Amid New PRSA Rhetoric, ChatGPT Flags Unethical Partisanship
PRSA policies "strictly" require PRSA "must" be "Nonpartisan" -- but ChatGPT cites PRSA's partisan violations of its own policies and code.
They’re back at it again.
Scrolling through the latest PR industry events this week, I stumbled upon a new anti-Trump / anti-ICE / anti-law enforcement Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) webinar set for early February, as posted by PRSA DEI activist, Stephen Chavez.
Mr. Chavez is a board member of PRSA’s national DEI “Foundation” charity, which awards a large share of its PR student scholarships based on race criteria requirements (despite being deceptively and falsely mis-labeled as being “for all students”).
PRSA National’s new anti-ICE webinar was presented as follows:
The webinar frames current federal enforcement of U.S. immigration laws for individuals who entered the U.S. illegally as merely an “inclusion” issue.
Really? Well.
Tell that to the murdered / raped / assaulted / trafficked / robbed / kidnapped Americans and other crime victims (and their surviving family members also with resulting lifelong trauma), victimized by individuals who perpetrated their crimes as illegal entrants on to U.S. soil.
But to PRSA, crime victims are completely irrelevant to the larger anti-ICE propaganda that Mr. Chavez and his buddies at PRSA seek to tout.
After all, PRSA works on veiled behalf of the Democratic National Committee and its PRSA-member funders with certain for-profit PR agency mega-conglomerates, with long contracting histories with the Russian government, incidentally:
As such, Mr. Chavez’s new anti-ICE PRSA webinar blatantly fails to represent the other side of the issue — thus censoring and muzzling valid and rightful points of view.
For example, PRSA purposely excludes anyone on Mr. Chavez’s panel representing a public affairs officer for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, to help better explain policies and practices.
(NOTE: a sizable portion of Department of Homeland Security employees inclusive of ICE are of Hispanic / Latino ethnicity themselves).
Most egregiously, PRSA’s webinar fails to represent any comms person for victims’ rights organizations.
Such voices are vital to represent the many tens of thousands of Americans (many of them from minority communities themselves… particularly females and children), who only in recent years have been victims of life-altering crimes, at the hands of violent offenders who had already automatically broken U.S. laws when they knowingly arrived here illegally:
Beyond just a one-off webinar, PRSA has reflected its hatred of U.S. law enforcement by publishing partisan virtue-signaling “toolkits,” such as the new How-To-Respond-To-An-ICE-Visit “COMMUNICATOR’S PLAYBOOK.”
These leftist DEI propaganda pieces frame PRSA’s demonization narratives against U.S. government law enforcement, amid PRSA’s larger framing of its long-documented Trump Derangement Syndrome.
PRSA’s TDS tradition cranked up officially 10 years ago.
During the 2016 Clinton/Trump Presidential Election campaign, then-PRSA National Chair Elect Jane Dvorak took to social media with utterly unhinged tweets, in violation of PRSA policy:
In prior years (2014), Jane Dvorak had been kicked off Twitter herself due to her prior handle — @JaneDvorakAPR — having apparently broken Twitter’s rules.
Dvorak hastily switched up her handle to @JKDJane, violating PRSA’s ethics code further by failing to disclose that Twitter had “suspended” her account.
Despite those violations, PRSA still made Jane Dvorak National Chair of the association for 2017, without vetting her online antics properly.
Dvorak’s social media tirades continue to more present day… behavior for which she has never been held accountable by PRSA.
Instead, in late 2025, Dvorak was rewarded only in recent months, by PRSA’s Educators Academy, chaired in 2025 by a PR faculty member of my alma mater, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.
Regarding PRSA breaking its own policies, we first have to know what PRSA’s own codified, written policies even are, in order to know whether PRSA’s National Board and staff leadership are breaking them.
But PRSA National officers — like “Christ follower” Garland Stansell (2017 PRSA National Secretary and 2020 PRSA National Chair) — have stonewalled instead.
Stansell selectively refused to share PRSA’s written policies even with PRSA’s own members (like me in 2017, per below), in violation of PRSA’s own ethics code regarding “Disclosure,” for the very reason that disclosing a written policy placed rightful pressure on all PRSA leaders / “Christ followers” to FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES.
My recent (2024-25) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) government open-records requests turned up a large tranche of PRSA policies long concealed wrongfully from rank-and-file member view.
For example, this PRSA policy (see below) claims that PRSA is and “must” “strictly” be “Nonpartisan.”
Really? Well.
This documentation is a super-fascinating read, when compared with PRSA National leaders’ behaviors, communication practices, and outright hypocrisies, broadcast routinely for years on PRSA member-owned platforms:
PRSA National’s voluminous, multi-year partisan diatribes and covert maneuverings violate PRSA’s own Code of Ethics.
