How many of us have ever seen something, thought that we should report it, but decided not to? And not that I need to see a show of hands, but I'm sure this has happened to someone in this room before. In fact, when this question was asked to a group of employees, 46 percent of them responded by saying that they had seen something and decided not to report it. So if you raised your hand, or quietly raised your hand, don't feel bad, you're not alone.
Koliko nas je nekada videlo nešto i pomislilo da bi to trebalo prijaviti, ali smo odlučili suprotno? Nije da treba da vidim podignute ruke, ali sam sigurna da se ovo desilo ranije nekome u ovoj prostoriji. U stvari, kad je ovo pitanje bilo postavljeno grupi zaposlenih, 46% njih je odgovorilo da je videlo nešto i da su odlučili da to ne prijave. Dakle, ako ste podigli ruku, ili ste blago podigli ruku, ne osećajte se loše, niste jedini.
This message of if you see something to say something is really all around us. Even when driving down the highway, you see billboards like this, encouraging us to report crime without revealing ourselves. But I still feel like a lot of us are really uncomfortable coming forward in the name of the truth.
Ta poruka "ako vidiš nešto, kaži", je stvarno svuda oko nas. Čak i kad se vozite auto-putem, vidite bilborde kao što je ovaj, koji nas podstiču da prijavimo zločin ne otkrivajući ko smo. I dalje imam utisak da je mnogima od nas neprijatno da istupimo u ime istine.
I'm an accounting professor, and I do fraud research. And in my class, I encourage my students to come forward with information if they see it. Or in other words, encouraging my students to become whistle-blowers. But if I'm being completely honest with myself, I am really conflicted with this message that I'm sending to my students. And here's why. Whistle-blowers are under attack. Headline after headline shows us this. Many people choose not to become whistle-blowers due to the fear of retaliation. From demotions to death threats, to job loss -- perpetual job loss. Choosing to become a whistle-blower is an uphill battle. Their loyalty becomes into question. Their motives, their trustworthiness. So how can I, as a professor who really cares about her students encourage them to become whistle-blowers, when I know how the world truly feels about them?
Ja sam profesorka računovodstva i istražujem prevare. Na časovima ohrabrujem studente da istupe sa informacijom, ako je imaju. Ili drugim rečima, ohrabrujem studente da postanu uzbunjivači. Da budem skroz iskrena prema sebi, imam problem sa ovom porukom koju šaljem studentima. A evo i zašto. Uzbunjivači su pod napadom. Naslov za naslovom nam pokazuje ovo. Mnogi ljudi biraju da ne postanu uzbunjivači zbog straha od osvete. Od nazadovanja do pretnji smrću, do gubitka posla - gubitka posla zauvek. Izbor da postanete uzbunjivač je veoma teška borba. Njihova lojalnost se dovodi u pitanje. Njihovi motivi, njihova pouzdanost. Dakle, mogu li ja, kao profesor koji stvarno brine o svojim studentima, da ih ohrabrim da postanu uzbunjivači, kad znam šta svet zaista misli o njima?
So, one day I was getting ready for my annual whistle-blower lecture with my students. And I was working on an article for "Forbes," entitled "Wells Fargo and Millennial Whistle-blowing. What Do We Tell Them?" And as I was working on this piece and reading about the case, I became outraged. And what made me angry was when I came to the fact and realized that the employees that tried to whistle-blow were actually fired. And it really made me think about the message that I was sharing with my students. And it made me think: What if my students had been Wells Fargo employees? On the one hand, if they whistle-blew, they would have gotten fired. But on the other hand, if they didn't report the frauds that they knew, the way current regulation is written, employees are held responsible if they knew something and didn't report it. So criminal prosecution is a real option. What's a person supposed to do with those type of odds?
