Doris Kearns Goodwin is probably about as well known as any historian right now, thanks to her frequent appearances on TV (48 times on Charlie Rose’s PBS show alone). In addition to being a much published and acclaimed Presidential historian, she went through a period where she was often talking and writing about baseball, so yes, I have a warm spot in my cold heart for her. Goodwin is perhaps best known for her Pulitzer Prize -winning book “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, much of which was adapted by Tony Kushner into the screenplay for Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film “Lincoln.”
Doris taught the American Government course on The American Presidency when I took it, succeeding Richard Neustadt who literally wrote the book on the subject, His “Presidential Power” is considered a masterwork even today. I got Doris in her first year teaching before “Goodwin”: she wasn’t very good, but she was cute, a pert redhead who arrived at Harvard with a whispered reputation of being one of LBJ’s conquests when she worked as a White House Fellow. A professor like Doris was a rarity at Harvard back then, for she was less than half the age of the typical Government Department prof.
Doris is in her 80s now, and yet that photo above is still the one she sends out for her appearances. She has a gig in a couple of weeks: the Humphrey School of Public Affairs will host her as she gives the 2026 Distinguished Carlson Lecture at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, titled, “Leadership for a More Perfect Union: Lessons from America at 250”. I think it’s mildly unethical for people to use photos of themselves that make it seem like they have the equivalent of the “Picture of Dorian Gray” in their attic. Kearns hasn’t looked like that in 40 years.
All of this is just a prelude to her Ethics Dunce exploits, however. I was watching an episode of American Horror Story Season Six, “Roanoke,” about a legendary mansion in North Carolina with a bloody and ghostly history. Imagine my surprise to see my old college professor showing up in an interview about the house, explaining its origins, the owner, Edward Philippe Mott, whose actions sent the house on its way to damnation, the many horrible demises of subsequent residents. The interview concluded with Doris saying that she doesn’t believe in ghosts but wouldn’t want to spend a night there—like the recent reality “ghost hunters” show crew that had been found slaughtered.
“a pert redhead who arrived at Harvard with a whispered reputation of being one of LBJ’s conquests when she worked as a White House Fellow.”
I KNEW IT! Her LBJ works always seemed to be a notch beyond mere groupie.
“I hold the similar ethics verdict about TV journalists playing themselves in movies and TV shows.”
Like Donna Brazile?
https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/10/24/donna-brazile-opens-an-ethics-can-of-worms-on-%e2%80%9cthe-good-wife%e2%80%9d/
BTW, we finally got Mr. Golden through all of the episodes of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” that he missed and will be moving on to “The Good Wife” which neither of us has seen.
I did a quick search, and the image is not as misleading as I expected. Wikipedia has a 2024 photo, and it is a most a few years older than her headshot above: https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/NBF2024-doris-kearns-goodwin.jpg/1280px-NBF2024-doris-kearns-goodwin.jpg
The fact that she played herself is the problem. If she was in the movie playing ‘Professor Alexandra Crowley’, I think it would have been fine.
Exactly.
This is funny because I thought the same exact think about your photo. I saw a recent Youtube video of you and you don’t look anything like the photos you use yourself. The photo on your site is what…17 years old?
Check. I took it down, and for exactly that reason.
The image is still on your pro ethics page.
Yeah, I also remembered that it’s on my completely out of date ProEthics Website—I’ll take it down today. The old photo is all over the web too, but I no longer send it out with any CVs or promotional material, and until I have the spare cash lying around to pay for a professional portrait, its not high enough on the priority list for me to do that and have to eat dog food for three weeks.
On the other hand, Doris has no excuses. She has an assistant and other staff to look after such details, and has a reported net worth of 10 million dollars.
Sincerely, thanks for the nudges on this.
I’d argue that wealth might affect how easy it is for someone to fix a problem but doesnt change if the conduct was unethical in the first place.
Also, I don’t think her photo is a misrepresentation at all. It’s a reasonable representation of what she currently looks like. Far as I can tell it’s about 8 years old vs your 17.
I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with this “gotcha.” It wasn’t until I wrote the post that I thought about my photo being out of date, and I have been addressing it, though it’s low priority. Nobody hires me because of my face. If that Doris photo is 8 years old, it was touched up: she looked a lot older than that on the AHS segment which was from 7 years ago. I haven’t actively sent out that photo in over a decade, so it’s a matter of neglect, not misrepresentation. As for the moment, where’s the harm, other than to me? The conduct wasn’t “unethical in the first place”: promotional photos become outdated incrementally, and I have always been camera phobic—long story, but I have never taken a selfie in my life, and never, never post photos on social media.
In short, bite me.
The original point and what I’m trying to address is that, her photo isn’t mildly unethical, since her photo reasonably represents what she currently looks like. And even if her phot doesn’t represent her current appearance (it does), your own photo certainly doesn’t represent yours. So I think a little charity towards her is warranted