The Whistleblower: Protecting One Name Matters [EDITORIAL]

Once again, President Trump is caught in a political crossfire and in a persistent attempt to clear his own name, he sets out to expose another. After a whistleblower filed a complaint on Aug. 12 regarding Trump’s encounter with Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the American public has obsessed over the unmasking of one person’s identity. In the midst of an impeachment battle, it’s no surprise people are infatuated with knowing the details, but we must overlook the question of is it legal? and start asking is it ethical? We believe the whistleblower should not be named because it would put the whistleblower’s life at risk, and it is ethically wrong.

A safe space has been created for witnesses to come forward when they feel other people and/or events are being compromised. Whistleblower protection laws were enacted to provide these individuals with anonymity in their own right and ensure their actions won’t be used against them within the public sphere. Anonymous communication becomes a key element within political discourse and without it, individuals would no longer feel supported by their first amendment rights. When chaos ensues from political uproar, people tend to get lost in the fires that start with accusations and end with an array of questions. We are not choosing sides or exposing one’s life to gain access to valuable top-secret information. We are recognizing the underlying principles of anonymity and confidentiality.

The current political climate has reflected a violent attitude and the allegations towards President Trump have ignited an unsafe platform for the whistleblower if their identity were to be unmasked. Experts have expressed their concern of threats being aimed at the whistleblower because not only does this exposure put that individual at risk, it puts the entire system at risk as well. The whistleblowing process comes with an extensive list of harmful repercussions such as losing their career, damaging their reputation, and physical harm to name a few. This situation isn’t being measured on a small scale and it’s important to remember that unveiling the whistleblower is like feeding a volcano everything it needs to erupt – there’s far too much pressure. In order to avoid disruption of an entire country consumed by political opinion, we must protect the whistleblower and preserve the value of ethics.

It could be said that in this unsteady realm of political behavior led by the echo of impeachment proceedings, the public has a right to know facts that lead to the potential removal of our president. But we must ask ourselves if a whistleblower’s right to anonymity outweighs the public’s right to have access to that information and it certainly does. The public having a right to know is led by an argument of credibility and feeling secure with where the information stems from. But we must consider the system that has been built for years and years. Not only is releasing the identity of the whistleblower a start to disrupting that system, it sings such an unethical song. Do we know if the person behind the mask is in fact credible? No. Do we know if they are coming forward with this information for the right reasons? No. However, what we do know is they came forward with a confidence that their identity would be protected and for the sake of their individual reputation, we must honor their trust.

If we were to reveal the whistleblower’s name, the exposure would not only jeopardize that individual person and their family, but also impede someone from feeling as though they can come forward when observing wrongdoings. This isn’t about pointing fingers and getting the opportunity to “meet the accuser” as Trump puts it. This is about protecting the identity of a person who confided in Congress and protecting the whistleblower laws that keep disclosures such as these in order. 

Take a moment and ask yourself the following question: how is supporting the decision to reveal the whistleblower any different than supporting destruction of an individual’s reputation and physical safety? For the sake of keeping these domains in-tact, we must leave the whistleblower name anonymous.