Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Whistleblowing sits at the intersection of individual ethics, organizational accountability, and public policyโthree pillars you'll be tested on throughout this course. These cases aren't just dramatic stories; they demonstrate how single individuals can trigger massive shifts in corporate governance, regulatory frameworks, government transparency, and stakeholder relationships. When you study these whistleblowers, you're really studying how ethical breakdowns occur in organizations and what mechanisms (or lack thereof) exist to correct them.
Don't just memorize names and scandals. For each case, know what type of misconduct was exposed, what systemic failure allowed it to happen, and what reforms resulted. Exam questions often ask you to compare whistleblowers across sectors or analyze whether internal vs. external disclosure was appropriate. Understanding the why behind each caseโnot just the whatโwill prepare you for FRQs that test your ability to apply ethical frameworks to real-world scenarios.
These cases expose how information asymmetry between executives and stakeholders enables massive deception. When internal controls fail and external auditors miss red flags, whistleblowers often become the last line of defense against fraud that harms investors, employees, and market integrity.
Compare: Watkins vs. Cooperโboth were internal corporate whistleblowers who discovered accounting fraud, but Watkins reported to leadership (who ignored her) while Cooper's team conducted an independent investigation. If an FRQ asks about effective internal controls, Cooper's case shows auditors operating as intended; Watkins's shows what happens when leadership is complicit.
These whistleblowers challenged the social contract between citizens and government, raising fundamental questions about transparency, democratic accountability, and the limits of state power. They force us to weigh national security interests against the public's right to know.
Compare: Ellsberg vs. Snowdenโboth leaked classified national security documents and fled prosecution, but Ellsberg stayed to face trial (charges dismissed due to government misconduct) while Snowden sought asylum abroad. This distinction matters for exam questions about civil disobedience and whether whistleblowers should accept legal consequences to legitimize their actions.
These cases involve industries that knowingly endangered public health while concealing evidence. They illustrate how regulatory capture, industry lobbying, and information control can delay accountability for decadesโand how whistleblowers can break through.
Compare: Wigand vs. Silkwoodโboth faced severe personal consequences for exposing industry health risks, but Wigand lived to see major reforms while Silkwood's death became a cautionary tale. For ethics essays, these cases illustrate the personal cost-benefit analysis whistleblowers must make and why strong legal protections matter.
These whistleblowers exposed misconduct within institutions meant to uphold the law, creating unique ethical tensions around loyalty, institutional reputation, and the public interest.
Compare: Felt vs. Serpicoโboth were law enforcement insiders who exposed institutional corruption, but Felt worked anonymously through journalists while Serpico testified publicly. Felt protected his career; Serpico nearly lost his life. This contrast is useful for FRQs asking about disclosure methods and their tradeoffs.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Corporate accounting fraud | Watkins (Enron), Cooper (WorldCom), Markopolos (Madoff) |
| Government transparency/secrecy | Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers), Snowden (NSA), Manning (military documents) |
| Public health/safety deception | Wigand (tobacco), Silkwood (nuclear) |
| Law enforcement corruption | Felt (Watergate), Serpico (NYPD) |
| Internal vs. external disclosure | Watkins (internal), Wigand (external/media) |
| Regulatory failure exposed | Markopolos (SEC), Snowden (FISA courts) |
| Whistleblower retaliation | Silkwood (death), Serpico (shot), Wigand (intimidation) |
| Major legislation triggered | Watkins/Cooper (Sarbanes-Oxley), Snowden (USA Freedom Act) |
Compare and contrast Sherron Watkins and Cynthia Cooper: Both exposed corporate fraud, but how did their methods and outcomes differ? What does this suggest about the effectiveness of internal whistleblowing?
Which two whistleblowers' cases best illustrate the tension between national security and democratic transparency? What ethical framework would you use to evaluate whether their disclosures were justified?
Harry Markopolos warned regulators for nearly a decade before Madoff's scheme collapsed. What concept does this case best illustrate: regulatory capture, information asymmetry, or principal-agent problems? Defend your answer.
If an FRQ asked you to discuss whistleblower protections and why they matter, which three cases would you cite as evidence, and what specific reforms did each trigger?
Karen Silkwood and Jeffrey Wigand both exposed industry health risks. How did the personal costs they faced differ, and what does this reveal about the factors that influence whether whistleblowers come forward?