My hero.
Jennifer McKendrick is my favorite Ethics Hero of 2011.
An Indiana County freelance photographer of sensitivity, courage and principle, McKendrick engaged in classic ethical behavior—seeing wrongful conduct that harms others, and taking affirmative action to address it. Her conduct is a template for all of us, and not merely regarding the specific problem she decided to confront: online bullying.
McKendrick had been hired to shoot the senior photos of several high school girls, then discovered that they had viciously denigrated other students on Facebook. She sent the girls’ parents this letter:
“I am writing to cancel your shoot scheduled _________ due to some recent events brought to my attention. After stumbling upon a Facebook page called (name removed), I witnessed mean and cruel behavior coming from _______. I am returning your depositing of $212.00 and I’m afraid will need to find another photographer for your daughters senior photos. I want to protect the image of my business and the mean and hurtful things she has said on there is not the type of client I want to represent my business. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and I hope you understand my reasons for doing so. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter any further.”
“I don’t want to photograph them, I don’t want them to be a part of my business image and I don’t want them on my blog,” McKendrick told local reporters.
Instead of taking their pictures, McKendrick took screen shots of the online comments and sent them to her clients’ parents with the letter. “I got a couple responses that said ‘thank you for letting them know,’ that they were unaware what was going on and that they would take care of it,” McKendrick said.
The letter isn’t perfect. I would have preferred that the photographer be straightforward about investigating the girls she was supposed to photograph, rather than using the disingenuous “stumbling across a Facebook page.” That’s trivial, however. In every other respect she was an ethical champion:
- She saw unethical conduct that harmed others, and accepted her societal obligation to act, rather than adopting any of the many popular rationalizations that would have allowed her to do nothing, notably, “It’s none of my business.”
- She recognized our shared responsibility for the civility and kindness of our culture, and alerted the individuals directly responsible for teaching these values to the young: their parents.
- She did so unobtrusively and directly, providing guidance yet still leaving the primary responsibility where it belonged.
- She did not publicize the names of the girls or their parents, properly protecting the confidences of her clients.
- She took action is a way that involved personal sacrifice, which established her credibility, good will, integrity and ethical priorities.
In summary, Jennifer McKendrick saw a societal problem and recognized an opportunity to help all of us begin fixing it. As with all ethical people, it was a matter of an ethics alarm sounding loudly for her, and doing the right thing. As Jen wrote on her blog yesterday:
“I’m not claiming to be an expert in bullying and as a matter of fact when asked by the few people that called, NO, I don’t have a first hand experience with bullying. Of course during my middle school/awkward years I’m sure there were some name calling but it was never really that bad that I didn’t want to go to school. And certainly not as bad as some of the individuals that emailed in. So I can’t stand up here and say I had been bullied, because I wasn’t. I liked to think I was friends with everyone. BUT I don’t think one has to have gone thru being bullied to stand up to it. I would like to hope that all of us could speak up if we ourselves witnessed it happening with our own eyes. And I guess that is where I find all the buzz hard to believe and process. All I did was say, no, I’m not going to take your picture because you were mean. Do I think that I’m the best photographer in the world…hahah..big fat N.O.! Do I know they could go out and easily find another photographer…Yes….but the point was, I didn’t want to spend time with them trying to make them look pretty when knew they were being ugly on the inside. Mean is ugly…and in my opinion they were making the CHOICE to be ugly.”
And you made the choice to be ethical. You’re my hero, Jennifer McKendrick, in a dispiriting week in which we all need one badly.
Ethics Alarms 
Pingback: Ethics Hero: Jennifer McKendrick | Γονείς σε Δράση
THAT is a reason to deny service to someone. Behavior. I’ll bet this is not only ethical (obvious) but could be backed up legally, too, right? And since she’s NOT the actual school, and it was on non-private FB, then she’s not crossing First Amendment lines.
Congratulations, Becky—I’ve been patiently waiting for someone to distinguish this and the bridal shop example. Yes, you can deny service to someone because you don’t like them—for whatever reason—, but not out of bigotry. Rule of thumb: if it’s something they can’t change, its probably illegal (and obviously unethical) to deny them service because of it.
Jack,
I’m confused as to why it’s ethical to turn down legitimate business when the person involved doesn’t like someone’s personal behavior, but it becomes unethical when the discrimination is based on sexuality? White I am not a believer the sexual orientation is a choice or that same-sex attraction is in any way wrong or immoral, surely a business owner has a legitimate right to deny service to anyone.
What if the bridal shop had refused service to a group of polygamists, or NAMBLA was looking to host a ‘commitment ceremony’ between two of its members — would that have been different? Neither one is illegal, per se (one can’t legally marry more than one partner, however, there’s no law preventing someone from calling other women ‘my wife’ / NAMBLA is only illegal in cases of actual abuse), but both would be considered morally reprehensible by most people nonetheless. In much the same way, most Christian groups (not to mention Mormons, Jews, and Muslims) view homosexuality in much the same way.
