Editorial Record: Submitted June 9, 2023. Revised September 23, and November 19, 2023. Accepted November 21, 2023. Published March 2024.

Author

ABSTRACT

An ethics assignment is shared involving a cultural crisis. Any moral dilemma involving a cultural crisis could be used in this assignment, or the Arla Foods cartoon crisis could be adopted, which is the model case used in this assignment description. Arla Foods confronted a crisis when it was boycotted based on its Danish identity. This case involves a heated clash in values, it pulls an apolitical company into a high-stakes political battle, it involves managing the complexities of ethics in a global context, and it has themes of cancel culture in the form of boycotts. These themes are relevant to today’s ethical landscape. In addition, the case broadens traditional examinations of diversity and inclusion by delving into the religious diversity of both internal and external key stakeholders, and the case requires students to understand cultural differences. Students engage in environmental scanning by navigating academic, corporate, and news sources; thinking critically; creating solutions; and analyzing them, providing the opportunity to reinforce foundational knowledge about moral decision making (e.g., Martin & Wright, 2016) and crisis management (e.g., Coombs, 2007) from previous lessons or courses while advancing to higher levels of Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy. Leadership and teamwork skills are developed through a lecture about Tuckman’s (1965) group stages and how to navigate them, including ways to confront poor team behavior in this team project.

On September 30, 2005, a controversial newspaper in Denmark published cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammed, which were depicted by a UAE cabinet minister as “cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression” (Fattah, 2006, para. 20). The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League sent a joint letter to the Danish Prime Minister, who turned down the invitation to meet and backed the newspaper’s freedom of speech, reflecting Danish sentiment. About four months later, a newspaper in Norway reprinted the cartoons. A little more than two weeks later, Arla Foods issued an apology through ads in 30 Middle Eastern newspapers, which activated Danish feminist NGOs, politicians, and other influencers, who criticized the response as supportive of a religion that represses women (Holmström et al., 2010). Middle Eastern consumers started boycotting Danish companies, including Arla Foods, because the Danish government would not accept responsibility or punish the newspaper (Gaither & Curtin, 2008). Within five days of the boycott, the company’s $1.8 million in daily sales from the Middle East plummeted to nearly nothing (Gaither & Curtin, 2008).

GIFT Overview

In teams, students collectively take on the role of vice president of public relations for Arla Foods on the day the cartoons were first printed. They are instructed to gather information about the case as a practice of environmental scanning. Although their information gathering is different (i.e., they would not read a case study about their current situation in an academic journal), they still gain the experience of learning about an event through the navigation of required sources and summarizing the issue concisely at the start of their moral analysis document. They benefit from knowing what actually happened in the case and are in the pilot’s seat to argue for the best morally justifiable solution for how the company should have responded, starting on the day of the initial cartoon publication. In groups, they perform an analysis based on a framework for moral decision making. The textbook by Martin and Wright (2016) was used for teaching the model; however, the model can be found in other ethics textbooks, such as Bivins (2009). Instructors using alternative models for moral decision making can still use the assignment. They would need to start the assignment by having students begin their document by concisely summarizing the issue in about five sentences for the CEO, developing a list of relevant facts, generating a list of key stakeholders, and proposing their best set of three potential moral solutions. Then, any moral decision-making model already used in class could be applied. A common learning moment for student teams is falling into the trap of figuring out what the company can get away with rather than what the company has a moral duty to do. Once students have developed their three moral solutions, instructor feedback is shared and moral solutions can be revised before proceeding to the final step, which involves choosing one of the solutions and justifying it for the CEO in about two paragraphs.

Rationale

Ethics, Diversity and Inclusion, and a Cultural Perspective

The Commission on Public Relations Education is “the authoritative voice on behalf of public relations education, with a board representing 18 organizations and groups, and between 50 and 60 board members on an annual basis” (CPRE, 2018, p. 9). According to the Commission on Public Relations Education’s Fast Forward report, there is a large gap between how PR professionals rate the amount of ethics knowledge entry-level practitioners should have (the importance of which was rated as an average of 4.57 on a 5-point scale) and the amount of ethics knowledge found among entry-level practitioners (rated as an average of 3.34 on a 5-point scale; CPRE, 2018). Although a public relations ethics course was endorsed by CPRE in its 2006 report, The Professional Bond, the need for stronger ethics training has persisted as an issue, leading the CPRE (2018) to list it as its first recommendation in a report of major recommendations, noting that it is “more essential than ever” (p. 20). CPRE’s (2023) recent report indicates that professionals viewed ethics as “an essential competency” despite finding that young professionals lack ethical skills in their first five years.