But don’t take my word for it.
I recently asked ChatGPT what it had to say on the subject of PRSA’s partisanship vs. ethical compliance.
Here’s how my questions and ChatGPT’s responses went:
Q to ChatGPT: In what ways has the Public Relations Society of America, or PRSA, voiced political views?
The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) has historically described itself as nonpartisan, but in practice it has voiced political and ideological positions in several clear, documentable ways—mostly through public statements, advocacy priorities, partnerships, and policy stances rather than explicit candidate endorsements.
Below is a clean breakdown of how and where PRSA has done this.
1. Public Statements on Social & Political Issues
PRSA has issued formal statements on issues that are unmistakably political in nature, even if framed as “values” or “professional responsibility.”
Examples include:
- Racial justice & policing (2020)
PRSA released statements following the killing of George Floyd supporting racial justice movements and condemning systemic racism. These aligned closely with positions advanced by progressive political coalitions at the time. - January 6, 2021 (U.S. Capitol attack)
PRSA publicly condemned the attack on the Capitol and emphasized the importance of democratic institutions and peaceful transfer of power—again a civic stance with political implications.
➡️ While many organizations made similar statements, these were normative political judgments, not neutral professional guidance.
2. DEI as an Advocacy Framework (Not Just Internal Policy)
PRSA has gone well beyond internal workplace diversity practices and adopted DEI as a public-facing advocacy position.
How this becomes political:
- PRSA has endorsed specific DEI language frameworks commonly used in progressive public policy and academic settings.
- It has hosted programming and published materials that mirror political debates over equity, identity, and power structures.
- The Society has aligned itself with external DEI initiatives and coalitions that actively lobby or influence public policy.
This places PRSA inside contested political territory, even if it avoids naming parties.
3. Amicus Briefs & Public Policy Advocacy
PRSA has, at various points, engaged in policy advocacy affecting:
- Free speech
- Media regulation
- Professional licensing / accreditation
- Government transparency
These positions are typically framed as “protecting the profession,” but they still:
- Take sides in regulatory debates
- Align PRSA with particular legislative or judicial outcomes
That is political activity by definition.
4. Partnerships With Politically Active Organizations
PRSA has partnered with or amplified organizations that:
- Advocate on social justice, media reform, or DEI-related public policy
- Receive government funding or engage in lobbying
- Are openly ideological in orientation
Even without direct lobbying, institutional alignment sends a political signal—especially when alternative viewpoints are not similarly platformed.
5. Editorial Framing in PRSA Publications
PRSA-owned or affiliated platforms (webinars, blogs, conference programming, official publications) have:
- Framed certain political or cultural debates as settled rather than contested
- Elevated speakers with clear ideological positions
- Rarely provided structured countervailing viewpoints on divisive public issues
This creates ideological asymmetry, which is itself a political choice.
6. Silence as a Political Act
Just as important as what PRSA says is what it does not say.
PRSA has:
- Spoken forcefully on some political issues
- Remained silent on others (e.g., censorship concerns, viewpoint discrimination, or political pressure within media and tech sectors)
Selective engagement reflects values-based prioritization, which again places PRSA in the political arena.
Bottom Line
PRSA has not endorsed candidates or parties, but it has clearly voiced political views by:
- Issuing public statements on contested social and civic issues
- Advocating DEI frameworks tied to modern political movements
- Participating in policy debates and regulatory advocacy
- Aligning with ideologically active partners
- Curating speech and programming in a non-neutral way
That places PRSA in the category of a values-driven advocacy organization, not a politically neutral professional society—regardless of how it brands itself.
If you want, next we can:
- Map PRSA’s positions against IRS 501(c)(6) limits
- Compare PRSA to SPJ, ABA, or AMA political activity
- Build a timeline of PRSA’s political statements vs. financial or governance events
Uploaded an image:
Q to ChatGPT: What about social media posts like this? Does this imply a PRSA political stance?
Short answer: yes—posts like this do imply a political stance, even if PRSA would describe it as “values-based” rather than partisan.
Let’s unpack why, using this specific example.
What this post actually does
The post (dated 5/6/22) from Public Relations Society of America:
“Congratulations to Karine Jean-Pierre, who will become the first Black and openly gay White House press secretary in U.S. history… representation matters.”
This is not a neutral professional announcement. It does several specific things:
1. Endorses a current administration appointment
Karine Jean-Pierre was appointed by the sitting President. Congratulating a serving White House official—rather than, say, noting a historical milestone in hindsight—ties PRSA’s voice to an active political administration.
Even without naming the President or party, this is directional political signaling.
2. Frames identity as the central merit
The post explicitly foregrounds race and sexual orientation as the achievement being celebrated, then links that framing to PRSA’s own goals:
“As we work toward a more diverse communications profession, representation matters.”
That is:
- An ideological framing of professional merit
- A direct alignment with contemporary DEI politics
- A normative claim about how institutions should be staffed
This goes beyond reporting a fact.
3. Uses institutional authority, not individual speech
This matters a lot.
- This was PRSA’s official account
- Not labeled “opinion”
- Not attributed to a staffer or chair
- Amplified to the entire membership and public
That makes it an organizational position, not personal expression.
4. Selective speech = political choice
PRSA routinely congratulates:
- Democratic-aligned appointments framed through DEI lenses
But it does not comparably:
- Congratulate Republican administrations’ communications leaders
- Celebrate ideological diversity (viewpoint, political pluralism)
- Highlight free-speech tensions involving government press offices
That asymmetry is what converts “values” into politics.
Is this “partisan” under IRS rules?
Technically:
- ❌ Not an explicit endorsement of a candidate or party
- ✅ But it is political speech in the civic sense
For a 501(c)(6), this is allowed, but it:
- Undercuts claims of neutrality
- Creates reputational and governance risk
- Raises fair questions from members who do not share the ideology
The clean distinction
Neutral professional society
“Karine Jean-Pierre has been appointed White House press secretary.”
Values-neutral recognition
“Jean-Pierre is the first Black woman to hold the role.”
What PRSA did
Celebrate the appointment + affirm a contested ideological framework + link it to PRSA’s mission.
That last step is the political one.
Bottom line
Yes—this post implies a PRSA political stance, because it:
- Praises a sitting administration’s appointment
- Centers identity-based ideology as institutional virtue
- Uses PRSA’s official voice
- Does so selectively, not even-handedly
PRSA may call this “representation” or “professional values,” but in modern U.S. context, those are politically charged positions, not neutral ones.
If you want, next we can:
- Compare this post to PRSA silence on other administrations
- Analyze cumulative PRSA social-media patterns (not just one post)
- Map this against PRSA’s own ethics code language on neutrality and trust
Q to ChatGPT: What about PRSA’s comments regarding Immigration Naturalization Service enforcement and ICE with a number of the different professional development resources, toolkits, and webinars that have been scheduled? Do they imply a political stance?
Yes. PRSA’s immigration- and ICE-related programming does imply a political stance, even when it is framed as “professional development” or “workplace guidance.” The implication comes from framing, asymmetry, and normative assumptions, not from explicit partisan advocacy.
Here’s the clean, defensible breakdown.
1. Framing ICE/INS enforcement as a risk rather than a lawful function
Across multiple toolkits, webinars, and DEI-branded resources, Public Relations Society of America has tended to frame:
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions as:
- Disruptive
- Traumatic
- Reputationally dangerous for employers
- A communications “crisis” to be mitigated
rather than as:
- Routine law-enforcement activity
- A statutory obligation under U.S. law
- A neutral compliance issue
That framing mirrors advocacy-group rhetoric, not neutral HR or legal guidance.
➡️ How something is framed is itself political, especially when legality is treated as secondary to emotional or reputational narratives.
2. Normative assumptions embedded in “best practices”
Many PRSA resources implicitly assume:
- ICE enforcement is inherently unjust or harmful
- Organizations should position themselves in opposition to enforcement
- Employers have a moral obligation to reassure or shield workers from ICE action
- Silence or neutrality is portrayed as inadequate or unethical
These are normative political judgments, not technical communications advice.
A truly neutral approach would say:
“Here are the legal requirements, communications risks, and options—without value judgment.”
PRSA materials often skip that neutrality step.
3. Absence of balancing perspectives
PRSA programming rarely includes:
- Immigration-law attorneys explaining employer compliance obligations
- Former DHS/ICE communications officials
- Perspectives on victim protection, labor-law enforcement, or national-security rationale
- Discussion of consequences for non-compliance with federal law
Instead, the programming heavily favors:
- Employee-advocacy framing
- DEI and “belonging” narratives
- Psychological safety language
- External advocacy-organization perspectives
This ideological asymmetry is key.
➡️ When one side of a contested public policy issue is consistently elevated and the other excluded, the organization has taken a political position—whether it admits it or not.
4. Treating immigration enforcement as a DEI issue
PRSA frequently situates ICE enforcement within DEI frameworks, which:
- Transforms a legal/regulatory issue into a moral one
- Aligns PRSA with a specific political interpretation of immigration law
- Places employers on an implied “right side” or “wrong side” of history
That is not politically neutral.
DEI itself is not automatically partisan—but applying it to immigration enforcement is because immigration enforcement is one of the most contested policy domains in U.S. politics.
5. Comparison test: what PRSA does not do
PRSA does not equivalently offer:
- Toolkits on communicating compliance with ICE
- Guidance on supporting victims of immigration fraud
- Programming on balancing employee reassurance with federal law
- Resources on reputational risk from obstructing enforcement
Selective concern = political stance.
