# data[].attributes.body
Legal protections for whistleblowers include ways to speed up the legal process and get Congress and court to look at the whistleblowing case quicker. In addition, it includes stricter punishments for organizations that retaliate against whistleblowers.

# data[].attributes.body
SOURCE 1 + 8: proposes mandarory reporting for whistleblowers → matches Nuremberg Principle IV - followers lose in both ways (must report, or else punished, but will face retaliation for disobeying). - this way it forces whistleblowers to speak out, but this is ok b/c they will receive protections

Sources 1,3,7 look for ways to streamline the legal process and speed it up for whistleblowers. On the other hand, source 8 explores punishments for organizations that punish whistleblowers. It shows two different legal approaches that can be used to support whistleblwoers.

# data[].attributes.body
Caplan, A. (2015). No One Likes a Snitch. Science & Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 813–819. https://doi-org.d128.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8

at NIH, there is a severe underreporting of research misconduct → not enough WB protection

research misconduct regulations just express moral standards, and do not explicitly mention WBs  -  this was drafted in 2000 though

authorization of more aid for WB - job security, financial reward, reputation management

punishing orgs that hurt WB

probation, cutting funding, public exposure of their wrongdoings

WB bill of rights → although this was never passed b/c of pushback

counterargument - too much protection is bad --> must be aware of fake whistleblowers → used for ruining rep. of an org

create new more involved institutions to certify that research is done without misconduct → places weight and burden out of a whisttleblwoer

more regular audits

organizatinos should submit written protections for WBs to Federal funders and regulatory agencies

w/specific evidence of what was done to a whistleblower to ensure that the work is being done and enforced

random auditing

get rid of internal org. incentives to prevent WB from speaking out → should make laws to require WBs to speak out if they know the research will hurt animals/humans

if harm is doen, there should be an investigation to see who knew/who should’ve known that there was research misconduct

more ferederal legal protections for WB - penalty to orgs. for retailiating WB within a certain time

adding more prosecuting for research misconduct → scientific fraud is not as criminalized as financial fraud

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

provides many legal punishments for organizations who attempt to retaliate against whistleblowers and more laws in place to keep whistleblowers in check. In contrast to other legal proposals that protect whistleblowers, this one punishes the companies.

# data[].attributes.body
current whistleblower laws require them to make reports first to Congressional intelligence committees through the Inspector General

inspector general basically can filter and block these whistle. from telling congress.

possible solution: the whistleblower should be able to send to both groups concurrently, so that they have more access to congress (in case of emergency)

should create “an Office of Special Counsel of the Intelligence Community” that is located outside of the executive branch (where many whistleblowing agencies are located), so that it can be completely independent from all government agency pressures.

congress should be able to get access to more unfiltered and direct reports from whistleblwoers

Congress needs to protect the identity of gov. whistleblowers

lack of trust in current official whistleblowing reporting protocols

public disclosure should be decided by the whistleblower if it is needed for their support, trust, and credibility, and safety → if gov doesn’t listen

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

this evidence discusses issues w/the legal process, esp. for gov. whistleblowers. gov whistleblowers are unable to directly reach congress for their reports to be reviewed, which allows for many of their cases to be dropped. in addition, they need more anonymity protection so that legally they can be protected

# data[].attributes.body
Garrick J. (2017). Peer Support for Whistleblowers. Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 34(7), 38–41.

whistleblower reports take a long time to be reviewed

during that time, whistleblowers are treated horribly

results only sent to leadership, who may not do anything with it or tell the whistleblower

although there are laws, like the NO FEAR Act, whistleblowers often have to pay for legal advice to make full use of these protections

often costs between $10,000 and $100,000 - financial strain + job demotion/loss = double financial strain

has rippling effects into marriages, family choices, livelihood, retirement, e.t.c.

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

This evidence delves into issues regarding the legal process for whistleblowers. The process is too slow and financial rewards for whistleblowing, as well as financial aid, are not enough to compensate for financial damages.