Jednog dana sam se pripremala za godišnje predavanje o uzbunjivačima sa svojim studentima. Radila sam na članku za „Forbs“, sa nazivom „Vels Fargo i milenijalci uzbunjivači. Šta da im kažemo?“ Dok sam radila na ovom članku i čitala o slučaju, pobesnela sam. Iznerviralo me je kad sam došla do činjenice da su zaposleni koji su pokušali uzbunjivanje zapravo bili otpušteni. To me je nateralo da razmislim o poruci koju sam delila studentima. Nateralo me je da se zapitam šta bi bilo da su moji studenti zaposleni u Vels Fargu? Sa jedne strane, kad bi uzbunjivali, bili bi otpušteni. Ali sa druge strane, ako ne bi prijavili prevare za koje su znali, prema onome kako su napisani trenutni propisi, zaposleni su odgovorni ako su znali nešto, a nisu prijavili. Krivično gonjenje je stvarna opcija. Šta bi osoba trebalo da uradi sa tim mogućnostima?
I of all people know the valuable contributions that whistle-blowers make. In fact, most frauds are discovered by them. Forty two percent of frauds are discovered by a whistle-blower in comparison to other methods, like measurement review and external audit. And when you think about some of the more classic or historical fraud cases, it always is around a whistle-blower. Think Watergate -- discovered by a whistle-blower. Think Enron -- discovered by a whistle-blower. And who can forget about Bernard Madoff, discovered by a whistle-blower? It takes a tremendous amount of courage to come forward in the name of the truth. But when we think about the term whistle-blower, we often think of some very descriptive words: rat, snake, traitor, tattletale, weasel. And those are the nice words, the ones I can say from the stage.
Ja od svih ljudi znam za vredan doprinos koji uzbunjivači imaju. U stvari, većinu prevara otkriju uzbunjivači. Četrdeset dva odsto prevara su otkrili uzbunjivači, u poređenju sa drugim metodama kao što su pregled merenja i spoljašnja revizija. Kad pomislite o nekim više klasičnim ili istorijskim slučajevima prevara, uvek tu postoji uzbunjivač. Setite se afere Votergejt koju je uzbunjivač otkrio. Setite se afere Enron koju je takođe otkrio uzbunjivač. I ko može da zaboravi na Bernarda Medofa, kog je otkrio uzbunjivač? Potrebna je ogromna količina hrabrosti da istupite u ime istine. Ali kad razmišljamo o terminu uzbunjivač, često pomišljamo na neke veoma opisne reči: prevrtljivac, mutljivac, izdajnik, tužibaba, licemer. A to su lepe reči, one koje mogu da kažem sa pozornice.
And so when I'm not in class, I go around the country and I interview white-collar felons, whistle-blowers and victims of fraud. Because really I'm trying to understand what makes them tick and to bring those experiences back into the classroom. But it's my interviews with whistle-blowers that really stick with me. And they stick with me, because they make me question my own courage. When given the opportunity, would I actually speak up? And so, this is a couple stories that I want to share with you.
Kada nisam na predavanjima, idem po zemlji i intervjuišem prestupnike kancelarijskih profesija, uzbunjivače i žrtve prevara. Jer u stvari pokušavam da razumem šta ih motiviše, i da donesem ta iskustva nazad u učionicu. Međutim, intervjui sa uzbunjivačima su ti koje zaista pamtim. Ostaju mi u glavi, jer me teraju da ispitujem sopstvenu hrabrost. Kad bi mi se ukazala prilika, da li bih ja zapravo progovorila? Ovo je par priča koje želim da podelim sa vama.
This is Mary. Mary Willingham is the whistle-blower from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, academic fraud case. And Mary was a learning specialist at the university, and she worked with students, primarily student athletes. And what she noticed, when she was working with students, is they were turning in term papers that seemed well beyond their reading levels. She started to ask a couple of questions and she found out that there was a database where the student athletes could retrieve papers and turn them in. And then she found out that some of her colleagues were funneling students into fake classes, just to keep them eligible to play. Now, when Mary found this out, she was outraged. And so what she tried to do was go to her direct supervisor. But they didn't do anything. And then Mary tried to go to some internal university administrators. And they didn't do anything.
