The Modesty Hypocrisy

Yes, “TTan,” women should not be treated as equals because they might wear clothing that shows off their shoulders.  Brilliant!

The above comment is in reference to a story about Wasatch High School, located in Heber, Utah.  A controversy erupted this week after the Salt Lake Tribune reported that school administrators had yearbook photos edited for “modesty.”  The school had multiple photos edited to cover-up shoulders, tattoos, and cleavage.  In the schools defense, they did warn the students that edits of the photos could happen.  However, the students report that they wore the same outfits during the year and were never sent home to change.  If the outfits were fine during school then why would those same outfits need editing in a yearbook?  Another problem the school has is that it seems like they randomly selected photos to edit.  They did not uniformly edit the photos of all students deemed immodest.  They did not uniformly edit the photos of all students.  The school has garnered national attention, but they are not backing down in their decision in editing these yearbook photos.

Wasatch High School is only part of the story.  The larger story has to deal with how society sexualizes women and shames them for their choices when men mostly get a free pass.  As we can see from the above comment in that “boys are dressed more respectfully than girls most of the time,” there is still much work to be done in the realm of treating men and women as equals.  To insist that men and women cannot be equals because women show a little shoulder is outrageous and patently false.

I did not know that men dress more respectfully than women?  I've never seen a man in a tank-top revealing their shoulders.  I've never seen a man flopping his genitals around when he wears sweatpants or gym shorts.  I've never seen a man wear Speedo swimsuits, again, revealing the outline of their genitals.  I've never seen a man wearing skinny jeans (or any tight jeans) that could reveal the outline of their package or their ass.  I've never seen a man go topless at a beach (or anywhere out in public).  Like women, men should never be topless because their bare chest will give women impure thoughts.  Men are modest and women are not.  That is why they cannot be equal.  What world does “TTan,” or anyone else that believes the thesis that men are more modest, living in?

That fact is that many men believe that women need more modesty.  In a poll of 1,600 Christian men, conducted by a Christian website, it was found that 95% of these men say that their future wife should display “modesty.”  What is modesty to these men?  The website “The Society Pages” breaks it down like this (these are actual survey responses):

Something that is immodest is something that is designed to arouse lust within me (male, age 24).
Something that is immodest is something that is unnaturally revealing (male, age 20).
Something immodest draws attention to a girl’s body (male, age 28).

Immodesty, according to this poll, is quite vaguely defined.  But, it looks like anything could be considered immodest if it arouses “lust in me.”  With that definition, I guess we all should be dressed in a big, black plastic bag, however, someone might find that lustful so that might not be a good idea.  Any clothing, worn by men or women, can be deemed lustful.

To be perfectly honest, all human beings will check out other human beings, our eyes like to wander on others whom we deem attractive.  We are all guilty of that.  But, what separates us from the animals is that we have impulse control.  I am a gay man and I have friends that are straight males.  Some of my friends are quite attractive; however, they are my friends.  I have no sexual desire for them.  I don’t sit there and dream about them ripping off their clothes.  Or I don’t sit there and get upset with them because their clothes are revealing at times.  I don’t think of them as whores if they aren't wearing their shirts because that might “arouse lust within me.”  My friends are my friends and I can clearly hang out with them without having sexual feelings for them.

Men and women should be treated as equals in society.  Men and woman should dress how they want, but there should not be any hypocrisy.  I am sure it has not occurred to many men, especially “TTan,” that men dress immodestly.  But, they do.  However, it’s not really discussed in society.  The only time I've heard of men’s immodesty is when people discuss the guys that wear jeans below their butt and reveal their underwear.  However, even that is discussed differently in society.  I've never heard anyone suggest that these guys are “arousing lust” within women because their underwear is being reveled, the discussion about this clothing trend is built upon “having respect” for places of business or for the public.  I also know that some would argue that this is why they believe women should dress modestly.  I am sure some people feel that way, but don’t lose focus on the larger issue.  That larger issue is that women are shamed more often than men because their “immodesty” is about inciting lust within men and not out of respect for society.  When men dress immodestly, it’s disrespect.  With women it’s all about sex and lust.  That’s the difference and it is a difference that must be dealt with in our country.

It seems like our country’s maturity when it comes to women, women’s rights, and women’s clothing, is stuck at the elementary school level.  We are like little kids that giggle if the word “erection” or “breasts” is used in a conversation.  I say this because I see comment after comment saying that if a girl or a woman did not want to be raped or assaulted then they should have dressed more modestly.   Our country’s mentality of “well they asked for it” by dressing a certain way reeks of immaturity.  Women should be allowed to dress how they like without being labeled a “slut,” “whore,” or as being “easy.”  Men aren't labeled that way when they are dressed immodestly.  Women should not be labeled that way either.

The Nostalgia Delusion: Romanticizing a False Past

"There is a concern with politics of memory, namely, the means and the ways in which memory—especially collective memory—is shaped and manipulated by political agencies, for political gains. The politics of memory is also the politics of forgetting; creating and maintaining social amnesia by political agencies. Memory, like any other form of knowledge, is power. Whoever controls memory and forgetting, gains in power."  (Margalit, p. 275)

The preceding quote came from the article entitled “Nostalgia” from the academic journal, Psychoanalytic Dialogues (May/Jun 2011), written by Dr. Avishai Margalit.  Nostalgia is this week’s topic because, as Dr. Margalit writes:

"Nostalgia, like its cousin sentimentally, tends to distort reality in a particular way.  The difference between sentimentality and nostalgia is that nostalgia distorts the reality of time past.  Nostalgia idealizes its object . . . and locates it in a time of great purity and innocence."  (Margalit, p. 273)

Romanticizing the past and remembering the “good ole’ days” drives political behavior in many Americans.  Pundits like Bill O’Reilly opine that “it’s not a traditional America anymore.”   (I suggest that you click here to view O’Reilly talking about traditional America, just to see his point of view).  Pundits, politicians, and political think-tanks use nostalgia against us so we will vote for the person or cause that they want.  O’Reilly talks about “traditional America” in the terms that America is not the prosperous, moral country it once was, back in the 1940’s and 1950’s.  O’Reilly talks about how the entitlement culture of Americans who want “free stuff” has taken hold.  He opines about the pro-choice movement wanting abortions on demand.  He also opines about how marijuana legalization will harm this country.  Pundits like O’Reilly believe that this country is not as great as it once was.  There are millions of Americans that agree with him.