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas, T., & Chaleff, I. (2017). Moral Courage and Intelligent Disobedience. InterAgency Journal, 8(1), 58–66.

ex: in the military, soldiers MUST obey all “lawful” orders → big punishments (pay cuts, prison, e.t.c.)

only allowed to disobey if the order seems illegal

followers lose both ways → Nuremberg Principle IV soldiers who carry out illegal orders will still be held accountable

less repercussions by disobeying an unlawful order, instead of following an unlawful order, in the long run

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

The evidence delves a little into ways that corporate culture can be adjusted so that whistleblowers are more accommodated. This includes leaders offering more flexibility to their employees/followers and having more trust in their judgment. This also entails ensuring that the means of reaching an end goal needs to be just as important as achieving the end goal, and that all ethical standards must be met. Corporations should be more transparent about their shortcomings, so that whistleblowers can freely detail ethical issues taking place.

# data[].attributes.body
If all else fails, legal guidelines for whistleblowers need to be expanded and clarified, so that there are universal standards on the definitions and guaranteed protections for whistleblowers.

# data[].attributes.body
van der Velden, P. G., Pecoraro, M., Houwerzijl, M. S., & van der Meulen, E. (2019). Mental Health Problems Among Whistleblowers: A Comparative Study. Psychological reports, 122(2), 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118757681

there is a lack of targeted interventions and therapy that is specifc to the mental health scenario of whistleblowers

current support services often just focus on helping whistleblowers financially or helping them find work

free access to social support, counseling, treatment - use doctors as a tretment

whistleblowers should undergo mental health screenings regularly

CONNECTION: evidence addressing the lack of mental health support for whistleblowers. Many whistleblower support agencies and current protections offer them services for job security and financial remedy. However, whistleblowers have huge mental health crises, even as much as cancer paitnets, which highlights the gravity of the issue. The author argues for free mental health screenings and services for WBs as part of their protections, given that a minority of WBs actually see a psychiatrist.

# data[].attributes.body
Lachman, V. D. (2008). Whistleblowing: Role of Organizational Culture in Prevention and Management. Dermatology Nursing, 20(5), 394–396.

the need for an ombudsman (an outside government employee who investigates and tries to resolve complaints) - an external involvement that receives whistleblower reports directly, instead of the whistleblower making allegations to the leadership directly. the ombudsman is also unbiased and will assist the whistleblower

reformed reporting systems (could include hotline + anonymity)

connection:  it details the plans of the need of an ombudsperson in corporations and government agencies. A centralized person for all whistleblower allegations and moral and ethical concerns who is not affiliated with the organization, so that all problems can be solved in an unbiased way without repercussions. a safe way for wb to bring up allegations, if they are worried abt repercussions

# data[].attributes.body
Rebbitt, D. (2013). The Dissenting Voice. Professional Safety, 58(4), 58–61.

whistleblowers and whistleblower support groups should not only just help the whistleblower and identify problems, but also offer potential solutions and routes for action → nobody wants to be the cause of the problem

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

many current whistleblower support groups only confront the WB's company, and try to amplify the allegations to management. However, this evidence argues that it is also necessary for these support groups to help WBs find solutions, so that management is more willing to listen to them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Garrick J. (2017). Peer Support for Whistleblowers. Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 34(7), 38–41.

# data[].attributes.subject
Garrick J. (2017). Peer Support for Whistleblowers. Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 34(7), 38–41.

