Rebel Just for Kicks

Q.

I’ve been following the story in the news about the Facebook whistleblower, and I’m wondering what the ethical implications would be. What does the Torah have to say about whistleblowers?

A.

Such a great question, I’ve been wondering about that myself! 

For those who haven’t been following the recent Facebook whistleblower drama, a former employee stepped forward couple of weeks ago to testify publicly and before the Senate about knowledge that the social media monolith has about the damage that its platforms cause in areas such as radicalization, teenage suicide, and spreading misinformation. She urged the Senate to consider regulating social media in a way that made it safer for everyone, especially kids. 

All this left me wondering, (and I see you were thinking in that direction too,) what are Jewish ethics surrounding whistleblowing? On one hand, it seems to violate the prohibition of speaking negatively about others. On the other hand, what if people’s lives are at stake, in which case even the Sabbath can be violated? There’s also the more subtle value of obedience and deference to authority, and isn’t that an integral part of Judaism? Weren’t the Jews praised for accepting the Torah without question? Should a whistleblower be lauded for defying authority? What if it’s in a religious context?

Thankfully, the Torah provides us with laws which demonstrate its ethical positions on all of these questions. Let’s first address the question of negative speech: speech in Judaism is a very serious thing. It’s the primary expression of the one thing that makes us human (free will) and the way we use it both echoes and determines how we see the world and others in it. Torah Jews train themselves to see and think positively by speaking positively. But there is one serious exception: when it’s necessary to warn others of imminent danger or damage. This law, like all the others in the Torah, is about balance. Yes, positive speech is paramount. But there are situations that may require otherwise. 

Yet even within this exception there are rules (of course!) to ensure it remains just that – an exception. The speaker must have first-hand knowledge of the offense, he must try to gently reform the subject before revealing his misdeeds to anyone else, he must exhaust all other options of protecting the at-risk party, and he may only say what’s absolutely necessary to protect his listener, without exaggeration. 

Interestingly, these guidelines are eerily similar to those proposed for ethical whistleblowing by researchers at La Trobe University. They posit that whistleblowing is ethical if done for moral motives, the whistleblower has exhausted all internal channels before going public, has made a careful analysis of the potential danger, has compelling evidence, and has some chance of success. 

What similarities or differences do you see? Which items seem to be the most important?

The question of obedience is equally nuanced. Many believe that the practice of Judaism requires a significant degree of blind faith. We can never “know” with certainty what’s true, so it must be that observant Jews are just perpetuating the archaic practices they were taught, and blind faith is what keeps our religion alive over the millenia. The value must be obedience, deference to the rabbinic authorities, and of course, TRADITION!

But that’s not actually the case. While faith is necessary in specific situations where our intellect can’t quite match that of God’s (although we may not like to acknowledge it!) those are reserved for pockets of uncertainty that exists within a robust framework of intellectual inquiry, clarity and, yes, knowledge. When you know for certain that God exists, created us out of love and drives world events to help us reach our potential, then it’s possible to swallow the tougher incidents and employ faith under the umbrella of that knowledge. 

Obedience without questioning can be a dangerous thing. Think Stanley Milgram’s post-Holocaust experiment demonstrating how ordinary people felt compelled to obey an authority figure even when going against their conscience.  His work was motivated by a wish to understand how Nazis could excuse their behavior as “just following orders.” In reality, the inability to challenge morally questionable orders is exactly what allowed the horrors of the Holocaust to take place. 

The Jewish people were born out of questioning the status quo. Abraham was a young boy living in a devoutly pagan home. Yet he questioned. Idols can’t walk or talk, so how can they do anything else of significance? He thought, he questioned, he demanded, and got himself into a lot of trouble. But he wouldn’t simply go along with something that didn’t make sense to him. Despite there being twenty generations of many righteous figures preceding him, the Jewish people only start with Abraham. It is upheld by great figures throughout the generations who did what was right no matter what authority was breathing down their backs. Joseph. The Jewish midwives in Egypt. Moses. Elijah. Mordachai. Daniel. Ruth. Rabbi Akiva. Maimonides. The list literally goes on and on.

We have a genetic legacy – and existential mission – of critical thinking. 

We change the world through challenging our beliefs until we find the truth. Do I do what I do because I truly believe in it, or because this is what I was raised or influenced to do? So many of us think of ourselves and independent thinkers. But do we ever really challenge our beliefs or the source of our values? As Rav Noah Weinberg used to ask, if you were born a thousand miles away in a different city, country or culture, would you have arrived at the same truth? 

Whistle drop.