These Americans vote for politicians because they want the glory days of America back.  The conservative right constantly talks about their heroes, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, and how they want to find a presidents like these men again.  Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln are the standard-bearers for the Republican Party.  In fairness, the liberal left uses Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton as their standard-bearers when they romanticize about the past.  Left-leaning Americans would love to find another FDR or Clinton to put into the White House again.  However, let’s be realistic, presidents like these men are few and far between.  For every Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt we have as president, we have several Warren G. Hardings, Andrew Johnsons, or Herbert Hoovers.  Not every president can have a grand legacy.

Besides, we all distort the past.  We romanticize the past.  We remember the good times and we think how wonderful a certain time in our life was and how we would like things to be that way again.  We do that with this country’s history.  We think of how prosperous the 1950’s or the 1990’s were and we dream about going back there.  We want to have those “good ole’ days” again.  We want to go back to the days of Ozzie, Harriet, and the Beaver.  We want traditional families with a sense of morality, honesty, and hard work.  Life was simple and so wholesome back in those days.

It is true that times are tough.  The economy is sluggish, we have a crippling national debt, the wage gap between the poor and the rich is widening, polarization is at its height.  However, our past, that so many people seem to be clamoring for, is not as pristine as we remember.

Look at the 1950’s, which Bill O’Reilly and other Americans seem to idolize.  They have visions of Wally and the Beaver in their head.  American life was so wholesome back then.  The loving husband was hard at work while the doting wife was hard at work being a good mother that cooked, cleaned, and made sure that the household was running well.  However, that was television.  Life was not so simple, especially for women in the 1950’s.  I took a sociology class a few years ago that highlighted the roles of women back during the 50’s.  The professor pulled out a home economic school book from that time period and read it to us.  Women in the 50’s were expected to stay home all day and cook and clean.  They were suppose to take care of the children, as well.  However, when the man of the house got home, the woman was told to wait at the door with her husband’s slippers and favorite drink so she could greet him properly at the door.  The woman had to make sure that the children were playing quietly in their rooms before dad got home from work.  This is because the man had been working so hard during the day that he did not need to deal with that noise.  The woman was also told to not complain about her day.  Only the man could do that.  The woman should never upset her man.  He needs to be calm and relaxed from his long day.  Does that scenario seem ideal?  Does our society really want to go back to the 1950’s where a woman’s thoughts or hard work were not recognized?  The man was the only hard working person in the family.  I thought marriage was a partnership and not a dictatorship.  Taking care of a house and the children is hard work.  The thought process of our society in the 1950’s that the man was the only hard working person in the relationship was degrading and disgusting.  The wife must cater to her husband’s every whim while she denies her own person-hood.  To prove this point, look at these print ads from the 1950’s:

Those ads are a good representation of how women were treated back in the “good ole’ days.”  But that’s not the only negative attribute of our country during the 1950’s.  One could also look at the Jim Crow laws that were still in place at that time.  African-Americans had that “separate but equal” status branded on their foreheads.  The United States, especially the southern U.S., had laws that segregated the African-American community from whites.  African-Americans had separate schools, separate sections on public transportation, separate restrooms, separate drinking fountains, separate dining sections in restaurants, etc.   Again, do we want to go back to that time in America?

On an international scale, the 50’s were a turbulent time.  We saw the Korean War (1950-1953), the start of the Vietnam War (1959), the Cuban Revolution (1953-1959), the Arab-Israel conflict continuing in the Suez Crisis (1956).  The United States was also deeply in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  The war was referred as “cold” because there were never any large battles between the United States and the Soviet Union.  The Cold War was mostly fought through rhetoric and military tension.  However, Americans were in constant fear that the Soviet Union and the United States would enter into a nuclear war.  Nuclear annihilation was a constant fear during that time.

After reviewing the history during that time, are you (if you ever were) clamoring for those “good ole’ days” to come back?  I know I am not.

I am not trying to be the purveyor of doom and gloom.  Nostalgia is a powerful thought process that helps us through the tough times.  Sweet memories of our childhood or early years can bring about great happiness.  I think back to great memories of childhood, vacations, and moments of achievement and that makes me happy.  Those grand memories help me strive for a better life.  There is nothing wrong with being nostalgic.  There is nothing wrong with a yearning for those happy times in our life.  However, we must be careful.  Nostalgia can distort our past, especially in the realm of politics.  Nostalgia is just another tool politicians use to get them to divide and conquer us.  They will use the images of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt as a call to the American people.  They will try to use the fond memories we have of our favorite presidents and favorite time periods in order for us to vote for them.  If a politician has such great ideas, then why don’t they run on those positions?  Why do they always try to use the nostalgia card?  They do this because they know we will get emotional.  We get emotional because we think about the fond memories that we have and we attach them to society at large.  We think about those happy times and we automatically assume that everything, including our country, was in a grand state, even though the reality was different.  We are human; we are prone to attaching great sentiment to the past.  It brings us happiness.

Just remember that politicians will try to manipulate our memories by telling us grand stories about the past.  They are manipulating our basic human emotions so they can get a vote.  Again, nothing wrong with being nostalgic, just don’t let those thoughts distort the past because:

“Remembrance of things past is not necessarily the remembrance of things as they were.” – Marcel Proust

Coexistence in the Realm of Policy-Making

Last week, the proposition of co-existence was discussed.  If you have not read last week’s post, please check it out now before you move on with this week’s post.

