The Lion and the Tiger:
An Introduction to Professional Writing Case Study (with help from a number of friends)
Introduction
Introduction to Professional Writing is a required course for Journalism and Professional Writing majors at The College of New Jersey. The course attempts to immerse students in realistic business communications situations that may, in a particular semester, require the creation of websites, the writing of press releases, reports and memoranda, and other materials. Where possible, students do work for a real client.
One of the curricular components of the class for the fall, 2000 semester is a simulation that requires students to craft an ethically defensible position in response to a request from the campus activists that the TCNJ administration pledge that it will not do business with companies that operate "sweatshops" -- workplaces that pay expoitively low wages and systematically endanger workers with oppressive work rules and hazardous conditions. The Gap, Nike and Walmart among other major apparel manufacturers, have been accused of being sweatshop employers of workers in Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Celebrities that are affiliated with these manufacturers, such as Kathie Lee Gifford and Tiger Woods, have also been criticized. There is some basis in fact for this part of the scenario: TCNJ's local chapter of Amnesty International has, indeed, asked the College to sign a "No Sweat" pledge. The College administration has taken the request under advisement. However, TCNJ's major apparel vendor, Barnes and Noble, insists that all of its suppliers adhere to fair labor practices.
As the teacher of the class, I am spinning out out a fictitious scenario that the students will play out over several days. These web pages will lay out that scenario, as the students participate in it. The information that they have, their written responses, and their commentary will be presented. There will also be information and commentary from students, staff and faculty outside the class who will help me with this project, referenced here and on a discussion board for the project.
December 1, 2000
Our fictitous scenario
On November 27, 2000, the students were told that the College had the opportunity to co-sponsor a regional Junior Golf tournament and summer camp with the mayor of Trenton, Douglas Palmer, with support from Nike's Tiger Woods Foundation. The program will run the week after commencement, in conjunction with alumni reunions weekend. At the end of the tournament, Tiger Woods is scheduled to personally present the awards and to make brief remarks.
The Trenton Recreation department has been running a Junior Golf program for years, with scant funding and volunteer support. The program provides free lessons and equipment to children from four to 18 years of age. Young people who demonstrate interest and ability participate in tournaments and receive information and mentoring on applying for golf scholarships for college, and in pursuing golf-related careers. Yet, the program is significantly underfunded. (This part is true.)
The Mayor's office and TCNJ see this as a tremendous public relations opportunity for both parties. The City of Trenton hopes to burnish its reputation and attract external funding. Similarly, TCNJ wants to attract external funding, and to demonstrate its willingness to be a good neighbor to Trenton. TCNJ also hopes to draw attention to its highly successful but little-known pre-college program, Collegebound, by having Collegebound students participate in the camp.
Armed with some background readings, discussion and information on public relations ethics, the anti-sweatshop campaign, and TCNJ's mission, the students were assigned to write memoranda on the public relations issues surrounding this proposed event, and to make recommendations as to the ways in which those issues should be addressed. Those memoranda are reproduced here, under the section titled: "The Lion and the Tiger: December 1 Memos."
Complications ensue
On December 1, the class met to discuss their memoranda, which, for the most part, endorsed the proposed event. We were joined by Lisa Myers, an alumna who is both TCNJ's Media Relations manager, and a former newspaper reporter. She responded to the students' analyses from her varied personal and professional perspectives.
For most of the students, the benefits of the potential program to TCNJ and the surrounding community were persuasive. In addition, several students said that they found credible Nike's information about improved wages and working conditions in its contractors factories. Nike has also been more willing to release information about the locations of the plants where their products are manufactured, and to permit third-party inspections.
However, some students thought that Nike's claims were not believable, and found the prospect of an alliance ethically troubling. Some thought that we could find an alternative funders, and that a principled stand on the issue might have its own public relations benefits.
During our discussions, three women (Janet Gray, Jill Fink and Noelle Petruzelli) and a man (Ramon Suarez) entered the room. Suarez sat at the rear while the women approached me. Gray asked for permission to address the class on the issue that we were discussing. After I protested that they were interrupting my class, Gray, Fink and Petruzelli proceeded to urge us not to go ahead with the golf tournament. Fink said that if we did, our campus would have a "public relations nightmare" on its hands. Petruzelli said there would be broad student opposition. Suarez, it turned out, was an alternative media journalist sympathetic to the protestors' views. As I tried to get them to leave, he continued to ask slanted questions such as, "Isn't it true that you are really trying to help the College community by educating everyone about these injustices?" Gray, particularly, used Suarez's questions as an opportunity to make more speeches.
