Introduction
A whistleblower is someone or an entity that brings attention to an apparent injustice. Such a person stands out among many community members by the fact of always telling the truth and being constantly keen to discover the truth. Accordingly, the cost of telling some truths is always very high, with many individuals involved in whistleblowing sacrificing their welfare to make the truth known to the public. Personal harm, death, and threats are examples of the various prices that whistleblowers face. However, the determination to find and tell the truth empowers the lot to deliver their plans. Such a matter makes whistleblowers closely connected to critical thinkers or persons who are continually ardent to pursue the truth. Critical thinkers examine, construe, and render a judgment to avoid vague conjectures (Hayes 38). They are permanently focused on finding the truth, thus disallowing information that is irrelevant and vague. They are, thus, passionate about the outright truth, which is impartial and autonomous. Accordingly, whistleblowers and critical thinkers are individuals who stick to universal facts, making whistleblowing an act illustrative of critical thinkers.
Whistleblowers’ Comparison
Frank Serpico and Edward Snowden’s truth-seeking deeds compare significantly to those of Dr. Wigand and clearly show that whistleblowing is a performance illustrative of critical thinkers. Wigand applies critical thinking elements to determine serious facts to base his judgment to blow the whistle, other than simply acting on Bergman’s request. Bergman initially tells him that “Big Tobacco is a big story and you got something important to say. I can tell.” (The Insider 1:04:39). Bergman is the producer of the 60 minutes film and wants Wigand to provide the sensitive information concerning the tobacco industry mainly for the show, as opposed to giving facts to the public for change. The phrase ‘big story’ amplifies the producer’s focus, where he wants to use the aspect to produce a ‘hot’ film that can sell seamlessly. As a former manager of the Tobacco Company bearing sensitive information, Wigand applies the ‘investigate’, ‘interpret’, and ‘sound verdict’ features of critical thinking to figure out whether to blow the whistle concerning the industry or not. He, Wigand, tells Bergman “Received a threatening email (The Insider 1:04:45). This informs Wigand’s interpretation of the underlying threat of not making the matter known to the public. He then confesses to Bergman and the public about the dangerous tobacco-related chemicals, including the hazardous ammonia component and nicotine, deliberately served to the world by the dishonest tobacco firms. Wigand’s judgment comes from the facts he holds about the dangers of tobacco and the death threat he receives. According to Wigand, The email read “We will kill you, we will kill all of you, shut the fu@k up.” (The Insider 1:04:53). Serpico investigates his colleagues’ corrupt deeds and their impact on the profession and justice to make the determination to blow the whistle, while Snowden investigates and interprets the American government’s dishonest surveillance of its citizens and the direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Establishing that Dr. Wigand, Serpico, and Snowden are whistleblowers adhering to the definition of critical thinkers makes it reasonable to suggest that whistleblowing acts are characteristic of critical thinkers.
Frank Serpico (Serpico)
Additionally, examining Frank Serpico’s exposure to corruption deals within the police unit makes it clear that whistleblowing results from critical thinking. Serpico is a 1960s New York Police Detective who investigates the corruption in his sector and testifies to the New York Times. Keough refers the matter to as “… a C-note apiece” (Serpico 0:52:33). Investigating the officers’ atrocities makes Serpico dissatisfied because the matter promotes social injustice. The officer trusts that basing services of bribery denies the many have-nots justice. Serpico investigates the possible consequences of confessing the matter and decides to blow the whistle. He says “No, it was your collar. Keep it” (Serpico 0:53:24). The statement regards to the media house’s trial to pay him to facilitate his collaboration. Serpico investigates and interprets the facts to make a sound judgment, proving him to be a critical thinker. His inquiries surround his colleagues’ unethical practices and the available ways to end the ill practices. Finally, Serpico’s hatred towards corruption stamps the necessity to confess. He says “I don’t take money, right?” (Serpico 0:53:35), proving his clear understanding of bribery as a corrupt deed. Determining truth as a course to die for, Serpico decides to confess everything to the New York Times. His actions are further supported by the pieces of evidence collected on the corrupt officers, leading to a blasting report that forces the governor to direct immediate investigations into the matter. Consequently, Serpico is a whistleblower and critical thinker, with his deeds proving whistleblowing as a performance emblematic of critical thinkers.
Edward Snowden
Furthermore, Edward Snowden’s actions prove the clear connection between whistleblowing and critical thinking. Snowden is a former NSA IT specialist who investigates the American IT security system to distinguish the nation’s dishonest handling of citizens’ private information. Snowden says “People look at me now and they think I’m this crazy guy, I’m this extremist or whatever” (Davies 1). The whistleblower wonders why so many Americans and the U.S. government see him as a terrorist for telling the truth. Making the right decision to confess the painful fact-based findings makes Snowden an enemy of the government. Initially employed to investigate the Chinese government’s spying activities on foreign communities, Snowden was stunned by the findings and, thus, out of curiosity, decided to investigate his government’s truthfulness to the constitution and citizenry. He says “I think, yes, the NSA is spying… but we’re only spying overseas, we’re not spying on our guys at home. We wouldn’t do that” (Davies 1). This statement proves Snowden’s freethinking and consciousness that differentiates him from the masses. He is a critical thinker, based on the ability to acquire facts and use them to decide appropriately. Snowden then finds that the NSA violates the Fourth Amendment and thus draws the authority from the rare facts. He states that “they were not just collecting and intercepting communications from criminals, spies, terrorists, people of intelligence value — they were collecting on everyone, everywhere…” (Davies 1). Therefore, the whistleblower makes the confession after investigating and interpreting the findings and determines the government’s violation of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, Snowden construes a clear difference between the signed oath of service and the secrecy contract. This understanding informs Snowden’s decision to expose the government for deliberately and dishonestly violating a constitution’s provision. Accordingly, the fact that Snowden is an established whistleblower reasonably suggests whistleblowing actions’ representativeness of critical thinking.
