Rocks, boulders and a few velvet-covered pebbles have been hurled on both sides of the James O’Keefe vs. NPR debacle earlier this month. In case you’ve been living under one (a rock, that is), O’Keefe, a self-described journalist, hired two actors to pose as donors with $5 million in order to lure NPR executives to meet with them. In exchange for an expensive free lunch, O’Keefe’s team fed NPR’s then-VP for Fundraising Ron Schiller and a colleague false information in order to entice them to reveal NPR’s ‘secret left-leaning agenda’ to a hidden videotape. Schiller and his boss were subsequently fired in the recorded tape’s aftermath.
I have listened to a lot of the invective that has been thrown by people who are sure that in the same situation they would have acted better. I don’t know that they truly know how they would react in that cushy restaurant chair.
What I do know is that I’ve got terrible aim when it comes to throwing stones. Also, I live in a glass house.
I get nervous or angry sometimes and say things I don’t mean. Sometimes things come out entirely differently from how I meant them. I have been known, when pressured, to agree with (or smile woodenly at) people who are in positions of power over me who I may not actually agree with.
- In order to appease them.
- In order to shut them up.
- In order to move the conversation along to (please, God) any other topic.
- In order to represent my organization appropriately, even if it’s not my personal belief.
- In order to avoid an unnecessary fight.
This I have done.
There are lies to appease and there are lies to deceive.
Between white lies and damned lies it seems to me that there’s a line. In order to maintain a civilized society, some small amount of lying keeps us from killing each other. No, honey, those pants don’t make you look fat. Or from disappointing each other. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Or from dinnertime inconvenience. She’s not here right now, may I take a message?
In prospect research, our code of ethics is crystal clear about lying. According to the Association of Professional Researchers for Advancement (APRA)’s Statement of Ethics:
“Members shall be truthful with respect to their identities and purpose and the identity of their institutions during the course of their work.”
It’s more than just maintaining professional integrity, although that’s a pretty decent benefit. The purpose is to protect our organizations’ reputations and help build strong and transparent relationships with donors. Besides, we don’t need to misrepresent. If we have to lie to get a piece of information, it’s probably not the kind of information we should hold in our files anyway. Does it help build a stronger relationship between our organization and the donor? If not, forget it.
But what if we’re pressured from our higher-ups to get the information anyway? What then? I have been in that situation. Between a rock and a hard place.
Professional ethics are important to front-line fundraisers, too. According to the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) Ethical Principles, members are required to:
“…practice their profession with integrity, honesty, truthfulness and adherence to the absolute obligation to safeguard the public trust.”
But unlike prospect researchers, where the tools of our trade – the facts we seek – come from public sources, the tools of the fundraiser’s trade are relationships. Built from the narratives they tell each other about their lives.
I find it hard to believe that in building those relationships people don’t tell white lies to each other sometimes.
- In order to appease them.
- In order to shut them up.
- In order to move the conversation along to (please, God) any other topic.
- In order to represent their organization appropriately even though it’s not their personal belief.
- In order to avoid an unnecessary fight.
That must be a hard line to walk, especially since AFP put both honesty and truthfulness in that one sentence as if to underscore that it’s a big deal.
The profession of journalism also has its code of ethics (a mighty long one, too, I might add). The code put forth by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) states up front:
“Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”
There’s that word again – honest. Later the code says do not misrepresent. Again, a concept voiced twice.
Where is the line in the sand?
Ethics statements are the rules we craft to give ourselves a moral framework to work within. They are the aspirations we keep in our hearts knowing that we are all human, ergo we err.
It’s a fine line. Lies to appease over here and lies to deceive over there. And ethics statements forming the immovable, unshifting framework that provides no wiggle room.
I hope the rock-throwing is through. It has stalled at least two careers and I wonder if it will ruin others. As a co-worker and consultant, I have worked with Ron Schiller off and on for over 10 years. He’s a gentleman and a truly gifted fundraising professional. I’ve never had cause to question his integrity. But as a human being, I’m guessing he errs. The way we all do sometimes.
Me, I’m keeping my stones well behind me.
