How whistleblowers shape history Kelly Richmond Pope

How many of us have ever seen something,

thought that we should report it,
but decided not to?

And not that I need
to see a show of hands,

but I’m sure this has happened
to someone in this room before.

In fact, when this question
was asked to a group of employees,

46 percent of them responded
by saying that they had seen something

and decided not to report it.

So if you raised your hand,
or quietly raised your hand,

don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.

This message of if you see something
to say something

is really all around us.

Even when driving down the highway,
you see billboards like this,

encouraging us to report crime
without revealing ourselves.

But I still feel like a lot of us
are really uncomfortable

coming forward in the name of the truth.

I’m an accounting professor,
and I do fraud research.

And in my class, I encourage my students
to come forward with information

if they see it.

Or in other words, encouraging
my students to become whistle-blowers.

But if I’m being completely
honest with myself,

I am really conflicted with this message
that I’m sending to my students.

And here’s why.

Whistle-blowers are under attack.

Headline after headline shows us this.

Many people choose
not to become whistle-blowers

due to the fear of retaliation.

From demotions to death threats,

to job loss –

perpetual job loss.

Choosing to become a whistle-blower
is an uphill battle.

Their loyalty becomes into question.

Their motives, their trustworthiness.

So how can I, as a professor
who really cares about her students

encourage them to become whistle-blowers,

when I know how the world
truly feels about them?

So, one day I was getting ready
for my annual whistle-blower lecture

with my students.

And I was working
on an article for “Forbes,”

entitled “Wells Fargo
and Millennial Whistle-blowing.

What Do We Tell Them?”

And as I was working on this piece
and reading about the case,

I became outraged.

And what made me angry
was when I came to the fact and realized

that the employees
that tried to whistle-blow

were actually fired.

And it really made me think

about the message
that I was sharing with my students.

And it made me think: What if my students
had been Wells Fargo employees?

On the one hand, if they whistle-blew,
they would have gotten fired.

But on the other hand,

if they didn’t report
the frauds that they knew,

the way current regulation is written,

employees are held responsible

if they knew something
and didn’t report it.

So criminal prosecution is a real option.

What’s a person supposed to do
with those type of odds?

I of all people know
the valuable contributions

that whistle-blowers make.

In fact, most frauds
are discovered by them.

Forty two percent of frauds
are discovered by a whistle-blower

in comparison to other methods,

like measurement review
and external audit.

And when you think
about some of the more classic

or historical fraud cases,

it always is around a whistle-blower.

Think Watergate –
discovered by a whistle-blower.

Think Enron – discovered
by a whistle-blower.

And who can forget about Bernard Madoff,
discovered by a whistle-blower?

It takes a tremendous amount of courage
to come forward in the name of the truth.

But when we think
about the term whistle-blower,

we often think of some
very descriptive words:

rat,

snake,

traitor,

tattletale, weasel.

And those are the nice words,
the ones I can say from the stage.

And so when I’m not in class,

I go around the country
and I interview white-collar felons,

whistle-blowers and victims of fraud.

Because really I’m trying to understand
what makes them tick

and to bring those experiences
back into the classroom.

But it’s my interviews with
whistle-blowers that really stick with me.

And they stick with me,

because they make me question
my own courage.

When given the opportunity,
would I actually speak up?

And so, this is a couple stories
that I want to share with you.

This is Mary.

Mary Willingham is the whistle-blower
from the University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill, academic fraud case.

And Mary was a learning specialist
at the university,

and she worked with students,
primarily student athletes.

And what she noticed,
when she was working with students,

is they were turning in term papers

that seemed well beyond
their reading levels.

She started to ask a couple of questions

and she found out
that there was a database

where the student athletes
could retrieve papers and turn them in.

And then she found out
that some of her colleagues

were funneling students into fake classes,
just to keep them eligible to play.

Now, when Mary found this out,
she was outraged.

And so what she tried to do
was go to her direct supervisor.

But they didn’t do anything.

And then Mary tried to go to some
internal university administrators.

And they didn’t do anything.

So, what happens when nobody listens?

You blog.

So Mary decided to develop a blog.

Her blog went viral within 24 hours,

and she was contacted by a reporter.

Now, when she was contacted
by this reporter,

her identity was known.

She was exposed.

And when she was exposed,
she received a demotion,

death threats, over collegiate sports.

Mary didn’t do anything wrong.
She didn’t participate in the fraud.

She really thought
that she was giving voice

to students that were voiceless.

But her loyalty was questioned.

Her trustworthiness and her motives.

Now, whistle-blowing
doesn’t always have to end

in demotions or death threats.

Actually, in 2002, this was
the cover of “Time” magazine,

where we were actually honoring
three brave whistle-blowers

for their decision to come forward
in the name of the truth.

And when you look at the research,

22 percent of whistle-blowers
actually report retaliation.