This week I want to continue the discussion.  I want to take the theory of co-existence and apply it to policy-making.  This is a tough proposition because this country is so diverse, but I do believe we can accomplish this if we use that dirty “c” word:  compromise.  I want to look at two areas of policy.  These two areas of policy will be same-sex adoptions and school prayer.  I wanted to look at two policy areas where solutions can be found (and have been found) so that greatest amount of good can be found between conservatives and liberals alike.

Same-Sex Adoptions

This is an area where I am shocked that there is so much disagreement.  I should not be shocked because I do realize that not everyone will believe in the same principles, but I am shocked that we are not looking at the truth of the matter.  The truth of the matter is that state child welfare systems are chaotic.  They hurt the children that they are supposedly protecting.  As discussed in the scholarly article, “Cumulative Risks of Foster Care Placement by Age 18 for U.S. Children, 2000-2011:”

"Though clearly helpful to some children, foster care placement frequently introduces additional instability to their already-chaotic lives, potentially further harming them. This combination of maltreatment and instability means that children who have experienced foster care suffer not only from elevated rates of mortality in childhood, but also from a host of other problems ranging from asthma to behavioral problems to suicidal ideation. Children in foster care are five times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, four times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, and ten times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder than other children, for instance" (Wildeman & Emanuel, 2014).

Foster children are at higher risks of developing anti-social behavior, physical health problems, and even death.  However, some people believe that a gay person or couple should not have the right to adopt children because having two daddies or two mommies will be harmful to the child.   It should be noted that the majority of Americans support same-sex adoptions.  According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken from February 27 to March 2, 2014, 61% of Americans support same-sex adoptions while only 34% oppose.   However, knowing that a third of Americans oppose same-sex couple from adopting is quite troubling.  It is troubling because these Americans are hurting the children that they claim that they are protecting.  They fear that children of same-sex parents will be damaged because children need a mom and a dad.  Opponents say these things even though the American Sociological Association states, in their amicus brief to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to same-sex marriage:

“The clear and consistent consensus in the social science research is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents as children raised by different-sex parents.”

I believe these detractors are missing the point.  A child does not need a mom and a dad.  They need two loving parents.  They need stability.  Stability is more important than the sex of the parents raising them.  Opponents are obsessed with the fact that “no matter how loving, two fathers can never replace a mother.”  They are so obsessed with the fact that a child needs a mother and a father that they are hurting the children they want to protect.

I would ask opponents of same-sex adoption to think about the thousands upon thousands of children in foster care and orphanages that just want loving parents.  They do not care about the sex of their parents.  They just want someone to love them.  I will respect (but disagree) with the fact that same-sex adoption opponents believe that a child needs a mother and a father, but I would just want to know if they would prefer children to be locked away into the foster care system?  They would rather have a child waste-away in foster care (and I am not saying that all foster parents are not loving and caring people) than be adopted by two people (of the same-sex) who will love them and take care of them.

Who cares what you believe.  In the end, we want children to be in loving homes.  Does it matter if is a traditional family where there is a mother and a father?  Is it not better for a child to have two fathers or two mothers then being stuck in the child welfare system?  Can’t we agree that getting children out of the foster care system is better than leaving them in a system where children can be harmed?  I believe we can agree on this because we need to put our personal, petty feelings aside so we can help the most vulnerable people in our society:  our children.

Prayer in School

"When a kid in school is cussing away like any character in any Tarantino movie, nobody bats an eye.  Ooh, but a kid saying a prayer in school, those hypocrites lose their minds." – Sarah Palin

There are many traditionalists like former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, who believe that prayer is missing from school.  They believe that our country has taken a dangerous turn because children are not allowed to pray in school.  There are people that believe that allowing prayer in school would help our children learn, grow, and behave like the outstanding citizens we want them to be.  No one can argue with that thought process.  It is a fruitless endeavor in trying to argue with someone of faith and tell them that their beliefs are not true.  I know many people are sincere in their faith and they believe that prayer in school would help out their children.

However, this notion that a child cannot pray in school is false.  Charles Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Education Project told the Washington Post that:

“Students of all faiths are actually free to pray alone or in groups during the school day, as long as they don’t disrupt the school or interfere with the rights of others. Of course, the right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion does not necessarily include the right to preach to a captive audience, like an assembly, or to compel other students to participate.”

Haynes goes on tells the Washington Post that some public school officials are ignorant of this fact and when they don’t allow kids to pray, they lose in court.

Prayer in school is allowed in school, as long as they don’t disrupt class, meaning that they can’t vocally pray during an English lesson.  If they want to have a silent prayer at their desk, that is acceptable.  If they want to pray in a group at recess, that is acceptable.  They cannot have a group prayer when class is in session.  In my estimation, this is where people who want prayer in school have a problem.  I believe they want to have a morning or afternoon prayer that involves the whole class.  I would ask these proponents of school prayer, “why is that fair?”

Most school classrooms are going to have an eclectic mix of students.  Some students may be Christian, others may be Jewish, others may be Muslim, and others may be agnostic or atheist.  Is it fair that all students in a public school must listen to a prayer that they may be uncomfortable or disagree with?  Would it be fair for a Christian in a predominately Islamic populated public school to be forced to participate in a Muslim prayer?  No one should be forced into anything as sacred as a prayer.

Some people may argue that any student who did not want to participate in the prayer could leave the room, as argued in the Supreme Court case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, where the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5 to 4 decision, that prayer in public meetings does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause.  The Supreme Court found that no one is coerced into participating in the prayer.  People do not have to bow their heads.  A meeting participant can just leave the room while the prayer is being administered.  The problem with doing this with school children is that children are impressionable beings.  They may feel pressure (coercion) into saying the prayer because they are afraid to speak up and say that they do not want to participate.  They may not want to be singled out for leaving the classroom during the prayer.  Besides, that leaves school administrators with another dilemma.  Children in school need constant supervision.  Even if you want the child to stand outside the classroom while a prayer is being said, that creates a safety concern because children have been known to wonder off.  Children need to be accounted for at all times when they are at school, so you would need adults supervising the children who are not part of the prayer (and who are in the classroom having the prayer).