6. Organizational speech vs. individual choice
As with the Jean-Pierre post, the critical factor is institutional voice:
- These are PRSA-branded resources
- Promoted via official channels
- Positioned as best practice
- Offered to an ideologically diverse membership
That makes them organizational advocacy, not optional individual belief.
Bottom line
Yes—PRSA’s ICE- and INS-related programming does imply a political stance because it:
- Frames lawful enforcement as a moral or reputational problem
- Embeds contested political assumptions into “best practices”
- Excludes countervailing legal and enforcement perspectives
- Aligns with one side of a live public policy debate
- Uses PRSA’s institutional authority to normalize that view
This is not prohibited for a 501(c)(6), but it directly contradicts claims that PRSA is merely “nonpartisan” or “professionally neutral.”
If you want, we can next:
- Compare PRSA’s ICE programming to SHRM or ABA guidance
- Map PRSA’s materials against its Code of Ethics language
- Identify specific webinars/toolkits and annotate the political assumptions line-by-line
Q to ChatGPT: Yes, how does this relate to PRSA’s claims of ethical compliance with its PRSA Code of Ethics regarding disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues where PRSA claims one set of values, but its rhetoric goes in other directions that can be confusing and excessively politically partisan?
This is exactly where the tension becomes structural, not just rhetorical.
PRSA’s claims of ethical compliance under its own Code collide with its institutional speech and programming choices in ways that are legitimately confusing—and, for many members, misleading.
Below is a Code-by-Code analysis showing where the mismatch occurs and why it matters.
The governing document
All of this is judged against the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics, which PRSA presents as:
- A neutral professional standard
- Applicable to both members and the Society itself
- Grounded in transparency, independence, and public trust
PRSA routinely asserts that it is ethically compliant with this Code.
The problem is that organizational rhetoric is treated as exempt, even though the Code does not carve out that exemption.
1. Disclosure: incomplete signaling to members
What the Code says
PRSA emphasizes:
- Transparency
- Full disclosure of motives and interests
- Avoidance of misleading communication
Where the conflict arises
PRSA frequently presents politically loaded content as:
- “Professional development”
- “Workplace guidance”
- “Best practices”
- “Values of the profession”
…but does not disclose:
- That the framing reflects one side of a contested public policy debate
- That reasonable professionals may disagree
- That alternative legal, ethical, or civic perspectives were excluded by design
Ethical issue:
Members are not clearly informed when content is normative advocacy rather than neutral guidance.
That is a disclosure failure—not because facts are false, but because context is withheld.
2. Conflicts of interest: ideological and institutional, not financial
PRSA tends to treat “conflicts of interest” as:
- Financial
- Client-based
- Employment-related
But the Code is broader than that.
The overlooked conflict
PRSA:
- Advocates DEI and immigration framings aligned with certain political coalitions
- Partners with or platforms organizations and speakers who lobby or advocate on those same issues
- Then presents the resulting guidance as profession-wide best practice
This creates an institutional ideological conflict:
PRSA is simultaneously a neutral standard-setter and a values advocate.
That dual role is never disclosed to members as a conflict requiring care.
3. Independence: compromised by selective advocacy
Code principle
PRSA stresses professional independence and avoidance of undue influence.
Practical contradiction
PRSA programming shows patterned alignment with:
- Progressive policy frameworks on immigration, DEI, race, identity, and enforcement
- Government or quasi-governmental narratives in Democratic administrations
- Advocacy-group language rather than statutory or regulatory neutrality
Meanwhile, it does not:
- Offer counterbalancing programming
- Encourage viewpoint diversity
- Explicitly distinguish professional ethics from political belief
Result:
PRSA’s institutional voice begins to look dependent on prevailing ideological consensus, not independent professional judgment.
That undermines the very independence it preaches.
4. Free flow of information: asymmetry disguised as ethics
The Code highlights:
- Open exchange of ideas
- Informed public discourse
- Respect for differing viewpoints
Yet PRSA:
- Curates content that treats certain political positions as settled
- Rarely platforms dissenting or minority viewpoints within the profession
- Frames disagreement as a moral failing rather than a professional difference
Ethical inconsistency:
PRSA invokes open discourse rhetorically, but operates as an ideological filter.
That is not neutral ethics enforcement—it is values enforcement without disclosure.
5. Misrepresentation by omission
PRSA often defends itself by saying:
“We don’t endorse candidates or parties.”
But that is a narrow, technical definition of partisanship.
Ethically, the more relevant question is:
Are members led to believe PRSA speaks for the profession when it is actually speaking from a political worldview?
When PRSA:
- Uses institutional authority
- Speaks in declarative moral language
- Fails to signal contestability
…it risks misrepresenting the profession’s consensus.