The assignment also delves into what CPRE (2018) described as “knowledge areas that entry-level practitioners should have”: diversity and inclusion, in addition to a cultural perspective (p. 55). CPRE’s position was informed by practitioners’ prioritization of the areas as the most desired, in addition to a cultural perspective, social issues, and business acumen. The presence of a multicultural perspective among entry-level practitioners was rated as an average of 2.82 on a 5-point scale). This case can help students develop their knowledge of these areas, as religious diversity is seldom explored in the public relations classroom, and students have commonly grown up in a freedom of speech culture in which no religion is so sacred that it is spared from public ridicule. In fact, students typically make the initial mistake of summarizing the event as an issue of racism, seemingly lacking the lexicon to distinguish racism from religious hatred and failing to find words (such as blasphemy) to depict an event that is deeply offensive to members of a religion. Students learn from instructor feedback about how to write about religious offense as they revise their work prior to the recommendation stage of the project.

There are several advantages of using the Arla Foods case with the recommended materials mentioned earlier. The case is a moral dilemma involving conflicting duties to oppositional stakeholders. Students should be reminded that they have a major duty to the organization, but they must also consider their duties to others. As Martin and Wright (2016) noted, “In the ethics classes and workshops we have taught, we have noticed a tendency for public relations people to address ethical issues in terms of “what works?” rather than “what’s right?” That is sometimes because it is often more difficult to figure out what ethics requires than what good public relations practice demands (p. 219).

The case is also strong because of the variety of solutions, some of which could involve collaborating with other groups, ranging from the Confederation of Danish Industries to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which students learn about when completing their reading assignments. The availability of high quality teaching materials (mentioned in the Teaching Note in this manuscript) provides deep opportunities for cultural learning. The case is also ideal because it involves pressure on a decidedly apolitical company that must do something politically to address its moral duties. The case involves managing the complexities of ethics in a global context, and it has themes of cancel culture in the form of boycotts. Students must understand the religious offense from a Muslim standpoint, explain why Middle Eastern countries expect the government to have unilateral control over the media, and use the characteristics of Middle Eastern culture to understand why collective behavior such as boycotts are expected to have high participation rates.

Although the company’s crisis began in 2005, the context continues to be relevant to contemporary events. For example, in 2023, an adjunct art professor was sued and fired for sharing artwork of the Prophet Muhammad in a global art course following a Muslim student’s complaint (Patel, 2023). The tweet promoting this story received over a million views on Twitter (New York Times, 2023). Notably, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (i.e., described by the Associated Press as the largest Muslim advocacy organization in the United States) took the position that analyzing images of Prophet Muhammad for academic purposes was not Islamophobic, unlike efforts to produce images for the purpose of offending Muslims (Hollingsworth, 2023; Lawson-Tancred, 2023).

Another example is the controversy the Asia Society faced when blurring images of the Prophet Muhammad in the museum’s online showcase––the museum called the blurring a mistake and explained that the physical museum tour includes Prophet Muhammad images with warnings to avoid the area if the content is found offensive. Discussing contemporary cases in the context of the Arla Foods case helps students recognize the importance of the intent behind the action, which aligns with Kantian theory (e.g., Bivins, 2009; Martin & Wright, 2016).

To complete the assignment, students must think critically, create solutions, and analyze them, which provides the opportunity to reinforce foundational knowledge about moral decision making (Martin & Wright, 2016) and crisis management (e.g., Coombs, 2007) from previous lessons or courses while advancing to the application level of Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy. Leadership and teamwork skills are also developed through a lecture about Tuckman’s (1965) group stages and how to navigate them, including ways to confront poor team behavior.

