Diversity and the Workplace

I can't think of anything more annoying and closed minded then individuals who can not see past race, creed, or religion. I think is especially detrimental for people in a work environment. I don't see how any company can have any tolerance for not accepting diversity.

When I was working as an intern, one of my fellow interns came to me really upset. When I asked her what was wrong she had told me that OUR supervisor and other superordinate were mocking black males and acting like gangsters. Being that my friend was black she felt really upset by their narrow minded behavior and couldn't understand why they would even think that was acceptable behavior. I completely agreed with her and felt awful for her that it had happened in the first place. It was especially hard for her to handle, because she was the ONLY minority that we worked with, everyone else was white.

When this happened I never really thought that this company needs more diversity and understanding. Now after taking this class, I can look at how that company was not diversified enough and obviously did not make an effort to make my friend feel accepted. Even if the actions of our colleagues was only meant to be playful and non-offensive the bottom line is that it was and being our superordinate, they should have known better.

Armstrong Williams

As PR professionals we are taught to abide by the standard codes and ethics of the PRSA. However, when those lines are crossed and the codes are broken taking the right steps are crucial to the face of the organization.

Saving one's face can be handled in more ways then one, the cut throat way in which you call some one else out and eliminate their face or you claim responsibility for your actions and fix the problem. Williams and Ketchum decided that in order to save their faces they needed to own up to their mistakes and find a way to make it right. I think both Williams and Ketchum handled the problem with the No Child Left Behind Campaign with class and expertise. Both admitted to their wrong actions, after all no one is perfect and realizing this is the first step to making things right. I think that the heart felt apologies was the right thing to do. In doing so both Williams and Ketchum were able to show the public we screwed up and we are sorry and to ensure that this will not happen again here is what we plan to do in order to fix our mistakes.

This is a good PR move and more than likely saved the face of both Williams and Ketchum. I don't think this crisis could have been handled any other way that would have been as beneficial to the individuals involved.

Corporate Social Responsibility -- THE WIETA

This article is a huge sigh of relief. You never hear about these better practices in the news, in fact society is usually only informed of the sweat shops and slave drivers that force young children to work long hours and who treat their employees like dirt. The fact that there is an organization that is willing to stand up and put a stop to the injustice deserves applause and recognition. The WIETA, the Wine Industry Ethical Association, is taking a giant leap forward for third world countries who produce wine, particularly Africa.

One can only hope that more people will begin to put this organization's values and beliefs to action and eliminate the unfair/unethical treatment of workers in third-world countries. I think my favorite part about WIETA's standards and rules is that no child under the age of 15 will be forced to work and the children who are able to work choose to do so, and that the industry they work for can not interfere with the child's school schedule. I particularly encourage this rule, because so many children in third-world countries are having to leave school at such a young age and end up not only losing their education but also miss out on their ability to see the world in a different light and take hold of new opportunities that an academic education could provide them.

The Ethics Behind the A.D.A Choices

First I want to say that this was a tough article to read; I mean where do you really draw the line when you are deciding what is the best way to raise money for a charity that is trying to fight one of America's worst diseases? I firmly believe that raising money for a good cause is always beneficial, however, I do agree that there should be limitations.

I don't think it would have been a wise decision for the A.D.A to sign a sponsorship with Burger King and I was relieved when I saw that it turned the fast-food restaurant down. However, I don't see a problem with a company who is a producer of both high-calorie and low-calorie foods. Let's think about it logically, how many organizations do we really know that don't produce both kinds of foods? There are of course the organic foods, but that is still an up and coming change and not many people have adapted to it. But look at company's like Kellogg, they make excellent healthy food, but not all of it is healthy. For example, they make pop-tarts one of the most high in calorie, fats and sweets breakfast items there is.

Also, I think the A.D.A is taking steps in the right direction. It eliminated a sponsorship with Hershey as well as other companies and it turned down a sponsorship with Burger King. I mean the A.D.A is sacrificing a lot of money because they want to make sure people trust them and make sure that they are being as ethical as possible. To be honest I don't blame the A.D.A for not turning away Cadbury. I mean it brings in the majority of their sponsorship money and as long as it only promotes their healthy food products where is the harm?