Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Expert Answers
KIPLING2448 | CERTIFIED EDUCATOR
I approach this particular question with more than a little academic interest. For twelve years, I was a military affairs advisor to members of
Congress, and was frequently exposed to the kinds of issues discussed in the article on the conspiracy on the part of employees of B.F. Goodrich to
falsify data so as to secure a potentially lucrative contract with the Department of the Air Force. In fact, while this particular case preceded my career
on Capitol Hill, it does remind me of a particularly contentious issue also involving the Air Force and morally dubious officials in both that
department and in the large defense contractor with which the Air Force was working. It is with this background in mind that I can easily conclude
that there were most definitely moral issues involved In Kermit Vandivier’s decision to produce a fraudulent report, and that, irrespective of the very
understandable concerns Mr. Vandivier had about losing his job, his conduct was both morally and legally wrong. He was correct, and courageous, to
point out to his exceedingly immoral superior, Russell Line, that the test results had been fraudulently reported and that the consequences of
qualifying the faulty brake design would likely result in the death of a military pilot. Vandivier, however, acted immorally in deciding to conspire
with his superiors, and with the engineers who designed a faulty brake and who manipulated the testing process, to falsify his report. As noted, such
conduct is a violation of the law, and represents a very serious moral lapse. The integrity of the process by which hardware the viability of which is
essential both for the successful performance of a mission and for the safety of the personnel using it must be protected precisely because the stakes
are so high. Soldiers in combat and pilots flying military aircraft have, in fact, been killed due to criminal negligence on the part of defense
contractors operating under circumstances very similar to that described in the report on the brakes.
Yes, one should apply this standard of morality or ethics across the board. I lived with the same risk that Vandivier and Lawson did, and suffered the
consequences. When the stakes are life-and-death, you do the right thing, period. Even when the stakes don’t rise to that level of importance, and
they often don’t, choosing the moral path – which often overlaps with legal considerations anyway – is always the right thing to do. Massacres in
wars – for example, the soldiers who participated in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and those that have occurred in more contemporary conflicts
such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan – often occur precisely because the path of least resistance was taken with regard to confronting superior
officers. Of course these are not easy decisions when one’s livelihood is at stake. A family to support and a mortgage to pay are powerful motivators
for individuals walking that sometimes thin line between right and wrong, but the case described in the report on the aircraft brakes easily crosses that
line into just plain wrong.
Mr. Vandivier would be morally responsible for any accidents associated with faulty brakes the certification of which hinged on his agreement to
engage in a conspiracy to defraud the government. This is not a difficult case. Landing an aircraft with faulty brakes is inherently dangerous, and
Vandivier, Lawson, Russell Line, Robert Sink, and John Warren all knew that. Warren was a victim of a very common psychological phenomenon
that usually does result in disaster. The emotional inability to admit that one is wrong when so much effort, time, and money have been invested in a
project has been the cause of more flawed data, reports, projects, etc., than can possibly be listed. Especially in an environment in which officials at
B.F. Goodrich had been reporting to the prime contractor, LTV, that all was on track when no data supported such a finding certainly contributed to
the pressure Warren felt to send positive reports up his chain of command. Lawson, the junior engineer, was similarly under tremendous pressure to
report success to his superiors, and Vandivier’s conduct was discussed above. One can sympathize with the pressures these gentlemen were under,
but that absolutely does not excuse their conduct when, once again, the stakes involved were so high. While Vandivier’s conduct was morally wrong,
ultimate responsibility resided with his superiors who were as wrong as can be, would have been guilty of manslaughter had deaths resulted from
their actions.
[As a side note, the integrity of the military procurement process is constantly under review by both offices within the Departments of Defense, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and by the Committees on Armed Services of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Within the
Department of Defense, the office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, exists for the purpose of ensuring that tests of military equipment
are conducted properly. The dynamics involved in the case described in the article attached, however, remain dangerously common within federal
agencies and the contractors they hire to design and build advanced weapon systems.]