Ovo je Meri. Meri Vilingem je uzbunjivačica sa Univerziteta Severne Karoline u Čapel Hilu, akademski slučaj prevare. Meri je bila specijalista za učenje na univerzitetu i radila je sa studentima, naročito sa studentima sportistima. A ono što je primetila dok je radila sa studentima, je da su oni predavali seminarske radove koji su se činili znatno iznad njihovog nivoa čitanja. Počela je da postavlja par pitanja i otkrila je da postoji baza podataka, gde su studenti sportisti mogli da preuzmu radove i da ih predaju. Onda je otkrila da su neke njene kolege upućivale studente na lažne časove, samo da bi ostali kvalifikovani da igraju. Kada je Meri ovo otkrila, bila je besna. Pokušala je da ode kod svog supervizora. Ali nisu ništa učinili. Onda je Meri pokušala da ode do nekih internih univerzitetskih administratora. Ni oni nisu uradili ništa.
So, what happens when nobody listens? You blog. So Mary decided to develop a blog. Her blog went viral within 24 hours, and she was contacted by a reporter. Now, when she was contacted by this reporter, her identity was known. She was exposed. And when she was exposed, she received a demotion, death threats, over collegiate sports. Mary didn't do anything wrong. She didn't participate in the fraud. She really thought that she was giving voice to students that were voiceless. But her loyalty was questioned. Her trustworthiness and her motives.
Dakle, šta se desi kad niko ne sluša? Pišete blog. Meri je odlučila da napravi blog. Njen blog se proširio na internetu u roku od 24 časa, i jedan novinar je stupio u kontakt sa njom. Kada je novinar kontaktirao sa njom, njen identitet je bio poznat. Bila je otkrivena. Kada je bila otkrivena, nazadovala je na poslu, primila je pretnje smrću, zbog fakultetskog sporta. Meri nije uradila ništa loše. Nije učestvovala u prevari. Stvarno je mislila da iznosi istinu u ime studenata koji to nisu mogli. Ali njena lojalnost je dovedena u pitanje. Njena pouzdanost i motivi.
Now, whistle-blowing doesn't always have to end in demotions or death threats. Actually, in 2002, this was the cover of "Time" magazine, where we were actually honoring three brave whistle-blowers for their decision to come forward in the name of the truth. And when you look at the research, 22 percent of whistle-blowers actually report retaliation. So there is a huge population of people that report and are not retaliated against and that gives me hope.
Uzbunjivanje ne mora uvek da se završi nazadovanjem na poslu ili pretnjama smrću. Zapravo, ovo je bila naslovna strana magazina „Tajm“ 2002. godine, gde smo odavali počast trima hrabrima uzbunjivačima zbog njihove odluke da istupe u ime istine. Kada pogledate istraživanje, 22% uzbunjivača prijavi odmazdu. Dakle, postoji velika populacija ljudi koji prijavljuju, a koji nisu napadnuti zauzvrat, i to mi daje nade.
So this is Kathe. Kathe Swanson is a retired city clerk from the city of Dixon. And one day, Kathe was doing her job, just like she always did, and she stumbled upon a pretty interesting case. See, Kathe was at the end of the month, and she was doing her treasures report for the city, and typically, her boss, Rita Crundwell, gave her a list of accounts and said, "Kathe, call the bank and get these specific accounts." And Kathe did her job. But this particular day, Rita was out of town, and Kathe was busy. She picks up the phone, she calls the bank and says, "Fax me all of the accounts." And when she gets the fax, she sees that there is an account that has some withdrawals and deposits in it that she did not know about. It was an account controlled only by Rita.
Ovo je Keti. Keti Svonson je penzionisana gradska službenica iz Diksona. Jednog dana Keti je radila svoj posao, baš kao i uvek, i naletela je na vrlo interesantan slučaj. Vidite, Keti je bila pri kraju meseca, radila je na izveštaj o gradskom budžetu, i po običaju, njena šefica Rita Krandvel, dala joj je listu računa i rekla: „Keti, zovi banku i pogledaj ove konkretne račune.“ Keti je obavila svoj posao. Ali baš ovog dana, Rita je bila van grada, a Keti je bila zauzeta. Podiže slušalicu, zove banku i kaže: „Pošaljite mi faksom sve račune.“ Kad je dobila faks, zapazila je da postoji račun odakle je novac bio podizan i na koji je uplaćivan, a za koji ona nije znala. Bio je to račun koji je kontrolisala Rita.
