I think Mr. Portlock just got run down by forces bigger than himself… profs and administrators who were clueless as to the ethical aspects of PR. They didn’t have his back because they thought his concern was misplaced. Seems he had no means of redress here. At all. For that… yes… Hunter bears all the responsibility.

While I don’t fault Mr. Portlock so much in this case, the faculty at Hunter has to bear some responsibility here. A junior faculty member was put in an untenable position. This means it was up to the senior faculty to stand by him — to fight the battle for him. Maybe they did that and lost the fight. But had the IACC mess happened at Kent State, I can think of a handful of my colleagues who’d have had my back. What happened at Hunter?

“Def share Heidi’s story and the concept or promoting an anticounterfieting [sic] eventy [sic] with a counterfiet [sic] person, etc.. perhaps think about an analogy? And how we used integrated concepts and media to promote the event and idea at large-”

Weisman was encouraging the student in the brilliant idea that the kid could use the tag line “You got faked!” in revealing the fictional nature of the Heidi Cee blog to a reporter. The student thought that “faking out” the journalist would be a great way to make an impression and get the reporter’s attention…

Well… I guess he wasn’t wrong in that, was he?

Mr. Portlock directed me to an article for Inside Higher Ed… http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/03/hunter

(This will be a good resource for Kami.)

This particular case is actually incredibly intriguing and yet would be very difficult to pull off. I see knockoff handbags everyday passing me on the streets, i guess i would consider myself a sort of purse expert and can spot them a mile away. Heck, you go to New York City and china street is filled with bags that look so real, and yet really aren’t. As college students, many of us don’t have the money to go out and buy a two thousand dollar purse so a knock off is really the only way to go. Maybe those students didn’t really believe in the cause, maybe they couldn’t be true advocates. In any case, it shouldn’t matter.

I couldn’t even see where a fake blog would even work very well in this case. Regardless, they lied their publics. I am surprised that Coach didn’t put their foot down, they should have known better. Where were the teachers and advisors?! It’s shocking to me that this wasn’t pulled from the campaign when reviewed by the advisors.

I am troubled by the comments I see posted to this story at insidehighered.com. I expect these come from academic types, as that is typically who reads the site…

From Henry Giroux: The university now adopts the aesthetic of the mall and its administrators increasingly resemble public relations hacks.

Ah…This is what happens when the boys and girls misbehave. We are all painted with the same broad brush, as we were by Andrew Cohen the other day at CBS. We simply can’t police the behavior of all PR people, and since we aren’t a licensed profession, we can’t toss out the slimeballs. But hey, lawyers are licensed, and it hasn’t helped their image, has it?

From Aaron Barlow: To Giroux’s point: the commercial model doesn’t form well to an academic setting, as this rather slimy incident shows.

Well, I think Aaron is wrong on this, but he’s entitled to his opinion. Every other school working on the AICC project did just fine. And here at Kent State we partner with corporate sponsors all the time. But the difference is, we pay close attention who what the students AND the clients are doing. It’s part of the job.

From Bob Hirsch: Conducting a human subjects study without obtaining Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval appears to be a significant problem that has been overlooked. Would someone please answer the question, “was this research on Hunter students approved by an IRB (or equivalent)?”

Maybe I missed something, but didn’t the class students have research conducted on them by the company (survey of attitudes) and didn’t the non-class students have surveys and opinions assessed for use by the company? The “course” appears to have been a study by the company to determine if the company could modify the attitudes of students (i.e. brainwashing, mind control, or ?, …).

Yikes! Call out the Feds! Bob is correct when he says research performed on students — or any human subjects for that matter — requires IRB approval. Our students secure that approval routinely when they do research on behalf of clients. But IRB approval is not required for partnerships with clients — only for the research done on their behalf. The idea that these companies are dealing in “mind control” or “brainwashing” is patently ridiculous. This ain’t a Frankenstein movie.

I will admit that many of the companies who back IACC sell consumer items at obscene profit margins. But you know, those who pays $500 for a handbag or $20,000 for a watch deserve what they get. That’s another post for another day.

I want to go back to your point about what’s wrong with PR education. It reminds me of a post that’s been sitting in my queue for about 6 months. Here is my working title: “Let’s raise the bar for PR education, and let’s raise it really, really, really, really, really, really high.” If we want PR to be seen as more than the “soft side of business” (something that emerges in the gender research too often) we must significantly reduce the number of PR graduates we produce by significantly increasing the rigor of our programs.

I’ll work on that post as soon as I survive the 3-week crash course I’m teaching. One more week. Just one more week.