Follow-up on Davenport University Post: President Resigns

I wrote on October 9 about Grand Rapid's Davenport University President Randolph Flechsig, who was arrested for drunk driving (http://crisisexperts.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-10-11T21%3A32%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=7). He either lied or was mistaken about being impaired, blaming a diabetic reaction, and he did it through the university's spokesperson. I received a comment from an anonymous reader who said the spokesperson, Chris Ervin, was a new employee who would "likely face more (baptism by fire) before this man's reign is over at Davenport University." A subsequent comment let me know that Flechsig's reign at Davenport is over.

Flechsig resigned during his drunken driving sentencing in 63rd District Court, where he received a suspended sentence of 93 days in jail (http://crisisexperts.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-10-11T21%3A32%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=7). He apologized for his poor choices and the damage he caused to the reputation of Davenport University, but no word on whether he apologized to Ms. Ervin, as urged by "Anonymous" and me. The Davenport board asked for his resignation, which takes effect on November 23.

"I work at DU" commented on my post, expressing shock that "Anonymous" could be so critical of an "effective leader, and a victim of people like 'anonymous.'" The writer goes on to say, "In the past, if you had an opinion, you wrote a letter to the editor and signed your name. There is something wrong with a society that allows mean-spirited people to attack others, lie about them, and basically broadcast it to the world without having to state their name.... It is evil and morally wrong to allow blogging/posting by "anonymous" people saying derogatory, untrue things."

I couldn't agree more. But that's the way of communications now, so we better get used to it. People can write ugly things about individuals and companies without worrying about the truth or being prosecuted for libel. We don't have to like the new communications environment, but we have to live in it. As communicators, we need to find ways to deal with this new world. Take a look at Wal-Mart. I just Googled "Wal-Mart hate" and found 8,140,000 results. The company can't fight the on-line negativity. Its best response is to conduct business reputably, offer value to customers, and keep shareholders contented. And it has to recognize that it will receive both unfair and fair criticism that can't be dealt with by filing libel lawsuits and expressing indignation, which was the way of the pre-internet era. People are out there, waiting to tarnish our company's good name. Are you ready? Do you have a strategy for highly visible web attacks against your reputation? How will you respond?