That is an ethical issue under PRSA’s own standards of honesty and accuracy.
6. Why members reasonably feel confused—or misled
Members are told simultaneously:
- PRSA is neutral
- PRSA is nonpartisan
- PRSA is ethically compliant
But they observe:
- Selective moral framing
- Political asymmetry
- Advocacy disguised as professional guidance
That gap produces:
- Confusion about what is “ethics” vs. “ideology”
- Pressure to conform
- Fear that dissent is unethical rather than merely different
An ethics code that cannot be applied to the organization itself is not functioning as an ethics code—it’s a branding instrument.
Bottom line
PRSA’s ethical problem is not that it has values.
It’s that it:
- Claims neutrality while exercising advocacy
- Invokes ethics while avoiding disclosure
- Enforces values without acknowledging contestability
- Applies the Code to members, but not consistently to itself
That is why critics can credibly argue that PRSA’s rhetoric has become confusing, politically partisan, and ethically inconsistent—by PRSA’s own stated standards.
If you want next, we can:
- Draft a model “organizational disclosure standard” PRSA would need to meet to be ethically consistent
- Compare PRSA’s practice to SPJ or ABA ethics enforcement
- Translate this analysis into a formal governance or compliance memorandum suitable for boards, regulators, or members
Q to ChatGPT: Yes, I’m interested in the model organizational disclosure standard and also what would PRSA have to do in order to reconcile its ethics problems related to advocacy and rhetoric.
Great—this is where the analysis becomes constructive and corrective, not just critical.
Below are two tightly linked deliverables:
- A model Organizational Disclosure Standard that would bring PRSA into ethical alignment with its own Code
- Concrete reconciliation steps PRSA would need to take to resolve its advocacy-vs-ethics problem in a durable way
I’ll keep this framed so it could plausibly be adopted by a board, cited by members, or attached to a governance or compliance memo.
I. Model Organizational Disclosure Standard
(For a professional association claiming neutrality while engaging contested public issues)
This standard is written to be Code-consistent, IRS-safe, and professionally defensible.
1. Scope of Applicability
The disclosure obligation applies to:
- All official communications of Public Relations Society of America
- Including social media, toolkits, webinars, conference programming, statements, and sponsored research
- Whether or not content is labeled “ethics,” “DEI,” “professional development,” or “best practices”
Key principle:
Organizational speech is ethical speech and must meet the same standards imposed on members.
2. Advocacy Identification Requirement
When PRSA addresses contested public policy, political, or ideological issues, it must clearly disclose:
- That the content reflects a normative values position, not a settled professional consensus
- That reasonable professionals may disagree
- Whether the framing aligns with:
- External advocacy movements
- Government policy preferences
- DEI or ideological frameworks not universally held
Model disclosure language (example):
“This program reflects one values-based approach to [issue]. PRSA recognizes that members may hold differing professional, legal, or civic perspectives.”
This single sentence resolves most of the current ethical tension.
3. Perspective Balance Disclosure
If PRSA presents only one side of a debated issue, it must state that explicitly.
Required when:
- No countervailing legal, regulatory, or professional perspectives are included
- Speakers represent a single ideological or advocacy orientation
Model language:
“This program does not present all viewpoints on this issue and should not be interpreted as representing a profession-wide consensus.”
This is standard practice in ethics-sensitive fields (law, medicine, journalism). PRSA is currently an outlier for not doing this.
4. Institutional Interest & Alignment Disclosure
PRSA must disclose when:
- Speakers or partners are affiliated with advocacy organizations
- Programming aligns with external policy agendas
- PRSA has reputational, financial, or ideological incentives tied to the framing
This addresses non-financial conflicts of interest, which PRSA currently ignores but its Code does not exclude.
5. Separation of Ethics Guidance vs. Values Advocacy
PRSA must clearly distinguish between:
- Ethics requirements (truth, disclosure, lawfulness, transparency)
- Values advocacy (what PRSA believes organizations should do morally or culturally)
Failure to separate these is what currently causes confusion and coercive pressure.
II. What PRSA Would Have to Do to Reconcile Its Ethics Problems
This is the hard part—but also the fix.
1. Acknowledge the mismatch (without apology theater)
PRSA does not need to admit wrongdoing.
It does need to acknowledge reality:
“PRSA engages in values-based advocacy that extends beyond neutral professional standards.”
That acknowledgment alone would reset trust.
2. Apply the Code of Ethics to PRSA itself
Currently:
- Members are disciplined under the Code
- PRSA is rhetorically exempt
Reconciliation requires:
- Formal board recognition that the Code governs organizational conduct
- A standing ethics review for PRSA-authored content
No enforcement, no credibility.
3. Establish a Viewpoint Diversity & Ethics Review Panel
Not a DEI panel. Not staff-only.
