From my own experience, whistleblowing is an activity that most people would like to avoid, at least if they value their comfort and security, and cherish life itself. It's a good way to get yourself killed, or at the very least to suffer serious damage from the retaliation that always follows.
At first whistleblower was a description used to describe my situation, but in time (to many Indians) it become my name, with more meaning than Dave Henry. As many Indians will tell you, European names are just labels, similar to a social security number. A "real" name describes the person, an ancestor, or perhaps personal accomplishments, goals or ambitions. A name should have some meaning.
Likes To Dance , Plenty Coups, Tall Bull and the like are real names, as is Whistleblower. So, my Crow friends call me "Whistleblower," and refer to me in the third person as "The Whistleblower." In Crow this is "ak-koo-shish."
"ak" means "one who,"
"koo" is the name for a whistle,
"shish" is the intimate ending
added to the name of someone you know.
This is similar to English structure, where we understand that "rifle" and "man" put together to become "rifleman," describes an infantry soldier or someone who carries or uses a rifle.
Over a period of time what started out as a description became my name, it is well meant and I accept it with pride. Whistleblowers have been around as long as recorded history, and the art and science of blowing the whistle is a catalyst for reform and social justice.
A whistleblower has an important message or lesson to deliver, and by definition he or she meets resistance. In his classic tale, The Emperor's New Clothes, Hans Christian Andersen described a population so busy fawning over royalty that they could not recognize the truth before their eyes. The story was fiction, but it offered a lesson and warning about human nature (kissing-up) in an entertaining way. Whistleblowers do not kiss-up, at least on matters of importance to them, and there is a cost for refusing to yield to authority.
I did not intend to become a whistleblower, and didn't even think in those terms until my final days at BIA, when it became obvious that I was going to have to pay a price to retain my integrity. You will learn much about my personal experiences at BIA. Let's look outside BIA for a moment to see what whistleblowing is, and examine the stories about other people who have had experiences similar to mine.
Who are the whistleblowers? They are people with a unique cause, a discovery or a message that they feel strongly about. That could also define a preacher on Sunday morning, so here is the essential difference.
The whistleblower is a herald of truth, and has an honest warning to deliver.
Something is terribly wrong.
The message is usually inconvenient, uncomfortable, or hard to deal with.
There is a force or authority that does not want the story told.
The message is important, you need to know.
Some people have difficulty separating the idea of whistleblowing from terms like rat, fink, and stool pigeon, but there is an important difference, and an example is the best way to describe the difference.
So - as a whistleblower, you have made your discovery, and you feel it is important for others to know about it. Next you have to find a way to express it, and then to communicate it to others. Your only choice is the spoken or written word, unless you are perhaps an artist, and since writing is more exact and lasts longer, most choose writing.
I spent three years of my youth in the Army, so from that perspective let's look at the behavior of infantry soldiers. Let's say there is some talking in the ranks, or somebody drops a gum wrapper or trash on the parade ground, a minor offense.
The sergeant questions "who did that," and from any group of experienced soldiers, there would never be any response, even though several of them (or perhaps all) would know who the offending soldier was. The sergeant would issue some mild group punishment (all to do push-ups, for instance), and that would be the end of it.
In this situation the group sticks together, and by such things happening over and over, a unit cohesion forms having the rule (or ethic) that all soldiers within the unit support and defend each other. It is almost instinctive. This idea of group loyalty works, the next time the group will police itself from within, and the sergeant will be commanding a unit instead of a bunch of individuals.
If in this example one soldier was an informant and told the sergeant which soldier caused the offense, the group's sense of unity would be damaged. The group would feel betrayed and would punish the informant at the first opportunity. I once saw an Army recruit thrown through a closed second story window for stealing from his fellow soldiers, which invaded their sense of unity. He was nearly killed, and although I was not a member of the group that applied this savage discipline, I saw the justice in this powerful act of revenge and did nothing at the time to oppose it.
I suppose you can call that group dynamics, or basic rules for survival and solidarity, and violators are rightly called rats, finks, stoolies, or given some other negative title.
Whistleblowing is quite different. The cause or importance of the revelation goes beyond the immediate group and is a social imperative. The whistleblower sees that Principle is more important than group dynamics, and chooses to follow the high road rather than look for approval from his or her immediate surrounding. If you first pause to see which way the wind blows (will "they" approve of your action), then you miss the point, and you have taken the usual low road of loyalty to your immediate superiors or social group.
The really big shakers and movers are people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The price they pay also gives them unique power and a stature that we feel in our bones. Their loyalty is to something higher, and they are willing to accept the risk of that, rather than straddle the fence looking for social approval. They become transformed, and give us a new look at social conscience. We can't all live up to our ideals at all times, but still everyday people like you and me now and then can rise above ourselves and take a stand for things that are more important than our own self interest, or what the group wants.
Remember Rachel Carson? Her book Silent Spring was written in 1962 to alert the public about the dangers of insecticides. Three years later Ralph Nader gave us Unsafe at Any Speed, a warning that the Chevrolet Corvair could roll over when least expected. Ralph Nader's role was to present a problem found by others, while Rachel Carson was a scientist presenting her own discoveries.