What about the case in Philadelphia where a restaurant owner put an “English Only” sign on his business and was brought up on human rights violations? Either a proprietor has a right deny service to anyone (it is, after all, their business and money) or they have to accept everyone? Trying to differentiate between ethical and unethical abuses just leads to an endless sea of greys and moral subjectivity.
-Neil
If you are saying that any law on the subject will have loopholes, absolutely. If you are saying that THIS situation is hard to distinguish, I couldn’t disagree more. Shunning someone because of ongoing anti-social behavior like mean-spirited bullying has only up-sides for society. Discriminating on the basis of belief, politics or opinion, on the other hand, threatens to divide society into warring monolithic camps.Society’s laws decide who is a respectable citizen…there is no justification for excluding services to a NAMBLA member. or even a convicted child molester who has paid his debt to society,
One can make such distinctions more difficult than they are. I don’t see that this is either productive or enlightening, And the photographer was targeting children, while alerting their parents.She covered all the ethics bases.
Jack,
But that’s exactly where the issue becomes the murkiest because, as Christians (and others) see it, they’re discrimination only has upsides as well. Less homosexuality, in their view, leads to less collective sin and encourages more people to seek divine help. I’m not defending the bridal shop, nor am I saying the photographer was out of line, only that each proprietor was acting out of the same instinct — to take a stand against what they saw as immoral or unethical behavior.
By arguing is one is acceptable while the other isn’t, your creating a culture in which certain legitimate beliefs are being held as “unacceptable” by society. For me, the right of a business or social organization to accept or refuse service from anyone is a fundamental part of the First Amendment in regards to freedom of association. What use it it to argue fundamentalists have right to believe anything they want about homosexuality, but that they ultimately have to accept it nonetheless? This leads to the classic oxymoron in which only intolerance becomes intolerable.
I agree that such views on sexuality are archaic and close-minded, but those who hold them would likely argue much the same about mine. Why should I have a more legitimate claim to practice discrimination than they do when we’re both equal members of society? It’s not your ethics I disagree with, only your suggestion that one form of discrimination should be allowable while another is not.
-Neil
But that’s what ethics is, Neil. We have to try to look at the motivations objectively and analytically, and decide which responses are desirable, and which are not. One person kills to legitimately protect themselves; another sees a demon inside a stranger and kills him, because of her faith. Both people thought they were doing the right thing—that doesn’t mean we have to accept their reasoning.
And, as I said, there are substantive differences. A store is accorded greater responsibility to serve all than a free-lancer, just as a doctor has to treat everyone, but a lawyer can pick and choose.
So she is your ethical hero of 2011? What about her comment that after she told the parents that their response was “they will take care of it.” What does that mean? Does that mean the parents are going to beat their teens? Does that mean the parents are going to bully their teens? Does that mean the parents are going to coach their kids in the use of privacy settings on facebook? Does that mean the parents are going to just ignore the issue and hope it goes away? Does it mean that the parents will sit down and have a constructive conversation with their teen?
Since we do not know what the type of reaction of the parents will be, wouldn’t it have been better for the photographer to discuss her findings with the teens? Or cancel the photo shoot and tell the 4 teens why she was doing it?
Also, how do we know that the 4 teens were not being bullied outside of Facebook by the individual and this was a way of retaliating? The photographer took a lot of assumptions upon herself. Trying to feel self-rightious.
There are many sides to a story, and by the photographer going directly to the teens parents, bullied 4 voices into silence.
She has the right to take work from whomever she wishes, but this does not give her the right to bully.
Also, as an aside, if you read her news report, she did decide not to do business with someone cause of comments based on sexuality.
So she is your ethical hero of 2011?
No, Darryl, and if that is going to be your comprehension level here, we will not have fun. She is one of many Ethics Heroes I designate during the year. You’ll find out the “ethical hero of 2011” around New Years, 2012.
What about her comment that after she told the parents that their response was “they will take care of it.”
What were they supposed to say? “YOU take care of it”? That’s the right response, and the assumption is that they’ll supervise their kids, like parents are supposed to.
What does that mean? Does that mean the parents are going to beat their teens? Does that mean the parents are going to bully their teens?
How the parents parent isn’t Jennifer’s business. Parents need to know what kids do wrong to teach them otherwise. If my son was bullying a kid physically and a neighbor told me, 1) I’d thank him and 2) I’d say “I’ll take care of it.” What’s your point?
Does that mean the parents are going to coach their kids in the use of privacy settings on facebook? Does that mean the parents are going to just ignore the issue and hope it goes away? Does it mean that the parents will sit down and have a constructive conversation with their teen?
None of that involves Jennifer.
“Since we do not know what the type of reaction of the parents will be, wouldn’t it have been better for the photographer to discuss her findings with the teens?”
.
She could have. If my son was bullying another child and an adult stranger was there, he could legitimately pull my son aside and tell him it was wrong. It is easier to ignore a stranger than a father though. What she did was better.
“Or cancel the photo shoot and tell the 4 teens why she was doing it?”
