Few moments in a journalist’s career are more challenging than the times when cherished professional principles are called into question. The exception may be when our journalistic principles run headlong into our personal ones and tug at our moral fabric.

Such was the case over the weekend when the executive board of the Society of Professional Journalists met at it annual summer gathering and faced down an agenda item listed under new business as item “e. The Helen Thomas Award.”

The issue before us was whether we should retain Thomas’ name on our lifetime achievement award in light of her ridiculous and offensive remarks regarding Jews, saying they need to leave Israel and return to homelands of Germany, Poland and the United States. Those remarks cost her a job and disenfranchised her from a number of people and organizations with whom she was associated. Those remarks came in late spring. What SPJ would do wouldn’t be decided until late July in New Orleans.

From the day she uttered her now-famous words, the press wanted to know SPJ’s stance. Let me correct that. Some wanted to know. Most wanted to tell us. Because I felt this organization needed to carefully and judiciously consider this issue, I said from Day One we’d not rush to judgment. But the public did and so did some of our members.  A number of you weighed in on the issue in the weeks leading up to the board meeting and your voices were compiled and available to the board before the meeting.

Most of you provided thoughtful comments. Some made threats to leave the organization if we moved to change the award. Some chastised us for thinking someone so caustic and bigoted should have her named aligned with such an honorable journalism group.

Initially, a motion was made not to change the name and it received a second. What I’d call and very respectful and professional discussion ensued. Everyone had something to contribute. The executive board considered sending the matter to a vote of the full board. There was talk about a resolution before the October convention where sitting delegates could cast the deciding vote. After sharing views for nearly an hour and reflecting on it more personally over lunch, the board decided to take no action, and as such, the award is unchanged. But, as I see it, no action denies Thomas any votes of support from SPJ exec board members.

Personally, this was a tough call.  When I initially considered her remarks, I immediately fell into my First Amendment defense posture. SPJ has spent more than 100 years defending free press and free speech issues. How, after a long-established commitment, even in support of gravely offensive language, could we turn our backs on our principles to punish Thomas for her insensitive comments?

But, the more I thought about it, the more I opened up to other perspectives. As president elect Hagit Limor (an Israeli-born Jew whose father escaped from Germany and survived the Holocaust) said “this isn’t just about free speech rights. It’s about rewarding this kind of language and behavior.” In short, she can say what she wants and be defended, but she doesn’t have to be rewarded with such an important award.

Had Thomas said all black people should go back to Africa, there’s a very good chance this decision would have been made a lot sooner and with a different outcome. I feel confident in saying that.

Many who defended her name on the award made convincing arguments that our award speaks to her work as a journalist, not her personal views, and it’s unfair to throw out five decades of stellar professional journalism over this one incident. The award bears her name and lifetime achievement because it reflects the body of her long and illustrious career. And, quite honestly, that’s a valid argument and I respect it.

In the end, the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award was moved to “old business.” But dealing with bigotry needs to reflect a “new business” mentality. SPJ has three foundational missions – free press, ethics and diversity. If we are to live up to our mission of promoting diversity, it seems counterproductive to allow these very types of words and thoughts to be associated with our organization and, in part, define us. Regardless of her lifetime of achievements, Thomas needs to be mindful that her remarks have no place among people and her brethren whose obligations are to truth and fairness.

One of the nicest byproducts of being the SPJ president is getting a chance to meet up with all the regional directors, student representatives, campus advisers at-large and at-large members over a board table three times a year to conduct Society business.

I really enjoy meeting everyone, and having stolen moments here and there to talk about what’s happening at the chapter and regional levels of SPJ. I learn a great deal and I’m pleased to say that a great deal is going on to improve SPJ that has nothing to do with me. And, that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Last week at our annual spring board meeting in Indianapolis, the national board dealt with the following:

• We welcomed new student chapters at Kennesaw State University, Texas A&M, DePaul and Central Connecticut State.
• We also granted initial approval of what is expected to be our first official international chapter in Qatar. Northwestern University’s Medill School is proposing a student chapter that could balloon to 80 members. Obviously, we are excited about the prospects of new members, new chapter and dipping our organizational toe in the international arena.
• Conversely, we agreed to hold off on revoking charters of some professional and student chapters that have been inactive for a few years. The reason is we want the regional directors to work with the Membership Committee to see if we can inject some needed infusion into them before they leave the rolls. It’s much harder to start one from scratch than to regain members.
• The Membership Committee will begin calling new and renewed members each week. A group of executive officers, Regional Directors and former presidents will make calls on behalf of SPJ, thanking the members for renewing or starting a membership with our organization.
• Additionally, the Membership Committee will be working with staff in the coming weeks to produce a variety of fliers, posters and brochure covers that are universally applicable to SPJ chapter events. The idea is that this will allow chapters to go to the website, download pdfs of a poster or flier and add their local information and print them off for upcoming events.
• The board learned of the varied relationships SPJ has established with RTDNA, CPJ, IFJ and others for the betterment of journalism. As many of you know, SPJ will be partnering with the Radio Television Digital News Association for our 2011 convention in New Orleans. Our relationships with The Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists are in the early stages, but allow SPJ to have a growing presence in the international journalism frontier. SPJ also partners with the Online News Association, the American Society of News Editors and other groups as part of its convention programming and exhibitions.
• The latest ethics book is slated to be distributed in early October, hopefully in time for the convention in Las Vegas. The book is the three-year project of the ethics committee.
• A generous donation of $65,000 from the estate of Utah’s Alexander S. Bodi to the SDX Foundation. The money was then appropriated to the Terry Harper Memorial Fund. Terry and the donor became friends in their last years and we think this is a perfect use of the money. This will allow SPJ to offer about $5,000 a year in scholarships each year for journalists wanting to attend the national convention.
•  The board agreed to extend the six-month hardship/transitional dues waiver for journalists who have lost their jobs.

All in all, this was a great meeting and a number of exciting initiatives and projects are being accomplished. I’m happy to say that SPJ is weathering the industry turmoil well and in the coming months we think we will: See membership numbers start ticking upward; Produce a healthy and exciting response to an FCC call for comment on the future of journalism; And we will finish the last of our spring conferences next week and likely surpass the 1,400 mark of journalists in attendance nationwide at our 12 spring conference.

It’s a great time to be in SPJ. Just thought you should know.

Sometimes, as a member of the Society of Professional Journalists, you might get questions about our organization from fellow journalists who are non-members. The questions are usually ones wondering why they should join and what does SPJ really do?

If you have received that kind of question lately chances are you point to our stellar work for a free press, our outstanding ethical contributions, our work on behalf of diversity and our far-reaching and helpful professional development.

But, let me provide you with a few real-time examples of why SPJ is important and what we do invaluable in the grand scheme of protecting and improving journalism.

Here’s what SPJ has done in the last month:

We took NBC News to task for providing a very generous gift of a private jet ride from Brazil to the U.S. for a father and his son in exchange for an exclusive interview. NBC has taken exception with our characterization of this event. They said it was a simple act of kindness shown to Mr. David Goldberg and his son following a long and expensive custody battle over several years, which NBC covered extensively. The fact that NBC admitted to having done nearly 18 interviews with Mr. Goldman and that their viewers had developed a relationship with the family and viewers had come to expect this relationship via NBC means nothing when they offered him the private ride in exchange for an exclusive, an NBC spokesperson said.

We said otherwise and called it “checkbook journalism” and we contend it’s wrong. Just like it was for CNN to buy photos and an exclusive interview with Dutch passenger Jasper Schuringa who helped subdue the would-be Christmas Day plane bomber in Detroit.

The NBC story got a lot of traction and more than three dozen outlets by my last count reported SPJ’s condemnation of NBC’s exclusive buy.

This week, in a trifecta defense of the First Amendment, we threw our support behind a reporter in St. Louis who was arrested for standing on a sidewalk interviewing people and videotaping police break up a protest outside a local high school.

Steve Wagman, a veteran of the Post-Dispatch, as far as we can tell from the video and reports, did nothing more than stand his ground and defend his right to be there reporting the story. He wasn’t belligerent or in any way interfered with the police doing their job. They said differently and arrested him. SPJ backed Wagman and sent a letter to officials asking for charges to be dropped.

The next day we stood behind a group of Northwestern students who are being subpoenaed by a Cook County prosecutor who wants everything from their reporting notes to their course grades. Students in a class for the Medill Innocence Project helped gather enough evidence through reporting to show a convicted man was wrongfully charged with a crime. In return for their work, some of the same prosecutors who convicted the man are now trying to bully and discredit the students and are using strong-arm tactics to get their information and make them talk in court.

SPJ, along with a number of other media organization and outlets, took a firm stand and filed an amicus brief in the Chicago judicial system this week, asking that all charges and prosecution stop.

As if that wasn’t enough, SPJ sent a letter to Congress Tuesday calling on leaders to exercise an open-door policy when it comes to debating the health care reform bill. C-SPAN has been locked out of government proceedings and the largest financial commitment by the U.S. government in our history is being shaped behind closed doors. We adamantly protested this and called on Congress and the Administration to open the doors to the behind-the-scenes discussion and let the American public really see and learn what is taking place on this landmark legislation.

So, in a matter of two weeks, we slapped a journalism organization for an ethical transgression, stood behind a falsely accused reporter trying to cover a story, filed legal papers in support of journalism students whose work has brought them vindication from authorities and demanded more transparency in our government.

Not a bad couple of weeks. Defending the free press and the public’s right to know isn’t just noble talk. It really takes place within SPJ and it’s what makes us a proud and effective group that has lasted 100 years and earned us more than 8,000 members.

The next time someone asks what SPJ does for journalism, start your response with “Where would you like me to begin?”