Research paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 17

Research Paper Example Identity such as language, religion amongst others implies sovereignty, and from the struggle of the Native Americans in Hawaii and Alaska, albeit approached differently, defines the process towards sovereignty. This paper explores and discusses the sovereignty claims of the native tribes in Alaska and in Hawaii, the 49th and 50th states of the country respectively. As a matter of fact, efficient public service delivery can be disregarded for a chance to indulge in self governance. Nonetheless, with the federal government and the state governments responsible for a number of services for the people in Alaska, including the natives, the relevance of the Alaskan sovereign and the Hawaiian push for tribal sovereigns has been brought into question. The native Hawaiians situation with regards to sovereign assertions is markedly different from the Alaskan situation. However, the tribes in Native Hawaiians tribes had a centralized governing system with a royal queen being at the helm of the authority of the land before colonization and eventual annexation by the United States. Presently, the United States of America exhibit a three spiral form of sovereignty: federal, state and tribal governments. The sovereign status of the native tribes in Alaska has been defined as axiomatic, and this implies that the right to self govern is self evident. The Alaskan natives, similar to other tribes in the Americas, have governed themselves for thousands of years a similar pattern across America’s native tribes came. Assertions of tribal sovereignty as it is presently exist amongst the native Alaskan tribe took very many years to achieve fruition. During the years of sovereignty claims, the tribes used a combination political as well as legal activism. Sovereign assertion achieved by the native Indian tribes over the years is acknowledged within the federal corridors of justice, and entails the

Does Blowing the Whistle Violate Company Loyalty Essay

Does Blowing the Whistle Violate Company Loyalty - Essay Example Ideas of the two authors Philosopher Sissela Bok does not supports the act of whistle blowing within the organization. The author says that whistle blowing leads to some moral conflicts of whether to speak about the abuses and the neglects. Firstly the choice of whether the protesting against the wrong doing is in the public interest or not. In this case the whistle blower have to decide who is the abuse, the amount of threat it carries and will the protest lead to any change. Secondly the whistle blower has to compare the responsibility to serve public against to the loyalty he owes to his colleagues and the firm. . And thirdly the whistle blower may fear that his act of protest may lead to some problem to his career, his ability to support his family and himself. This conflict may override the above two other conflicts. The author also discusses about the nature of whistle blowing. By the act of whistle blowing, the whistle blower may lead to breach of loyalty, bitterness, dissent and accusation. The whistle blower makes a public disagreement with the authority or a majority view. The more repressive the authority becomes by the challenge, the more risky it becomes in speaking out. The whistle blower hopes to stop the game but his act of blowing whistle on his own team, in turn is seen as a breach to loyalty towards his own team mates. In holding the position he is meant to bind by certain obligations to his colleague and clients. But the loyalty to his clients and colleagues seems to fall weak in front of the loyalty towards the public interest. Blowing of whistle not only violets loyalty towards his colleagues but also toward the hierarchy since he may be the subordinate too. Often this alarming is joined by leaving the job. The opposing is sometimes joined by the protest which leads to public attention towards the wrong doing issue. But to be on safer side those who want to avoid retaliation may leave the organization quietly, secure his position and then blow the whistle. In this way the whistle blower will have a position to speak with the authority without being involved to any vulnerability. The whistle blowers may be effective when it gets the support of the audience. When the whistle blowers are greeted with lack of concern, the message they share drives away. When they are greeted with disbelief, they attract no response at all. And when the audience does not receive or act on the information, the message bounces back to the whistle blower and injures him. Because of all these possible harmful affects the whistle blower must first check and recheck the authenticity and accuracy of the facts and reports, before going to speak out. The whistle blower must try through the regular channels first. Therefore the author feels that the blowing of whistle is violation of loyalty (Bok, 1980, pp. 176-182). The second Author Robert A. Larmer supports the act of whistle blowing since the author thinks that this act shows the loyalty of the employee towards his organization. For the author loyalty means action involving good reasons into the interest of a person. But the question remains that what is the good reason that makes to think that it is in the interest of that person. Firstly if an action is immoral then it is not at all justified that the action is in the best interest of the agent. Indeed the author argues that an employee who blows the whistle