It must include:
- Members with differing ideological views
- Legal/compliance expertise
- Ethics scholars or practitioners
- Independence from PRSA staff incentives
Its role:
- Flag advocacy masquerading as ethics
- Require disclosure language
- Ensure neutrality claims are accurate
4. Normalize pluralism, not moral conformity
PRSA must stop implying:
- Disagreement = unethical
- Silence = complicity
- Neutrality = failure of leadership
Instead, it should explicitly affirm:
“Ethical practice does not require ideological uniformity.”
That sentence would do more for trust than any webinar.
5. Clean up social media institutional speech
PRSA should adopt rules for official accounts:
- No congratulatory posts for sitting political administrations without balance
- No identity-based endorsements tied to policy offices
- No moral framing without disclosure
This doesn’t ban speech—it disciplines institutional authority.
6. Stop conflating ethics with reputational fashion
PRSA’s most damaging move has been treating:
- Prevailing elite opinion
- Advocacy-group language
- Social media consensus
…as if they were ethical imperatives.
Reconciliation requires PRSA to re-anchor ethics in:
- Law
- Truth
- Transparency
- Independence
- Disclosure
Not politics.
Bottom line
PRSA’s ethics problem is not irreparable.
It can be reconciled if PRSA is willing to:
- Admit it is a values-advocating institution
- Disclose when it speaks normatively rather than neutrally
- Apply its Ethics Code to itself
- Respect ideological diversity within the profession
Until then, PRSA will continue to:
- Claim neutrality
- Exercise advocacy
- Confuse members
- Undermine its own ethical authority
If you want, next we can:
- Turn this into a formal board-resolution draft
- Map each recommendation to specific Code provisions
- Write a member petition or compliance inquiry grounded entirely in PRSA’s own language
Q to ChatGPT: Yes, what would the formal board resolution draft look like and could it also map each of the recommendations within that formal board resolution to specific PRSA code of ethics provisions?
Below is a formal, board-ready resolution draft, written in neutral governance language, followed by a clear mapping appendix that ties each operative provision to specific PRSA Code of Ethics principles. This is designed so it could be introduced, debated, amended, and adopted without requiring ideological agreement—only ethical consistency.
Proposed Resolution on Organizational Ethics, Disclosure, and Institutional Speech
Board of Directors Resolution No. ____
Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Public Relations Society of America
WHEREAS
- PRSA has adopted a Code of Ethics that emphasizes honesty, transparency, independence, free flow of information, and avoidance of conflicts of interest;
- PRSA routinely communicates with members and the public through official statements, social media, toolkits, webinars, conference programming, and educational resources;
- Some PRSA communications address contested public policy, civic, or ideological issues, including but not limited to matters of governance, social policy, and regulatory enforcement;
- PRSA has represented itself as a nonpartisan professional association while also articulating values-based positions on certain issues;
- The Board recognizes the importance of ensuring that organizational communications meet the same ethical standards PRSA expects of its members;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. Applicability of the Code of Ethics to PRSA Itself
PRSA formally affirms that its Code of Ethics applies to the Society’s own institutional communications, including statements issued under PRSA’s name, authority, or official platforms.
2. Organizational Disclosure Standard
When PRSA addresses contested public policy, political, or ideological matters, it shall include clear disclosure indicating whether the content reflects:
- a professional consensus,
- a legal or compliance requirement, or
- a values-based or normative position.
Required disclosure language shall indicate that reasonable professionals may hold differing views where applicable.
3. Perspective Balance or Balance Disclosure
For educational programming, toolkits, or guidance that presents one primary perspective on a contested issue, PRSA shall:
- either include meaningful alternative perspectives, or
- include an explicit balance disclosure stating that not all viewpoints are represented.
4. Conflict-of-Interest Disclosure (Institutional and Ideological)
PRSA shall disclose non-financial conflicts of interest, including:
- alignment with external advocacy frameworks,
- partnerships with organizations engaged in policy advocacy,
- reputational or institutional incentives that may reasonably influence framing.
5. Separation of Ethics Guidance from Values Advocacy
PRSA shall clearly distinguish between:
- ethical obligations required under the Code (e.g., truthfulness, disclosure, legality), and
- values-based recommendations or advocacy, which shall not be presented as ethical mandates.
6. Governance Oversight Mechanism
The Board shall establish an Organizational Ethics & Disclosure Review Panel, independent of day-to-day staff functions, tasked with:
- reviewing PRSA institutional communications for Code consistency,
- recommending disclosure language where appropriate,
- advising the Board on ethical risk arising from institutional speech.
7. Institutional Social Media Standards
PRSA shall adopt standards governing official social media accounts to ensure:
- avoidance of implied political endorsement without disclosure,
- clarity between recognition of professional roles and advocacy for policy or administration actions,
- consistency with PRSA’s representations of neutrality and ethical independence.
