The Elephant/Donkey in the Room

At the 2024 International Association for Business Communication conference in Tulsa, I presented with my Cornell colleagues David Lennox and Christy McDowell about whether and how faculty might discuss U.S. election communications in their classes. Here’s the slide deck and a summary. You’ll see that we co-opted a title from the Southeastern region, which was catchier than our academic title.

We acknowledge that these conversations can be challenging and that faculty decide for themselves whether and how to engage. Tackling this topic requires courage and compassion—for instructors and for students.

Identify Benefits and Risks

We started the presentation with a few benefits about engaging the class to discuss election communications (for example, candidate debates and speeches, campaign emails and texts, ads). Faculty might see these classroom conversations as a way to model civil discourse—a training ground for students to engage others in their professional and personal lives. Faculty might want use election examples to illustrate business communication principles. In addition, faculty might feel personally motivated—a civic responsibility to discuss these messages, which students might not have an opportunity to discuss in any other class.

Then we described a risk assessment model (Kidder, Moral Courage) that includes evaluating potential ambiguity (for example, university mixed messages or unclear guidelines, whether we believe the discussion would be valuable, and perhaps, questions about our own facilitation skills). Faculty might also consider potential emotional exposure (for example, that we might get emotional or flustered during a class discussion or that we might hear student complaints). Finally, we might fear loss (for example, damaged relationships with students or colleagues, risks to tenure or promotion, or harm to students who speak out in class). We weigh the potential risks against the benefits to determine our classroom strategy.

Connect Election Communications to Course Learning Objectives

For faculty who choose to engage, we offered several course learning objectives, shown here, that connect to election communications. Closely tying any class discussion into course outcomes puts us on more solid ground, with a justifiable reason to bring examples into the classroom.

Explore Strategies to Engage with Students

Given these realities, we described strategies for approaching election communications. We all probably have ground rules, perhaps that students participated in creating. Depending on the course, these could include deeper, interpersonal guidance, such as, “Be open to others' views and appreciate differences,” and “Keep confidential discussions that the community has of a personal (or professional) nature.”

Next we applied a Rhetorical Sensitivity model to these potentially challenging classroom discussions. The rhetorically sensitive person:

• Tries to accept role‐taking as part of the human condition

• Attempts to avoid stylized verbal behavior

• Is characteristically willing to undergo the strain of adaptation

• Seeks to distinguish between all information and that information acceptable for communication

• Tries to understand that an idea can be rendered in multi‐form ways

Finally, we described Tango, a team game that Cornell Dyson students participated in during a first-year course. They had good results from the activity: “a statistically significant effect on students’ intent to get to know Cornell students of different political views.” Contact CEO Scott Warren at swarren@jhu.edu for more information about Tango.

The Debate and BCom Principles

The U.S. Presidential Debate is ripe with topics to discuss in class. Without getting into political alignments, students can analyze the following:

• The initial greeting: VP Harris approached former President Trump to shake his hand. Was this a good choice? How did the greeting appear?

• Voice: VP Harris’s voice was unsteady at the beginning but improved during the debate. How did that affect her message?

• Presence and nonverbals: How did the candidates’ appearance affect their positions? Some commenters wondered how they would appear on stage because of their height difference—and cited evidence about past election winners. How did they compare?

• VP Harris’s “baiting”: Analysts said VP Harris baited Trump, for example, by talking about people leaving his rallies. They said this was intentional to rattle him, and that it worked—he became more emotional and said things that hurt his position. Did students detect this strategy when it happened?

• Gun ownership: VP Harris said that she and Governor Walz own guns. How would students verify this? What are they used for—and does that make a difference? What was the purpose of this statement?

• CNN verification: A couple of times, reporters contradicted claims on the spot (e.g., about pets and abortion extended beyond birth). How did students perceive these moderator interruptions? Did they seem fair or biased?

• Answering questions: VP Harris was asked about changing her positions, for example, on fracking. She evaded the question. How did her approach work?

• Audience: The debate was held in Pennsylvania. How did that audience affect what the candidates said? Did they adapt their message? Was that appropriate, given that no audience response was allowed and the program was televised nationally?

• Memes: What memes have students seen after the debate? How do they react to them? Are they funny? Do students believe they influence voters?

• Taylor Switch endorsement: How do students perceive Taylor Swift’s endorsement? Why did she choose the timing, approach, and signature line? What could be the effect?