Assignment Learning Objectives

The assignment has the following learning objectives:

• Succinctly summarize a complex moral issue for a CEO based on environmental scanning that is compelling enough to be deemed a priority by the CEO
• Identify key stakeholders to consider in an ethical dilemma
• Present three strong solutions to a moral dilemma
• Perform a moral analysis of potential solutions to a moral dilemma
• Justify a chosen solution based on moral arguments

Connection to Public Relations Theory

This class project is an ideal way for students to apply approaches to moral decision making they have learned throughout the semester. Students can apply concepts such as Ross’ moral duties, Kantian theory, utilitarianism, and care ethics. These topics are generally covered in PR ethics textbooks, such as Bivins (2009) and Martin and Wright (2016). Students can even focus on virtue ethics by thinking about the best solution for developing the company’s moral character (see Martin & Wright, 2016). When understanding the Danish government’s initial lack of a response, instructors can guide students through Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) linkages model––summarized in an open access publication by Rawlins (2006)––placing the Danish government in the center of the figure. This figure can also be used to help students understand why targeting Danish companies is a compelling option for applying pressure to the Danish government. In addition, instructors can discuss the case in light of Rawlin’s summary of how to prioritize publics based on linkages type (i.e., enabling, functional, normative, or diffused), situational theory classification (e.g., active, aware, or latent), and additional considerations (e.g., power, legitimacy and urgency). Moral duties fall into the third category (additional considerations). Furthermore, students review and apply primary and secondary crisis response strategies in their proposed solutions (e.g., Coombs, 2007). The case allows students to determine how to apply theory to understand and navigate their moral analyses. In addition, Tuckman’s (1965) group stages can be presented with strategies for navigating each stage.

How the Assignment was Class-Tested

This project was adopted in one graduate Public Relations Theory course and in three undergraduate Public Relations Ethics classes. One of the classes included a student who participated in the Arla Foods boycott, and this student served as an additional resource for the class. The revision opportunities for each part of the assignment were essential to most students’ ability to achieve the learning outcomes. The heart of the assignment is the moral analysis of three options for resolving the issue. Students’ rough draft scores typically increased with each subsequent option they assessed, likely due to the benefit of instructor feedback.

The team member evaluations that were due with each rough draft were helpful for discouraging freeloading. Students evaluated themselves and their teammates based on communication skills, reliability, and contribution to the assignment due (considering that rotational team leaders carried expectations for performing greater work than the rest of the team). Students assessed performance on a 5-point scale for each criterion and were required to add comments for themselves and for any student rating below a 3 (i.e., a “meeting expectations” score). Each assignment in the project was set up to be graded individually rather than as a team in Canvas to enable the ability to lower students’ scores for contributing less to the team. If a student did not contribute at all, a zero was given on the assignment. If a student contributed far less than the rest of the team, points were deducted and an email was sent to check in with the student and explain the need for better communication with the team and more substantive contributions to each assignment. Students were required to respond to each other’s communication within 24 hours and had the option to make this window shorter, provided that the team unanimously agreed. These guard rails were effective in correcting poor team behavior. Throughout the team assessment assignments, feedback was shared about the stage their team might be in from Tuckman’s group stages (1965).

Evidence of Learning Outcomes

Each semester, students were invited to reflect upon the assignment. Students appreciated the opportunity to apply an ethical analysis to a complex case and to engage in collective problem solving when deliberating about a difficult ethical case. They also appreciated the experience of guiding a company that is entangled in a culture war and discovering how the assignments within the project were helpful to understanding how to address the conflict. Other students also emphasized problem-solving and expressed appreciation for the diversity and inclusion context of the cast. In addition, students expressed a deeper appreciation for the importance of environmental scanning and audience analyses. Students took the initiative to talk about the case in class discussions of theoretical material.

Template Assignment Guide

The instructions for teaching the assignment in an asynchronous course, a semester-length timeline, and the grading rubrics are presented below in their original format.

Project Instructions

For our class project, you will apply the framework for ethical reasoning, described by Martin and Wright (2016) in chapter 13, to the Arla Foods case. As with all assignments in class, the use of ChatGPT on this assignment would be a form of academic dishonesty other than an area where I state that it is allowed to understand scholarly concepts from cultural studies. I want your thinking to entirely be your own to maximize your learning.

Here are the steps to follow for the assignment.

1. Choose your team in the People tab by the end of the day on Thursday, Aug. 24, or I will assign you to a team after that date.

• Communicate with the team and figure out who is taking on which role.

2. Learn about the Arla Foods case and the moment in time I’ve chosen for your assignment.

• You are the vice president of public relations for Arla Foods. Every part of this assignment should be written as if you are in this position, and your audience is the CEO of the company (i.e., write to me as the CEO, not as your professor). On Sept. 30, 2005, a controversial newspaper in Denmark published cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammed, which are highly offensive to the Islamic community. As a Danish company with substantial profit from the Middle East, you are concerned about a backlash against Arla Foods just on the basis that it is from the same country as the controversial newspaper.