The next problem would be how many prayers are going to be said?  If you have a classroom with Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic students, does this mean you have three separate prayers?  In all fairness, you must allow all students to participate in the prayer that they want said.  During the Catholic prayer, do you allow Muslim and Jewish students to leave the room?  There are many reasons why group school prayer during class would not work.  The logistics of trying to accommodate every religion becomes too complicated and it takes away from the valuable instruction time that our students desperately need.

As a compromise, maybe a block of religious time could be set aside before the official start of school.  If students wanted to pray in the classroom setting with their peers, maybe they could gather into different classrooms, each separated into different religions, 15 minutes before the start of class.  They can say their prayer and then get to class before school starts for the day.   This way the students are not infringing on school time and/or the religious rights of others.  But, this compromise brings up logistical issues as well; the children would still need to be supervised while they are in prayer.  Do you ask for parent or teacher volunteers to watch over the students?  Again more issues are raised, but in good faith, I am sure many people would want to try and find a solution that would benefit everyone.

The solution I just proposed sounds a lot like what is already available to students.  If a group of students want to meet before class and have a prayer together, they can already do that.  I believe many Americans would like to try and accommodate students who want to pray at school.  We can compromise, but to insist that every child should sit and participate in prayer every day at school is an un-American principle.  We are an individualistic people who want to follow our own path.  One of those paths might include following the path of Christ, through religion, while others may want to follow a secular path.  There is no wrong or right path, but forcing someone on to that path is fascism at its finest.  Many people believe that prayer is a powerful tool in their life and I am happy for them for feeling that way, but many people believe the opposite.

It’s not political correctness in finding alternative arrangements for the faithful or the secularists; it’s just the fair thing to do.

Who am I to Judge?

“Who am I to judge?”  Pope Francis uttered those simple, yet powerful words back in 2013.  Pope Francis has re-energized the Catholic Church with his simple, logical, and compassionate heart.  He has inspired the religious and non-religious alike.  Pope Francis spoke those words in regards to homosexuality; however, I think we can apply those words to many different lifestyles, philosophies and ideologies.  For this discussion, “Who am I to judge,” will be the question and answer that could help us solve the issues of polarization and help lessen the bad blood that flows between the religious and non-religious populations of our society.

This topic is important because we are seeing a great divide between people of faith and people who believe in secular principles.   People of faith, like former-Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR), believe that God is being slowly removed from society.  Prayer and faith in the public square are being diminished by politically correct progressives who want to squash religion for good.  This removal of God in society is starting to make America (and the rest of the world) weak.  On the other side, people who believe in secular principles, like the late author and activist Christopher Hitchens, believe that God (or religion) is what poisons the world.  People who believe in secular principles believe that human progress has been delayed because religions cause more harm than good.  That is quite the divide!  The examples I just gave are the extreme.  I do believe that divisions between faith and secularism can vary.  Not everyone is 100% anti-faith or 100% anti-secularism.  The world is not black and white.  The world is a murky gray where perceptions differ between people.  This divide between faith and secularism is causing grief between citizens of this country and throughout the world.  So, how do we close up that divide and co-exist peacefully with one another?  That is the question that hopefully can be answered.

Before our discussion can move forward, I would ask that you watch these two videos.  The first video will showcase a faithful Mormon family while the second video will showcase an ex-Mormon:

Which point of view is correct?  The first video shows a happy family who believes that they have found the right path in the form of Mormonism.  The second video shows a woman who had doubts and questions that led her to the conclusion that religion is cruel.  Does someone have to be wrong?  Even though everyone involved in these videos seem sincere and happy with their choices, there has to be a wrong path, right?  False.  Neither of the videos shows a wrong viewpoint.  These viewpoints are correct for the people that are following them.  You may disagree with one of them but it does not make them any less right or wrong.  That is because you cannot debate faith or the lack of faith.  That’s not to say that people do not question their faith or lack of faith.  The point is that you can debate someone until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, (especially when it comes to religion) people will not change their point of view.  Faith goes beyond scientific fact or reason.  Faith cannot be proven or disproven.  That is why it is called “faith.”  You have to have “faith” that God exists or that religion brings about happiness or vice-versa.  It does not do any good to tell the staunch Catholic that God doesn't exist and that their church is evil.  It also does not do any good to tell the atheist that they are lacking happiness because they do not have God in their life.  All that does is upset people.  It drives people away.  It causes harsh feelings.  This is an extremely difficult topic.  I know people want their loved ones to follow the same path that they do because they feel like they are on the right path.  They feel that if their loved one does not follow their path then they will not be able to be with them in the after-life.  That is a very difficult proposition to overcome.  However, there’s no choice in the matter.  Live and let live.  Either you accept that person for who they are or you push them away.  Life is short.  I, personally, opt for the first choice.

Allowing people to live their own lives is not any easy prospect.  This is because, and we all must admit this, we are human beings.  We will be condescending and hypocritical.  Each and every one of us has talked down to someone we do not agree with personally.  We also are hypocritical and will do things in contrast to what we preach.  As an example, I am an agnostic.  I believe in a higher power.  I do not necessarily believe in one almighty power that created this entire universe.  I do believe that there are many things to this universe that humans do not understand or comprehend.  However, personally I cannot believe in an organized religion because religions package their beliefs and doctrines too neatly.  Explanations are too easy in religions.  I believe there is some organization to the universe, but I believe it is organized chaos.  There are too many unknowns to say that humanity has all the answers or the religion has all the answers.  With that being said, there are days where I pity people that are religious.  I feel like logic is staring them right in their face but they do not see it.  I pity them because I see them shackled to an ideology created by men that just want to have power over everyone else.  That is pretty harsh.  I hate having these feelings, but I am a human, and I will always have feelings and thoughts like that.  How should someone try to move past these hypocritical and condescending thoughts and attitudes?  You get over hypocrisy and condescension by realizing that people will think the same things about you.  A religious person will look at me as being a gay agnostic who has turned their back on God and has succumbed to sin by falling in love with another man.  A religious person will pity me because if I do not change I will be going to Hell.   Imagine that.  People are going to see what they want.  That does not mean they are right or wrong.  That is just their point of view.  I do not have to agree with their point of view, but I will respect their beliefs.