• Winner: Who “won” the debate? What does it mean to win the debate? Will it matter for the voters who already have a preferred candidate—or for those who were undecided?

My hope is that these questions are neutral, but my own political views may have seeped in—and I understand this is a challenging class discussion. The Southeast region of the Association for Business Communication hosted a Teaching Circle for faculty to explore whether and how to discuss election communications in our classes. I presented with my Cornell colleague, David Lennox, and we’ll present at the Annual International Conference in October with Christy McDowell. More to come.

Image source.

Lawyer Speaks Out Against Musk Pay

A lawyer who spoke against Elon Musk’s Tesla salary claims he was ousted by the company as a result. The situation illustrates persuasive communication and character.

Retired law professor of corporate governance Charles Elson of the University of Delaware planned to submit a legal brief to dispute a $56 billion package for Musk. Students can analyze the legal brief, which the judge referred to as “persuasive.” For a legal document, it’s an unusually fun read, including the footnotes, the first of which clarifies, “Musk did not actually found Tesla, but he was a very early investor and its fourth CEO.”

Here’s an excerpt:

Elon Musk is not unique. Musk is an archetype that we have seen before and will see again: a confident, charismatic founder¹ with world-class sales ability and a “reality distortion field”² that inspires outsized enthusiasm in customers and employees alike. Musk is very special, but he is not a one of a kind.

Bill Gates. Jeff Bezos. Mark Zuckerberg. Larry Brin. Sergey Page. Not one was an “ordinary executive” or “typical CEO.”³ Each was “intimately involved in all aspects of [their companies’] operations,” and “instrumental in transforming” it.⁴ Each had “a proven track record of visionary, transformational leadership[.]”⁵

None was paid like Elon Musk.

Elson says that Tesla threatened to drop him as a legal consultant if he filed the opposing letter. Elson struck back, calling the move “extraordinary and appalling” and “a fig leaf for Musk, acting through Tesla, to try to bully a law professor by making a serious economic threat to a law firm with which the professor had a consulting relationship.” He also said, “I was shocked by the whole thing,” but if you have to choose between your job and your integrity, you choose your integrity every time.” The law firm denies being pressured by Tesla to remove Elson, instead staying that his views were “inconsistent with the firm’s obligations to its client.”

For his part, Musk threatened to move the business to Texas if his compensation isn’t approved. Musk is not known for his humility.

Image source.

Comms About USC Cancelling Valedictorian Commencement Speaker

In another difficult situation for university administrators, University of Southern California (USC) rescinded its plan for commencement speaker valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian-American Muslim.

In a statement, the university defends its decision. Administrators admit that the decision was based on fear of the “alarming tenor”:

The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement. We cannot ignore the fact that similar risks have led to harassment and even violence at other campuses.

The statement emphasizes “unprecedented risks we are seeing at other campuses and across the world” and advice from the university department of public safety as factors leading to the decision. In the middle of the statement, we read the decision: “After careful consideration, we have decided that our student valedictorian will not deliver a speech at commencement.” Administrators preempt criticism: “To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period.” The statement includes an FAQ and a link to the commencement selection process.

We could say that administrators lack courage, although they also demonstrate courage by, as they see it, protecting the 65,000 people who will attend the event—and, of course, the university’s reputation, possibly preventing bad press.

A student group’s statement refers to Tabassum’s writings as “antisemitic bigotry,” including, in quoted text, the “‘complete abolishment’ of Israel.” The USC statement doesn’t mention these specifics and, instead, focuses on safety.

Yet, in her statement, Tabassum denies hearing about “any specific threats against me or the university.” She defends her work and calls for courage: “And I urge us to see past our deepest fears and recognize the need to support justice for all people, including the Palestinian people.” The cancellation has an extra sting for Tabassum, who was the valedictorian of her high school but didn’t get to make a speech because of COVID-19.

Moral courage means accurately assessing risks and walking through fears. University administrators have made their assessment. The executive director of the Greater Los Angeles Area Office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) expressed his disappointment, calling the decision “cowardly”:

USC cannot hide its cowardly decision behind a disingenuous concern for “security.” Asna is an incredibly accomplished student whose academic and extracurricular accomplishments made her the ideal and historic recipient of this year’s valedictorian’s honor. The university can, should and must ensure a safe environment for graduation rather than taking the unprecedented step of cancelling a valedictorian’s speech.

