The Ethics Behind Public Relations and Letting States License Barbers

While focusing on the licensing of barbers, Daniel Akst in the column, “OK, We License Dogs but Why Barbers?” (Aug. 20), presents a devastating attack on the business of licensing 3.4 million job holders in the state of California, representing numerous occupations.

By contrast, Bruce Horovitz quotes famed public relations man Edward L. Bernays as trying to bring about licensing of those who call themselves public relations specialists.

In my view, that is about as silly as licensing barbers.

Whatever anyone may think of my work in the field, I have spent 36 years in public relations and have never been unemployed.

My quarrel is that such regulation in the field is totally unenforceable because numerous people without a PR title give public relations advice. Some of it very good too.

If health is too important to be left to doctors, and religion is too important to be left to the clergy, then the image of business is too important to be left to those who have been shackled to conventional wisdom imposed by the licensing of PR counselors.

The mechanics of public relations are relatively simple. Of far greater significance is the gift of creative thinking. Licensing of such creative PR people makes about as much sense as licensing novelists, painters, composers or choreographers.

Licensing would uproot individualism by the rule of the majority. Orthodoxy would not only eliminate the flakes on one end, but also the creative people on the other. And no one yet has been able to measure creativity with a test.

FLOYD A. OLIVER

Los Angeles