To leak, or not to leak, that is the question. "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them."
In recent years, the act of whistle-blowing has been highly contentious. Those who have committed this act include, but are not limited to, the unforgettable names of people like New York City police officer Frank Serpico, determined to uncover widespread corruption within the city's police department, Bradley Manning, who provided information to Wiki Leaks that hurt the reputation of the United States military, and the infamous Edward Snowden, the brilliant technical assistant who worked for the National Security Agency.
Every single one of these people who had access to sensitive information made the arduous and dangerous decision to expose information to the public that their respective organizations wanted to keep buried. Now, this raises a significant moral dilemma—are the destructive side effects of whistle-blowing more or less dangerous than the destructive side effects of corruption within an organization?
For a long time, whistleblowers have been seen as heroes and traitors. Heroes for putting their organizations neglect and illicit activities in the spotlight and traitors for abusing the trust of the organization and dismantling the loyalty that was established among peers and the leadership.
By definition, an act is considered whistleblowing if it constitutes three things: (1) intentional disclosure of information that he/she had restricted access to, (2) the information must be about a perceived wrongdoing or illegal activity done by the organization, and (3) the goal of the disclosure must attempt to right those perceived wrongs.
In an article written by Sissela Bok, she explains that people have an ethical obligation to their peers to avoid, in any way, significant harm from coming to them. Potential whistle-blowers have a heavy burden on their shoulders because they must weigh the interest of the public and the responsibility they have to the organization and the other members.
After answering a myriad of pivotal questions (Who is responsible? How significant is the threat to others? How likely will speaking out affect change?), if the public interest is more morally important than the potential damage to others, then the whistle-blower may decide to leak information. Overall, there are many individual moral decisions that one must make because of the severe damage whistle-blowing can cause to their lives and the lives others.
With all of this in mind we come to the task of weighing the destructive side effects of whistle-blowing against the destructive side effects of corruption within an organization. Regarding the individual, some of the negative side effects of whistle-blowing are contract violations which most likely will result in job loss and legal issues.
An example of a contract violation would be Non-Disclosure Agreements, or NDA's. These confidentiality agreements are legal contracts between two or more people or parties where all those involved voluntarily agree to withhold certain knowledge or information from those not involved. One could argue that, in this case, because these are voluntary, the whistle-blower is morally wrong for betraying the trust of the other party, even if the intention is a noble one.
A negative consequence of corruption within the organization would be retaliation from the organization. A prime example would be the retaliation suffered by Malcolm X from the Nation of Islam in the mid-1960's. After a series of events, the once devout minister came to the realization that Elijah Muhammad, the leader of the Nation of Islam at the time, did not adequately support the civil rights movement nor did he respect Malcolm X's influence. As a consequence of speaking out against Elijah Muhammad and he was finally murdered by the very organization he fought for. In this case, the corruption of the organization led to the black nationalism and murder and harassment of Malcolm X and those who followed him.
Another example of a whistle-blower exposing the corruption within an organization is the recall of hundreds of thousands of Hyundai and Kia vehicles last year. An engineer working for Hyundai exposed a safety defect in the vehicles, which the organization refused to recall. This has led to frustration and mistrust for the entire automotive industry.
Regarding policy, they could implement rules that allow and encourage people to stay true to their values like the different codes of ethics established by the engineering profession (i.e. declaring that we, as engineers, must hold one another accountable for anything that is clearly against the law or immoral).
This approach not only offers transparency between the public and organizations, but it also provides a level of protection for would-be whistle-blowers and forces the organization to be honest and true to the people they serve. Regardless, this debate will rage on for years to come.
