Case Study #3 - Curro schools’ racially insensitive marketing campaign

Question

Curro recently came under scrutiny over the images posted on its social media pages depicting the Curro primary school pupils' career day event. The images showed a black child posing as a cashier, while white children posed as professionals or buyers. The school however claims that they received the consent of the parents before the images were used. Was the Curro marketing team ethical in their creation of this campaign?
Discuss whether or not media professional violated any rights as stipulated in the Bill of Rights in the SA Constitution. Discuss the prevention of Unfair descrimantion and promotion of Equality was violated and/ or that protected the behaviour

Answer 1

The Curro schools’ marketing campaign raises significant ethical concerns and implications regarding representations of race, consent, and the promotion of equality as outlined in the South African Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Ethical Considerations

1. Racial Representation: The portrayal of a black child in a subservient role (as a cashier) while white children are depicted in elevated or professional roles suggests an implicit reinforcement of racial stereotypes. This representation perpetuates historical injustices and can be viewed as racially insensitive, undermining efforts to promote equality and respect for all individuals, regardless of race.

2. Intent vs. Impact: While the Curro marketing team may have intended to create a fun and engaging representation of a career day, the impact of their images sent a harmful message that aligns with systemic inequalities. Ethical marketing should consider not just the intentions behind the campaign, but also the broader societal narratives it reinforces.

Legal Framework

The South African Bill of Rights, contained within the Constitution, is aimed at promoting human dignity, equality, and freedom. Within this context, several sections can be discussed regarding potential violations:

1. Unfair Discrimination (Section 9):

   • Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits unfair discrimination on various grounds, including race. The depiction of children in such roles could be argued to discriminate against black children by associating them with subordinate roles and white children with higher status professions. This imagery can contribute to a narrative that reinforces existing societal inequalities.

2. Promotion of Equality (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000):

   • This Act aims to prevent and prohibit unfair discrimination and harassment, but also mandates the promotion of equality. Curro’s campaign can be seen as failing to promote equality by visually promoting a hierarchical view of racial capabilities and roles in society.

Consent and Rights

While Curro claims to have received parental consent for the use of the images, consent does not absolve the marketing team from ethical considerations. For consent to be truly informed, the implications of how these images might perpetuate stereotypes and discriminatory perspectives must be transparent to those consenting. The potential for harm extends beyond individual consent, impacting the community and societal views on race.

Conclusion

In summary, the Curro marketing team’s creation of the campaign appears to be ethically problematic due to its reinforcement of racial stereotypes and discrimination, potentially violating both the Bill of Rights and principles outlined in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. Marketing strategies should always consider their broader social implications, especially in a society with a history of racial inequality like South Africa. As such, it is crucial for organizations to engage in deeper reflection and responsibility in their representation of diverse groups to promote an inclusive and equitable society.