Whistleblowing is an extremely courageous act, because it is a distinct form of dissent (Johnson, 3). Whistleblowing is defined as “having four component parts: 1) an individual acts with the intention of making information public; 2) the information is conveyed to parties outside the organization who make it public and a part of public record; 3) the information has to do with possible or actual nontrivial wrongdoing in an organization; and 4) the person exposing the agency is not a journalist or ordinary citizen, but a member or former member of the organization” (Johnson 3). Critical thinking on the other hand is defined as: “the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective skepticism” (Thayer-Bacon 58).
Whistleblowers need critical thinking skills, because they are expected to make serious allegations. Their testimony tarnishes the reputation of the accused. At the same time, their testimony creates conflict that may result in the loss of jobs and other privileges. It is important for them to gather all pertinent information, before they blow the whistle. Therefore, whistleblowing is an act representative of critical thinkers.
Allegory of the Cave
Jeffrey Wigand’s experience as a whistleblower provides clear evidence that critical thinking is a crucial step before making the information public. He struggled with the idea of exposing the unethical practices of his employer. He analyzed available information. At the end of the thinking process, he made the decision to become a whistleblower. The same thing can be said about Roger Boisjoly and Aaron Ahearn, because they are whistleblowers like Jeffrey Wigand.
Boisjoly and Ahearn made the decision to go public after a thorough evaluation of the data regarding the unethical and illegal practices in their respecitve workplace. It was not an easy thing to do. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato “describes the ordeal necessary for the soul’s ascent from shadowy illusion to enlightenment” (Soccio 141). At one point Wigand, Ahearn, and Boisjoly tried to stay loyal to their employers. However, they experienced enlightenment, and they decided to live with the truth.
Self-Reliance
Roger Boisjoly was a former Morton Thiokol engineer (Johnson 31). He was unhappy with the way his agency treated the memo he wrote regarding the problematic seals used in the construction of the Space Shuttle Challenger. His clamor to change the policies regarding the examination of the seals was ignored.
However, when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded in midair, it was the wake-up call that compelled Boisjoly to expose serious safety issues in the workplace. Before the tragic event was seen by millions of viewers across America, Boisjoly made repeated remarks regarding safety protocols. He alerted his superiors to the fact that cold weather compromises the integrity of the seals. Boisjoly wrote a letter to his employers that the engineering issue was a life-threatening problem for the astronauts.
Nevertheless, Morton Thiokol and NASA decided to go ahead with the launch. After the explosion, a commission was created to investigate the disaster. Boisjoly gave the commission the memos and documents warning his superiors about the integrity of the seals. He became the whistleblower that provided key information pinpointing the people responsible for the tragedy.
In this particular example, Boisjoly utilized his skills as a researcher to understand the repercussions of using defective seals. His analysis made him realize that the seals in the booster rockets will malfunction if the ambient temperature drops to a certain point. After he completed his research, he crafted a memo that provided a detailed description of what would happen if Morton Thiokol failed to replace the seals.
Aaron Ahearn was a former navy man assigned to serve under the USS Abraham Lincoln. Ahearn grew up in Santa, Cruz, California. As a young boy his community taught him to take care of the environment. Therefore, when he discovered that the USS Abraham Lincoln was dumping half a ton of plastic trash every single day, he was flabbergasted. He was shocked to find out that the aircraft carrier discharged raw sewage close to shore.
Ahearn spoke to his superiors. He told them that the law requires them to dump raw sewage three nautical miles from shore. They ignored the recommendations he made. He spoke with the ship’s chaplain, but there was no change in policy. He went AWOL to protest the unethical dumping of raw sewage and trash. CBS news picked up his story, and he became an instant celebrity. He went back to Santa Cruz, and he was treated as the hometown hero.
Wigand, Boisjoly, and Ahearns’ decision to blow the whistle was a “sheer manifestation of self-esteem and self-reliance” (Arszulowicz 40). Self-reliance gave them the confidence to speak out. Ahearn used his experience as a surfer to determine the impact of dumping raw sewage near the seashore. He knew that flora and fauna would be affected by the dumping of plastic trash into the ocean floor.
The Rewards Is?