Sept. 30, 2005, is the day on which we are entering the case.

This means that no one has started boycotting yet because the newspaper cartoons were just published. You are developing the framework to make a recommendation to the CEO about what Arla Foods should do. I will act in the role of the CEO. Although we are completing this project over the course of the semester, in the real world, you would identify the potential damage from this incident (always preparing for the worst as a PR practitioner) and complete the framework within the day.

I chose this historic case because it involves a heated clash in values, it pulls an apolitical company into a high-stakes political and social battle, it involves managing the complexities of ethics in a global context, and it has themes of cancel culture in the form of boycotts. These are all important characteristics in today’s ethical landscape.

This project involves navigating high-quality research. Each of the sources below has unique information, in addition to overlapping information. Each team member is responsible for reading each of the sources below, regardless of the section you are leading. Learn important details about the context and discover what Arla actually did and the consequences of its actions. Seeing what happened will help you when you develop your best- and worst-case scenarios later in the process.

Arla Foods. (2006a). Our annual report. https://www.arla.com/49f589/globalassets/arla-global/company— overview/investor/pdf/annual-report/eng/annual-report_eng_2006. pdf

Note: Focus on the following sections:

• Revenue in percent by market on the page after the cover page
• The chairman’s report (by the way, this is typically drafted by an investor relations executive)
• The first page of the executive director’s report on page four

Arla Foods. (2006b). Arla affected by cartoons of Muhammad. [Press release.] https://www.arla.com/company/news-and-press/2006/pressrelease/ arla-affected-by-cartoons-of-muhammed-760044/

Cartoon row: Danish embassy ablaze in Syria. CNN. https://newswatch.in/news/2006/02/04/cartoon-row-danish- embassy-ablaze-in-syria

Eriksen, L. (2010, February 26). Danish newspaper apologises in Muhammad cartoons row. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/26/danish-cartoons- muhammad-politiken-apology#:~:text=Politiken%20is%20 courageous%20in%20apologising,to%20promote%20freedom%20 of%20expression

Gaither, T. Kenn, & Curtin, P. A. (2008). Examining the heuristic value of models of international public relations practice: A case study of the Arla Foods crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260701727051

Holmström, S., Falkheimer, J., & Nielsen, A. G. (2010). Legitimacy and strategic communication in globalization: The cartoon crisis and other legitimacy conflicts. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180903415780

Human Rights Watch. (2006, February 15). Questions and answers on the Danish cartoons and freedom of expression. https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/02/15/questions-and-answers- danish-cartoons-and-freedom-expression/when-speech-offends

Inskeep, S. & Martin, R. (2006, February 7). Denmark tries to ease Muslim anger over cartoons. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2006/02/07/5193566/denmark-tries-to-ease- muslim-anger-over-cartoons

Martin, R. (2006, February 7). Denmark battles Muslim backlash over cartoons. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2006/02/07/5194724/denmark-battles-muslim- backlash-over-cartoons

Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_ Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Watson, I. (2006, February 7). Anti-cartoon protests turn deadly in Afghanistan. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2006/02/07/5194721/anti-cartoon-protests- turn-deadly-in-afghanistan

Watt, N. (2006, January 31). Danish paper sorry for Muhammad cartoons. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/jan/31/religion. saudiarabia

In addition, you can see where this case fits into a more extended history in this area of controversy through the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvYvVFEF_0

Use the Martin and Wright (2016) book as one of your resources. Our textbook authors present the framework we are using and write out an example for us. I’ll want you to use full sentences (unlike they did), skip a line of space between bulleted information and paragraphs, and go a little deeper than they did, but it is still a useful example.

3. Dive into the assignment.

Ready to get started? Follow the steps below.

• Watch my assignment template walk-through. You might want to open the assignment template below first.
• Head over to the assignment template, go to File in the Google Docs menu and select “Make a copy.”
• Go to the Share button in the upper right corner and give anyone access to the document who has the link. Make sure to give “editor” access from the drop-down menu. This is technically listed under Team Member One’s duties, but anyone can do it.
• Download the free version of Grammarly for your internet browser and use it to help you proof as you write.
• Coordinate roles, meeting times, and a timeline for completion with your team.

I have organized the project into roles, so each team member will have a turn leading at least one assignment. This leader will be responsible for coordinating team meetings for the assignment they are leading, in addition to taking a leadership role in developing the content and writing. Also, this person will coordinate a timeline for completion to enable all team members to have 24 hours to edit the document before it is due.

