Katie McGhee
COMM 400-01
Case Analysis
Morally Offensive Language and Dolce Gabbana: Should They Apologize?
On March 15th, 2015, an Italian magazine released an article featuring statements by
Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana. These statements addressed their opinion about In
Vitro Fertilization and gay marriage and adoption. The pair expressed their disagreement
with the practice of In Vitro Fertilization and gay marriage, which sparked a campaign to
boycott the design label and its products. There were many mixed responses to this event
and the boycott that followed.
The issue area that is being explored is “media and morally offensive content.”
Offensive speech and events that involve it often “pit the values of free speech against those
of tolerance and human dignity and respect” (Day, 2006, p. 325). This communication event
clearly illustrates these conflicting values. Day also suggests that people who oppose societal
regulation of speech may be accurate in their observation that censorship does not work for
our society, but that does not mean that offended parties cannot respond or object to
insensitive and offensive speech. By looking at this communication event through multiple
ethical perspectives, there will be a clear decision that the designers should be given a
consequence for participating in offensive speech.
Situation
This event is a communication issue and an ethical issue, because it is “testing the
limits of free speech in the social media age” (Grinberg, 2015). Both parties involved in this
communication event are exercising their right to free speech. However, the designers
1
created controversy by engaging in offensive speech. Therefore the moral agent involved in
this communication event is the Dolce & Gabbana executive board, and the ethical question
is whether or not the board should enforce a consequence against the designers.
As stated, the issue began when designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana
made a statement to Italian magazine, Panorama. Britain’s The Telegraph newspaper
translated the comments, which stated:
“We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one.”
Dolce added, “You are born to a mother and a father — or at least that’s
how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children.
Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog.” Gabbana continued with,
“The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging” (Wey, 2015).
Dolce and Gabbana were expressing their right to free speech when making these statements.
In the United States, free speech is protected under the First Amendment. It is also protected
under the Italian Constitution in Article 21, which states, “Anyone has the right to freely
express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication.” However,
the statements made present an ethical dilemma because they are considered “offensive
speech."
The backlash following the statements made included several public figures stepping
forward, either in defense or opposition of Dolce and Gabbana. Singer, Sir Elton John, spoke
out in opposition of the designers, urging people to boycott the brand and its products. He
took to social media, using programs such as Instagram, to express his offense to the
statements made, saying, “How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic.’ And
2
shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF - a miracle that has allowed
legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfill their dream of having children”
(Ward, 2015). Sir Elton John’s social media outreach triggered an international boycott, led
primarily by the LGBT community and those who have used IVF. It was recorded that by
“Monday morning had been used more than 35,000 times on Twitter since John invoked it on
Sunday” (Grinberg, 2015). However, people and public figures also rushed to defend Dolce
and Gabbana. For example, Italian politician Roberto Formigoni described the boycott as
“shameful and intolerable” (Glanfield, 2015). Many people also took to Instagram to show
support to the designers and their right to free speech.
It is hard to control the moral sensibilities in society, but as public figures it is
important for the designers to be aware of their social responsibility. The importance is
increased in this situation, because the issue has reached international awareness. Most
importantly, for their company, they hold a responsibility to their shareholders. The
executive board would need to examine if not delivering a consequence to Dolce and
Gabbana would affect their business and therefore inevitably affect their shareholders.
Supporting the designers’ argument for free speech may be a short-term solution for the
executive board, but in the long-term will the comments made affect the business? Both are
viable solutions, but the executive board can only choose one.
Toni Massaro believes that, “Protecting hate speech, especially in controlled
environments like the workplace or school, fosters an atmosphere of incivility and tension,
which can give rise to unrest and even physical disruptions” (Massaro, 1991). But on the
other hand, Massaro states that “suppressing hate speech” may risk “charges of censorship”
(Massaro, 1991). This represents the two conflicting values taking place in this
3
communication event. When the executive board addresses their ethical question (should
they enforce a consequence for the designers, Dolce and Gabbana), they will inevitably be
discussing these two values and deciding based on which value they most agree with, in
tandem with their ethical dilemma of short-term versus long-term.
Analysis
Pros and Cons
When examining this issue, the pros and cons of the designers making a statement of
apology must be weighed. The first pro of the designers issuing an apology is that it could
possibly stop the boycott of the product. Though some people and celebrities have ceased the
boycott, large portions of the former boycotters remain active. The second pro is that it could
possibly increase sales. Not only would the people who were boycotting go back to buying
products, but also it may help their image and increase sales from those who simply
appreciate their public apology. Along those lines, the third pro is that it may help their
international reputation. Much of the backlash seemed to stem from western European
countries and North America. Fashion industry expert, Caroline Herz, believes that, “I think
it is extremely damaging. I do think that it will, in the immediate, affect the brand but I’m not
sure it will affect the brand in the long-term.” By apologizing, their international reputation
may be repaired. All of the pros are affects of Dolce and Gabbana’s morally offensive
content. Issuing an apology can potentially redeem the designers in the eyes of those who
were offended.
However, there would inevitably be cons to the designers issuing an apology. First of
all, the brand’s domestic reputation may decline. Many times, the pair expressed that their
values stemmed from their traditional Italian background. In particular, Dolce made a
4
statement saying, “I'm Sicilian and I grew up in a traditional family, made up of a mother, a
father and children” (Grinberg, 2015). Additionally, Roberto Formigoni was not the only
Italian politician to express support for the designers. If they were to issue an apology for
their statements, it could distort their reputation in their home country, and with other
traditional Italians. Along with that, the second con is that an apology may upset supporters.
People who stood behind Dolce and Gabbana’s right to freedom of expression may feel that
the designers are not upholding their own right if they submit to a public apology.
Stakeholders and External Factors
The key stakeholders are of extreme importance to deciding how to handle this
situation. To the Dolce and Gabbana executive board, one of the most important stakeholders
would be the shareholders of the company. Shareholders own a part of the company;
therefore their opinions would be valuable to the executive board. If they were to make
complaints to the executive board, those complaints would be very influential. If the no
apology is made and the boycott grows, the company could lose money and shareholders
would be directly impacted. Another stakeholder involved is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender community. Since the designers’ statements directly disputed the concept of gay
marriage and gay adoption, the LGBT community has led the way on the boycott. The LGBT
community also makes up a large client base for the designers. If an apology appeases the
community, they may begin to support the brand again. If there is an apology made and the
boycott still continues, the public may judge the LGBT community as grudge holders.
Similarly, external factors would play a role in this case. Economic external factors
would be whether the statements made have had an affect on the business. If the boycott has
5
made an impact on the business, then that could damage the brand and possibly cause people
to lose jobs. The LGBT community has become a social external factor, as well as a key
stakeholder. Losing this community’s support could damage the brand. The LGBT
community can gain even more media coverage on this issue and destroy Dolce and
Gabbana’s social status as a luxury brand.
An important historical external factor to examine is the upbringing of the designers.
Dolce has expressed that, “I'm Sicilian and I grew up in a traditional family, made up of a
mother, a father and children. I am very well aware of the fact that there are other types of
families and they are as legitimate as the one I've known. But in my personal experience,
family had a different configuration. That is the place where I learnt the values of love and
family. This is the reality in which I grew up, but it does not imply that I don't understand
different ones” (Sieczkowski, March 16, 2016). The Dolce and Gabbana website even
describes this brand’s universe as, “A world made up of sensations, traditions, culture and a
Mediterranean nature.” In a political context, the company’s code of ethics can be examined.
Their code of ethics can be found on the Dolce and Gabbana website, and states the
company’s values under Point 2 Section 1. The second value listed is “Respect for People”,
and says, “For Dolce&Gabbana, any form of discrimination and harassment must be
prohibited, paying constant attention to creating and maintaining a safe, healthy and adequate
working environment, in which all Employees and Co-workers are protected. These are the
essential conditions which ensure "Respect for the People" participating in the pursuit of the
corporate mission.” The comments made could violate the code as far as the value of respect
is concerned. Many would argue that by making their opinions public by talking to a
magazine, the designers were participating in discriminating actions.
6
Ethical Perspectives
In order to make a decision, looking at three ethical perspectives will be of aid. Dutybased ethics refers to the kind of perspective that does not rely on emotions or possible
outcomes. A duty-based approach must rely on a person’s moral obligation, or duty. Kant,
who ushered in this particular ethical perspective, believed that a person’s intentions should
be considered when determining if their acts are ethical. However, a person should not
consider emotions or potential consequences when determining whether an act is moral or
ethical. His first maxim, “Act as if the principle from which you act were to become a
general law of moral decision making,” means people should act in ways that are absolutely
ethical, because it is their duty and others could follow their lead. His second maxim is
summed up as, “Act in a way that you always treat others and yourself as an end, rather
than a means,” meaning a person should never be used to reach an end goal. From these two
maxims, the executive board would look at an apology from the designers as their duty as
long as the motives driving the need for an apology were pure and ethical. If the executive
board asked the designers to apologize simply because it would their brand regain their
reputation, then the apology is unethical.
Utilitarianism, as an ethical perspective, looks at what the greatest outcome for all
would be. Unlike duty-based ethics, this perspective is largely concerned with consequences.
This theory requires the board to look at whether there has been demonstrable harm as a
result of the statements made. Because a large number of people responded to the statements
with a boycott, it can be found that there was harm. The Dolce & Gabbana brand lost
business and lost support, which is also a large harm for shareholders and people who work
for the brand. An apology would appease the community of people boycotting the brand and
7
potentially gain back their customer base. Therefore, based on this perspective, the executive
board may decide that issuing a public apology may be in the company’s best interest, as it
would promote the happiness of more people.
