Is There Shame
in Your Game?
A look at “how” the two
sides of ethical situations
can be interpreted
By PATTI FRALIX
n an age of greater and greater diversity,
how do we, as professional speakers, best
represent ourselves, our peers and our
profession ethically? If you think you have
the easy answer to this question, this article
may challenge your assumptions. In this
point/counterpoint approach to an often
unclear subject, you may find the answers to
questions regarding ethics more in the questions
than in any particular answer.
All NSA members sign a Code of Ethics
as a condition of membership. The code
is composed of “Thou Shalls,” which include
statements related to representing one’s credentials accurately. As NSA members, we can be
proud of our Code of Ethics. Our code, however,
does not guarantee that we are free of ethical violations, or that
when there are complaints of such, that they are handled to
the satisfaction of everyone involved.
Discernment and judgment of diverse individuals all bound by
a professional code that each can interpret differently makes
ethics, like democracy, messy. In the messiness is also found
freedom, including the freedom to interpret the same things
differently. That is, unless those differences rise to the level of an
official ethic complaint. Or until we have Socratic dialogue that
can help us all answer these questions in the spirit of a community standard. Our Code of Ethics does not describe the “how”
of ethical behavior, only the “what.” This article identifies some
questions we can ask to uncover the “how.”
