract from the memos content and message.
Ever since the ASCMC Executive Board rescinded appointments in March 2013 due to a [failure] to
disclose pre-existing relationships, rumors have swirled around CMCs campus regarding the nature and
extent of the conflict of interests. Specifically, CMCers have been intrigued by the idea of a secret
society here in campus.
Some of the rumors are based in fact, while others are complete conjecture. After months of deliberation
and conversations with a variety of individuals, members of the secret group as well as non-members who
wish to see it disbanded, this memo is written in an attempt to help clear the air and forge a path forward
that addresses the concerns of all parties. Now that the group is less secretive and under more scrutiny,
members are more willing to share their perspectives, allowing for a more refined and less speculative
discussion. There is hope that students will soon come to a consensus on the issue, addressing the
concerns of all sides. There is also danger that the issue will be forgotten and more severe issues will
reemerge, as they have in past years.
First, we give you the plain facts as they were presented. The Strangers is a group that has existed at
CMC for just less than two decades. The group recruits a handful of students from each class during their
sophomore year at CMC (typically). Once recruited, Strangers meet covertly with fellow student
Strangers to assist each other with their goals and foster self-improvement. As another large component of
the groups mission, members reach out to the groups alumni for additional career and personal
assistance. In essence, the group is a selective yet secretive mentoring program, through which students
develop one another and meet talented alumni in a structured manner. Despite its benign objective, many
non-members find a number of problems inherent to the groups existence and secretive nature. The
primary objective of this memo is to sort through and evaluate these objections and counterpoints.

The most common critique among non-members is that the group needlessly divides an already
competitive and segmented CMC student bodythat this group runs counter to CMCs inclusive culture.
While these concerns of non-members are valid, they are inconsistent with other standards at CMC.
Ideally, every campus group would allow all students equal access, but that is not practicable. Wed be
taking away from everybody if we promised to never divide the student body. Exclusivity runs strong at
CMC. We consistently make distinctions among our students, and we cant criticize the Strangers for
doing the same, essentially exercising their right to privately organize.
A more pressing concern expressed by non-members (and is admitted to by some current members)
relates to Strangers deceptiveness: non-members cannot know who is in the group and their objectives.
On an interpersonal level, the Strangers force friends to lie to friends, eroding personal relationships
between members and non-members. Many, many non-members can attest to this breakdown in trust with
current members, including including the authors of this document. Without a doubt, these are terrible and
unfortunate externalities of the group, but these externalities alone cannot require the group to become
public. While these divisive outcomes make perpetuation of the Strangers unwise and inappropriate, they
do not obligate them to reform, let alone disband, however poor of an idea creating a secret society may
be.
More actionable obligations arise when Strangers assume positions of power (as many do, either by
coincidence or design). Now that many are aware of current members of the Strangers (or at least within
the Class of 2015), leaders secret associations with other students invariably lead the rest of those who
are familiar with its members to second guess their decision making, particularly with respect to hiring,
appointments, and promotionsincredibly sensitive processes. (Interestingly, month before our own
scandal in 2013, Georgetowns secret society had a significant impact in their student government
election.)
In these processes, as in many analogous positions in the real world beyond CMC, disclosure of
preexisting relationships is the very first step in avoiding professional ethics violations. Many jobs require
their employees to pass ethics exams. Review materials have one common rule: when in doubt, disclose,
disclose, disclose. Yet, by the nature of the group, the very thing Strangers cannot do is disclose. No
matter how Strangers in campus leadership conduct themselves, they cannot comply with basic ethical
standards in making decisionsthat is, until they disclose previous relationships with parties involved.
Fair or unfair, others will invariably questions their judgment. When anyone makes a hiring, firing, or
appointment, those in charge have an obligation to disclose any other associations or personal
relationships that may affect their decision, particularly associations as organized as the Strangers.
Interestingly, people on both sides of the issue generally agreed to this point regarding disclosure.
Members of the group, however, are yet to take action.
After discussing disclosure with members of the group, Strangers responded that a preference for other
Strangersconscious or unconsciousin decision-making processes in other campus leadership
positions is the same for any other group on campus. Any leader of any campus organization, public or
secret, may favor any other student based on previous personal or formal relationship. Furthermore,
personal relationships and networking is how the real world works. They should not be held to a higher