# data[].attributes.body
government agencies that investigate whistleblower reports in the government (OIG, EEO, e.t.c.) have a bias and do not represent the whistleblowers) - whistleblowers are left by themselves

peer support program (similar to groups for veterans, cancer patients, e.t.c)

allow for comfort hope and resilience

special peer counselors, mental health specialists

internal and external employee peer support programs  → prevent self-harm, e.t.c.

mental health professionals supervised call center peer support providers

proven by Temple University that these peer support programs are more helpful → reduces substance abuse, e.t.c.

whistleblower lawsuits are often confidential → leaving them lonely → only other whistleblowers can understand their struggles

often times, other employees face the same injustices as whistleblowers → if only if they could’ve struggled together

trying to find a sense of belonging in the workplace and building and maintaining resilience together

make “peer counselors” - previous whistleblowers who can offer structured advice on how to take adv. of certain resources in a more personal way than a mental health provider or an attorney

assist each other in testimonies and interviews

encourage each other to receive mental health aid and stick to health regiments

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

many government agencies that aid whistleblowers are biased, especially towards government whistleblowers (conflicting interests). the evidence also provides the idea of a peer support group for whistleblowers, a network of whistleblowers in which they can exchange support and advice, to reduce the loneliness that many whistleblowers feel.

# data[].attributes.body
Janko, M. (2013). Elouise Cobell: A Small Measure of Justice. American Indian Magazine, 14(2).

misleading/absent media prevent people from knowing about these issues

whistleblowers don’t have the side of the media

media doesn’t provide enough attention

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

the media can provide essential support in helping a whistleblower's voice get heard to the general public.

# data[].attributes.body
If internal management fails to adequately support whistleblowers, external unbiased support groups, such as the media, peer support groups, ombudsmen, mental health services, can offer services to help reduce the strains of being a whistleblower.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case where internal workplace cultures still do not lend itself to safety for the whistleblower. The whistleblower can be supported by outside unbiased allegations that can help them with the whistleblowing process.

# data[].attributes.body
With all these organizational changes for leadership, the employees within the company will feel like they are in a safe environment to blow the whistle. This is the first line of defense for whistleblowers. If they feel safe within their own company, alleged wrongdoings of the company will stay within the company, and the employees and management will be able to resolve the issues internally, without it having to ever reach the public. Thus, a speak up culture is the most imperative part of supporting a whistleblower.

# data[].attributes.body
SOURCE 1 + 14: both discuss importance of how leaders need to have courage to trust their followers and be open to their actions

SOURCE 4 + 14: relates to the idea of “diffusion of responsibility” - that in bigger coroporations, people are less likely to blow the whistle because they think that someone else will speak, or free-rides

SOURCE 4+ 15: Source 4 discusses the empowering the workers from a bottom-top approach. If one employee whistleblows successfully, it will empower others to do the same. This has larger implications on the general work culture, as explained in Source 15. The general moral compass will have a ripple effect into the workplace, and it will improve.

SOURCE 4 + 5: both sources discuss the issue in many American workplaces that prioritize conformity and trying to fit in with other workers, which helps explain why whistleblowing is less common.

SOURCE 5 +15: both sources discusses the common issues in today’s age of efficiency, where many corporations get blindsighted by cost reductions and speed and efficiency and maximization → this is someting that needs to be changed by corporate leadership to support whistleblowers → journey over result

SOURCE 6+ 14: contradicting - Source 6 advocates for revisions in the code of conduct. Source 14 argues that this is not the way to go about this b/c codes of conduct are often not enforced strongly. Source 14 aruges that upper level management need to reflect openness and respect for lower level employees as a solution to create a better code of conduct, without it necessarily being written, which is imperative in helping workers speak up

# data[].attributes.body
Bellace, J. (2019, November 5). The whistleblower’s dilemma: Do the risks outweigh the benefits? Knowledge at Wharton. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/whistleblowers-in-business/

explicit response system to WB reports - not winded answers and convoluted responses → a set established response system

allowing one WB will have a ripple effect on the morals of the rest of hte workplace!  --> idea of moral courage

pluralistic ignorance - this same bystander phenomenon that was mentioned before

leaders need to lead in good manner

promote that the journey is as important as the result - must remain ethical

companies with strong cultures tend to hire employees who share their viewpoints

people need to be hired from different backgrounds to rid of social pressure and show all perspectives are valued

most WBs just know something is wrong → they just don’t know what exact law is violated