Dr. Wigand as a Whistleblower
Again, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand’s case significantly clarifies whistleblowing as an action characteristic of critical thinkers. Wigand employs critical thinkers’ tools to expose Big Tobacco Company in the film The Insider by Michael Man. Wigand initially tells Bergman “I can’t seem to find the criteria to decide. It’s too big a decision to make without being resolved in my own mind” (The Insider 1:01:02-01:07). This implies the former manager’s calculative nature as a critical thinker. He wants to investigate the matter to gather facts and interpret the implications before deciding. As a person experienced in tobacco business dealings, Wigand investigates nicotine and ammonia’s effects on humans and the tobacco company’s insensitivity towards public safety to find the necessary facts to inform his judgment. Wigand notes that “I told the truth! It’s valid and true and provable…!” (The Insider 1:01:05-01:15). The confession implies the former manager’s thoroughness on the matter. He is certain after investigating the information he has and interpreting it to make a sound verdict. Wigand investigates the potential effects of his confessions, Bergman’s persuasions, and the threats he receives from the BDS TV Networks, including the bullet he receives through the mail. Jeffrey Wigand says that he received a threatening email saying “We will kill you, we will kill all of you, shut the fu@k up” (The Insider 1:04:39- 1:04). Wigand interprets this message by inferring his potential to cause change and protect his family from harm through confession. He equally reasons with Bergman’s idea that Big Tobacco is a giant story, and he has something imperative to say. Consequently, the character renders the judgment to violate the signed secrecy contract by working with Bergman to give a fact-backed report leading to nationwide policy changes. Therefore, Dr. Wigand is a whistleblower who adheres to the definition of critical thinkers; thus, his actions prove whistleblowing is an act typical of critical thinkers.
Civil Disobedience and Whistleblowing
Accordingly, the civil disobedience philosophy significantly makes ‘whistleblowing’ and ‘critical thinkers’ meanings tantamount. Whistleblowers are persons with sensitive factual information frequently unknown to the masses. Thoreau argues that “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority” (181). The statement implies the need for a whistleblower to frantically fight for his or her truths, even if society is against that person. Therefore, a whistleblower’s power substantially entails the supremacy of truth, meaning that the whistleblower exhibits control by holding the facts, like in the case of Dr. Wigand, Snowden, and Serpico. According to Thoreau’s statement, an individual knowing the truth has the power to act freely and resist the ignorant majority. The philosopher maintains that “a minority is naturally defenseless while it confronts the majority; it is not even a minority then, but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight” (Thoreau 182). This statement implies that an entity that blows the whistle must cull laws contradicting the impartial reality. One must decide to reject the evil of the unfair establishments and fight for morale and impartiality. That way, the person achieves an act of critical thinking by analyzing, criticizing, and investigating the subjects before delivering a viable judgment, which parallels the whistleblowing deeds to the critical thinking process.
The Connection Between Thoreau’s Essay to My Claim
Civil disobedience’s central idea is that democratic rule fundamentally leads to superior physical strength that eliminates individuals’ conscience and critical thinking. The democratic rule believes that the majority has the say and control. According to Thoreau, “The opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity” (180). The philosopher implies that injustice continues not because of a few elected leaders. Instead, the majority of voters who extend their selfish interests through the prejudiced voting process are to blame. It takes an individual with a conscience to overcome the rule of many. Thoreau notes that “It’s not a man’s duty… to devote to the eradication of any wrong… but it’s his duty to wash his hands of it…” (181). The statement implies the possibility of overwhelming societal issues that may be challenging to oppose. However, determining the aspects as wrong and distancing self from them is important. Moreover, the conscious person identifies specific truths necessary to humanity and employs critical thinking elements to defend them. The aspect forms the basis of Thoreau’s argument that “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority” (181). Thoreau’s statement insists not only on the need to go against the majority’s biased opinions but also on an individual’s self-interests. Therefore, this aspect meets with my definition of critical thinkers, complying with the scholar’s point of view which requires one to remain non-partisan when investigating, interpreting, and delivering the final judgment. Consequently, a whistleblower is an individual with a conscience who employs critical thinking to get facts, proving that whistleblowing is a performance symbolic of critical thinkers.
Conclusion
Whistleblowing and critical thinking are related, based on the two aspect’s involvement of investigation, interpretation, and judgment delivery concepts. A whistleblower is someone with a rare truth backed up by verifiable facts, mostly unknown to the public. The whistleblower is not necessarily a person of high morals but someone with the power of facts. Such an individual acquires authority from the application of critical thinking elements, including investigating, interpreting, and judgment-making. The point that blowing the whistle frequently contradicts the majority rule or a group with power requires one to work diligently to get the power and then decide on whether to protect personal safety or take the risk. Dr. Wigand, Snowden, and Serpico are excellent examples of whistleblowers having high critical thinking capabilities. The establishment that the three are whistleblowers, together with their adherence to the critical thinkers’ definition, it is sensible to conclude that based on their activities, whistleblowing is a deed illustrative of critical thinkers.
Works Cited
Davies, Dave. “Edward Snowden Speaks Out: ‘I haven’t and I won’t’ Cooperate with Russia.” NPR, Web.
Hayes Christopher. “Critical Thinking Unleased: How to Improve and Refine your Thinking Process to Think More Effectively.” Lightning Source, 2019.
Serpico. IMDb, 1974, Web.
The Insider. Michael Man. Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. Blue Lion Entertainment, 1999, Web.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden; and, Civil Disobedience. US: Penguin Classics, 1983.