That is the answer to co-existence (which is easier said than done).  Why can’t we accept people for who they are?  Allow people to make their own choices and live their own lives.  Allow people to be different.  Differences and diversity make this world an exciting, interesting place.  I know I do not want to live in a homogeneous society where everyone believes in the same things.  I want the beautiful differences in society to stand out.  I want to know all about the differences in each of us and discover the beauty in all things.  I believe we need each other.  We need religious and non-religious people.  We need each other so we can tackle problems together.

In conclusion, take note that I did not use the words “tolerate” or “tolerance,” I used the words “respect” and “accept.”  I actually hate the word “tolerance” because I feel that tolerance is just the nice way of holding your nose at someone who you disagree with.   I want people to accept me.  I want people to accept one another.  I want people to accept Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Episcopalians, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.  You do not have to agree with their beliefs, but accept them as human beings.  Accept their path to happiness.  Love them for being different.  Do not just tolerate them because that is the politically correct thing to do.  Learn about their philosophy to life.  Bask in the beauty and richness of our diversity in this world.  Just realize that as long as they are not putting your rights and physical safety at risk then, “who am I to judge?”

Next week:  Using this theory of co-existence in the real world through policy-making.

If Men Were Angels: The Case for Ethical Codes and Whistleblowing

The lies and misdirection that the government told the American public about the Vietnam War, the NSA’s PRISM surveillance and data-gathering program, the C.I.A’s use of waterboarding, and warrantless surveillance are several programs that were brought to light by people within the government (or contracted to work with the federal government).  Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information, sometimes secret information, in order to stop some sort of perceived government abuse.  Whistleblowers have been harassed by government officials, including presidents.  Whistleblowers have been fired from their positions, indicted, and incarcerated for their disclosures.  In some extreme cases, whistleblowers have had to flee their home country.  Whistleblowing is a risky endeavor that can lead to some serious life altering predicaments for those who are involved.  With whistleblowing being such a devastating and life-altering proposition, the questions that should be asked is why does a government employee or government contractor blow the whistle?  The answer lies within the tenets of constitutional republican theory that promotes an open and honest government.  Constitutional republican theory has helped pave the way for whistleblowing.  The reason whistleblowing is not only accepted, but encouraged, is because the federal government has adopted a code of ethics that emboldens federal employees to uphold and protect the Constitution.  Those codes of ethics have been founded on the notion that federal employees should uphold and protect the Constitution.  These codes of ethics also promote the notion of a government where abuses are controlled and all of its employees operate in an honest and open manner.

Methodology

The methodology of this article will consist of arguments of a normative nature.  More precisely, it will consist of a normative theory that our founding fathers used to create this country, constitutional republican theory.  An example that describes this approach comes from James Madison, who said:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuse of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary, if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary, in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.  (Madison, 1788)

James Madison believed that any good government would have procedures in place so governmental abuses could be stopped or controlled.  This argument was the basis for how academic sources would be used and judged within this paper.  Academic resources did not have to agree with this premise.  The arguments that disagreed with this premise will be addressed and argued against based upon the normative arguments that support a constitutional republic.  Academic resources have been blended with other sources.  Other sources that will be used include: polling data, internet resources that include government websites and biographies in order to create a research paper that uses factual information in order to argue for the use of ethical codes and whistleblowing.

Code of Ethics

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.  (“Oath”)

The preceding was the oath of office that all federal employees must take as they enter into their public office.  The history of the oath can be traced back to the Constitution.  Article IV of the Constitution requires all government officials, from all three branches of government, to take and adhere to the oath of office.  The wording for the oath dates back to 1884, when Congress adopted this oath because they wanted to establish “clear, publicly sworn accountability” (“Oath”).  The reason why the oath is so important is because this is the establishment of an ethical form of conduct that all government employees, including the President of the United States, must adhere to.  The oath singlehandedly made every government employee accountable to the Constitution and to the people of the United States.  This oath was the foundation that led to legislation like the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the signing, by President George H.W. Bush, of Executive Order 12674 that laid out fourteen general principles of ethical conduct.  The oath did not only lay the foundation for the expectancy of ethical conduct by all federal employee, but as we will learn later, lays the foundation for whistleblowing by federal employees.

Other than the Constitution imposing ethical codes of conduct on federal employees, another reason why codes of ethics should be established is because there is a pressure on the public sector to delegate “responsibilities, including financial responsibilities within the public sector organizations; media exercising influence over white collar workers; growing public willingness to complain when the quality of public services is low” (Musaraj & Gerxhi, 2010, p. 12).  Codes of ethics are needed to create an environment that promotes accountability because of pressures by the media and the public that demands the government to operate in an open and honest manner.  The Constitution, along with a general moral code, provides a blueprint for any government employee that wants to be considered honest, loyal, and ethical in the eyes of the media and the public at large.

There is conflicting research that suggests that code of ethics do not necessarily prevent government malfeasances.  Meine & Dunn point out that, “simply having a code of conduct does not guarantee that employees will comply with it or even that they will understand the issues driving the code” (2013, p. 152).  That statement is correct.  Codes of ethical conduct will not stop employees in the federal government from engaging in unethical behavior.  Someone could look to the 111th Congress to see that is the case.  The 111th Congress “ended with two long-serving members under the cloud of ethics investigations, and these were only two of the 111 ethics inquiries conducted during that session of Congress” (Meine & Dunn, 2013, p. 156).  Obviously, ethical codes do not stop suspicious behavior, especially in Congress, however, the principles of having ethical codes is important because it allows the public and the media to determine if any member of the government has conducted themselves in an unethical fashion.  Codes of the ethics create the blueprint necessary to find and prosecute unethical behavior.  Without codes of ethics it would be more difficult to snuff out government wrongdoing.  Even though unethical behavior continues in government today does not mean that codes of ethics are meaningless.  Ethical codes help determine the culprits that are working in a questionable, unethical way.