So there is a huge population of people
that report and are not retaliated against

and that gives me hope.

So this is Kathe.

Kathe Swanson is a retired city clerk
from the city of Dixon.

And one day, Kathe was doing her job,
just like she always did,

and she stumbled upon
a pretty interesting case.

See, Kathe was at the end of the month,

and she was doing
her treasures report for the city,

and typically, her boss, Rita Crundwell,
gave her a list of accounts and said,

“Kathe, call the bank
and get these specific accounts.”

And Kathe did her job.

But this particular day,

Rita was out of town, and Kathe was busy.

She picks up the phone, she calls the bank
and says, “Fax me all of the accounts.”

And when she gets the fax,
she sees that there is an account

that has some withdrawals
and deposits in it

that she did not know about.

It was an account controlled only by Rita.

So Kathe looked at the information,
she reported it to her direct supervisor,

which was then-mayor Burke,

and this led into a huge investigation,
a six-month investigation.

Come to find out, Kathe’s boss,
Rita Crundwell, was embezzling money.

Rita was embezzling 53 million dollars
over a 20-year period,

and Kathe just happened
to stumble upon it.

Kathe is a hero.

And actually, I had the opportunity

of interviewing Kathe for my documentary,
“All the Queen’s Horses.”

And Kathe wasn’t seeking fame.

In fact, she really didn’t want
to talk to me for a really long time,

but through strategic stalking,
she ended up doing the interview.

(Laughter)

But she was seeking fairness, not fame.

And if it wasn’t for Kathe,

who’s to say this fraud
would have ever been discovered?

So, remember that “Forbes” article
I was talking about,

that I was working on before my lecture?

Well, I posted it and something
really fantastic happened.

I started receiving emails
from whistle-blowers all over the world.

And as I was receiving these emails
and responding back to them,

there was a common theme
in the message that I received,

and this is what it was:

they all said this, “I blew the whistle,
people really hate me now.

I got fired, but guess what?

I would do it all over again if I could.”

And so as I kept reading this message,
all these messages,

I wanted to think,
what could I share with my students?

And so, I pulled it all together
and this is what I learned.

It’s important for us to cultivate hope.

Whistle-blowers are hopeful.

Despite popular belief,

they’re not all disgruntled employees
that have a beef with the company.

Their hopefulness really is
what drives them to come forward.

We also have to cultivate commitment.

Whistle-blowers are committed.

And it’s that passion
to their organization

that makes them want to come forward.

Whistle-blowers are humble.

Again, they’re not seeking fame,
but they are seeking fairness.

And we need to continue
to cultivate bravery.

Whistle-blowers are brave.

Often, they underestimated

the impact whistle-blowing
had on their family,

but what they continue to comment on
is how hard it is to withhold the truth.

With that, I want to leave you
with one additional name:

Peter Buxtun.

Peter Buxtun was a 27-year-old
employee for the US Public Health Service.

And he was hired to interview people

that had sexually transmitted diseases.

And through the course of his work,

he noticed a clinical study
that was going on within the organization.

And it was a study that was looking
at the progression of untreated syphilis.

And so, there were
600 African American males

that were in this study.

They were enticed into the study

through being given
free medical exams, burial insurance.

And so, what happened
through the course of this study,

is penicillin was discovered
to help treat syphilis.

And what Peter noticed was,

the participants in this study
were not given the penicillin

to treat their syphilis.

And the participants didn’t know.

So similar to Mary, Peter tried to report
and talk to his internal supervisors,

but no one listened.

And so Peter thought
this was completely unfair

and he tried to report again,

and finally talked to a reporter –
very similar to Mary.

And in 1972, this was the front page
of the “New York Times”:

“Syphilis Victims in US Study
Went Untreated for 40 Years.”

This is known to us today
as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

And Peter was the whistle-blower.

What happened to the 600 men,
you may wonder, the 600 original men?

Twenty eight men died from syphilis.

One hundred died
from syphilis complications,

forty wives were infected

and 10 children were born
with congenital syphilis.

Who’s to say what these numbers would be

if it wasn’t for the brave,
courageous act of Peter?

We’re all connected to Peter, actually.

If you know anybody
that’s in a clinical trial,

the reason why we have
informed consent today

is because of Peter’s courageous act.

So let me ask you a question.

That original question,
a variation of the original question.

How many of us have ever used the term

snitch, rat

tattletale,

snake,

weasel,

leak?

Anybody?

Before you get the urge to do that again,

I want you to think a little bit.

It might be the Mary,
the Peter, the Kathes of the world.

You might be the person
that could shape history,

or they could be the person
that shapes yours.

Thank you.

(Applause)

我们当中有多少人曾经看到某事,

认为我们应该报告它,
但决定不报告?

