5th week-- Dimensions used in decision-making

JUSTICE: Law is not really involved; In this case, powerful vs. powerless--the powerful would be Apple and the powerless would be the people.

HUMANNESS: I believe there was a disregard of humanness. Jobs did not sympathize with the upset customers but instead claimed that "this is the life in the technology lane." There was no concern for people but instead for numbers.

TRUTH: I believe this is most important yet there was half truth involved in this case. The partial truth lies where Apple and Jobs said they wanted to increase their number of new customers and commoditize the iphone. The deceit is expressed where Jobs believes early adapters have high expectations and do care about their customers therefore a rebate should make up for Apple defaming their integrity in the eyes of their early adapter customers.

STEWARDSHIP: Similar to Cowboys case study because loss of profit was top priority for Jobs and Apple as a whole. To be on the top and have the leading product was of utmost importance therefore they jeopardized their relationship with their early adapters to recruit more/new customers.

FREEDOM: Also similar to Cowboys--freedom to pursue profit (Apple) vs. integrity to customers. A balance is needed.

4th week of PR Ethics, Law & Diversity

After reading the Dallas Cowboys case study there were many things I was very shocked about. First, I honestly feel that celebrities (including athletes and 'royalty' like Paris Hilton) have gotten away with practically murder. Their punishments are no where near where they should be and that is exactly what happened to Michael Irvin when he was involved in a so-called "scuffle" with another player, Everett McIver, and resulted in a serious cut on his neck. What blows my mind is how the coach lied initially about the size of the cut and later it was revealed that it was about 6 inches long. Nobody, except the Cowboys, will ever know what really happened but their PR people did one heck of a job keeping everyones' mouth shut. Their were absolutely no leaks and the media could not understand, "Why now?" As much as it appeared to be a failure for the media, the Cowboys succeeded.

3rd week of PR Ethics, Law & Diversity

In Appiah's book, "Cosmopolitanism," a 'saving truth' is discussed. The example in the book given referred to female genital cutting. This is Appiah's way of showing those that are not familiar or even welcome the idea of genital cutting for females that we must get used to the ideas of others. A 'saving truth' cannot be changed/altered. It cannot be compromised. A 'saving truth' can be used within one's PR values/ethics. Two main examples would be plagiarism and honesty. There are no 'if, and, or but' on those examples of 'saving truth.'

2nd week of PR Ethics, Law & Diversity

So I started the textbook Cosmopolitanism and I do believe that Appiah believes in a sense of Communitarianism and that everybody does matter. According to the introduction of Cosmopolitanism there are two factors to the definition of Cosmopolitanism.
First, "we have obligations to others...beyond those to whom we are related to of kith and kind or even formal ties of a shared citizenship."
Second, "we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives." (Basically the idea that all people are different and we can learn alot from each other.)
As far as the people within corporate America's supply chains, the supply chains consists of groups of people and as I said earlier, everybody matters. In the book, on page 6, Appiah talks about how no "country can produce everything it needs: whatever it has, it is bound to lack something."
Hence, I believe Appiah indirectly is referring to coporate America's supply chains, and we must rely on learning and understanding each other through communication/conversation.

1st week of PR Ethics, Law & Diversity

It was interesting how the first day we compared/contrast charecterisitics about ourselves with somebody else in class. Amanda McFerren was my partner and we clicked instantly! After the class exercise, when we began to discuss what we discovered about each other, I then realized we talked the whole time without addressing the fact that I am clearly Indian and she is not. It's funny how in this day and age (for the most part) we can look past skin color/ethnicity and find other differences in ourselves. For example, Amanda and I spoke of how she is aggressive and I'd like to think that I am not. She is also more conservative (mostly issue-based) while I am a hardcore democratic. I guess we can say the first day of this course opened my eyes up a little bit more than I was expecting to...