In the film, The Insider, Lowell Bergman tried to persuade Jeffrey Wigand to appear on 60 Minutes as a whistleblower. Wigand wanted to speak out, but he knew that he would violate the nondisclosure agreement that he signed with the company. He would lose his company benefits, and he would not be able to pay for his daughter’s medical bills. Wigan worked for Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation for four years (Johnson 2).
He was the vice president of research and development. He was in charge of hundreds of scientists, and was paid almost half a million dollars a year to stay loyal to the company (Johnson 2). In 1993, he confronted the company’s CEO regarding the discovery of cancer-causing tobacco additives in the cigarettes (Johnson 2). He lost his job. When he decided to appear in 60 Minutes, his former employers retaliated with lawsuits and negative publicity.
Jeff Wigand realized that “seeking to prevent or expose a public health threat could mean becoming a public figure, and debating your employer in the media” (Devine 42). Ahearn was rewarded for his efforts. But Jeff Wigand paid a terrible price for exposing the dangers of smoking cigarettes. Critical thinking played an important role in his decision to speak against the unethical practices within the organization.
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau expressed his opinion regarding the extraordinary character needed in order to go against the wishes of the majority. According to the former general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission, “Whistleblower advocates would tell you that it takes extraordinary courage to be a whistleblower, because blowing the whistle on corporate misconduct invariably means, at a minimum, ostracism in the workplace” (Lipman 4).
In fact, “less than 10 percent of disclosures about wrongdoing are ever made to persons outside the organization” (Brown 20). In most cases, “employees have no choice but to leave or become a whistleblower” (Lachman 151). Therefore, whistleblowers are compelled to double-check their source of information.
They determine if there are holes in their testimonies. They need to know if they have the “smoking gun” to prove that an unethical or illegal activity was committed. The foundation of the whistleblower’s defense against their detractors is his intimate understanding of the truth. Whistleblowers must do their homework before they go to war. Considerable brainpower is needed before they are ready to come forward.
Critical Thinking
At first glance, whistleblowing is an emotional process, because it deals with ethical issues. However, the decision to adhere to ethical principles requires the use of logical thought, “it is about doing the right thing and assessing the benefits and harm caused by an individual’s action” (Pickett 51).
Whistleblowing is an extremely difficult process. It is hard to pick a fight against an employer, because “workers have never had a general right to disclose information about their employment” (Lewis 10). They can lose their jobs, bringing their families to financial ruin. They can lose the respect of their peers, forcing them to live like an outcast. It is based on critical thinking, because whistleblowers are former employees “using empirical observations to report illegal or unethical conduct that results in harming the public” (Rainbolt & Dwyer 93).
Whistleblowers utilized the power of critical thinking to uncover illegal activities or illegal practices. It is by investigating and analyzing information that allowed them to discovder closely guarded secrets.
Before they decided to come forward, and expose their employer’s resistance to rectify the problem, they utilized critical thinking skills to determine if there is a way to resolve their dilemma. They have to utilize critical thinking skills to figure out the best course of action. They need to know the consequences of their future decisions. Thus, whistleblowing is an act representative of critical thinkers.
Works Cited
Arszulowicz, Marek. Whistleblowing: In Defense of Proper Action. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2011. Print.
Brown, Andrew. International Handbook on Whistleblowing Research. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014. Print.
Devine, Tom. The Corporate Whistleblowers Survival Guide. CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2011. Print.
Johnson, Roberta. Whistleblowing: When it Works and Why. UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Print.
Lachman, Vicki. Ethical Challenges in Health Care. New York: Springer, 2009. Print.
Lewis, David. Whistleblowing at Work. New Jersey: The Athlone Press, 2001. Print.
Lipman, Frederick. Whistleblowers: Incentives, Disincentives, and Protection Strategies. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.
Pickett, Spencer. Financial Crime Investigation and Control. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. Print.
Rainbolt, George & Sandra Dwyer. Critical Thinking: The Art of Argument. CA: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
Soccio, Douglas. Archetypes of Wisdom. CA: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Thayer-Bacon, Barbara. Transforming Critical Thinking. New York: Teachers College Press, 2000. Print.