Aristotle’s Golden Mean perspective looks for a balance between two extremes in
order to make a decision. One extreme in this situation would be for the company and the
designers to do nothing in the hopes that it will blow over. This could make the boycotters
even angrier and the company could lose more money. At the other end, the extreme would
be to make the designers to go against their first statements and express that they are okay
with In Vitro Fertilization and gay marriage and adoption. This would most likely cause
people to feel as though Dolce and Gabbana are untruthful or untrustworthy in what they say.
A good balance between these two extremes would be for Dolce and Gabbana to apologize
for offending people, ensuring that was never their intent. This way, boycotters may feel that
their voices were heard.
Decision
The executive board’s decision has been made based on the three ethical
perspectives—duty-based ethics, utilitarianism, and Aristotle’s Golden Mean. The decision
made by the Dolce and Gabbana executive board was that the designers should issue a public
apology. This decision is the one that would have the greatest outcome for the greatest
amount of people, because it is the one that offers a balance between two extremes while also
following Kant’s maxims. An apology will end the boycott on the brand’s products, and will
appease the people who are angry at the designer’s statements. The LGBT community and
those who have used In Vitro Fertilization feel that Dolce and Gabbana’s statements are
targeting the two communities, even though the designer’s are part of the LGBT community.
8
This decision is the best possible balance between the two extremes of doing nothing
and forcing the designers to go against their statements and say they do not believe what they
said. Because the designers’ statements are protected as free speech under the Italian
Constitution, they are allowed to express their opinions. However, that does not mean that
there will not be backlash from those communities that their statements refer to. By doing
nothing, the company would be ignoring that backlash and basically saying that the
comments made are the opinions of the entire company. On the other hand, forcing the
designers to go against their original statements would be unethical, because they would be
lying.
Cavan Sieczkowski reported that Gabbana stated, “We talked about our way of seeing
reality, but it was never our intention to judge other people's choices. We do believe in
freedom and love” (Sieczkowski, March 16, 2016). Since Dolce and Gabbana have already
stated that they did not intend to offend anyone, therefore issuing a public apology for
upsetting people across the world would only reinforce their regret for offending people. It
would not be a punishment for them stating their opinion, nor would it mean that they take
back their opinions. An apology would promote the happiness of the LGBT community,
those who have In Vitro Fertilization, the company’s shareholders, and other key
stakeholders.
Therefore, since the designers have vocalized that they did not intend to offend and
because this decision follows the principles of all three ethical perspectives, it seems only
logical that issuing a public apology is the best option for the executive board. Dolce and
Gabbana should listen to their executive board and issue a public apology in order to turn this
negative event into a positive one.
9
Word count: 2,695
Works Cited
CODICE OF ETHICS. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2015, from
http://www.dolcegabbana.com/corporate/en/group/code-of-ethics.html
Constitution of the Italian Republic. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.
pdf
Day, L. (2006). Ethics and Moral Reasoning. In Ethics in media communications: Cases
and controversies (5th ed.). Southbank, Victoria, Australia, MA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning
Glanfield, E. (2015, March 16). Italian politician slams Sir Elton John as 'a Taliban' and
says singer's call to boycott Dolce & Gabbana over 'synthetic children' comment
is same attitude that led to Charlie Hebdo massacre . Retrieved April 10, 2015,
from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996829/Victoria-Beckhamtakes-swipe-Dolce-Gabbana-synthetic-chemical-families-comment-tweetssupport-Sir-Elton-John-beautiful-IVF-babies.html
Grinberg, E. (2015, March 15). Elton John's Dolce & Gabbana boycott spreads CNN.com. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/15/living/feat-elton-john-dolcegabbana/index.html
Henry, C. (2014, April 7). Italy. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/europe/italy/
10
Massaro, T. (1991). Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech
Dilemma. William & Mary Law Review, 32(2). Retrieved from
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1923&context=wml
r
Sieczkowski, C. (2015, March 16). Dolce & Gabbana Respond To Backlash Over Their
Remarks About Gay Families. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/dolce-gabbana-respond-gayfamilies_n_6877476.html
Ward, V. (2015, March 15). Sir Elton John boycotts Dolce & Gabbana after row over
same-sex families. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11473198/Sir-Elton-Johncalls-for-Dolce-and-Gabbana-boycott-after-row-over-same-sex-families.html
Wey, B. (2015, March 18). BENJAMIN WEY SAYS, Dolce and Gabbana Be Fired.
Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.theblot.com/id-want-dolcegabbanas-resignations-wall-street-financier-benjamin-wey-says-7738561
11