Ethical Laws, Rules, and Regulations.  The first major ethical codes of conduct established for federal employees, other than the oath, were established in 1958.  In 1958, the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the Senate, adopted the Code of Ethics for Government Service.  This was the first major operational document because it gave government organizations the tools to “enforce proper behavior ranging from reprimands to dismissal and even criminal prosecution” (Meine & Dunn, 2013, p. 156).

Obviously these tools that were created by the Code of Ethics for Government Service did not stop government corruption and ethical crises.  The country was consumed by the Watergate scandal that lasted from 1972 until President Richard Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974.  The effects of Watergate led to an all-time high of government distrust and skepticism.  To help quell this growing distaste for government, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 established the Office of Government Ethics that would reside within the Office of Personnel Management.  This office was tasked with implementing government-wide ethical direction through policies and programs.  It also created the position of Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel that would investigate high ranking government officials when accusations of criminal behavior come about (Carroll & Roberts, 1988).  This would be the same office that investigated President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the 1990’s.  The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created offices and positions that are still around today.  These tools have helped uncover unethical and criminal behavior that takes place within the government.  These tools are not perfect; some might say that they are used as political maneuvers against political rivals; at least, those were the accusations that were lobbed against Republicans by President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Even though there could be improper use of these tools by people with political agendas, these tools are still invaluable because it gave the government more control in discovering criminal and unethical behavior even though the chances of drastically reducing unethical behaviors was slim to none, as what will be witnessed in the 1980’s.

Ethical scandals and corruption in government did not stop (or even subside) after the implementation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  During the late 1980’s scandals like Iran-Contra, the Walker spy ring, and the defense contracting scandals dominated the headlines (Carroll & Roberts, 1988).  These headlines caused another round of angst and deteriorating trust with government.   On April 12, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order 12674, which would be later amended by Executive Order 12731.  Executive Order (E.O.) 12674 put into place fourteen general ethical principles that would help “to ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government” (Executive Order No. 12674, 1989).  A few of the principles that were adopted for all federal employees in E.O. 12674 were that “employees shall disclose waste, fraud and corruption to appropriate authorities; employees should not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty” (1989).  This executive order tasked the Office of Government Ethics in implementing these general ethical principles across every government agency within the federal government.  Again, the purpose of these fourteen general principles was to instill trust within the government and with the public.

The Case for a Code of Ethics.  One could make the assumption that these ethical codes, laws, rules, and regulations have not stopped government corruption.  Since the corruption and questionable behavior has not subsided over the years, the trust that the American people have with government has fallen dramatically.  Pew Research reports that trust in government has fallen from 73 percent in 1958 to 19 percent in 2013 (2013).  A valid argument could be made that code of ethics are a waste of time or that ethical codes are “simply a form of window dressing intended to serve as a visible symbol of legitimacy for a profession and its professional organizations” (Meine & Dunn, 2013, p. 152).  These are arguments have merit, however, researchers and people in general, are missing the point of ethical codes.  Ethical codes are needed because there should be processes in place that allow government transparency.  An open government that tries to control unethical behavior of its political leaders and workers should be lauded.  The notion that since all unethical behavior or corruption has not been eradicated in the federal government means that ethical codes should be abandoned because they are not working or they are “window dressing” is ludicrous.  There needs to be standards, there needs to be some sort of control over its inhabitants, as James Madison said.  This idea that ethical codes, laws, regulations, and rules should be thrown out because they are not working would just cause society to delve into chaos.  That argument makes as much sense as someone saying that speed limits should be abolished because many people do not abide by speed limits.  The truth is that some people do not abide by the speed limits, however, when they are caught, they are punished.  The same scenario happens for a government worker or agency that gets caught doing something unethical and/or illegal.  President Nixon is a prime example of that.  The argument that ethical codes do not work is an argument that is lacking a lot of thoughtfulness or analysis.  Ethical codes help create an environment of responsibility and accountability.  Sure, some people may not abide by this code, but having a process in place where violators will be exposed and be punished helps create a better environment even though it does not stop the unethical behavior.

If ethical codes are needed within the federal government in order to create an environment that promotes accountability and openness, then the next step would be how can one person, standing by the fourteen general ethics that were established by President George H.W. Bush, accomplish this feat?  One of the answers, a controversial answer to say the least, would be through the act of whistleblowing.

Whistleblowing

Before an argument can be made in favor of the argument that whistleblowing is not only accepted, but encouraged, a definition of whistleblowing must be established.   “A whistleblower is generally defined as an employee who discloses potentially damaging information about their employer to an authority figure, such as their boss, the media, or a government official” (as cited in Evans, 2008, p. 268).  A whistleblower is someone that possesses some damaging information about an individual and/or an organization.  This person will then disclose this information outside of their usual chain-of-command.  The whistleblower may disclose this information to the media or to someone within their organization who is not their immediate boss.

Significant Whistleblowers.  The determination has been made that a whistleblower is someone who discloses potentially damaging information about their employer to an authority figure or the media.  To help explain what a whistleblower does, it is important that a few examples of whistleblowing are explained.

One of the most high-profile whistleblowing cases occurred in 1971.  Daniel Ellsberg, a former United States military analyst, employed by the RAND Corporation, secretly photocopied and leaked the Pentagon Papers to members of Congress and then leaked the information to the New York Times (Kitrosser, 2011).  The Pentagon Papers was a classified study commissioned by the Department of Defense that outlined the history of the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers were a scathing rebuke of America’s involvement in Vietnam.  Some of the revelations that were made public was that former President Lyndon Johnson, “misled the public about the nature of American actions in Vietnam in 1964; planned the escalation of the war long before it occurred; ordered the bombing of North Vietnam while publicly condemning his rival for the Presidency, Senator Barry Goldwater, for proposing to do just that” (Millar, 1971).  The government’s response to Ellsberg and the New York Times was fierce.  Ellsberg was indicted, tried for his leaking of information, even though the case against Ellsberg was eventually dropped.  The case was dropped because of government misconduct.  The government had “suppressed evidence, burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, illegally wiretapped Ellsberg’s conversations, and held secret discussions with the judge trying Ellsberg’s case about the judge’s possible appointment as FBI Director” (Kitrosser, 2011).  Ellsberg and the New York Times were harassed because they leaked a report that was devastating and embarrassing to the government.  The leaking of this information is significant because of the response by the government and the impacts that this leaking had on President Nixon.  President Nixon, tired of the leaks within the government, created his group of “plumbers,” a secretive investigative unit that would try to stop any future leaks from taking place.  These “plumbers” along with Nixon’s actions of revenge, would eventually lead to his downfall during the Watergate scandal.