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

it illustrates that many workers not only don’t have much knowledge ont he protections they receive as whistleblowers (which was established in earlier sources), but they do not even know the legal guidelines for the work that they are doing. Most whistleblowers just have a hunch that something is wrong, but they can’t identify the exact law that is being violated, which makes it more difficult and stressful for htem to reach out and report the unethical conduct. It also argues for stronger education for the laws of the work that workers do, as well as the laws of the WB protections, so that WB do not feel left in the dark if they ever try to report an issue. In addition, it refutes some other sources decision that reporting should be mandatory if someting unethical is observed, which provides some nuance to the kind of support of whistleblowers should receive. There shouldn’t be a mandatory path for whistleblowers to take, but rather a variety of secure and safe paths that they can take based on their choosing.

# data[].attributes.body
Walsh, N. (2021, February 4). How to encourage employees to speak up when they see wrongdoing. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/how-to-encourage-employees-to-speak-up-when-they-see-wrongdoing

codes of conduct + audits + training are ineffective

only 1.4% of workers whistleblow → too many bystanders, not effective policy

leads to more and more unethical misconduct and damaged company reputations

fear of consewuenes, preference for status quo, e.t.c.

“diffusion of responsibiltiy” - the bigger the corporate, the more people will think that someone else will speak

REFRAME

R: Redesign Reporting Tools (more streamlined, more immediate training (like SA), 0 tolerance policy, external accessible and anonymous hotlines w/opportunity for GROUP reporting)

E: Embed culture of safety (no toxicity, allow questions, non-judgemental dialogue in work, bosses who build team unity, encourage expression of concern, admit mistakes)

F: Frame w/positive messages (reinforce teamwork, empathy and inclusion → not solely business related, reframe whistleblowing as being kind to others → will save the company if they ever get caught anyways)

R: Reward w/non-monetary incentives (employers should initiate genuine gratitude for whistleblowers)

A: Amplify messenger voices: (have there be a messenger for WBs in the company)

M: Motivate w/stories of courage: (celebrate those who did right thing, in psychology terms, this acts similar to advertising → “mere exposure effect”)

E: Energize a conscience-based movement (add moral risk to WB movement, and make this a public commitment, so that the public can also hold the company accountable)

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

it brings up a new perspective of group reporting as a way to provide new support to whistleblowers. Currently, many whistleblowing internal compliance systems and reporting systems only allow for individuals to whistleblow at a time. However, Walsh argues that this system should be revamped so that groups of employees can whistleblow together. This reduces the emotional strain and loneliness of being a whistleblower. It shows the importance of the employer in setting the work culture of a corporation that can be conducive to whistleblowing. A code of conduct is not enough, the employer needs to display openness, respect, and vulnerability, so that there is an environment where whistleblowers can feel free to express their concerns. The acronym “REFRAME” provides 7 guidelines for corporations and government agencies to follow. This is more than just revamping a code of conduct, it is creating an enforceable change in the work culture that can allow whistlebloweers to feel more free to report, without the mental and emtoional strain and worries that they shouldn’t speak up.

# data[].attributes.body
Heumann, M., Friedes, A., Cassak, L., Wright, W., & Joshi, E. (2014). The World of Whistleblowing. Public Integrity, 16(1), 25–52. https://doi-org.d128.idm.oclc.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922160102

there has been a shift in recent years, that protecting a whistleblower is “good business”

internal complaints keep companies out of trouble

now, with all the social media platforms that WB can use, the breadth of their allegations can spread faster to wider audiences

causes bigger economic hardship for the org/business, rather than resolving it inside

this reduces the risk of retaliation - not a good idea to ignore a whistleblower anymore

many whistleblowers are not aware the extent of their protections → need for more education programs in the workplace, along with the standard incoming worker trainings, so that all workers know their rights

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

it provides some relevant modern approaches to whistleblowers, with the advent of social media that gives whistleblowers more leverage over their companies, due to their ability to go viral on large platforms. It expresses the importance of WB education in workplaces, so that WB can be supported on what their protections are, which will allow them to speak up in the workplace

