Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Davis and Beauchamp
At the present moment Michael Davis' "Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing" begins from the standpoint of skepticism toward what he describes as the "standard theory" of whistleblowers. In this, he lays out what is taken to be the justification offered for whistleblowers, but notes that they are not individual actors but parts of a larger organization. The information they leak to the public is not information that they have acquired, but the sort of information "with which one is entrusted." (Davis 5, italic in original). In order to justify the disloyalty of the whistleblower, Davis notes the "more or less standard" theory declares the act "morally permissible" if there is a risk of harm to the public, the whistleblower has reported it to superiors and concluded the superior will not take action, and has exhausted any other internal means of taking action (Davis 6). In addition, Davis notes, two other elements make whistleblowing not justifiable so much as mandatory...
As these parenthetical asides might indicate, Davis is already considering the paradoxes inherent in this standard account of whistleblowing. The first is that whistleblowers generally do so at extraordinary risk to themselves, with little risk to the corporation: this he calls "the paradox of burden" (8). The second is about the level of "harm" that is implied to the public, noting that such things as "injustice, deception and waste" will not constitute the level of harm to prompt anyone to risk the burdens just described (8). Davis' third paradox derives from the second, and involves the fact that the efforts of whistleblowers are generally not successful in time to prevent the harm (which was the initial justification for the act): he terms this the "paradox…
This is a particular problem at the nation's colleges and universities. This has become so much of an issue that law suits and verdicts have been handed down in some states. One of the most famous cases to date involved the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law school policies. These cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In 1997, Jennifer Gratz, a white woman, sued the University of
Affirmative Action is an organization of policies and designed procedures aimed at assisting in the elimination of discrimination against women and other minorities in the human society, together with redressing the possibilities of past discrimination. As required by the Affirmative Action Plan's requirements, Affirmative Action was signed by President Johnson in 1965. It supported and revised by different presidents in the world. The intention of Affirmative Action is to have
Affirmative action is an initiative based on a set of policies that are intended to eradicate both present and past prejudice against women and minority in areas of employment and businesses where they were historically marginalized. Theses discriminations can also be based on ones race, religion, color or nation of origin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009). Brief History of affirmative action Civil rights movements originally endorsed programs that would enable African-Americans acquire
Affirmative Action is an extremely important concept since it is vital to the operation of America as a democracy. It reinforces the affirmation of the Constitution that all people are born equal and should, therefore, be given an equal chance to prove themselves. Employment opportunity (and other factors) should be based on merit rather than on extraneous factors such as skin color, race, gender, physiology, and so forth. The Federal Register
Affirmative Action Lit Review Affirmative Action Review of Literature Has Affirmative Action outlived its use in today's society? And if so should the program change or simply come to an end? The issue of Affirmative Action (AA) is one that is currently being hotly debated by both policy makers and the public. Like racism itself there are many opinions all of which are run the gamut between logical and illogical and constructive and
Actually, state agencies and institutions of higher learning have continued to rely upon the Supreme Court decisions and federal legislation to enforce the policies of affirmative action since 1978. While there are no definitive answers on whether affirmative action policies and programs are necessary, scholars and civic leaders have been engaged in hot debates to determine the implications of measures to dismantle affirmative action policies and programs. There are various