"To Quit, Blow the Whistle or Go with the Flow"

In the case study of “Quit, Blow the Whistle or Go with the Flow” written by Robert D. Wakefield the ethical issue arises of speak up and risk losing your job or stay quiet and battle your conscience quietly. In a quick recap of the issue an urban school district was losing students as their families moved to the suburbs. In a district with 4 schools and a shrinking budget the seven-member school board panel decided to close one of the oldest of the state. Without any input from families or children that may be affected the superintendent chose to discuss and resolve the issue behind closed doors. As a hired public relations officer for the school district, Mr. Wakefield had the task of taking calls from reporters, parents, and the media. He had to explain the decision careful to not present his feelings but those of the school district and their decision. Dealing with the ethical struggle of whether he should continue working with someone whose moral judgment he did not agree with, Mr. Wakefield lobbied for openness and in result he was confronted for his ethical judgment and was reminded as to who pays his salary.

The Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA) Code of Ethics says that practitioners “serve the public interest by acting as responsible advocates for the ones they represent.” By being “responsible advocates” does Mr. Wakefield have the obligation to be truthful to the public or to the client? When your integrity as a member of society is at stake, which value comes first: getting the job done or standing up for your principles?

The PRSA also states that’s in it’s Code of Ethics that practitioners should “adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interest of those practitioners represent and in communicating with the public.” Since the code states that the client requires appropriate protection of confidential and private information. Can the information the board wants to hide be considered private or confidential?

The PRSA code of ethics is a very useful tool. It is resourceful and informative in my opinion. According to their code, public relations practitioners should be faithful to those that they represent. Public relations agents are working constantly with the press and their relationship with journalists can be decisive on the way that they strategize. How much is said and how much is published depends on the mutual trust and loyalty. The one thing that journalist want from public relation agents is truth so with the case of Mr. Wakefield he is caught in a catch 22; should he abide by the code of staying by your client or should he reach out to the media and release the truth. 

While abiding by the code of ethics is professional and admirable is many cases, lying can never be any good, and hiding the truth is lying. Aristotle would without a doubt reject lying to the public or to the media as a solution for Mr. Wakefield’s problem. One could say that quitting would be the “golden mean” because it stands between the to extremes of going with the flow which would be unethical and blowing the whistle which would put his professionalism at stake.

Luckily for Mr. Wakefield he chose to abide by the public relations code of ethics, which is more than I can say for a Harvard Business School professor, whose NYTs column violated a journalistic ethic of accepting goods or services from a source. Mary Tripsas, a business professor at Harvard violated a policy when she accepted travel and lodging from a source. In her column she mainly focuses on 3M, which she describes as at the "forefront of a movement" that involves customers in the innovation process. She broke the rules that the NYT had set for journalists. According to the article those rules state that:

Specifically, in connection with their work for us, freelancers will not accept free transportation, free lodging, gifts, junkets, commissions or assignments from current or potential news sources.

For Mary Tripsas it was not a good move on her part. She lost a freelance job at a well-known company and broke a journalistic “rule”. I believe that in order for a journalist to be credible they have to come from an unbiased background. They should receive no gifts and/or compensation. Luckily for Mr. Wakefield there is a happy ending. Amidst tension coming from all sorts of angles the superintendent asked for Mr. Wakefield’s advise and took his recommendation to the administration. Unfortunately the school did close but Mr. Wakefield was able ease his conscience and decided to take a job in a public relations firm.