# data[].attributes.body
Lachman, V. D. (2008). Whistleblowing: Role of Organizational Culture in Prevention and Management. Dermatology Nursing, 20(5), 394–396.

organizations need to maintain an ethical culture for whistleblowers to prevent public embarassment

organization should allow for internal whistleblowing → free and transparent discussions of ethical discussion within the company, before the public even has to know

screening procedures during hiring process to ensure strong morals in hirees

explicit ethical standards and honor code that is written out → rules must be clear!

can’t just be written, must be enforced in HR, e.t.c.

to keep workers accountable, but also so that workers can keep organizations responsible!

educational forums in organizations to regularly inform workers of important org. ethical issues/questions

companies should create an ethical organization committee to work with whistleblowers directly

ensure all org. processes are done with morals - should not be held in the leadershiip

regular anonymous worker community surveys

by assigning clear roles to employees on what to do in a crisis, this can prevent “bystanders” to these roles → thinking another worker will blow the whistle so that they don’t have to

the bystander effect: When there are more people around an injustice, an individual is less likely to help or get involved, because they assume that someone else will do the work for them. The same applies for whistleblowing scenarios. Thus, it is important for employees to have set roles and protocols to do, which will support whistleblowers so that there will be no inaction.

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

This evidence details specific organizational reforms for government agencies and corporations that are directly addressed to leadership. This includes an ethics committee, enforced and explicit codes of conduct, detailed procedures for employees to follow in case of a whistleblower, e.t.c. These targeted procedures nad guidelines for organizational management will show workers that the company values good morals and ethics, encouraging them to feel safe to speak up.

# data[].attributes.body
Whistleblowers must be supported by stronger and clearer legislations and unbiased external support groups, combined with reformed workplace culture. This combination of forces will allow whistleblowers to feel safe in their workplace and outside of it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. It is important to determine what the best ways are to support whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are an invaluable asset to the public good, however they face a sacrifice that threatens their livelihood and wellbeing. Thus, support is needed, so that there can continue to be whistleblowers.

2. The first way to support whistleblowers is within the organization. By creating a speak-up culture, workers can freely express their concerns with management. The second line of defense for whistleblowers, if the company is pressuring and hostile, is to use external support groups. These groups can aid whistleblowers in the external whistleblowing process and provide mental health support. Finally, the last line of defense is legal measures. Legal measures need to be made more clear and definitive, to guarantee protections for all whistleblowers that streamline the legal process and punish organizations for pressuring whistleblowers. All in all, this demonstrates the need for both internal and external means of support for whistleblowers.

3. Solutions to the lack of whistleblower support must ensure that there is adequate safety for whistleblowers to speak up within an organization, and for them to find outside support if necessary. Whistleblowers should also be stronger protected by the law, should the organization ever want to retaliate against the whistleblower.

# data[].attributes.headline
TRANSITION:  CONNECTION FROM CLAIM TO CLAIM

# data[].attributes.subject
TRANSITION:  CONNECTION FROM CLAIM TO CLAIM

# data[].attributes.body
If external support groups fail to adequately protect a whistleblower, legal measures can be improved to ensure that there are no fallacies that put whistleblowers at risk for repercussions.

# data[].attributes.headline
TRANSITION:  CONNECTION FROM THEME TO THEME

# data[].attributes.subject
TRANSITION:  CONNECTION FROM THEME TO THEME

# data[].attributes.body
Minority and low-income students are discriminated by standardized test content, and these implications create systemic inequality in the education system

# data[].attributes.body
The second line of defense for whistleblowers are external support groups that can offer unbiased services to help ease their strains of being a whistleblowing and aid them in speaking up to the public. Whether from awareness or mental health help, external support groups provide invaluable aid to whistleblowers.

