How was Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez faced with a third party obligation

Part 1: How were the following two faced with a third-party obligation? (Case Study is Below)
◦ Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
◦ Gerald Walpin
Part 2: In general, there are three possible responses to third-party
obligations, do nothing, report the problem, become a whistle-
blower. How would you categorize the response made by
◦ Wong-Hernandez?
◦ Walpin?
Part 3: What questions can be asked to help determine whether whistle-
blowing is justified? How might they be answered in the case of
◦ Wong-Hernandez?
◦ Walpin?
Part 4: What questions can be asked to help determine whether whistle-
blowing is ethically required? How might they be answered in
the case of
◦ Wong-Hernandez?
◦ Walpin?

Here is the case study for the questions:

Sex, Money, and Whistle-Blowing
Like all recent NBA All-Star players, Kevin Johnson made a lot of money during
his pro basketball career. It drained out fairly quickly too. A few hundred-thousand went to the family of a sixteen-year-old high-school girl in Phoenix after a he-said, she-said sex accusation. A decade later, a similar story emerged, but at a different place: this time it was three girls in Sacramento, California, who attended St. Hope Academy. They took their stories—each told of a similar incident involving Johnson—to the recruitment advisor, Jacqueline Wong- Hernandez. Soon after, Ms. Wong-Hernandez was gone. Her resignation was a protest over the way the complaints were handled internally at the school, which was by dismissing them. Not only did St. Hope Academy take no action, the local police also decided not to press any charges in a case that essentially
came down to one person’s word against another’s.

St. Hope Academy, as it happens, wasn’t a public school but a private business, and Kevin Johnson was the founder and CEO. A lot of the money flowing into the young institution came from the federal government as grants from the AmeriCorps program. After accusations surfaced that the grant money wasn’t spent appropriately, the school agreed to pay back $423,836.50 to the
government (about half of what the school had received). The first payment, about $73,000, was made by Kevin Johnson himself.

So things probably would have ended, except for an AmeriCorps inspector general named Gerald Walpin. He believed Johnson had gotten way too good a deal: the school should have been forced to pay back much more of the grant
money it had received. On May 5, 2009, he took the accusation to a California congressman who in turn brought public attention to the issue. On June 10, Mr. Walpin was fired. In an editorial statement, the Washington Times complained, “Mr. Walpin was fired with no explanation and no warning to Congress, even though the act governing inspectors general says IGs can be removed only after
the president gives Congress 30 days’ notice and a reason for the firing. Rather than investigate the IG’s serious complaints, Mr. Obama fired him. In short, he snuffed out the whistleblower rather than heed the whistle.”“Editorial:
Stonewalling on Walpin-gate,”.

A local Sacramento TV station doing some follow-up uncovered a report detailing hush money payments at St. Hope and noted that the former NBA All- Star “often described himself as a personal friend” of another avid basketball player, President Obama.“Report: Johnson Offered to Pay Accuser,”.

Buy Now

Answer Excerpt

Part 1: How were the following two faced with a third-party obligation? (Case Study is Below) ◦ Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez ◦ Gerald Walpin Part 2: In general, there are three possible responses to third-party obligations, do nothing, report the problem, become a whistle- blower. How would you categorize the response made by ◦ Wong-Hernandez? ◦ Walpin? […]



Buy Now