After a 30-minute exchange, the protesters were persuaded that we would consider their views, and they left.
We concluded that we had to issue some sort of press statement in light of this mini-protest, and the presence of a journalist. Those statements are to be found under the link, December 5 press statement.
On December 5, we discussed the arguments made by the protestors. Some of the students who had supported the proposed event now had misgivings. Others felt that the event should still go forward, but that the The College should be careful to explain its position. There were more questions about the veracity of Nike's claims to have improve workers' conditions of employment. There were also questions about the extent to which The College could argue that co-sponsoring an event with Nike did not mean that The College condoned any impropriety of which Nike might be guilty. Finally, some students felt that the manner of the protest was an affront to The College's rules of discourse. Acceding to the protestors' demands would send the wrong message about how to advocate for a cause within the campus community.
These comments led me to recall my colleague Mort Winston's insight that ethical conflicts often arise when individual actors play multiple roles in a given situation. (Prof. Winston is a member of the TCNJ Philosophy Department, former chair of Amnesty International and author of The Philosophy of Human Rights.) We began to map the conflicting and shifting roles of the college administrators Nike and the protestors as ethical actors. We began to see that it was crucial that TCNJ clarify its role and responsibilities with regard to potential partnerships or sponsorships. You can read some of our discussion here. In addition to comments made by members of the class, ther eare also comments from one of the protesters and from Lisa Myers o TCNJ's College Relations staff.
On December 8, we reviewed the press releases, which were primarily straightforward, newsy accounts of the December 1 incident. We soon realized that such an account did little to advance The College's public relations agenda. In fact, it made The College appears defensive, reactionary and closed in its communications processes.
More importantly, we noted that this perception was at odds with other aspects of The College's communications processes that are very broad-based and community-inclusive. For example, since early 1999, The College has been engaged in a strategic planning process that recently culminated in the drafting of a new mission statement. More than 200 people from all parts of the campus community participated, from the Building Shop to the Board of Trustees and a raft of internal and external stakeholders in between. Further, the President has been remarkably open with the media and others about bias incidents that have occured on campus in recent months, go so far as to speak at two anti-hate rallies organized by students. Further, she convened a Diversity Conference to bring together individuals and groups across campaigns that share concerns, ideas and responsibilities for addressing issues of diversity and social justice.
Clearly, we recognized that we had unknowingly created adversarial situation that was contrary to tone of the communications environment that our President appears to be trying to create. One indication of the problem was provided in this quote from Noelle Petruzelli's comments on the discussion list. "...Even with all the facts in line and all the passion in the world," Petruzelli wrote, "It's extremely nerve-wracking to be faced with 25 students, just waiting to contradict every word that is said." Petruzelli assumed that the class would not be inclined to give her a fair hearing, it seemed. Of course, one of the reasons that people typically resort to protest actions is that they conclude that those who are in power will not listen.
We realized that in focusing on trying to affect the story that was told about the meeting and the protest, we had failed to pay attention to a bigger problem: the perception that despite the apparent administrative attempts at openness, we were still making big decisions behind closed doors. In response to this, the students concluded their work on the case study by drafting guidelines for an inclusive process for considering future corporate sponsorships and partnerships. We concluded that had we done something like this in the beginning, we might have obviated the need for a protest. The students' draft guidelines are under the heading, December 12 memos .
Further information on the Students Against Sweatshops Movement, Nike philanthropic efforts, and The Nike responses to protestors:
November 14, 2000: Thai Nike workers' appeal to Tiger Woods
United Students Against Sweatshops Site
Haverford College Anti-Sweatshop Code
National Labor Committee reports on Nike Labor Practices
June 2000 protests at Southern Oregon University cause Nike CEO to withdraw donation
Global exchange Nike protest links
1996 article about "Boycott Nike" protests in Vietnam; 1997 announcement of international protests
Global Alliance Report on Nike workers in Thailand and Vietnam (from the Nike website)
AN OPEN LETTER RESPONSE TO USAS REGARDING THEIR NATIONAL PROTEST OF NIKE
Copyright 2000 by Kim Pearson. All Rights Reserved.