Is It a Contradiction in Terms?

There is no shortage of white-collar crime in business and in government. The press is full of it. But there is little reference to white-collar "criminals." Is that a term reserved for the poor?

Just last week, the SEC accused Rajat Gupta, a senior executive at McKinsey & Company and a former director of Goldman Sachs, of providing inside information to a hedge fund. The New York Times noted that the U.S. attorney in the case, "has secured guilty pleas from 29 people for insider trading and charged 17 others. They include high-profile traders, midlevel executives and relatively minor players. (See, "From the Top.") That's a lot, and strongly suggests how many more must have gone undetected.

To be sure, Mr. Gupta has not been tried and convicted, but there is a long list of executives, traders and politicians who have actually gone to jail. It's easy to understand the temptation they must feel to profit from their positions, and even the sense of privilege and immunity that may have caused them to believe they'll never get caught. But even when they do get caught, we seem to collude sparing them the humiliation of calling them "criminals." They are getting special treatment in our language.