You can see the possible variations. In some cases the person finding the problem presents it, and in other cases the functions are split between those who discover (or uncover) and those who present the problem to the public. Sometimes the person was looking into problem areas, and at times the problem just presented itself. The whistleblower was in the right place (or perhaps the wrong place) at the right time, and was motivated from within to obey the dictates of conscience.
This is how it was for a small town lawyer, Michael Consentino, who served as a county prosecutor. In 1980 the publisher AND BOOKS printed the story, Reckless Homicide?, by author Lee Patrick Strobel. A Ford Pinto was rear-ended at a moderate speed by a larger car, and although the structural damage was limited, a fire resulting from a ruptured fuel tank engulfed the occupants of the Pinto, resulting in the tragic death of three teenage girls.
Consentino was assigned as prosecutor, and felt that what contributed most to the deaths and destruction was the faulty gas tank location, rather than the accident itself. It appeared to him that the accident would have caused only minor damage if there had been no fire. This became a historic trial when he filed criminal charges against the Ford Motor Co., and he did his best to battle a very powerful legal opponent. The jury acquitted Ford, but the message was established that it was now possible to take a manufacturer to court with a criminal prosecution for producing goods with alleged criminal negligence.
Most publishers won't read manuscripts submitted by whistleblowers, so getting the story told is one more hurdle and any publisher takes a considerable risk that the book won't sell.
The results of blowing the whistle upset the apple-cart, challenge the establishment or reveal hidden problems, and sometimes stir a motive to "kill the messenger." Society resists change, because the process of questioning old ideas is uncomfortable, and can result in a monumental headache, thus the response, "I don't want to hear it." Right there you see the publisher's risk, perhaps very few people will spend their money to hear unpleasant reports.
In 1989 a book titled The Whistleblowers, written by Myron and Penina Glazer, was published by Basic Books, Inc. This provides a great overview of the subject, and includes case histories of many notable whistleblowers. It uses the term "ethical resister" to describe those who speak out on matters of importance, shows how they draw their strength from personal religious beliefs and ethical standards, and describes the retaliation and damage they suffer.
A major oversight I see in most studies of whistleblowers is that they fail to point out the difference between those who blow the whistle on the federal government, and all others. If the culprit is a business organization, the whistleblower has access to the court system, and a claim for money damages can curb misdeeds as well as attract help from lawyers.
If the culprit is a state or local government, there is still access to the courts, because most states have reduced or cut back the sovereign immunity that originally applied to them.
There are two basic differences in blowing the whistle on a federal matter. First, our "Bill of Rights" was designed to protect individuals from the federal government. With that in mind, you would expect federal employees, because of their intimate relationship with government, to be able to freely exercise those rights, including free speech. In practice this is NOT true, and the federal supervisors who swear to protect the constitution are the ones who abuse it most.
The second difference is that the federal doctrine of sovereign immunity makes it immune from most law suits. As you will see in my case, it was not possible for me to get a court hearing, no matter the importance or the third-party evidence that proves the merit of my case. As a practical matter, when the federal government is the culprit, there is no way to force it to be responsible for it's acts. Lack of accountability (immunity) encourages irresponsible behavior by federal government officials.
A few whistleblowers are well received, but more often they are treated miserably. For urging free thought, Socrates was required to drink the hemlock, and for disturbing religious leaders, Christ went to the cross. In the Bible, the story of Judas illustrates what I refer to in this book as "kissing-up" or selling-out, all forms of betrayal. Galileo spoke honest words but was forced to recant, and both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., were killed.
Disturbing the group's self image is often received with hatred, the "kill the messenger" idea once again. As an example, my own local Church was facing declining membership, and raised the idea of advertising and such to attract new members. I spoke out (it becomes a habit) to suggest that our local congregation was not living up to the high ideals of our denomination, and that if we simply improved our ways, new people with similar ideals would be attracted to us. This was received with hostility, and suddenly I was shunned by a large number of the members who did not care to examine their own behavior.
At a later Church dinner, I discussed this in whispered tones with the person sitting next to me, who happened to be a professional advisor working in the mental health field. I thought her advice (about being shunned by Church members) might be helpful, but instead I received a furious response. Excuse the bad language, but she said with anger, "you shit on me, and I shit on you". I had questioned the behavior of her group, and she wanted to punish me rather than to even consider the behavior of the group.
There are always some fakes and frauds, who raise whistleblowing (after the fact) as a defense when it was not the real reason they were fired or discriminated against. Some people do the "right thing" for the wrong reason, such as to gain power or fame, or to join a popular band-wagon, rather than in genuine support of a worthy cause. Most of the fakes can be weeded out by a close look at their activities.
There are also the nothing to lose people, who speak out only after reaching some safe haven, such as retirement. The too much to lose bunch claim they could not speak out, because "I need my job", "I have a family to support," or "I had to obey orders."
That's enough about other people, it's time to resume this particular story. I believe it offers an honest message, and it does report that something is terribly wrong. You almost certainly will find personal discomfort in it, but it leads to corrections and lasting reforms. The story is not over, a solution is offered, and I promise you a personal and positive role in the story. Together we can make a difference.
No comments:
Post a Comment