PR expert Stuart Ewen on "Heidi Cee"

I contacted Stuart Ewen, a Hunter College professor who objected to the "Heidi Cee" incident on his campus, with some questions about his objections and the incident in general.

First, some biographical information about him, and then the Q&A, unedited by me.

My appreciation to Professor Ewen for his comprehensive answers. I have asked Coach's rep a number of questions as well, and will do this with their answers if they give me permission.

Stuart Ewen is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Film & Media Studies at Hunter College, and in the Ph.D. Programs in History, Sociology and American Studies at The CUNY Graduate Center (City University of New York). He is generally considered one of the originators of the field of Media Studies, and his writings have continued to shape debates in the field.

He is the author of a number of influential books, including PR! A Social History of Spin (1996) and All Consuming images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture (1987; 1999). The latter provided the foundation for Bill Moyers' 4-part, Peabody, Emmy, and National Education Association Awards winning PBS series, "The Public Mind." PR! was a finalist for The Financial Times Global Business Book Award in 1997, and provided the basis for a 4-part BBC Television Series, "The Century of the Self."

Ewen's other books include Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture (1976) and Channels of Desire: Mass /images and the Shaping of American Consciousness (also with Elizabeth Ewen. 1982; 1992). In the spring of 2001, Basic Books published a twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Captains of Consciousness. His writings appear in French, Italian, Spanish, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Russian, Swedish, Korean and Japanese translation. He has recently launched and serves as editor of two online publications: Rejected Letters to the Editor and Stereotype and Society.

His most recent book is Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality, co-authored with Elizabeth Ewen (2006). Through a series of illustrative, historically situated vignettes, Typecasting presents an incremental interpretation of modern stereotyping through the interwoven fabrics of art, science, religion and popular culture.

1. How did you hear about this initiative?

I heard about it when, at the end of the spring 2007 semester, the chair of the department of film and media studies thanked the instructor of the course at a faculty meeting. I was not at the
meeting, but colleagues relayed the information to me. No one there seemed to have been aware of the course, other than the chair and the instructor, who had--according to him--protested the assignment to teach the course but was scheduled by the department chair to teach it nonetheless. As an untenured faculty member, and therefore vulnerable, he felt pressured to teach the course, even though he had no prior background in public relations or marketing. Since the request to have the course offered by the department came directly from the college president's office, that seems to have added to his feelings of having been pressured.

2. What were or are your concerns?

The offering of a course with curricular goals determined, beforehand, by a corporate trade organization is a violation of standards of academic freedom, which, since the issuing of the AAUP's 1915 founding document, maintain that outside political and/or economic pressures must not be brought to bear on shaping the curriculum and teaching in a college or university which--by definition--functions in the "public interest." In universities, the setting of curriculum is a right of professional scholars educated in a field in which they teach. The president of Hunter College had no professional background in higher education until she was appointed by the CUNY Board of Trustees in 2001 against the recommendation of the Chancellor. She does hold a law degree, and practiced as an Associate in a law firm before becoming a political functionary in the Giuliani administration. She holds no professional academic degree, however, and her request that the course be offered by the department was not guided by scholarly wisdom but, rather, by the desire to promote a donation from the CEO of the Coach corporation.

Added to this is the close outside monitoring of the course that took place throughout the duration of the course. Monitors included people from the president's office, the department chair, a lawyer from Coach (who also attended the class at times) and from Melina Metzger, who is in charge of running the IACC "College Outreach Campaign." This monitoring, which included status reports that are mandated in the Professor's "Kit" provided to the instructor, is also at odds with academic freedom standards and represented a continual influence on the course by outside pressures. Whatever pressures were exerted on the person chosen to teach the course, despite his protests to the department chair, are also at odds with the way colleges and universities are supposed to function.

3. Which PR firm did you speak to about this?

Melina Metzger (above), who directs the "College Outreach Program," works for Paul Werth Associates, a Columbus, OH-based PR firm that, from what I've gathered, was hired by IACC to design and implement the program.

4. You're more expert in the field of PR and public influence than I certainly am, having written several books about the field. Were you particularly surprised by the fact that a university -- your university -- would become a willing participant in what appears to be an "astroturf" campaign?

I was shocked. I should add that this course was offered for credit towards the major, despite the fact that it was never brought before the curriculum committee or the faculty of the department. Most faculty members were unaware of its existence and its genealogy until May 2007, when the chair let it slip at a meeting. Having taught at the college, in this department, for nearly 30 years, and having chaired the department for three terms over a period of 15 years (with a break in between terms) I know that the offering of courses, even special topics courses, should be brought before the department, especially if the course is to be counted toward the major.

The offering of corporate designed curriculum in the guise of faculty sanctioned content and subject matter, represents a new and dangerous threat to the integrity of universities. If a faculty member chooses to use such material, that is her or his prerogative, but the design
of a course by a PR firm working for a lobbying organization is an outrage, particularly as--in case--it came down from above. Curriculum is supposed to move the other way. Faculty develop courses and they are approved of by faculty committees.

5. Do you think this sort of campaign ends up hurting the cause (being against counterfeiting, in this case) it is purporting to advance?

Yes. In this case, the manufacture of a carefully calculated deception--which included counterfeit events that were reported by a counterfeit student--in order to promote anti-counterfeiting campaign sheds a very bad light on the idea that knock-offs represent a social threat. It is problematic that the Coach CEO sponsored this course, but even more problematic that the college president and department chair didn't protect the integrity of the institution they serve.

6. What do you think the effects of this exercise will be on the students who participated, and on the students (and others) who were exposed to the work of the fictional Miss Cee?

Participating students seem to have enjoyed the process of developing a "stealth" campaign aimed at an unaware student body. Being in on secrets can be fun, and the students are not the problem. The problem is that the course was offered and, as a deceptive campaign was being
developed, no one in charge stepped in to say that this was not the way to go, that ethical practices are important. A university should not be shilling for a corporation, or promoting the development of public deceptions. We have too many other agencies in our society that participate in such activities.

In terms of students exposed to the fictional plight of Heidi Cee, I can only speak anecdotally. From what I've heard, particularly since I made a public presentation of the events last Friday, students are outraged. I was a visiting scholar lecturer yesterday at a university outside of New York, and--in the process of a seminar on consumer culture--mentioned the events that transpired at Hunter. Students there said that nothing like this would ever happen at their
university and, while critical of Coach, were particularly shocked that those entrusted with the job of protecting the integrity of an institution of higher learning from outside interference. I've heard no students at Hunter, or elsewhere, defend what happened on an academic level. Perhaps some have, but I haven't heard it either firsthand or from others since news of the course has begun to emerge in public.

7. Do you think universities in general should have formal codes that would ban or prohibit this sort of exercise from taking place on campus?

They do have formal codes. They weren't followed. I should add that at a department faculty meeting that took place last October, there was an extended discussion of the "Coach Course." Aside from the chair, the faculty present thought that the offering of the course
was, at the very least, a mistake. When asked about the genealogy of the course being offered, the department chair refused to comment, even in the face of his colleagues

8. Does the social media aspect of this (the use of blogs, videos, etc) add new wrinkles or increase the potential for negative outcomes?

All media have the potential for abuse and/or enlightenment. They can promote and/or be used to quash public discussion. The internet adds new capabilities, and was used to facilitate a lie in defense of the luxury goods industry's trademarks. The real issue is one of responsible communications, whatever medium is employed. Here, responsibility was sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Insofar as universities participate in media, public relations and business
education, ethical practices must be front and central.