Finally, the team member is responsible for revising the work based on my feedback and sharing it with the team for final approval.

There will be a team member assessment due with each original (non-revision) assignment, which will factor into the individual grades I assign. You will report how you contributed to the portion of the group project that is due and you will share feedback about your team members. Although feedback is not required on the revisions because this work should be performed by the team leader with final approval from team members, if there are contribution issues that arise, please share them in the comments section of the assignment or email me.

Below is a list of assignment responsibilities for each team member role, which you will determine in your groups. Additional instructions for each part of the assignment appear in the template after this section.

Team Member One: Fill in your name here.

• You are responsible for starting the Google Doc for your team to use for their individual assignments and for the team assignment at the end of the document. You will share editing access with your classmates and me (see the “share” button in the upper right corner and ensure that you are selecting editing access for me rather than the default option).
• You will lead the “issue” section, which is one paragraph. See page 209 in our Martin and Wright (2016) textbook for an example of this paragraph.
• You will co-lead the “relevant facts” section with Team Member Two by incorporating relevant facts from the Gaither & Curtin (2008) article and the Arla Foods (2006a) annual report (see the assignment description on Canvas for these two documents). Remember to use in-text citations. Work with Team Member Two to organize the information in decreasing order of importance, ending with historical facts. Also, ensure that the facts you include do not overlap. See pages 209-210 in our Martin and Wright (2016) textbook for an example of this section.
• You will co-lead the decision and justification section with Team Member Two since both of your roles do not otherwise involve applying a moral analysis.

Team Member Two: Fill in your name here.

• You will co-lead the “relevant facts” section with Team Member One by incorporating relevant facts from the Holmstrom et al. (2010) article and the Arla Foods (2006b) news release (see the assignment description on Canvas for these two documents). Remember to use in-text citations. Work with Team Member One to organize the information in decreasing order of importance, ending with historical facts. Also, ensure that the facts you include do not overlap. See pages 209-210 in our Martin and Wright (2016) textbook for an example of this section.
• You will lead the “relevant stakeholders” section.
• You will co-lead the decision and justification section with Team Member One.
• You will lead the “team reflection” section, which is due with the decision and justification sections (co-led with Team Member One).

Team Member Three: Fill in your name here.

• Lead your team in proposing a strong option for Arla Foods to take, list the best-case and worst-case scenarios for the option, and evaluate the option (see pages 211-215 in the Martin and Wright textbook). If your team would like feedback on the collection of three options chosen by your team (since they will need to be strong options as a part of your grade), list the proposed actions (for all three options) and email me with a link to your document. I would be happy to sign off on them if you get them to me at least 24 hours before the deadline.

Team Member Four: Fill in your name here.

• Do the same thing as Team Member Three; however, your option needs to be different from the other options.

Team Member Five: Fill in your name here.

• Do the same thing as Team Member Three; however, your option needs to be different from the other options.

Sample Project Timeline

Assigned work in the schedule below is based on when it is due rather than when it is assigned. Teamwork evaluation forms are not reflected in the schedule below to save space; however, they are due on the class day that follows each rough draft deadline.

Week One, Thursday

• Thursday: Instructor: Present a lecture about the case study project. Walk through the assignment description (recorded or in person).
• Thursday: Students: Choose a five-person team for the class project, or the instructor will assign you to a team by next week if you prefer. (Sign-ups can occur in person or via the learning management system used for class.)

Week Two, Tuesday

• Instructor: Assign students to project teams if needed.
• Students: Set up your team meetings for the semester based on your project deadlines and which person will full each role described in the assignment template. Reach out to your instructor if a team member does not return communication within 24 hours, which is a class requirement.

Week Two, Thursday

• Students: Read the case study resources (see the list earlier in this description) and watch the historical context video (also found earlier in this description).
• Instructor: Facilitate a discussion of the reading material in person or online.

Week Three, Tuesday

• Students: The Issue Summary is due. Team Leader: Person One.

Week Four, Tuesday

• Students: The Issue Summary Revision is due. Team Leader: Person One.

Week Five, Tuesday

• Students: The Relevant Facts section is due. Team Leaders: Person One, who leads the contributions from Gaither and Curtin (2008) and the Arla Foods (2006a) annual report; Person Two, who leads contributions from Holmström et al. (2010) and Arla Foods’ (2006b) news release.