# data[].attributes.body
both provide the perspective from the test makers and review the discriminatory content that can appear on standardized tests

Grinell focuses on this idea of "erasure of identity." Viruru acknowledges this same idea but in a different way. Grinell discusses how race/ethnicity/gender/religion can be removed from testing content while Viruru explains that while these identities may still remain in tests, the nuances of these identities disappear, and they are boiled down to mere stereotypes. Viruru also further elaborates --> how certain test questions come from a white American-centrist POV that will put minority groups at a cultural disadvantage

# data[].attributes.body
standardized testing content, especially in reading sections, can implictly reinforce racist and discriminatory views towards minority groups. whether through the erasure of identities or how a cultural group is presented in an inferior way or a way in which stereotypes are reinforced, standardized test content can support the idea of white superiority, even if it is not necessarily the intent. This is harmful to the images that it creates for young students and will further cement implicit biases. In addition, standardized testing content may also have the assumption that the test taker understands white American culture, which negatively harms minority group students

# data[].attributes.body
the repercussions of standardized testing on the education system is harmful in creating systemic inequality for minority and low-income group students

schools with lower performing students have to narrow curriculum to cut out electives and multicultural stories, only focusing on the content that will appear on these tests --> teaching to the test

students will lack many other necessary skills --> this disproportionately affects schools with many minority and low-income students, because these schools face more pressure

the test results determine school ranking and funding --> higher ranking attracts more and more wealthy taxpayers to the area, low performing schools get reduced funding (less and less opportunity)

students face less interest in learning, less ability to prepare for tests effectively (lower quality education , no tutoring, e.t.c)

# data[].attributes.body
SOURCE 3 +12: discusses the need to provide mental health services to WBs, especially free services and screenings. Source 2 alludes to these same ideas, but the idea that these mental health services should be done together with other current WBs and WB survivors.

All the sources reference the importance of external unbiased support groups, because they are unaffiliated with management and can help whistleblowers speak up to the public. In addition, they stress the importance of mental health services for whistleblowers, that they cannot receive in a company.

# data[].attributes.body
Taylor has a contrasting view from Au and Rizga: opting out of standardized testing/optional standardized testing will divert attention from the unequitable education in the public high school system

Au and Rizga presents similar ideas about how mandatory standardized testing can perpetuate an achievement gap due to school funding and how minority group students face narrowing curriculums that worsen their preparation for the real world.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the best ways to support whistleblowers of organizations, in order to address psychological tolls and ostracization?

# data[].attributes.body
Rebbitt, D. (2013). The Dissenting Voice. Professional Safety, 58(4), 58–61.

an open culture should be made where concerns and whistleblowing can be established and encouraged as a norm.

corporate leadership should redirect whistleblowing to improve safety, empower employees, and strengthen the camaraderie and unity of the organization

hierarchical and bureaucratic corporate structures usually do not have space to accept whistleblowers. these orgnaizations strive for conformity in the workplace and care little about the bottom level employees. They only reward leaders and dislike creativity and dissent in the employee level. → promote compliance, fosters poor ethics

“Bureaucratic organizational structures: many layers of management, going down from senior executives to regional managers to departmental managers”

“Hierarchical culture: relies on dif. levels of authority w/ chain of command connecting multiple management levels within the organization”

companieso need to stop placing such a massive importance on maximizing speed, cost, efficiency, and short-term goals, instead of standards, ethics, and long term sustainability.

orgs need to encourage creativity and dissent in workplace → for integrity and safety

dual authority matrix structure is the proposed best organizational structure for whistleblowing → creates organizations that are more flexible and creative

one CEO, several branches of management, w/system kind of like gov. checks and balances

