Goodearl and Aldred v. Hughes Aircraft
| Topic area |
Whistle Blowing |
| Target audience |
General undergraduate |
| Activity type |
Readings, worksheets, group/class discussion, short paper |
| Time required |
Two fifty minute periods. The first period is used to introduce
whistle blowing and consider a case with which they can identify.
The second period is used to consider the Hughes case. Students will
need about an hour of time outside of class to read materials and prepare
the worksheets. |
| Attachments |
Worksheet 1
Worksheet 2 |
| Additional materials |
Students should have access to:
-
The Federal False Claims Act. http://www.taf.org/taf/docs/quitam.html.
-
Whistle blowers site. http://www.whistleblowers.com.
-
Gewertz, Catherine. "Whistle Blower Suit Filed Against Hughes." Los
Angeles Times 24 Feb. 1990 : B-1.
-
"Hughes Charged with Falsifying Test Data." The Washington Post
13 Dec. 1991 : D-1.
-
"Hughes Aircraft Pays $4.05 Million to Settle Fraud Case." http://nsi.org/library/govt/hughesfraudcase.html,
Sept. 10, 1996.
-
Weinstein, Henry. "2 Hughes Whistle Blowers to Split $891,000." Los
Angeles Times 11 Sept. 1996 : D-2.
|
| Background needed to complete the assignment |
-
ACM Code of Ethics
-
IEEE Ethics Committee, "Guidelines for Engineers Dissenting on Ethical
Grounds", The Institute, January, 1997.
|
| References |
Additional cases:
-
Friedlander, G. D. "The Case of the Three Engineers vs. BART." IEEE
Spectrum, pp. 232-239, October 1974.
-
Parnas, D. L. "Software Aspects of Strategic Defense Systems." American
Scientist, vol. 73, pp. 432-440, September-October, 1985.
Additional information on Hughes:
-
Lynch, David. "Misbilling to Cost Hughes $3.9 Million." The Orange County
Register 17 Dec. 1992 : D-2.
-
Savage, David and Ralph Vartabedian. "Supreme Court Hands Hughes a Limited
Victory on Fraud Suits." Los Angeles Times 17 Jun. 1997 : D-1.
-
"Hughes' effort to weaken whistle blower law fails." Press release archive,
June 16, 1997. http://www.whistleblower.com/HTML/BODY/prSupCt.htm
|
| Last modified |
November 29, 1999 |
Abstract:
Information Systems students may have a better grasp of corporate structure
and politics than Computer Science students. However, both groups
may not be aware that it is possible to go outside that structure and to
voice concerns when circumstances warrant. The case study considers
two Hughes Aircraft employees who blew the whistle over certain testing
practices. Margaret Goodearl and Ruth Aldred told government investigators
that Hughes failed to perform certain tests on hybrid circuits that are
a part of many missile guidance units. Hughes was convicted of criminal
conspiracy, and Goodearl and Aldred were eventually successful in a civil
suit against Hughes, but at professional and personal cost.
Goals for the activity:
-
Define whistle blowing and outline stages of whistle blowing
-
Understand the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act
-
Understand whistle blowing as a failure of the system to handle problems
in a less extreme way
-
Identify the risks to all stakeholders when an employee fails to blow the
whistle
Knowledge / skills / attitudes to be developed (behavioral objectives):
-
Critical thinking skills
-
Develop skill in supporting arguments and positions in ethical dilemmas
-
Distillation of key facts
Procedure:
Use the first period is used to introduce students to whistle blowing.
A short case may be used to walk students through the stages of whistle
blowing. Examples include: 1) awareness of student cheating, which
is in violation of campus policy; or 2) students violating the campus computer
usage policy. Provide students time, in pairs or small groups, to
discuss these short cases. Have them focus on identifying the stakeholders
and ethical issues. As a class, play out the consequences of blowing,
or swallowing, the whistle, and its impact on all the stakeholders.
In preparation for the second session, assign students the task of researching
the law (Worksheet 1), and the Hughes
case (Worksheet 2).
During the second session, use the worksheets to review the law and
the case. The class as a whole should discern agreement on stakeholders
and provisions of the law. In small groups, then as a whole, discuss
the outcomes of the case. Have students describe what would be their
response if put in a similar position.
Assessing outcomes:
Satisfactory completion of the worksheets may be used for participation
points. Oral and written analyses and positions are used to evaluate students'
level of understanding of whistle blowing. Assess students' ability to
apply concepts and present well-supported arguments by assigning a short
paper addressing an additional whistle blower case.
Additional remarks:
It will be interesting to see if there are differing opinions among
students. They may all see this as very cut-and-dried.
Interesting sidebars to explore include Hughes' earlier charges on billing
discrepancies and chip flaws; criminal conspiracy conviction in the case
under consideration; and Hughes' effort to weaken whistle blower law.
Author contact information:
John McTaggart
Computer Science
Grand View College
1200 Grandview Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50316
(515) 263-2871
E-mail: jmctaggart@gvc.edu
Page maintained by: kwb@csee.usf.edu