So Kathe looked at the information, she reported it to her direct supervisor, which was then-mayor Burke, and this led into a huge investigation, a six-month investigation. Come to find out, Kathe's boss, Rita Crundwell, was embezzling money. Rita was embezzling 53 million dollars over a 20-year period, and Kathe just happened to stumble upon it. Kathe is a hero. And actually, I had the opportunity of interviewing Kathe for my documentary, "All the Queen's Horses." And Kathe wasn't seeking fame. In fact, she really didn't want to talk to me for a really long time, but through strategic stalking, she ended up doing the interview.
Tako da je Keti pogledala informaciju, prijavila je to njenom supervizoru, koji je bio tadašnji gradonačelnik Burk, a ovo je dovelo do ogromne, šestomesečne istrage. Došlo se do saznanja da je Ketina šefica, Rita Krandvel, proneverila novac. Rita je zatajila 53 miliona dolara u periodu od 20 godina, a zadesilo se da je Keti naletela na to. Keti je heroina. Zapravo, imala sam priliku da intervjuišem Keti za svoj dokumentarac, „Svi kraljičini konji“. Keti nije tražila slavu. U stvari, ona baš dugo vremena stvarno nije želela da priča sa mnom, ali putem strateškog uhođenja, na kraju je pristala na intervju.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But she was seeking fairness, not fame. And if it wasn't for Kathe, who's to say this fraud would have ever been discovered?
Ali tražila je pravdu, ne slavu. A da nije bilo Keti, ko zna da li bi ova prevara ikad bila otkrivena.
So, remember that "Forbes" article I was talking about, that I was working on before my lecture? Well, I posted it and something really fantastic happened. I started receiving emails from whistle-blowers all over the world. And as I was receiving these emails and responding back to them, there was a common theme in the message that I received, and this is what it was: they all said this, "I blew the whistle, people really hate me now. I got fired, but guess what? I would do it all over again if I could." And so as I kept reading this message, all these messages, I wanted to think, what could I share with my students? And so, I pulled it all together and this is what I learned.
Sećate se Forbsovog članka o kom sam pričala, na kom sam radila pre svog predavanja? Objavila sam ga i nešto stvarno fantastično se desilo. Počela sam da primam imejlove od uzbunjivača iz celog sveta. Kako sam primala te imejlove i odgovarala na njih, postojala je zajednička tema u poruci koju sam primila, a to je bilo ovo - svi su rekli: „Istupio sam sa dokazima, a sada me ljudi stvarno mrze. Otpušten sam, ali pogodite šta? Uradio bih sve to ponovo da mogu.“ Kako sam nastavila da čitam sve te poruke, htela sam da smislim šta bih mogla podeliti sa studentima. Sakupila sam sve i ovo je ono što sam naučila.
It's important for us to cultivate hope. Whistle-blowers are hopeful. Despite popular belief, they're not all disgruntled employees that have a beef with the company. Their hopefulness really is what drives them to come forward. We also have to cultivate commitment. Whistle-blowers are committed. And it's that passion to their organization that makes them want to come forward. Whistle-blowers are humble. Again, they're not seeking fame, but they are seeking fairness. And we need to continue to cultivate bravery. Whistle-blowers are brave. Often, they underestimated the impact whistle-blowing had on their family, but what they continue to comment on is how hard it is to withhold the truth.
Važno je za nas da gajimo nadu. Uzbunjivači su puni nade. Uprkos popularnom verovanju, oni nisu svi nezadovoljni zaposleni koji imaju problem sa kompanijom. Njihova nada je razlog koji ih vodi ka tome da istupe. Takođe moramo da gajimo posvećenost. Uzbunjivači su posvećeni. A strast prema njihovoj organizaciji ih tera da žele da istupe. Uzbunjivači su skromni. Još jednom, oni ne traže slavu, ali traže pravdu. Moramo da nastavimo da gajimo hrabrost. Uzbunjivači su hrabri. Oni često potcenjuju uticaj koji je uzbunjivanje imalo na njihovu porodicu, ali nastavljaju da komentarišu koliko je teško sakriti istinu.
