GUEST BLOG POST
It’s human nature to rush to judgment. We take the information we are presented with and fill in the gaps and unknowns with assumptions based on our experiences and intuition. This is how our brains are wired. Not only is it usually beneficial to make these kinds of snap judgments, it is an important survival skill.
If your intuition is working right now, you are probably expecting a big “but…” and you have surmised correctly. Making a rush to judgment can serve us well in certain situations, but it can be dangerous in others. There are plenty of situations, particularly professional settings, where a rush to judgment can be detrimental.
Internal auditors know this all too well. Jumping to conclusions without carefully weighing all the evidence is typically a bad idea for those whose job it is to provide assurance that processes and functions are working properly. That doesn’t mean internal auditors don’t use things like intuition, gut feeling, and experience to make decisions in the course of carrying out their duties. They do, but they must also rely heavily on a healthy dose of professional skepticism.
We all got a good reminder on the importance of professional skepticism with the bizarre circumstances surrounding the events of the Jussie Smollett case.
An Attack or a Hoax?
By now, most of us are probably familiar with at least some aspects of the case, but here is a quick recap just in case. On January 29, Smollett, who is black and openly gay, claimed that he had been attacked near his apartment building in Chicago, Ill. by two men who yelled racial and homophobic slurs as they wrapped a noose around his neck. After an investigation, Chicago police released two potential suspects and instead ended up charging Smollett on February 20 with disorderly conduct for allegedly filing a false police report about the attack, the Cook County state’s attorney’s office said.
Professional Skepticism: “An attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions which may indicate possible misstatement due to error or fraud, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.”
Hours earlier, the Chicago Police Department announced that Smollett was officially classified as a suspect in a criminal investigation for filing a false police report, a felony. The following day, Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said Smollett faked both a threatening letter he claimed to have received a week before the attack and the attack itself because “he was dissatisfied with his salary” on his television show Empire.
To be clear, my intention here is not to condemn Jussie Smollett or any of the parties involved in the case. I do have an opinion on the situation, but for the sake of this article, I will do my best to remain neutral. Certain components of the incident will be examined in this article merely to illustrate the concept of professional skepticism. Regardless of the outcome, I hope Smollett utilizes this moment of adversity as a lesson from which he can grow.
From a career standpoint, I have been in the internal audit field for two and a half years, after working for a stint in anti- money laundering (AML) compliance. Internal auditors are not the most popular group in the office as auditors have the dubious task of testing the company’s processes primarily for operational effectiveness and regulatory compliance. In crossing over from AML compliance to internal audit, one of my greatest challenges was strengthening my professional skepticism. I do not claim to be an expert in the art of professional skepticism; however, I did manage to carry this art over into my personal life, which at times has become problematic to those closest to me.
What Is Professional Skepticism?
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) has a great definition of professional skepticism, which it defines as: “An attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions which may indicate possible misstatement due to error or fraud, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.”
In layman’s terms, professional skepticism is an offshoot of critical thinking and demands an inquisitive mindset to continuously search for an adequate understanding of the situation. It requires the ability to not quickly settle for easily obtained, surface level evidence.
The primary benefit of professional skepticism is that it enables the auditor to ask more targeted questions in order to fully understand the audited business or process, pinpoint potential control gaps, and determine the root cause of these potential control gaps.
Examining popular news stories is an exercise that I like to use in order to practice professional skepticism. For today’s exercise, we will examine the initial report of the January incident involving Smollett.
Knee-Jerk Reactions
The Los Angeles affiliate of ABC News created a timeline of events that included the following entry for January 29, when Smollett first reported the attack to police:
Jan. 29: “Smollett tells Chicago police he was physically attacked by two men in downtown Chicago while out getting food from a Subway restaurant at 2 a.m. The black and openly gay actor tells authorities the men used racial and homophobic slurs, wrapped a rope around his neck and poured an ‘unknown substance’ on him. Police say Smollett told detectives that the attackers yelled he was in ‘MAGA country,’ an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan that some critics of Trump have decried as racist and discriminatory.”
The primary benefit of professional skepticism is that it enables the auditor to ask more targeted questions in order to fully understand the audited business or process, pinpoint potential control gaps, and determine the root cause of these potential control gaps.
As the entire nation was shocked by the report, many prominent figures chimed in to show support via Twitter including these tweets from well-known politicians and celebrities:
We ALL have a responsibility to rise up against the ignorance and hate out there. If you know who did this to @JussieSmollett, REPORT THEM TO THE POLICE.— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) January 29, 2019
.@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery.