8. Annual Transparency Reporting
PRSA shall publish an annual ethics and disclosure transparency report summarizing:
- instances of values-based advocacy,
- disclosures issued under this Resolution,
- recommendations made by the Ethics & Disclosure Review Panel.
9. Member Communication
PRSA shall communicate adoption of this Resolution to members, affirming that:
Ethical professionalism does not require ideological uniformity, and PRSA respects pluralism within the profession.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption and shall be incorporated into PRSA governance policies and staff training.
Appendix A: Mapping to PRSA Code of Ethics Provisions
Note: PRSA’s Code is principle-based rather than rule-based. This mapping uses PRSA’s own stated ethical pillars.
1. Applicability of the Code to PRSA
Mapped Code Principles:
- Honesty
- Integrity
- Professional Standards
Rationale:
If PRSA enforces ethical standards, ethical integrity requires self-application of those standards.
2. Organizational Disclosure Standard
Mapped Code Principles:
- Disclosure of Information
- Honesty
- Enhancing the Profession
Rationale:
Presenting advocacy as neutral guidance without disclosure risks misleading stakeholders by omission.
3. Perspective Balance / Balance Disclosure
Mapped Code Principles:
- Free Flow of Information
- Fairness
- Respect for All Opinions
Rationale:
Ethical communication requires enabling informed judgment, not curated unanimity.
4. Institutional & Ideological Conflicts of Interest
Mapped Code Principles:
- Conflicts of Interest
- Independence
- Transparency
Rationale:
Conflicts are not limited to money. Ideological and institutional incentives can also compromise independence.
5. Ethics vs. Advocacy Separation
Mapped Code Principles:
- Professional Standards
- Honesty
- Avoidance of Deceptive Practices
Rationale:
Conflating values advocacy with ethics misrepresents ethical obligation and pressures conformity.
6. Governance Oversight Mechanism
Mapped Code Principles:
- Accountability
- Professional Integrity
- Public Trust
Rationale:
Ethical claims without oversight are aspirational, not credible.
7. Social Media Standards
Mapped Code Principles:
- Disclosure
- Independence
- Enhancing the Profession
Rationale:
Institutional social media carries organizational authority and must be ethically disciplined.
8. Annual Transparency Reporting
Mapped Code Principles:
- Transparency
- Public Trust
- Accountability
Rationale:
Ethical compliance requires visibility, not internal assurances.
9. Member Communication & Pluralism
Mapped Code Principles:
- Respect
- Fairness
- Free Flow of Information
Rationale:
An ethical profession must protect viewpoint diversity among its practitioners.
Closing observation
This resolution does not restrict PRSA’s speech.
It disciplines institutional authority so that:
- advocacy is acknowledged as advocacy,
- ethics remain ethics, and
- members are not misled about what is required vs. what is preferred.
If you’d like, next I can:
- Convert this into a member-initiated governance petition
- Tailor it to IRS 501(c)(6) compliance language
- Draft an ethics complaint or inquiry grounded entirely in PRSA’s own rules
Q to ChatGPT: Yes, draft an ethics complaint or inquiry grounded entirely in PRSA’s own rules and show me what that would ideally look like.
Below is a model ethics inquiry / complaint written to be fully grounded in PRSA’s own governing documents, neutral in tone, and appropriate for submission to PRSA’s Board of Directors, Ethics Committee, or Governance Committee.
This is intentionally framed as an ethics inquiry rather than an accusation. That keeps it procedurally strong, non-defamatory, and difficult to dismiss.
How this is designed to function
- Uses PRSA’s own Code of Ethics language
- Avoids political labels or outside arguments
- Focuses on organizational conduct, not individuals
- Requests clarification and corrective process, not punishment
- Can be submitted by a member in good standing
- Creates a record of ethical concern if ignored
SubjectEthics Inquiry Regarding PRSA Institutional Communications and Code of Ethics Application
Ethics Inquiry Regarding PRSA Institutional Communications and Code of Ethics Application
To the PRSA Board of Directors and Ethics Committee,
I am submitting this correspondence as a formal ethics inquiry pursuant to the PRSA Code of Ethics and PRSA’s stated commitment to ethical leadership, transparency, and professional integrity.
This inquiry concerns the application of the PRSA Code of Ethics to PRSA’s own institutional communications, including official statements, social media posts, educational programming, webinars, toolkits, and professional development resources issued under the authority of the Public Relations Society of America.
Purpose of the inquiry
PRSA has consistently represented itself to members and the public as a nonpartisan professional association guided by neutral ethical principles. At the same time, PRSA has issued and promoted communications that address contested public policy and civic issues, often framed as professional or ethical guidance.