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

The evidence explains the problem in the actual organizational structure of many organizations. The hierarchical/bureaucratic structure does not bode well for employees by limiting their freedom and creativity, which thus limits the effectiveness of whistleblowing complaints. This evidence also explains about how the corporate structure can be adjusted to a “matrix model” which allows for a more mixed level management in which different branches of management sort of check each other, as opposed to the bureaucratic model of management that is simply tier-based top-down power scale. This different corporate structure can empower employees and allow for greater flexibility and creativity that can empower whistleblowers to safely speak their concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
Su, S. (2020). Why so few acting whistleblowers? Impacts of institutional anticorruption. Governance, 33(2), 227–247. https://doi-org.d128.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/gove.12415

bottom up anti corruption practices (empowers general public and workers): encourages them to blow the whistle, support from NGOs

when they see their peers empowered to blow the whistle, they want to as well

counterargument: anti-corruption practices are actually detrimental to whistleblowing because the workers think that someone is going to blow the whistle, they don’t have to, bc all of these policies are in place

WE NEED CHANGE IN WORKPLACE BC independent anticorruption commissions/agencies and legal initiatives are ineffective in instilling positive values in the workplace - they must actually be enforced

why this is needed on top of legal + outside support

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

This evidence explains how workplace values and ideals are instilled in workers that often promote complacency and thus are able to foster corruption in the workplace. Supporting whistleblowers will have a ripple effect and foster a sense that the organization will value honesty

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas, T., & Chaleff, I. (2017). Moral Courage and Intelligent Disobedience. InterAgency Journal, 8(1), 58–66.

find and encourage civil disobedience

need trust and empowerment - leaders shouldn’t blindly lead - we should trust that followers can act freely because they will uphold morals - civic responsibility

the US government has a history of lying which is upheld by political pressure.

ex. Obama claimed that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda was going better than it was, but analysts could not express their real opinions without being encouraged to retire

hostile climates where commanders wanted to protect their own careers --> issues with self-interest, greed, high management pressure → culture of unjust orders

organizations should set realistic standards, so that employers do not feel compelled to lie

moral courage of leadership! - they must be transparent and admit when something is not going right in the company, instead of fudging numbers → risk employment, reputation, relationships

people’s moral standards change at work (job at stake)

dehumanization to justify wrongdoings, “just doing our job”

CONNECTION TO CLAIM:

The evidence delves a little into ways that corporate culture can be adjusted so that whistleblowers are more accommodated. This includes leaders offering more flexibility to their employees/followers and having more trust in their judgment. This also entails ensuring that the means of reaching an end goal needs to be just as important as achieving the end goal, and that all ethical standards must be met. Corporations should be more transparent about their shortcomings, so that whistleblowers can freely detail ethical issues taking place.

# data[].attributes.body
The current content within standardized tests reinforces implicit biases and places minority and low-income students at a disadvantage through its American-centrism perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Context + Introduction + Focus (Problem Statement)

# data[].attributes.subject
Context + Introduction + Focus (Problem Statement)

# data[].attributes.body
Whistleblowing is an imperative tool to keep government agencies and large powerful corporations accountable to moral conduct for the public good. When these organizations blind-sight proper ethics for the achievement of long-term goals, it is often up to members within these organizations to speak up and expose their wrongdoings. In fact, according to Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University, whistleblowers are able to identify more fraud (43%) than auditors (19%) (Caplan, 2015). However, despite their benefits to the public, whistleblowers often face repercussions for their sacrifice. Upper management place pressure and retaliate against whistleblowers by firing them, laying them off, and ostracizing them from the job market. This places a strain on these whistleblowers emotionally, mentally, physically, financially, and socially. As stated by Peter van der Velden, a mental health psychologist, whistleblowers have a high rate of suicide. They are susceptible to severe mental health problems, at the same magnitude as cancer patients, which is why few people choose to blow the whistle (van der Velden, 2019). Thus, it is necessary to explore how to best support whistleblowers of organizations, to address their psychological tolls and ostracization.

# data[].attributes.body
Management need to create a speak-up culture within their organization, in order to support whistleblowers. While legislation may seem abstract, the management plays an imperative role in creating a workplace environment that is safe for whistleblowers to initially speak up internally, which will allow whistleblowing to be resolved within a company.