Week Six, Tuesday

• Students: The Relevant Facts revision is due. Team Leaders: Person One, who leads the contributions from Gaither and Curtin (2008) and the Arla Foods (2006a) annual report; Person Two, who leads contributions from Holmström et al. (2009) and Arla Foods’ (2006b) news release.

Week Seven, Tuesday

• Students: The Stakeholders section is due. Team Leader: Person Two.

Week Eight, Tuesday

• Students: The Stakeholders revision is due. Team Leader: Person Two.

Week Nine, Tuesday

• Students: Option One is due. Team Leader: Person Three.

Week 10, Tuesday

• Students: Option One revision is due. Team Leader: Person Three.

Week 11, Tuesday

• Students: Option Two is due. Team Leader: Person Four.

Week 12, Tuesday

• Students: Option Two revision is due. Team Leader: Person Four.

Week 13, Tuesday

• Students: Option Three is due. Team Leader: Person Five.

Week 14, Tuesday

• Students: Option Three revision is due. Team Leader: Person Five.

Week 15, Tuesday

• Students: Decision, Justification, and Assignment Reflection assignment is due. Team Leaders: Person One and Person Two.

Week 16, Tuesday

• Students: Decision, Justification, and Assignment Reflection assignment is due. Team Leaders: Person One and Person Two. Assigning a revision is optional. This particular assignment tends to be strong enough to stand on its own without revision opportunities.
• Instructor: Facilitate a discussion about each team’s decision and justification.

GIFT Grading Criteria or Rubric

Each initial draft assignment is listed below. Each assignment rubric also contains the following text, which is solely listed here to save space:

“In addition, the score you earn is based on your teammates’ evaluation of your performance, as well as your reflection of your performance with regard to communication, reliability, and contribution to this assignment.”

Students complete a team assessment form following the submission of each initial draft assignment based on the following criteria primarily provided by ChatGPT: reliability (i.e., meeting internal team deadlines; leading the team in setting deadlines for the team leadership role), communication skills (i.e., listening, expressing ideas, giving constructive feedback, working collaboratively as a team member; facilitating productive communication for the team leadership role), and contribution to the assignment (in the context of the expectations of the team member or team leader role). Students rate themselves and their team members on a 5-point scale for each criterion and have an optional comments area for each criterion.

The assessment of the content for each assignment is based on the rubric below (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Content Rubric

The assessment of the writing for each assignment is based on the rubric below; a quantitative approach is used to increase grading consistency and the communication of expectations (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Writing Rubric

Minor corrections include errors relating to format (see the template for the format), AP style, grammar, punctuation, executive voice and brevity.

Major corrections include mistakes such as word jumbles, typos, spelling errors, and other obvious issues, such as quotation marks facing the wrong way.

Revision assignments use the same assignment criteria and rubric as the corresponding drafts, but they are worth half the number of points as the original drafts to emphasize the performance of the work independent of my help, the incentive to focus on doing the assignment well the first time, and the lower level of effort generally required to revise the content and writing.

Revisions are performed by the one to two people leading the team for the assignment and include the requirement of a 24-hour window for the team to proof the work.

Assignment: Issue (40 points)

Content: 20 points, Writing: 20 points

The situation is summarized in a paragraph, so your CEO understands what happened.

The paragraph begins with details the CEO would need to understand what happened (what is the name of the newspaper, is it the largest newspaper in Denmark, how many cartoons were there, how did they come about, and what does the Islamic religion say about any visual depiction of the prophet, even if it is positive? What is an example of what was portrayed?).

• Based on the content, I can grasp the severity of the offense.
• The paragraph helps the CEO understand why an outside issue of this nature is relevant to the company.
• At the end of the paragraph, there is a sentence about what is at stake (this is the same idea as why the CEO should consider a response to this issue).
• The content is clearly targeted to the CEO (not an external audience). The paragraph does not include potential solutions to the issue.
• I am looking for the quality of the content, as well as the extent to which relevant facts are included and less pivotal facts are omitted.

Assignment: Relevant Facts

Content: 40 points, Writing: 40 points

Additional information is shared about the case. If you did not already cover it in the Issue section, the relevant facts section includes information about how these cartoons came into existence (there is a backstory).

Information is also provided about the prominence of the newspaper. The potential for the Streisand effect is addressed.