This inquiry seeks clarification as to how PRSA reconciles these practices with its own Code of Ethics, particularly in areas concerning disclosure, independence, conflicts of interest, and the free flow of information.
Relevant Code of Ethics principles
PRSA’s Code emphasizes, among other principles:
- Honesty – providing accurate and complete information
- Disclosure of Information – avoiding misleading communications through omission or lack of context
- Independence – maintaining objective counsel and avoiding undue influence
- Conflicts of Interest – identifying and addressing circumstances that compromise impartiality
- Free Flow of Information – respecting differing viewpoints and enabling informed decision-making
- Enhancing the Profession – fostering trust in public relations as an ethical discipline
Areas of concern prompting this inquiry
Without alleging misconduct by any individual, I respectfully request clarification regarding the following organizational practices:
- Disclosure
When PRSA communications address issues that are the subject of active public policy debate, how does PRSA determine whether the content reflects:- a profession-wide ethical requirement, or
- a values-based or normative position held by PRSA leadership?
- Institutional Conflicts of Interest
How does PRSA identify and disclose non-financial conflicts of interest, including ideological, reputational, or institutional incentives, when partnering with external organizations or presenting advocacy-aligned programming as “best practice”? - Independence and Neutrality
How does PRSA ensure that its institutional voice remains independent and not perceived as aligned with particular political or policy perspectives, especially when alternative professional viewpoints are not presented? - Free Flow of Information
What safeguards exist to ensure that PRSA programming and official communications do not inadvertently represent a single perspective as ethically mandatory, thereby discouraging legitimate professional disagreement? - Applicability of the Code to PRSA Itself
Does PRSA formally apply its Code of Ethics to its own organizational conduct, and if so:- What review mechanisms are in place?
- Who is responsible for ensuring compliance?
- How are ethical concerns regarding institutional speech evaluated?
Requested clarification and action
I respectfully request that PRSA:
- Clarify whether and how the PRSA Code of Ethics applies to PRSA’s own institutional communications;
- Explain what disclosure standards govern PRSA’s engagement with contested public issues;
- Identify any governance or ethics review process applicable to PRSA-authored content; and
- Advise members how they may raise concerns about potential inconsistencies between PRSA’s ethical standards and its institutional rhetoric.
This inquiry is submitted in the spirit of strengthening PRSA’s credibility, protecting member trust, and ensuring that ethical standards are applied consistently and transparently.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your guidance on how PRSA interprets and applies its own ethical obligations.
Respectfully,
[Name]
[PRSA Member Number, if applicable]
[Chapter, if applicable]
[Contact Information]
Why this works (strategically)
- Non-accusatory → PRSA must answer, not defend
- Code-anchored → they can’t dismiss it as political
- Process-oriented → asks how, not why you’re wrong
- Creates accountability → silence becomes part of the record
If you want next, I can:
- Adapt this into a formal ethics complaint rather than inquiry
- Tailor it for anonymous submission
- Add citations to specific PRSA communications as exhibits
- Convert it into a member resolution or petition for broader support
So… in sum:
If ChatGPT can figure this stuff out in a Q&A exchange that took me only 10 minutes this morning to engage on my iPhone, then why can’t PRSA’s National Board of 17 working PR professionals and exceptionally well-paid team of New York staffers also use basic common sense, amongst themselves?
We may never arrive at an answer, until PRSA’s post-mortem is being written, sadly.
On that final note — and with even more timely and exceptional irony — the Minnesota Chapter of PRSA has been a multi-award PRSA chapter winner for so-called DEI excellence.
If that’s the case, then why is Minnesota such a gosh-awful mess right now, if the nation’s foremost PR experts in brokering “diverse” and “inclusive” and “equity”-driven comms are all operating in that very market?
It seems PRSA’s performative, plaques-and-trophies, grip-and-grin photo-opp track record on DEI — all window-dressing — has nothing to do with ACTUAL community impact.
But is it any wonder, when PRSA stifles, censors, muzzles, and demonizes any viewpoint that does not kowtow to left-wing ideology and comport with pre-approved talking points, regardless of how many victims of actual crimes lie dead in American streets… or sit terrorized under threat of being gunned down in Minnesota churches?
Stay tuned for more on this topic as following on this blog.
And in the meantime, maybe PRSA should report on behavioral reforms by its own national leaders, in light of this memo uncovered in recent FOIA requests, from 2021:
<NOTE: This memo was written by a current PRSA Foundation Board member.>
###
Based in Tennessee, Mary Beth West (X: @marybethwest) is a past National Board member of PRSA and is one of fewer than five public relations professionals in the world made a Fellow of both PRSA in the U.S. and a Fellow of the PRCA in the U.K.
Illegally retaliated against by PRSA, Mary Beth’s whistleblower reports of PRSA Misconduct can be located online.
