Deliberation Overview
This deliberation was begun on Tuesday, March 17, 2009
This history was compiled on Friday, April 10, 2009
Describe the Situation
I work for university media relations. A regional company that hires many of our graduates -- especially from the College of Communications -- recently announced a donation of $25,000 to be used as scholarship money. The company said the money should be designated for communications majors with good GPAs who are struggling with college finances because of the economy -- especially those students whose parents have lost their jobs. The dean of the college is in charge of selecting scholarship recipients. I wrote an initial press release about the generous donation for use on the university Web site and by the school and local newspapers, which listed the requirements. My intern, who is a communications major, just told me that the scholarship recipients were announced by the dean of the college yesterday. The dean awarded ten $2,500 scholarships and one of the recipients was the dean’s own son. The dean's son is a communication major and a good student. My gut says this is not right, but is it my place to question what a college dean does? Should I just let this go?
Consequences Framework
Chosen Standard for evaluating consequences:
Serving the Public Interest
This standard is most appropriate because:
This is the job of any public relations professional.
Chosen course of action:
Have a conversation with the dean about his choice and tell him that I have to disclose the names of all recipients in my next press release.
This action fulfills my chosen standard because:
This may be a relatively innocent oversight (or overreach) on the dean's part, so this option gives the dean the opportunity to correct it before we go public. It also gives me a chance to explain how these things can snowball out of control. Even if the dean thinks it's no big deal, I can talk about similar cases that led to huge PR nightmares. And if the dean is certain that no other candidate fulfills more of the selection criteria then I can defend the dean's choice with the donor and any other members of the public if need be.
This action is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Other alternatives explored using the Consequences Framework:
Have a conversation with the dean about his choice and tell him that I have to disclose the names of all recipients in my next press release.
Consequences: The dean might blow up at me and cause all kinds of headaches for me in media relations. On the other hand, maybe I can be convinced that the dean's son is really a better candidate than any of the other applicants? At least I'll be able to tell whether the dean even noticed the conflict here. If the dean did notice it and stands by it, then we're fine.
Also, the PRSA code says I should encourage clients to determine if a conflict exists. The university is my client so the dean's actions are relevant here.
Explanation: This may be a relatively innocent oversight (or overreach) on the dean's part, so this option gives the dean the opportunity to correct it before we go public. It also gives me a chance to explain how these things can snowball out of control. Even if the dean thinks it's no big deal, I can talk about similar cases that led to huge PR nightmares. And if the dean is certain that no other candidate fulfills more of the selection criteria then I can defend the dean's choice with the donor and any other members of the public if need be.
Notes: This is best for everyone except possibly me (if the dean is vindictive). But I should be able to protect myself as long as I make it clear I am just doing my job and am sincerely worried that this could result in a lot of negative press.
Agree with Honor Code: yes
Let the company that donated the scholarship money know about this.
Consequences: They're going to find out sooner or later, so it may as well come from me. If they don't care, then it's not a problem. Of course, if they do care it will come back to the dean, and that might raise problems for me at work.
Also, the PRSA code says I must disclose any potential conflict of interest to affected parties.
Notes: The consequences are about the same as my first option, though likely to make my relationship with the dean even worse (because it involves going behind the dean's back).
Write a press release announcing the list of recipients, without talking to the dean first.
Consequences: If no one notices the fact that the dean's son was chosen, this is no big deal. But if somebody does notice, it could be a media relations nightmare.
Notes: This is like the option below, but probably even worse for me because I work with the dean regularly while the donor company is one of many external clients.
Wait to see if the company that donated the money notices the dean picked his own son.
Consequences: If the company doesn't care, this is no big deal. But if the company does care, I'll have a media relations nightmare on my hands.
Notes: The could have consequences as good as my first two options. But it could be a nightmare for me, the dean, the company and even the recipients if someone makes a big stink.
Avoid writing a press release announcing the list of winners. Maybe this one will just drop off the radar.
Consequences: This could solve my problem if nobody notices. But the company that donated the money is expecting good PR from this, and why shouldn't they? Plus, the university ought to celebrate its best students. None of the winners will get public recognition if I just ignore it.
I'm pretty sure this one violates the general duty to avoid conflicts of interest, so I might be jeopardizing my PRSA membership. It says right in the guidelines that a member shall "Disclose promptly any existing or potential conflict of interest to affected clients or organizations."
Notes: This is like the third and fourth options above, but worse for students who deserve recognition and worse for the overall image of our university. And it's really bad for me -- I'll look disorganized and unprofessional.
Duties Framework
I have judged that the most dutiful conduct in my situation is:
I need to let the dean know I'll have to publish a press release with the names of all recipients, and having the dean's son on the list raises a conflict of interest.