Again, that would have been acceptable, and better than doing nothing. Telling the parents is much more effective, and a kindness to the parents as well. Also again, what’s your point? This is just free-form bitching, as far as I can tell.
“Also, how do we know that the 4 teens were not being bullied outside of Facebook by the individual and this was a way of retaliating?”
There is is!!! The smoking gun—proof you have no concept of what’s unethical conduct! The girls’ treatment of the bullied teen is no less wrong if the teen offended them is some way. If you think retribution and revenge is ethical, you need to start reading Ethics Alarms from the start…that’s about 1900 posts. Get busy.
“The photographer took a lot of assumptions upon herself. Trying to feel self-rightious.”
No she was trying to do the right thing and did. That’s only “self-righteous” to people like you, who object to people with initiative, a sense of social duty and courage stopping jerks from being jerks. They should be stopped, and these girls should have been stopped. Jennifer gave up a fee to do her duty as a member of society.
“There are many sides to a story, and by the photographer going directly to the teens parents, bullied 4 voices into silence.”
Baloney. You haven’t identified any relevant “sides” at all. She didn’t bully anyone, and their voices, used to harass, SHOULD have been silenced. or at least civilized. You haven’t made anything close to a coherent argument that she didn’t do the right thing. Because, you ee, she did
“:She has the right to take work from whomever she wishes, but this does not give her the right to bully.”
She didn’t bully!!!! She didn’t even talk to the girls—bully-by-proxy, with a minor’s parent as the proxy? Are you serious? This is an embarrassing comment.
Also, as an aside, if you read her news report, she did decide not to do business with someone cause of comments based on sexuality.
I don’t know what you’re referring to, and I couldn’t be sure what you mean because your sentence is incoherent. The best one in the comment, nonetheless.
So none of it should matter to Jennifer at all? That there could be the possibility of the teens being bullied by their parents? So the kids get verbally and/or physically abused by their parents after she intervenes is none of her concern. And I am talking from experience. I got caught doing something stupid and was scared. If the person explained things to me and what the possible consequences of my actions, I may have listened. Instead, I was told to sit down while they called my parents. I was sent home, beaten with a belt and told how stupid I was. I was sent to my room to think about what I did. All I thought about was how not to get caught next time. And I got bullied by my parents, cause they told the person that caught me that they would take care of it. And the thing is, I was always reminded of how stupid I was until I left at 14.
Now that I am 41, with 2 kids of my own, I try really hard not to follow the same patterns of bullying and abuse. I have become a Scout leader and have the ability to influence kids lives in a positive direction. If I see bullying, I take the child aside and explain to him how it hurts, even if you cannot see the wounds. I don’t go afterwards and tell his parents. If I see kids biking without helmets, I tell them to go and get one. If they don’t have one, I let them use one of the many I have laying around. Many people think they are doing good and trying to help. I am not faulting her on that. It is just that your argument is that once she has brought it to attention, then it is no longer her concern? How would Jennifer felt if she found out that one of the teens was beaten by her parents cause of this? Your argument would be that it is not her problem cause it no longer involves her.
From my experience, it would have been better for Jennifer to address the problem herself, instead of passing the buck. And she takes the cowards way out of justifying herself in finding the info. What was she doing when she “stumbled” upon the Facebook page? Was she trying to gather information about the teens to personalize the photos, or was she just being nosy and bored and looking up info on her subjects? Her stand would have been a lot stronger if justified it properly.
Nope. Jennifer is not responsible for the conduct of the parents. As a member of society, she has a shared responsibility for the conduct of minors, but only in matters the parents can’t address. The fact that your parents mistreated you is not the fault of those who reported your conduct to them—they should know, and have a right to know. The fact that they reacted wrongly and abusively is a separate issue and a different incident. We can’t extrapolate from individual experiences to general principles. This is moral luck, for you, someone doing the right thing turned out wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that he did the right thing.
Jennifer doesn’t have to justify looking at the Facebook page if it was public. Lots of photographers believe that it helps to know something about their subjects, and Facebook is a good resource. She found out that the girls were bullies, and didn’t feel like making them look good on the outside when she thought they were ugly inside. Good call.
LOL…
“I got caught doing something stupid and was scared. If the person explained things to me and what the possible consequences of my actions, I may have listened.” … “I was sent home, beaten with a belt and told how stupid I was. I was sent to my room to think about what I did. All I thought about was how not to get caught next time.”
So you got caught doing something stupid and were scared but a simple explanation from a stranger might have made you listen. But being punished, told it was stupid by your parents and sent to your room to contemplate your actions only yielded the thought on not getting caught “next” time? ROTFLOL!
Well I can’t argue with the failure of your parents being able to teach you but I think, under the circumstances, its difficult to imagine that a simple talking to from a stranger would have made all the difference. Perhaps your parents weren’t the most effective teachers as evidenced by the fact that their disciplinary tactics were obviously ineffective but I rather place the blame on you for not being able to learn to not do stupid things. The old adage “one is taught in accordance with one’s fitness to learn” seems to be quite fitting here.