With that, I want to leave you with one additional name: Peter Buxtun. Peter Buxtun was a 27-year-old employee for the US Public Health Service. And he was hired to interview people that had sexually transmitted diseases. And through the course of his work, he noticed a clinical study that was going on within the organization. And it was a study that was looking at the progression of untreated syphilis. And so, there were 600 African American males that were in this study. They were enticed into the study through being given free medical exams, burial insurance. And so, what happened through the course of this study, is penicillin was discovered to help treat syphilis. And what Peter noticed was, the participants in this study were not given the penicillin to treat their syphilis. And the participants didn't know.
Sa tim u vezi, želim da vam ostavim još jedno dodatno ime - Piter Bakston. Piter Bakston je imao 27 godina i radio je u Američkoj službi za javno zdravlje. Angažovali su ga da intervjuiše ljude koji su imali seksualno prenosive bolesti. Kroz svoj posao, zapazio je kliničku studiju koja se dešavala unutar organizacije. A to je bila studija koja je posmatrala tok razvoja nelečenog sifilisa. Bilo je 600 afroameričkih muškaraca koji su bili uključeni. Bili su navedeni da učestvuju tako što su im dali besplatne preglede, pogrebna osiguranja. Ono što se desilo tokom ove studije jeste da je otkriven penicilin da pomogne u lečenju sifilisa. A Piter je zapazio da učesnicima u ovoj studiji nije dat penicilin da bi ih izlečili od sifilisa. A učesnici to nisu znali.
So similar to Mary, Peter tried to report and talk to his internal supervisors, but no one listened. And so Peter thought this was completely unfair and he tried to report again, and finally talked to a reporter -- very similar to Mary. And in 1972, this was the front page of the "New York Times": "Syphilis Victims in US Study Went Untreated for 40 Years." This is known to us today as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. And Peter was the whistle-blower. What happened to the 600 men, you may wonder, the 600 original men? Twenty eight men died from syphilis. One hundred died from syphilis complications, forty wives were infected and 10 children were born with congenital syphilis. Who's to say what these numbers would be if it wasn't for the brave, courageous act of Peter?
Kao i Meri, Piter je pokušao da to prijavi i da priča sa internim supervizorom, ali niko nije slušao. Piter je mislio da je ovo potpuno nepravedno i pokušao je da ponovo prijavi, pa je na kraju pričao sa novinarom - veoma slično kao Meri. Godine 1972, ovo je bila naslovna strana „Njujork Tajmsa“ - „Žrtve sifilisa u američkoj studiji bile su nelečene 40 godina“. Ovo nam je danas poznato kao studija sifilisa u Taskigiju. A Piter je bio uzbunjivač. Šta se desilo sa tih 600 muškaraca, pitate se, prvobitnih 600 muškaraca? Dvadeset osmoro njih je umrlo od sifilisa. Sto je umrlo od komplikacija usled sifilisa, 40 supruga je bilo inficirano, i desetoro dece je bilo rođeno sa urođenim sifilisom. Ko zna koje bi to cifre bile da nije bilo Piterovog hrabrog, odvažnog postupka?
We're all connected to Peter, actually. If you know anybody that's in a clinical trial, the reason why we have informed consent today is because of Peter's courageous act.
Svi smo zapravo povezani sa Piterom. Ako znate bilo koga ko je u kliničkoj studiji, razlog što danas imamo formular saglasnosti je zbog Piterovog odvažnog dela.
So let me ask you a question. That original question, a variation of the original question. How many of us have ever used the term snitch, rat tattletale, snake, weasel, leak? Anybody?
Dopustite da vam postavim pitanje. To originalno pitanje, varijaciju originalnog pitanja. Koliko nas je ikada koristilo termine cinkaroš, prevrtljivac, tužibaba, mutljivac, licemer, dojavljivač? Bilo ko?
Before you get the urge to do that again, I want you to think a little bit. It might be the Mary, the Peter, the Kathes of the world. You might be the person that could shape history, or they could be the person that shapes yours.
Pre nego što budete imali potrebu da uradite to ponovo, želim da razmislite malo. To može biti neka Meri, Piter, Keti u svetu. Možete biti osoba koja bi mogla oblikovati istoriju, ili oni mogu biti osoba koja oblikuje vašu.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)