并不是说我
需要看到举手,

但我敢肯定
这间屋子里有人曾经发生过这种情况。

事实上,当
向一群员工提出这个问题时,

46% 的员工
回答说他们看到了一些东西

并决定不报告。

所以,如果你举手,
或者悄悄举手,

不要难过,你并不孤单。

如果你看到
有话要说的话,这个消息

真的就在我们身边。

即使在高速公路上行驶时,
您也会看到这样的广告牌,

鼓励我们在
不暴露自己的情况下举报犯罪。

但我仍然觉得我们中的很多人
都不愿意

以真相的名义挺身而出。

我是一名会计教授
,我做欺诈研究。

在我的课堂上,我鼓励我的学生
在看到信息时主动提供信息

或者换句话说,鼓励
我的学生成为举报人。

但是,如果我对自己完全
诚实

,我对我发送给我的学生的这条信息真的很矛盾。

这就是为什么。

举报人受到攻击。

标题后的标题向我们展示了这一点。 由于害怕报复,

许多人选择
不成为举报人

从降职到死亡威胁,

再到失业——

永久失业。

选择成为举报人
是一场艰苦的战斗。

他们的忠诚度受到质疑。

他们的动机,他们的可信度。

那么,作为一个
真正关心她的学生的教授

当我知道世界
对他们的真实感受时,我怎么能鼓励他们成为举报人呢?

所以,有一天我正准备

和我的学生一起参加我的年度举报人讲座。

我正在
为“福布斯”

撰写一篇题为“富国银行
和千禧年的举报。

我们告诉他们什么?”的文章。

当我在写这篇文章
并阅读这个案例时,

我变得愤怒了。

让我生气的
是,当我发现事实并

意识到试图举报

的员工实际上被解雇时。

这真的让我想起

了我与学生分享的信息。

这让我想到:如果我的
学生是富国银行的员工怎么办?

一方面,如果他们举报,
他们就会被解雇。

但另一方面,

如果他们不报告
他们知道的欺诈行为

,按照现行法规的编写方式,

如果员工知道某些事情
并且没有报告,他们将被追究责任。

因此,刑事起诉是一个真正的选择。

一个人应该如何
处理这种赔率?

在所有人中,我知道举报人所做
的宝贵贡献

事实上,大多数欺诈行为
都是由他们发现的。

与其他方法(

如测量审查
和外部审计)相比,42% 的欺诈行为是由举报人发现的。

当你
想到一些更经典

或历史悠久的欺诈案件时,

它总是围绕着告密者。

想想水门事件——
被举报人发现。

想想安然——
被举报人发现。

谁能忘记
被举报人发现的伯纳德·麦道夫?


真理的名义挺身而出需要极大的勇气。

但是当我们
想到告密者这个词时,

我们经常会想到一些
非常具有描述性的词:

老鼠、

蛇、

叛徒、

流言蜚语、黄鼠狼。

这些都是
好话,我可以从舞台上说出来。

所以当我不上课的时候,

我会走遍全国
,采访白领重罪犯、

告密者和欺诈受害者。

因为我真的想了解
是什么让他们打勾

,并将这些经历
带回课堂。


真正让我印象深刻的是我对举报人的采访。

他们坚持我,

因为他们让我质疑
自己的勇气。

如果有机会,
我真的会说出来吗?

所以,这
是我想和你们分享的几个故事。

这是玛丽。

Mary Willingham
是北卡罗来纳

大学教堂山分校学术欺诈案的举报人。

玛丽是大学的学习专家

,她与学生一起工作,
主要是学生运动员。

她注意到,
当她与学生一起工作时

,他们提交的学期论文

似乎远远超出了
他们的阅读水平。

她开始问几个问题

,她
发现有一个数据库

,学生运动员可以在其中
检索论文并将其上交

。然后她发现她
的一些

同事将学生引入假课程,
只是为了保留他们 有资格玩。

现在,当玛丽发现这一点时,
她非常愤怒。

所以她试图做的
是去找她的直接主管。

但他们什么也没做。

然后玛丽试图去找一些
内部的大学管理人员。

他们什么也没做。

那么,当没人听的时候会发生什么?

你写博客。

所以玛丽决定开发一个博客。

她的博客在 24 小时内

走红,一位记者联系了她。

现在,当记者联系到她的时候

她的身份就被知道了。

她暴露了。

当她被曝光时,

因大学运动而受到降级、死亡威胁。

玛丽没有做错任何事。
她没有参与诈骗。

她真的
认为她是在给

那些没有发言权的学生发声。

但她的忠诚度受到质疑。

她的可信度和她的动机。

现在,举报
并不总是

以降级或死亡威胁告终。

实际上,在 2002 年,这
是《时代》杂志的封面

,我们实际上是在向
三位勇敢的告密者致敬,

因为他们决定以
真相的名义挺身而出。

当你查看这项研究时,

22% 的举报人
实际上报告了报复行为。

所以有大量的
人举报但没有遭到报复

,这给了我希望。

这就是凯瑟。

Kathe Swanson 是
来自迪克森市的退休市政府职员。

有一天,凯西像往常一样在做她的工作

,她偶然发现了
一个非常有趣的案例。

看,凯西在月底

,她正在
为这座城市做她的财宝报告

,通常情况下,她的老板丽塔·克鲁德威尔
会给她一份账户清单,然后说:

“凯西,打电话给银行
,把这些具体的 账目。”

凯西完成了她的工作。

但是这一天,

丽塔不在城里,凯西很忙。

她拿起电话,给银行打了电话
,说:“把所有的账户都传真给我。”

当她收到传真时,
她看到有一个账户

,里面有一些

她不知道的取款和存款。

这是一个只有丽塔控制的帐户。

所以凯西查看了这些信息,
她将其报告给了她的直接上司,

也就是当时的市长伯克

,这引发了一场
为期六个月的大规模调查。

来一探究竟,凯西的上司
丽塔·克鲁德威尔贪污了钱财。

丽塔在 20 年的时间里挪用了 5300 万美元

而凯西恰好偶然发现
了它。

凯瑟是个英雄。

实际上,我有机会

为我的纪录片
“所有女王的马”采访了凯西。

凯西并不追求名利。

事实上,她
真的很长一段时间都不想和我说话,

但通过战略跟踪,
她最终完成了采访。

(笑声)

但她追求的是公平,而不是名声。

如果不是 Kathe,

谁能说这种欺诈行为
会被发现?

那么,还记得

我在讲课前正在写的“福布斯”文章吗?

好吧,我发布了它,
发生了一件非常棒的事情。

我开始收到
来自世界各地举报人的电子邮件。

当我收到这些电子邮件
并回复它们时,我收到的信息中

有一个共同的主题

,就是这样:

他们都说,“我吹哨了,
人们现在真的很讨厌我。

我 被解雇了,但你猜怎么着?

如果可以的话,我会再做一次。”

所以当我继续阅读这条信息时,
所有这些信息,

我想想,
我可以和我的学生分享什么?

所以,我把所有东西都放在一起
,这就是我学到的。

培养希望对我们来说很重要。

告密者充满希望。

尽管普遍认为,

他们并不都是对公司不满的员工

他们的希望确实
是推动他们挺身而出的动力。

我们还必须培养承诺。

举报人是有罪的。

正是这种对
组织

的热情让他们想要挺身而出。

吹哨人很谦虚。

再说一次,他们不是在追求名利,
而是在追求公平。

我们需要
继续培养勇敢。

告密者是勇敢的。

通常,他们低估

了举报
对家人的影响,

但他们继续评论的
是,隐瞒真相有多难。

有了这个,我想给你
留一个额外的名字:

Peter Buxtun。

Peter Buxtun 是一名 27 岁
的美国公共卫生局雇员。

他受雇采访

患有性传播疾病的人。

在他的工作过程中,


注意到组织内部正在进行一项临床研究。

这是一项研究
未经治疗的梅毒进展的研究。

因此,这项研究中有
600 名非裔美国男性

他们

通过获得
免费体检和丧葬保险而被吸引到这项研究中。

因此,
在这项研究过程中发生的事情

是,发现青霉素
有助于治疗梅毒。

彼得注意到的是,

这项研究的
参与者没有得到青霉素

来治疗他们的梅毒。

而参与者并不知道。

与玛丽如此相似,彼得试图
向他的内部主管报告和交谈,

但没有人听。

所以彼得认为
这完全不公平

,他试图再次报道

,最后和一位记者交谈——
与玛丽非常相似。

1972 年,这
是《纽约时报》的头版:

“美国研究中的
梅毒受害者 40 年没有得到治疗。”

这就是我们今天所知
的塔斯基吉梅毒实验。

彼得是告密者。

600 人发生了什么事,
你可能想知道,原来的 600 人?

28 个人死于梅毒。

一百人
死于梅毒并发症,

四十名妻子被感染

,十名儿童出生
时患有先天性梅毒。

如果不是
彼得勇敢无畏的行为,谁能说这些数字会是多少?

实际上,我们都与彼得有关。

如果你认识任何
正在进行临床试验的人,

我们今天获得知情同意的原因

是因为彼得的勇敢行为。

所以让我问你一个问题。

那个原始问题,
原始问题的变体。

我们当中有多少人曾经使用过“

告密者”、“老鼠的

流言蜚语”、“

蛇”、“

黄鼠狼”、“

泄漏”这个词?

有人吗?

在你有再次这样做的冲动之前,

我希望你思考一下。

可能是世界的玛丽
、彼得、凯西。

你可能是
可以塑造历史的人,

或者他们可能
是塑造你的人。

谢谢你。

(掌声)