Another significant whistleblower (or traitor, as some have called him), Edward Snowden is a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who disclosed information about the NSA’s clandestine PRISM data-collection program through reporter Glenn Greenwald who works for the newspaper, The Guardian.  “Snowden revealed that the National Security Administration has been collecting and storing the telephone and e-mail records of millions of Americans (not to mention countless innocent citizens of other countries)” (Lears, 2013).  The effects of Snowden’s whistleblowing are still up in the air because the United States government has not cancelled PRISM and Mr. Snowden is still on the run from U.S. authorities.  The Guardian reported Snowden’s disclosures on June 5, 2013; Edward Snowden went public on June 9, 2013;   June 18, 2013 had FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce testifying before the House Intelligence Committee that the PRISM program helped stop terror attacks; and Snowden, who left the United States before the disclosures on May 20, 2013, has been charged with espionage and theft of government property.  Snowden is currently in Russia where his request for temporary asylum has been approved. (“Edward Snowden,” 2013).

The Case for Whistleblowing.  Why would people like Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, along with countless others, risk their professional and personal lives to blow the whistle on questionable governmental behavior?  The answer lies in the fact that the federal government has adopted a code of ethics that emboldens federal employees to uphold and protect the Constitution.

In an interview with The Guardian, Edward Snowden stated, “I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building” (Greenwald, MacAskill, & Poitras, 2013).

Mr. Snowden was concerned with “basic liberties” being infringed upon by the United States government.  One could make the assumption that Edward Snowden was concerned that the government was violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Lears, 2013).  The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens against unreasonable searches.  Lears makes the argument that Snowden was trying to protect our Fourth Amendment rights.  With evaluating Snowden’s remarks, a connection can be made with Snowden’s disclosures and his concern about Fourth Amendment protections.  Snowden, as a government contractor, did not have to take the oath that all other federal employees must take and he did not have to abide by the ethical codes that had been established by President George H.W. Bush.  However, the National Association of Government Contractors (NAGC) has a code of ethics.  Their codes insist that a federal contractor complies “with all laws and contracts; conducts themselves in a manner that brings credit upon the community” (“Code of ethics”).  What is interesting is that there is a code that states that a contractor must uphold “security of protected information” (“Code of ethics”).  The NAGC code is quite convoluted, however, Snowden was most likely operating on the assumption that he must comply with all laws.  No laws are more supreme than the United States Constitution.  Even secrecy oaths that, “prohibit oath-takers from giving any information identified as safeguarded, secret, or classified to any person not specifically authorized to receive it” (deHaven-Smith, 2011, p. 215).  Snowden felt that there were obvious violations within the Fourth Amendment.   The argument could also be made that Snowden was operating on the basic theory of what James Madison laid out in terms of wanting an open and honest government.  Madison wanted abuses to be controlled and if the Fourth Amendment was being violated then Snowden had a duty to inform the American public about these abuses.  Snowden was also a former C.I.A. employee so he had to abide by ethical principles when he was with the C.I.A.  Snowden had the understanding and the passion to protect the Constitution because he was in an environment where people are charged with the duty of being ethical and protecting the Constitution.

Edward Snowden is one real-life example of being a whistleblower.  The federal government does encourage whistleblowing.  The proposition that code of ethics emboldens a person to blow the whistle is also bolstered by the fact that Congress has passed laws that try to protect whistleblowers from harassment and wrongful prosecutions.  Congress passed the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosure Act and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.  These laws are designed to protect disclosures by a federal employee of “any violation of law, waste, abuse, or gross mismanagement” (“Senate passes,” 2008).  These laws also “expanded the scale of whistleblower protections to national-security related agencies,” (“Senate passes,” 2013) and includes federal contractors, along with federal employees.

Between the many regulations, rules, and laws that enforce government employees to conduct themselves in an ethical way and the laws that Congress has passed in regards to protecting whistleblowers from harassment and wrongful prosecution, one could make the argument that the federal government encourages whistleblowing.  James Madison and the other founders believed that in order for a government to survive, the government must be controlled from abusing the people.  They wanted an honest and open government.  1884 saw the Congressional adoption of an oath that all federal employees had to take.  The oath makes the federal employee state that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  The government also enacted several bills and executive orders that embraced the notion that all federal employees must be ethical.  These ethical codes of conducts continued to enforce the idea that employees needed to place loyalty to the Constitution.  The federal government constantly tells its employees to protect and defend the Constitution.  All of these ideas have permeated through the minds of its employees.  Once you couple that with whistleblowing protection laws, then it is only reasonable to see people like Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden blow the whistle on things they perceive to constitute government abuses of power.  The whole blueprint of this country, in terms of a constitutional republic, not only encourages people stepping up to fight government abuse, but it demands that citizens do this because a government cannot survive if it loses trust with its people.  No one should be surprised when a government employee or contractor blows the whistle because standing up for an open and honest government that protects the Constitution is a basic tenant of the founding of this country.  Not only should people be less shocked when whistleblowers become public, but they should be applauded for risking their security and their lives to help bring about perceived abuses that the government may have carried out.  Besides, as Daniel Ellsberg points out:

Since wrongdoing virtually always requires both secrecy and lies, and further secrets and lies to protect the secrets and lies, the wrongful operation—especially in a regime that approaches democracy—is commonly highly vulnerable to a breach of secrecy by any one of the many who share the secret. (2010, p. 775).