standard and have to unreasonably sacrifice their secrecysomething that they argue is essential to the
groups functionin order to satisfy others paranoia.
Their response and justification above, however, do not account for how disclosure of conflicts of
interests actually works. A failure to disclose potential conflict of interests by any campus leader is
nonetheless a violation of ethical standards. They are not held to a higher standard; they just violate this
ethical standard in a systematic manner, one that understandably alarms others.
In making decisions, leaders of organizations have a standard obligation to disclose to others that they
know X applicant for Y reason. No disclosure implies that they are evaluating a candidate strictly on the
meritsor at least as fairly they can. In a best-case scenario, Strangers have admitted that they know an
applicant based on previous private associations (often, they do not disclose at all, and disclosure takes
place after a great deal of wrangling). But private organizations does not give us the full story,
misrepresenting the group as a casual informal relationship and not meeting ethical requirements of
disclosure. The Strangers are much more than a private association, such as casual personal relationships.
They are an organized group that has well-defined membership and objectives, and non-members have
good reason to believe thatin the interests of career goals and self-improvementmembers may favor a
candidate at least in part because of membership in the Strangers.
Importantly, members of the Strangers maintain that influencing campus positions has never been their
objective. Although it may cut into the self-help mission of the group, group membership is not meant
to influence on-campus decisions, though it likely affects real-world recruiting and hiring (as it has with
other secret societies)something that is not CMCs concern, but is equally concerning in its own right.
They claim that in any past occurrence when membership to the Strangers may have caused Strangers in
leadership positions to favor another member, the member was acting on his own volition, outside of and
counter to the objectives of the group. They recognize these acts are unethical and condemned the actions
of members who have previously exploited group membership.
Though this is reassuring, especially given allegations of past violations by Strangers, it far from
guarantees compliance from all members. The purpose of the group may not be malicious, but there are
instances in which the group can be used for sinister purposes. It is a potential weapon. What was most
unsettling about conversations with members of group was how little recently recruited members of the
Strangers know about these past perceived violations of ethical standards by members of the group. In
contrast, for many others non-members, these are the events that define their opinions of the group. This
disparity is the source of much conflict between the group and concerned non-membersintense conflict.
It already appears the group cannot self-regulate, but the group cannot hope to ever self-regulate if
members do not recall past abuses. These events should serve as examples of exactly what not to do, not
forgotten with each graduating class. Their claims of ethical compliance seem only aspirational in the
groups current state and operations; their claims that this is how the real world works seem cynical at
best.
Under the status quo, non-members must merely trust Strangers to not abuse their private association with
other membersa dynamic that is unfair and unacceptable. Moreover, the status quo is not ideal for the
Strangers: while they maintain their secrecy, members in positions of power constantly combat

speculation as to the intent behind their decisions and overall personal integrity. For the rest of CMC, we
are left to wonder whether the group has in fact compromised the integrity of elections, appointments, and
other processes we desperately hope are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, by Strangers or any
other campus leader with other secret associations. In private, alumni will tell you this is not a stretch.
With other groups, we trust that members will disclose preexisting relationships, yet we are able to verify
membership through their public nature. With the Strangers, we have neither. Members are continually
scrutinized, and non-members are left to speculate (or blindly trust the Strangers). There must be a better
alternative.
Thus, the current secret status of the Strangers is untenable. The rest of CMC holds selection processes
too dearly to allow a small group of students continue to maintain their secret organization and, thereby,
cast doubt upon the efficacy of supposedly fair and merit-based processes. In order to meet basic ethical
standards, it seems members must either vow to never assume positions of leadership, or the group must
become public. And, even if members make this vow, the rest of us have no guarantee that they will
comply so long as membership remains secret. In practice, becoming public seems to be the only real
option.
It seems possible that the Strangers can reform their practices so that they operate with just enough public
disclosure to satisfy the requirements of fair selection processes while also maintaining the level of
secrecy they feel they need to operate their organization. Many other public campus organizations enjoy
high levels of exclusivity and confidentiality. Granted, this solution does not address the personal and
social issues above (all of which are compelling and deserve serious consideration), but it does address
pressing ethical obligations for Strangers in leadership positionsan issue that afflicts many members.
While the former is a matter of personal choice, the latter is a function of substantial professional and
ethical obligations and demands action. Current Strangers are accomplished students and practitioners of
professional ethics in their respective fields. This conflict should come of no surprise to them, yet it
somehow falls in their blind spot.
When presented the ethical issue of disclosure in plain terms, Strangers emphasize that, although they are
secret, they do nothing wrongthat we should trust them to act ethically just like any other organization.
But the point is we are not obligated to trust them (or any other secret organization), and they are held to
the same ethical standards of any other group (i.e. we trust others to disclose, but we can also verify
membership). It is the secrecy itself that harms us regardless of further malicious intent. Many times these
discussions between members and non-members lead to arguments over what has or has not happened in
the past, but whether previous violations have occurred is irrelevant to the core ethical question:
disclosure. They may have never violated disclosure requirements in the past, but they are still equally
beholden to common disclosure requirements today in 2015. They could be the most benevolent group on
campus, but they would still have to disclose their relationships in other leadership decision processes.
For instance, California tickets for speeding not because drivers have measurably harmed anyone, but
because they have endangered the interests of others. Similarly, while the group may never manipulate
campus hiring, promotions, or appointments, their refusal to disclose nevertheless creates ethical
violations. In a way, the Strangers have always harmed us; now we just have the privilege of knowing
about it.

After becoming more familiar with the Strangers structure and purpose, one objection is Why should
they care? The group is predominantly alumni and focuses on success post-CMC. Why should the
integrity of on-campus organizations at all concern them? Knowing a good sampling of the members of
the group, however, it appears these people are some of the students and alumni who care most about
CMC and its organizations. Many were campus leaders themselves, and the success and integrity of the
campus organizations that they were part of and make CMC thrive is immensely important to them. When
clearly presented the ethical issues involved with membership to a secret organization, as this memo
hopes to have done, the hope is the Strangers will either resolve to become public, meeting basic ethical
standards, or realize they must strictly prohibit themselves from assuming campus leadership positions
because of their own refusal to comply. For the group, it seems latter would be unacceptable, so their
ideal route would be to pursue the former. Perhaps this is nave, but as another student who also cares
deeply about CMC, we thought we had to try.
In the end, we will admit, the Strangers are like any other group on campus; that is, they are in every way
except for the one ethically critical detail: they do not disclose membership. So in this memo we urge
them to, in fact, be like any other group on campus and disclose their members. Until then, the group is in
clear violation of ethical standards and taints CMCs distinguished student organizations.