• Economic, social and political pressures are included. Based on this section, the CEO is reminded of the company’s economic interests in the Middle East and the amount of revenue from the Middle East versus the company’s overall revenue.
• This section also includes facts that help the CEO understand whether there is potential for retaliation through peaceful and violent means.
• Facts are also shared that help the CEO make inferences about how Middle Easterners might expect a Danish company and Danish government to respond. The explanation for why this is the case is explained clearly for someone to understand who is not a cultural studies scholar. Permission is given to use ChatGPT to understand the meaning of some of the terms in the scholarly articles, provided that the output is entirely reworded. A prompt that includes some of the jargon and “can you explain this for a seventh grader” works well.
• A comparison of Danish and Middle Eastern cultures is made. Statistics or numerical facts are shared when helpful to understanding the factual statement.
• A discussion of Muslims in Denmark is included based on the assigned reading.
• Information is ordered thematically based on what is particularly relevant to the situation before getting into more historical facts.
• Factual information about anything occurring after the day the cartoons were published is excluded since this project takes place on the day when the cartoons appeared.
• Both journal articles are cited extensively, and the annual report is cited. APA style is used for in-text citations and in the references section. Outside sources are welcome.
• I am looking for the quality of the content, as well as the extent to which relevant facts are included and less pivotal facts are omitted.

The same A-F rubric is used for content and for writing that appeared in the Issue section. The number of writing errors is adjusted for a 40-point scale, staying consistent with the percentages reflected in the 20-point scale.

Assignment: Stakeholders

Content: 20 points, Writing: 20 points

The stakeholder section includes all of the people your decision could affect and everyone to whom you have a duty.

• This section includes what each stakeholder group is likely to be thinking, desiring in the situation, and feeling in response to the cartoons and in response to what the group might expect from Arla Foods.
• Lower grades will correspond to the extent to which stakeholders and their interests are excluded.
• In addition, the score you earn is based on your teammates’ evaluation of your performance, as well as your reflection on your performance with regard to communication, reliability, and contribution to this assignment.

Assignments: Option One, Option Two, and Option Three

Content: 40 points, Writing: 40 points for each option

These three assignments are evenly spaced in the timeline but are condensed here since they are identical.

• When evaluating each Option assignment, I am examining the quality of the primary and secondary crisis response options, as well as the quality of argumentation for justifying them.
• The primary response option conveys whether the option involves siding with the non-Muslim Danish community, having the company side with the Muslim community, or having the company stay neutral. All three options could involve different ways of enacting the same primary response option, provided that they are substantially different. For example, one option could involve the company’s coalition building efforts with the Confederation of Danish Industries to take a particular stance on the issue, and another option could involve the same stance but be carried out through attempts of dialogue between the company and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
• The secondary response option involves efforts that can be added to a primary response option, such as a corporate social responsibility initiative. The secondary response option could vary or stay the same across all three options.
• In addition, I am considering the quality of the pros/cons section, duties section (including harm/care, duties, rules, and the categorical imperative), and personal values section.
• The section is written as if the option is being weighed rather than arguing that the option should be chosen. Choosing the option and defending it is a separate assignment after Option Three is completed.

Assignment: Decision, Justification, and Team Reflection

Content: 10 points, Writing: 10 points

This assignment contains three components: the decision of which option the team recommends, a justification for the chosen option, and a reflection about the assignment. The content guidelines for the rubric are presented below.

• The decision chosen is a wise decision, and the justification is compelling. Arguments for why the other two options were not chosen are shared. If the chosen option has a decent chance of not working (such as attempting dialogue with the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation or convincing the Confederation of Danish Industries to adopt a particular position and engage in certain actions), one of the alternative options is shared as a backup response.
• The assignment reflection includes at least five sentences about what was learned (as a team or individually, depending on your team’s choice). Feedback about how to improve the assignment is welcome and counts towards the sentence minimum.

Teaching Note

Any moral dilemma involving a cultural component could be used for this assignment. As noted previously, this assignment was used in a graduate Public Relations Theory class and three undergraduate Public Relations Ethics courses. The assignment would also function well as a final project in a Principles of Public Relations class or in an International Public Relations course. The Danish cartoons do not need to be shown to the class for this assignment; in fact, students can be informed that none of the required materials involve examining the offensive images. In addition, students should be informed that part of their grade is based on the quality of the three moral solutions they present, and they should be expected to benefit from knowing what the company actually did and what the ramifications were.

Recommended resources include all of the sources found in the assignment description. An additional cultural insight from a student who was an activist when the case occurred is the importance Muslims place on not wasting food. Articles about contemporary controversies involving depictions of the Prophet Muhammad mentioned earlier can also enrich class discussions (Hollingsworth, 2023; Lawson-Tancred, 2023; Patel, 2023; Small, 2023).

