It may be ethical, but is it right?

As many are aware, recently there was a major drug bust at TCU. It is unfortunate that students and members of the TCU football team were caught up in illegal activities of selling drugs. The undercover operation lasted 6 months and warrants were issued for the arrest of at least 15 TCU students on the morning of Feburary 15, 2012.

Although it cannot be argued that what these students have been accused of is absolutely illegal, there has been much criticism as to how the arrests were handled. Instead of informing the students that a warrant had been issued for their arrest, they were arrested in the early hours of the morning in their homes. This is often the case when there is risk of the suspects running. However, I do not believe that was the case here. Each of these students would have most likely turned themselves in. Was it necessary to have such an abrupt arrest full of media attention?

Now, the media. It is the media's job to find newsworthy information and share it with the public. The arrest warrants are all public information, as is the fact that these people were arrested. In addition to full-time coverage on television and the Internet, the students pictures were flashed all over the media, including the TCU Skiff.

The law of the United States says you are innocent until proven guilty. These students have not been convicted of any crime. They are suspects, yes. Is it necessary to post their pictures all over the place, including a full page in the Skiff? These students are not a critical harm to the University at this time. Some say this was public humiliation of students for a crime that they have not even been convicted of.

However, the opposite can also be said. These students put themselves, their friends, and most importantly TCU at risk. Their behavior reflects poorly on the school and the poor choices of a very small percentage of the school affects all the students. They made a choice, broke the law, and now must face the consequences.

In a situation like this, it is difficult to determine what is ethical. What is morally right to publish. The public has a right to know, but when is the personal information of these students being revealed constantly cross the line?

Public Relations and Technology

While reading Hamlet's Blackberry, it gave me an opportunity to really think about how technology has impacted and completely changed our world. We go so little without interacting with a screen. I am typing this on a screen right now...it's interesting to think about what you do in a day. How much of that could still be accomplished without technology? No doubt it would be much less convenient, but how would eliminating many of the new technological devices we have come dependent on really change us?

While thinking about this, I have related it to my field of choice, public relations. PR is a fast-paced industry, full of constant communication. A major component of public relations is transparency. The PR industry has put much emphasis on the importance of being open and transparent in order to be ethical PR practitioners today.

How has technology influenced what transparency means today? To be "transparent" is synonymous with open and constant communication. Does this mean having a phone with you at all times, being 100% available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? When does this idea of constant communication and openness become just too much? Do we even know what too much is?

We have been conditioned to live in a world of constantly evolving technology. What is newer and faster is always better. When the idea of public relations first developed, much of the integral technology we now use was not even an idea. Having a smart phone or tablet that could allow you to check email, or even email for that matter, was not even considered.

It is important to step back and think what is good and bad about technology today. It is absolutely convenient, but is it the best thing for us? We need time to find our happiness, our "quiet" in the fast paced world of today. However, some may say our world doesn't allow us to "unplug" from all the technology and get away. It is important in all of our professional careers to find the balance of happiness and success in a world full of technology.

Veil of Ignorance

Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” can be compared to many things happening in our government. For example, the controversy surrounding Obama and tax plans. There are many sides and opinions regarding tax cuts in America. Depending on where you fall socioeconomically, you may feel differently on what is “fair.” John Rawl’s believes that fairness is “the fundamental idea on the concept of justice.” So in order to have justice, everything must be fair. Is it fair that because you make more money, you must pay more? Is it fair that you pay the same amount as someone making more money as you?

The reason this is such a controversial topic is because what is “fair” varies among different people. It is almost impossible to have an entire country agree upon what is fair. That is why we are in the situation we are in at this moment. That is why Rawls explains the “veil of ignorance.” In this, he explains that everyone should step back “behind a barrier where roles and social differences are eliminated.” That way, we are free from the differences of race, class, gender, etc. and we can truly make an unbiased opinion.

However, is this truly possible? I do not think we are able to fully make ourselves unbiased from everything that makes us different. These differences are what make us who we are. That is why we have different political parties, and why not everyone in an entire country can truly be happy with one tax plan, or health care, or whatever the issue may be.