This action is most dutiful because:
This action doesn't assume the dean was being greedy or abusing power: I can treat it as part of my job to explain the situation (and assume the dean's choice was innocent). I'm a little worried it may look like I'm sticking my nose in someone else's business because PR is separate from education at my school. But I can't do my job well without making this issue known. So I'll just have to word my comments very carefully to make sure this isn't a challenge to the dean's authority as an educator. It's just part of my job as a public relations professional to make sure I can explain and justify the university's actions.
Anyone would be obligated to perform this action because:
Public Relations work is all about trust. I have to be trusted by people inside my institution or I won't get the information I need. But I also have to be trusted by the public or it won't matter how much good press I get.
This alternative is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of specific duties explored using this framework:
Fidelity
Definition: Duty to keep your promises and prior commitments.
Action: This means I have to let the donor company know if its selection guidelines have been violated. At the same time, I have to do my best to portray the university in a positive light.
Impact: The dean may be mad, but I can explain the situation in a respectful way. Gosh, even the company could be mad (maybe they are in cahoots with the dean). But still, I can explain why this would look very bad for the company.
Free Flow of Information
Definition: PRSA Code of Ethics
Action: It applies to the integrity of my relationships with the public. I have a duty to be honest and to correct any erroneous communication. That means I have to disclose the names of the scholarship recipients.
Impact: The company and the scholarship winners should all be happy about the good press. The only reason the dean might be upset is if the dean's son is not a legitimate candidate. And I can explain to the dean why this is an important publicity opportunity.
Conflicts of Interest
Definition: PRSA Code
Action: The core principle here is "avoiding real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest builds the trust of clients, employers, and the publics." This is the biggie in this case. At the very least, there's a perceived conflict of interest in the dean's choice. I have to call that to public attention to do my job well.
Impact: The dean could be mad and cause hassles for me at work. But that's only the case if the dean's son is not a legitimate candidate. If I explain why this might look like a conflict of interest the dean will have a chance to explain why it really isn't (or a chance to pick a different candidate). So I should end up OK. And if I don't bring this up I will lose all self-respect. Plus, the university may lose the respect of the community and the donor.
Nonmaleficence
Definition: Duty to do no harm and to prevent harm.
Action: As a PR person, I always have to make sure the university is portrayed in a positive light. It could be very bad if it looks like the scholarship selection was an inside job.
Impact: The university will lose respect if this turns into a scandal.
Justice
Definition: Duty to give each person equal consideration.
Action: This definitely means I need to make sure the selection of the dean's son was the result of a fair application of the selection criteria. Otherwise, other students are being treated unfairly.
Impact: Ensuring the criteria were fairly applied shows respect and concern for all our students, including the dean's son.
Self-improvement
Definition: Duty to improve our knowledge and virtue.
Action: This probably means I should talk with the dean to make sure I understand exactly how the selection criteria were applied to all candidates. Maybe the dean's son honestly beats out the competition.
Impact: This is like the impact of "conflict of Interest," above. I will not be a respected professional in my field if I don't point out obvious conflicts of interest like this.
Beneficence
Definition: Duty to do good acts and promote people's happiness.
Action: This doesn't seem like a benevolence issue to me.
Impact: N/A
Reparation
Definition: Duty to compensate or make amends for past harms to others.
Action: Not relevant, yet!
Impact: N/A
Gratitude
Definition: Duty to repay favors and unearned services granted to you by others.
Action: Not relevant
Impact: N/A
Virtue Framework
An action that will exhibit the most virtuous traits is:
I've got to go to the dean and explain the potential conflict of interest. If the dean won't budge, then I've got to talk to the company as well. Throughout this process I have to remember to just speak honestly about the facts of the situation. (I don't have to be involved in praising or blaming anyone.)
This is the action that an ideally virtuous person would do because:
It's the right thing to do! I can't think of any argument against it except being afraid or lazy, but those aren't virtuous traits.
This alternative is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of character traits explored using this framework:
Myself
expertise: I know this is a conflict of interest issue: I have to do my job and point this out here or I'm not really a PR professional!
advocacy: This is the heart and soul of PR: I can't do my job if I can't honestly report on the good things we're doing.
independence: It's not my job to tell the dean who to select, but it is my job to tell the dean about conflicts of interest and how they negatively affect our institution. Independence is crucial to enabling each of us to do our own jobs well.
honesty: Lack of honesty undermines trust, and my business is all about trust.
loyalty: My primary loyalty has to be to the university as a whole. Even though it may look disloyal to the dean, pointing out the potential conflict of interest is the best to serve the institution as a whole.
Others
commitment to education access: I know the donor company really cares about this -- that's what motivated it in the first place. And it's crucial to our university mission, too, so there shouldn't be any conflict between the dean's motives and the company's motives.
charity: Everybody needs a helping hand now and then. It's crucial for people to recognize this.