Arguments against Whistleblowing. There are several claims stating that federal employees should not become whistleblowers.  The arguments against whistleblowing stem from the proposition that whistleblowing is an “unauthorized disclosure of wrongdoing” (Evans, 2008, p. 268) and “that information must be kept secret to protect national security, and claims that the public would understand and bless the government’s actions if only the public could see the information that they are not permitted to see” (Kitrosser, 2011, p. 91).  One could argue that whistleblowing should not take place because whistleblowing is an unauthorized act of disclosure, however, that argument becomes null because, as has been already discussed in this paper, Our founders like James Madison wanted an open and honest government and the way to go about creating that atmosphere was by having federal employees pledge their allegiance to protecting the Constitution.  Ethical codes reinforced that idea of upholding the Constitution and laws have been enacted that protected whistleblowers.  There are positions within the security apparatus of the federal government that does hold its employees to secrecy; however, the Constitution trumps secrecy in those departments.  If citizens of the United States are having their Constitutional rights violated, like the Fourth Amendment when it comes to unreasonable search and seizures, then an employee has the obligation to expose that.  The Constitution cannot be undermined solely on the proposition of keeping state secrets classified.

The next argument that suggests information needs to be kept secret to protect the national security of the United States is also a weak one.  This argument suggests that more Americans could die if sensitive information is leaked out to the American public (Kitrosser, 2011; Wise, 2011).  That argument could turn out to be true.  Now that the world knows about the NSA’s PRISM program, it could turn out that potential terrorists will use other methods of communications other than using the internet and phone calls; however, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.   The Constitution does not forbid whistleblowing because someone may be killed.  That may sound callous, but Constitutional protections should never be undermined in the name of safety and security.  Basic constitutional republican theory, ethical codes, and laws that embolden whistleblowing constantly remind federal employees and contractors, along with the media and the citizens that government must operate in accordance with the Constitution.  Even President Barack Obama, whose administration is trying to prosecute Edward Snowden, has previously stated that “that whistleblowing by government employees was an act ‘of courage and patriotism’ that ‘should be encouraged rather than stifled’’ (Wise, 2010).  Though there is an environment of governmental hypocrisy when it comes to whistleblowing, we must all remember that our founders and government encourages whistleblowing.  Whistleblowing is encouraged because government must operate in an honest and open manner.

The final argument which suggests the “public would understand and bless the government’s actions if only the public could see the information that they are not permitted to see,” is another weak argument against whistleblowing.  That argument is hypocritical to say the least.  Again, our federal employees are encouraged to work openly, honestly, and ethically.  The government should never rationalize keeping secrets that harm our country because the people will support something that they do not even know about.  That argument goes against every principle of ethical conduct and goes against the Constitutional principles that have been discussed.  These arguments are excuses that come from people that enjoy the power they have in government.  The leaking of information threatens their status and to come out and make pompous arguments like this one, only makes the case stronger to why American needs strong ethical codes in government, along with encouraging more whistleblowing.

Conclusion

As this article has discussed, the reason why whistleblowing is not only accepted, but is encouraged, is because the federal government has adopted a code of ethics that emboldens federal employees to uphold and protect the Constitution.  Those codes of ethics have been founded on the notion that federal employees should uphold and protect the Constitution.  These codes of ethics also promote the notion of a government where abuses are controlled and all of its employees operate in an honest and open manner.
The American people already has trust issues with the United States Government and some could point to whistleblowers as being a catalyst that exposes abuse and corruption so government trust plummets.  However, if not for these whistleblowers we may have never have known that President Johnson misled the American people when it came to the Vietnam War, we may have never have known about the specifics of what the NSA does to collect information, and one president, President Nixon, may have never been exposed for his crimes against the American people.  Many lives have been ruined because many people have decided to stand up against the government and expose the abuse, lies, and questionable practices that go in the government.  These whistleblowers provide a valuable service.  They are the real patriots in this country that would have our founders like James Madison applauding their dedication, service, openness, and honesty.  Whistleblowers risk their lives and reputations to defend the Constitution; there is nothing more admirable than that gesture of selflessness.

Carroll, J. D., & Roberts, R. N. (1988). If men were angels: Assessing the ethics in government act of 1978. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 435-447.

Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Code of Ethics. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://web.governmentcontractors.org/content/about/Code_of_Ethics.aspx

deHaven-Smith, L. (2011). Myth and reality of whistleblower protections. Public Integrity, 13(3), 207-220.

Edward Snowden fast facts. (2013, November 18). CNN. Retrieved November 24, 2013, from
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/us/edward-snowden-fast-facts/

Ellsburg, D. (2010). Secrecy and national security whistleblowing. Social Research, 77(3), 773-804.

Evans, A. (2008). Dealing with dissent: Whistleblowing, egalitarianism, and the republic of the firm. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(3), 267-279.

Exec. Order No. 12674, 3 C.F.R. (1989).

Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E., & Poitras, L. (2013, June 9). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Kitrosser, H. (2011). What if Daniel Ellsberg hadn't bothered?. Indiana Law Review, 45(1), 60-66.

Meine, M., & Dunn, T. (2013). The search for ethical competency. Public Integrity, 15(2), 149-166.

Madison, J. (1788, February 6). The Federalist #51. Retrieved November 24, 2013, from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Millar, T. (1971, June 23). Mr. Johnson's slippery tunnel. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QvljAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2414,7857807&dq=the+pentagon+papers&hl=en

Musaraj, A., & Gerxhi, J. (2010). Communication and ethical behavior in the public service: from moral choice toward a legal code. Academicus, (1), 11-21.

Oath. (n.d.). U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Trust in government nears record low, but most federal agencies are viewed favorably. (2013, October 18). Pew Research. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/18/trust-in-government-nears-record-low-but-most-federal-agencies-are-viewed-favorably/

Senate passes whistleblower law. (2008). Professional Safety, 53(3).

Wise, D. (2011). Leaks and the law. Smithsonian Magazine, 42(4), 90-101.