Instructors can also help students engage in critical thinking by introducing other contemporary cases of religious cultural controversy. For example, the Los Angeles Dodgers invited a drag troupe called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to its annual LGBTQ Pride celebration, rescinded the invitation after experiencing backlash, and then re-extended the invitation once again to honor the group (Li, 2023). Two of the team’s players were deeply offended because they thought the honoring of the group violated organizational values of respect and inclusivity by impersonating and ridiculing Catholic practices and beliefs (Li, 2023). The application of virtue ethics, Kantian theory, utilitarianism, and care ethics would be insightful to new contexts, especially in light of discussions about the Arla Foods case.

This assignment can be adapted to diverse institutions of learning, as well as online and in-person formats. The assignment has been taught in an online class; however, it would arguably be easier to teach in an in-person class based on the comparative ease of understanding directions delivered by an in-person instructor and coordinating with team members.

Five-person teams can be reduced to smaller teams for smaller class sizes. Colleges with religious affiliations could take particular interest in this study and related contemporary studies that provide a grounded case study approach to exploring contestations over religious tolerance and critique.

References

Arla Foods. (2006a). Our annual report. https://www.arla.com/49f589/globalassets/arla-global/company— overview/investor/pdf/annual-report/eng/annual-report_eng_2006. pdf

Arla Foods. (2006b). Arla affected by cartoons of Muhammad. [Press release.] https://www.arla.com/company/news-and-press/2006/pressrelease/ arla-affected-by-cartoons-of-muhammed-760044/

Bivins, T. (2009). Mixed media: Moral distinctions in advertising, public relations, and journalism (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook: The cognitive domain. David McKay. Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE). (2006). The professional bond. http://www.commissionpred.org/commission-reports/the- professional-bond/

Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE). (2018). Fast forward: Foundations + future state. Educators + practitioners. http://www.commissionpred.org/commission-reports/fast-forward- foundations-future-state-educators-practitioners

Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE). (2023). Navigating change: Recommendations for advancing undergraduate PR education. https://www.commissionpred.org/navigating-change-report/

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Fattah, H. M. (2006, January 30). Portrayal of the prophet prompts a boycott of Danish goods. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/international/middleeast/ portrayal-of-the-prophet-prompts-a-boycott-of.html

Gaither, T. Kenn, & Curtin, P. A. (2008). Examining the heuristic value of models of international public relations practice: A case study of the Arla Foods crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260701727051

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hollingsworth, H. (2023, April). Minnesota college head to retire after Islamic art dispute. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/hamline-president-retires-prophet-

muhammad-controversy-b5a825785281ef67189f6d349195c51c  Holmström, S., Falkheimer, J., & Nielsen, A. G. (2010). Legitimacy and strategic communication in globalization: The cartoon crisis and other legitimacy conflicts. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180903415780

Lawson-Tancred, J. (2023, January 11). Muslim group urges the reinstatement of fired U.S. professor, saying the Prophet Muhammad painting she showed to students was not Islamophobic. Artnet. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fired-professor-hamline-not- islamophobic-2241214

Li, D. K. (2023, May 31). MLB players say drag troupe invited to Dodgers’ pride night mocks Christianity. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/mlb-players-say- drag-troupe-invited-dodgers-pride-night-mocks-christia-rcna87013

Martin, D., & Wright, D. K. (2016). Public relations ethics: How to practice PR without losing your soul. Business Expert Press.

NBC. (2015, January 8). Prophet Muhammad cartoons surrounded by violent history. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvYvVFEF_0

New York Times. (2023, January 8). An adjunct professor at Hamline University showed a painting of the Prophet Muhammad for an art history class. It was followed by an outcry from Muslim students. University officials said it was Islamophobic, but many scholars say the work is a masterpiece. Twitter. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1612147150472757249?lang=en

Patel, V. (2023, January 15). A lecturer showed a painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She lost her job. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam- prophet-muhammad.html

Rawlins, B. (2006). Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations. Institute for Public Relations. https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2006_ Stakeholders_1.pdf

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0022100

© Copyright 2024 AEJMC Public Relations Division

To cite this article: Gallicano, T.D. (2024). Spilt milk: Navigating a response to a
moral dilemma. Journal of Public Relations Education, 9(3), 141-169. https://journalofpreducation.com/?p=4324