Truth and
Truthfulness
‘The Bay Area Rapid ‘Transit system (BART) is a suburban rail
system, constructed during the late 1960s and early 1970s, that,
Tinks San Francisco with the cities across its bay. The opportunity
to build a rail system from scratch, unfettered by old technology,
was a challenge that excited many engineers and engineering
firms. Yet among the engineers who worked on it were some who
came to feel that too much “social experimentation” was going
on without proper safeguards. Their zealous pursuit of the truth
resulted in a classic case of whistle-blowing."
Three engineers in particular, Holger Hjortsvang, Robert
Bruder, and Max Blankenzee, identified dangers that were to
be recognized by management only much later. They saw that
the automatic train control was unsafely designed. Moreover,
schedules for testing it and providing operator training prior
to its public use were inadequate. Computer software problems
continued to plague the system. Finally, there was insufficient
monitoring of the work of the various contractors hired to design
and construct the railroad. These inadequacies were to become
the main causes of several early accidents.
‘The three engineers wrote a number of memos and voiced
their concerns to their employers and colleagues. Their initial
efforts were directed through organizational channels to both
their immediate supervisors and the two next higher levels of
management, but to no avail. They then took some controver-
sial steps, Hjortsvang wrote an anonymous memo summarizing
the problems and distributed copies of it to nearly all levels of
management, including the project’s general manager. Later, the
three engineers contacted several members of BART’s board of
directors when their concerns were not taken seriously by lower
‘Robert M, Anderson et al., Divided Loyalties (West Lafayette, Indiana:
Purdue University Press, 1980).
CHAPTER 7
159Engineering Ethics
levels of management. These acts constituted whistle-blowing
within the organization.
One of the directors, Dan Helix, listened sympathetically
to the engineers and agreed to contact top management while
keeping their names confidential. But to the shock of the three
engineers, Helix released copies of their unsigned memos and the
consultant's report to the local newspapers. It would be the engi-
neers, not Helix, who would be penalized for this act of whistle-
blowing outside the organization.
Management immediately sought to locate the source of Helix’s
information. Fearing reprisals, the engineers at first lied to their
supervisors and denied their involvement. At Helix’s request the
engineers later agreed to reveal themselves by going before the
full board of directors to seek a remedy for the safety problems.
On that occasion they were unable to convince the board of those
problems. One week later they were given the option of resigning
or being fired. The grounds given for the dismissal were insub-
ordination, incompetence, lying to their superiors, causing staff
disruptions, and failing to follow organizational procedures.
The dismissals were very damaging to the engineers. Robert
Bruder could not find engineering work for eight months. He had
to sell his house, go on welfare, and receive food stamps. Max
Blankenzee was unable to find work for nearly five months, lost
his house, and was separated from his wife for one and a half
months. Holger Hjortsvang could not obtain full-time employ-
ment for 14 months, during which time he suffered from extreme
nervousness and insomnia. Two years later the engineers sued
BART for damages on the grounds of breach of contract, harming
their future work prospects, and depriving them of their consti-
tutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
‘A few days before the trial began, however, they were advised
by their attorney that they could not win the case because they
had lied to their employers during the episode. They settled out
of court for $75,000 minus 40 percent for lawyers’ fees. In the
development of their case the engineers were assisted by an
amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed by the IEEE. This
legal brief noted in their defense that it is part of each engineer's
professional duty to promote the public welfare, as stated in
IEEE’s code of ethics. In 1978 IEEE presented each of them with
its Award for Outstanding Service in the Public Interest for “cou-
rageously adhering to the letter and spirit of the IEEE code of
ethics.”
The case illustrates some of the moral complexities surround
ing whistle-blowing in pursuing and revealing the truth about
safety and other important moral matters. After discussing these
complexities, we turn to a second area in which truth and truth-fulness play an especially important role: academic integrity and
research.
Truth and
Truthfulness
No topic in engineering ethics is more controversial than whistle-
blowing. Is whistle-blowing morally permissible? Is it ever mor-
ally obligatory, or is it beyond the call of duty? To what extent, if
any, do engineers have a right to whistle-blow, and when is doing
so immoral and imprudent? When is whistle-blowing an act of
disloyalty to an organization? What procedures ought to be fol-
lowed in blowing the whistle?
Whistle-Blowing: Definition
Whistle-blowing occurs when an employee or former employee
conveys information about a significant moral problem to some-
one in a position to take action on the problem, and does so
outside approved organizational channels (or against strong
pressure). The definition has four main parts.
1. Disclosure: Information is intentionally conveyed outside
approved organizational (workplace) channels or in situations
where the person conveying it is under pressure from supervi-
sors or others not to do so.
2. Topic: The information concerns what the person believes is a
significant moral problem for the organization (or an organization
with which the company does business). Examples of significant
problems are serious threats to public or employee safety and
well-being, criminal behavior, unethical policies or practices, and
injustices to workers within the organization.
Agent: The person disclosing the information is an employee or
former employee, or someone else closely associated with the
organization (as distinct, say, from a journalist reporting what the
whistle-blower says).
4, Recipient: The information is conveyed to a person or organiza-
tion that is in a position to act on the problem (as distinct, for
example, to telling it to a family member or friend who is in no
Position to do anything).# The desired response or action might
consist in remedying the problem or merely alerting affected
parties.
3.
Using this definition, we will speak of external whistle-
blowing when the information is passed outside the organization.
~~" We adopt the fourth condition from Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near,
Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications for Companies
and Employees (New York: Lexington Books, 1992), 15
7.1 Whistle-
Blowing
161