Should we have that expectation? If a person does it we call it concealing evidence, intimidation, and perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, if they confess right away, we treat them leniently. Why should institutions differ?
Large systems are more than the sum of their parts, but not nearly as much as those parts want you to believe.
If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda.
Really curious, not trying to construct a strawman!
Yes, but the point being made is that in the case of organizations the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts.
> If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda.
Not sure what you mean by this. Difference from what to any other organization and why that relevant?
You find immoral, illegal, etc. activity in institutions/organizations across a broad spectrum of areas.
This is because the "constituent parts" - members of the organization - are often just terrible human beings that hide behind the concept of an institution to shield themselves from the cognitive dissonance caused by their own unethical actions.
If an institution does something unethical it can always be traced to its employees.
As an example, all the researchers involved in promoting this fake health product ought to be fired and academically blackballed. It really is that simple. That's how we can deal with institutional rot.
Wait for one really good case and let the papers instead discuss how a century old institution collapsed.
Not that there's any way in our current culture to assemble a truly impartial reputation tracker, but surely we can do better than Yelp.
Write an article and send it to the papers?
This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.