Once again, the study/profession of "advertising" has received the scorn of nobler studies in the academic world. Jonathan Bowers, a journalism graduate student, argues that advertising and public relations are ill-placed in the School of Journalism and Communication because of their commercial nature. From Mr. Bower's perspective, J-School students "are taught how to be media-savvy and critical of what information is presented to them," and apparently the programs in question don't fit into that model. I couldn't disagree more.
Whereas I can't speak on behalf of public relations, the advertising program at the UO strives to teach its students to reach beyond moving products off shelves. Instead, those in the program are guided to bring new value to consumers (a.k.a. citizens) in ways beyond mere advertising and marketing. The Oregon SOJC is where that mentality is fostered.
SOJC Core Values Synonymous With Advertising's (at least what they should be)
Mr. Bowers views the role of the SOJC to be to "develop sharp, critical thinkers who look at information provided to them with a skeptical eye instead of blindly taking information provided to them." I see no harm in this outlook. But I don't see any reason why future adwomen and admen should be excluded from it. As distributors of information, advertisers should hold a high level of responsibility to those who receive it; this requires a critical view of the messages they are to convey. Just as traditional journalists a charged with a lofty ethical responsibility to the public, so should advertisers, perhaps even more so being the content is tied so strongly to private interests. I would have no desire to associate with the ad world were this duty of ethical and critical thought non-existent in its education. On the other end, don't think I have a delusional perspective of advertising as an ethically iconic industry with its primary job being to save consumers from malicious corporate entities. Advertising is commercial in nature. The critical approach to information taught in the SOJC is very much in the best interest of businesses as well.
Spoiler Alert: Business leaders don't always know what's best for their organizations. Confidence and self-affirmation are so important to business leadership in many managers' minds that they turn a blind eye to most insights that challenge the status quo. Challenging "the way it's done" is risky and risk is unwanted in commerce. So if every partner along the way simply agrees with the usual plan of action you can guess what the result often turns out to be. Hint: it's brown, steaming, and smells really really bad. The advertising industry is a two-way street, connecting the citizens to the people selling stuff. Advertisers are distributors of information to both sides (believe it or not) and often are positioned perfectly to redirect businesses away from harmful or otherwise worthless products, practices, and mentalities. Without a educational foundation in critical thinking and to the duties owed to the public, advertisers are just more yes-men in the machine and serve no benefit to consumers or commercial entities.
Business School Is A Worse Fit
To say that advertising being a branch in the Lundquist College of Business is "right up their alley" is an incredibly misinformed assumption. As I described before, even though the end goals of the two may be similar, the basis for getting there couldn't be more different: one creative, the other analytical; one public, the other private. Just because the two will work together in the future doesn't mean that they need to be taught the same material in the same building. Engineers are integral parts of many businesses. Does that mean our science majors should join the LCB? What about future doctors, designers, and musicians? They provide much of the content of enterprises, much like the professionals in agencies. Having divergent backgrounds in a working environment is perhaps the biggest key to success in organizations everywhere; advertising and business studies are not exempt to this. Conjoining the advertising program with the business school would be better than making the program separate from everything, but still remains worse than leaving it where it is.
An ad program based in the LCB would be bad for students, businesses, and the public.
The general lack of partnership between the LCB and the SOJC makes me sad. When I was studying music I was instructed that the only learning worth my time was within the School of Music's walls. I've since realized to ignore the walls. Curiosity and growth is too often limited in the university sphere to imaginary lines called "majors." The greatest results of history are achieved through the combination of linear, analytical processing and radical, intuitive creativity. Unfortunately the attitudes of the students between the two schools I'm mostly involved with now tend to stick to segregated stereotypical extremes. Business majors think that they aren't wired for creativity and that creatives are a bunch of hipsters with monster egos. Advertising students see mathematical thinking as something that escaped them in middle school and that Lillis is full of a bunch of uptight "suits." We should be reaching out more to studies and lifestyles unlike our own, not pushing them away. This is not a problem limited to this department relationship nor one to be solved by moving the location of a program. The issue is institutional, or maybe even human.
The whole concept of "schools" and "majors" is a little bull (to me at least) at times. They give structure and direction to many otherwise lost students, but they are restrictive to learning and open mindsets in a community full of young potential. I can understand Mr. Bower's frustration with the presence of advertising and public relations in a school of journalism (less so when I found that courses in ethics are not required of any student there). Still, I see proposing that a particular program should be removed from your college because it doesn't exactly match your purest vision of the craft is close-minded and stands to damage the education of more than just journalism students. What harm does the advertising program do to the rest of the SOJC other than slightly taint an idealistic view of journalism and communication academia? What does any program stand to gain from such an isolationist and exclusive standpoint?
Our world is not a collection of silos.
It is a complex network of differences and similarities.
I would love to see more collaboration between the J-School and the business school at the university without changing what makes each college great. It would add to the learning experience of both sides. Meanwhile it would be a shame to see the ad program get run out of the SOJC. The core values that make the school make the ad program great. Taking away the advertising program would take away from the learning experience of advertising students and others in the journalism school, regardless of where the program went. It certainly wouldn't make for a better University of Oregon or a better world.
Is the SOJC the perfect place at the UO for the advertising program? Perhaps not. But does the SOJC provide an education better suited for the industry and a progressive world than under the business school without infringing on the education of others? I see no reason pointing to no. So to Mr. Bowers, I encourage you to take another hard look at what damage the advertising program is doing to the SOJC. I think there is far more at stake than just the definition of "communication."
Besides, I have a hard time believing that most anyone in the SOJC would fit well into required business classes like supply chain management. Business students can hardly stand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment