Analyzing an Argument: Institutional Neutrality for Corporations

A New York Times opinion encourages corporate leaders to “Keep your mouth shut.” Students can analyze the argument in light of research about public opinion.

The authors, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, point to their article published in The University of Chicago Business Law Review. They compare corporate leaders’ choices to universities increasingly adopting institutional neutrality, including Chicago, which adopted guidelines back in 1967. The authors suggest that corporate leaders do the same—avoid statements as well as political activity—particularly regarding President Trump and his policies.

The authors argue that corporate leaders cave to pressure, which creates a swell of demand for other corporate leaders to chime in. The resulting statements are either “vanilla” and meaningless or “veer away from the mainstream,” which causes backtracking.

Students might evaluate the opinion against counterarguments. One example is this Forbes opinion, which suggests three reasons for leaders to speak out: aligning with stakeholder values, enhancing brand reputation, and driving position change. Much of the University of Chicago researchers’ article describes notable exceptions to the rule, for example, mission- or values-driven reasons or significant stakeholder views, so these opinions aren’t entirely contradictory.

Students also might bring public opinion into the argument. A recent University of Iowa study confirms what the Chicago researchers suggest.

Ending by focusing on courage and, implied, integrity, the authors highlight two character dimensions for all leaders:

In both the business and university contexts, silence often takes courage and a commitment to institutional modesty. For a corporation, a general policy of silence can remind stakeholders that the business of the business is, well, business.