This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 29, 2019
Sending love to Jussie and the Smollett family after this horrific attack. We support you and pray that you find peace and justice.— John Legend (@johnlegend) January 29, 2019
The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe.
To those in Congress who don’t feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention. https://t.co/EwXFxl5f2m— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) January 29, 2019
This is just a sampling of the reaction, but there were hundreds and maybe thousands of similar tweets accepting the details of the report as fact and expressing concern and support for the actor. On the surface, these prominent figures did not appear to exercise professional skepticism and rushed to support Smollett. It is also reasonable to assume that many of these individuals had personal ties to the actor and wanted to publicly show support, which is understandable even if not prudent.
In contrast, singer and songwriter Erykah Badu seemed to have sidestepped the surface level evidence and offered this statement, which exposed her to barrage of outrage on Twitter, and not just for poor spelling.
Are y’all sure you know the facts before we tare shit up ? Cause just last week ..every head line written about me was all out of context and manipulated to trigger YOUR outrage.— ErykahBadoula (@fatbellybella) January 29, 2019
Unraveling the Initial Report
Before we dig into ABC network’s initial report, there are a few housekeeping items that need to be addressed.
Theoretically, internal audit is regarded as an independent third party. In order to maintain objectivity, the factors of race and sexual orientation will not be acknowledged in this review. In the audit space, auditors cannot have a conflict of interest, as it will compromise the engagement.
For the sake of this exercise, our role as auditors will be to further examine the statement made in the initial report, with emphasis on the facts.
Line 1: “Jussie Smollett tells Chicago police he was physically attacked by two men in downtown Chicago while out getting food from a Subway restaurant at 2 a.m.”
My initial thought was, who walks the street alone in dangerously cold temperature at 2 a.m. in order to eat Subway? In this age of convenience, why wouldn’t a wealthy, high-profile celebrity like Smollett place an order through Postmates or GrubHub?
Although it may be tempting to blurt out these initial thoughts to an audit client, the key to a successful interview is to maintain a calm demeanor and use discretion in framing follow-up questions. If Smollett was my auditee, my approach would be to ask if walking to Subway late at night was something he did on a regular basis. Then I would follow up and state how someone lazy like myself would probably have placed the order through a service such as GrubHub and then proceed to slide in a question about why he didn’t use a food delivery service.
That said, the likelihood of a MAGA related attack in this location would appear to be slim. Furthermore, the fact that these attackers were roaming the streets carrying a noose and a bleach-like substance in weather with sub-zero windchills also raises eyebrows.
My goal is to get the information that I need without making the auditee feel overly defensive.
To maintain objectivity, I will skip the second line and continue to line #3.
Line 3: “Police say Smollett told detectives that the attackers yelled he was in MAGA country.”
It is no secret what the acronym MAGA stands for (Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan), but is Chicago really MAGA country? In reviewing the 2016 election results for Illinois, Cook County was Hillary country by over a three-to-one margin over Trump.
That said, the likelihood of a MAGA related attack in this location would appear to be slim. Furthermore, the fact that these attackers were roaming the streets carrying a noose and a bleach-like substance in weather with sub-zero windchills also raises eyebrows.
This statement is more complex, in terms of formulating a pertinent question for the auditee and my advice would be to lead with empathy. I would lead with this: “Personally, I am not sold on this notion that we live in a post-racial society and this leads me to your assailants. According to the statement, the assailants claimed Chicago was MAGA country. The 2016 election results for Cook County, overwhelmingly state otherwise. Could you confirm details pertaining to the ethnicity of your assailants?”
This scenario was extremely tough but my approach was to build trust, insert fact, and then circle back with a targeted question.
The Skeptical Internal Auditor
In the world of internal audit, exercising professional skepticism is paramount and we must be willing to be open to new ideas to strengthen this art form. Knowing when to interrogate the facts and when to accept what is presented is no easy task. Practicing the use of professional skepticism can help, and looking deeper at the circumstances of news events as they unravel is one way to keep your skepticism muscle toned. The overall approach may appear to be unorthodox; however, it builds up critical thinking skills while tailoring a line of questioning to fit your audience. As a member of an audit team, the proper use of professional skepticism adds tremendous value for the audit client.
The audit client benefits by achieving favorable reviews from federal regulators and the audit team benefits by having additional audit engagements assigned to the team, which demonstrates value to executive leadership while creating job security. 
Ravon Taylor III is an internal auditor at a well-known FinTech company and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.