I don’t envy university leaders, who may be trying to do the right thing but are finding it difficult to know exactly what that is.

UPDATE: USC has cancelled all commencement speakers, or as they say, they will “release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year’s ceremony.” Four high-profile people had been invited. Another character dimension at play is integrity: withdrawing a commitment.

Image source.

Communication Issues Around Harvard President Resignation

Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned after weeks of pressure and speculation. The communication issues around this situation are too weighty to properly cover in one blog post. But here are a few angles if faculty want to venture into the topic with students.

• Bill Ackman’s calls for Gay’s resignation were the most fierce, and his antagonism started before October 7. His long, celebratory post provides his version of Harvard’s failings, including its DEI programs, and suggests that the entire Board resign. We see his business perspective, comparing university growth to business standards. He also writes, “I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president.” I don’t categorically disagree, but I wonder whether he has anyone in mind.

• Gay’s resignation letter is short and polite. She shares “Personal News” and closes with a forward-looking sentiment:

  “As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity—and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for—and to our capacity to serve the world.”

• The Corporation’s letter is similarly diplomatic, thanking Gay for her “deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence.” They criticized her attackers:

  “We do so with sorrow. While President Gay has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them, it is also true that she has shown remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks. While some of this has played out in the public domain, much of it has taken the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls. We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.”

• Al Sharpton is one of many who also defended Gay and criticized Ackman directly, announcing a protest outside his office. He blamed racism: “This is an attack on every Black woman in this country who’s put a crack in the glass ceiling. It’s an assault on the health, strength, and future of diversity, equity, and inclusion . . .”

• Gay’s opinion essay in the New York Times describes racist attacks against her and the bigger picture of her experience. She defends her scholarship, emphasizing that her research and the contribution of her work were never at question. She discusses courage, a character dimension worth talking with students about in their own communication.

• Gay’s plagiarism might deserve class attention. Examples of minimally rewritten passages in her work could serve as a teaching tool about standards for business communication and other students. This might also serve as an opportunity to put the criticism in context, as she does herself in the NYT piece.

Image source.

Tools for Managing Through Interpersonal Conflict

As students protest across campuses, faculty can help them manage through conflict. Here are two tools from the text chapter, “Communicating Across Differences,” and a few thoughts about character.

This matrix, adapted from other sources (see below), shows students how to move from debate to dialogue—and through emotional involvement, my addition for more personal and community conflicts.

Students may practice reflection after presentations or activities, but reflecting “in action” is a way to zoom out and get perspective during an interaction that isn’t going well. Questions about emotional and physical reactions deepen students’ typical intellectual reflections in the classroom and encourage students to take action—even to support those who disagree with them.

Students also will learn from discussions about character. When they stand for their beliefs, they demonstrate courage, but changing their beliefs also takes courage (and humility). Protests also may veer from challenging injustice to self-righteousness, an extreme of courage that looks like moral superiority and absolute certainty.

Protesting demonstrates compassion for one side, but so does seeing the other side’s pain. In addition, students are vulnerable when they protest: they risk emotional exposure and being “doxxed,” identity exposure they might consider unbearable.

---

Figure 6 is adapted from “Creating Community Across Difference,” Intergroup Dialogue Project, Cornell University, 2018, which is adapted from University of Michigan Program on Intergroup Relations, 2008. Original source: Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999). Adapted with Eric Clay, multi-faith and secular chaplain.

University-Related Communications and the War

If you’re speaking with students about communications around the Israel-Hamas war, here are a few ideas, and students will probably have their own examples that didn’t make national news.

Protests and Free Speech

In addition to student protests at universities, a few well-publicized examples have raised questions about faculty and staff behavior—and about free speech. Students can analyze one or more of these situations and the university’s response. This is a particularly good activity to challenge students to evaluate their sources and to consider all the possible choices and repercussions for the university.

• Yale: A professor of American studies, tweeted, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.”

• Cornell University: An associate professor of history says on video that the “challenge” by Hamas was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” (See his apology, which students can compare to criteria in Chapter 7 of Business Communication and Character.)

• Stanford: A lecturer apparently separated Jewish students in class as an example of what Israel does to Palestinians and called an Israeli student a “colonizer.”

Criticism of Ivy League Statements

Some universities have revised or supplemented their original statements. Students can analyze messages to identify changes, for example, taking a clearer stand, including more emphatic language, adding personal reflections, more clearly distinguishing between Palestinian support and the Hamas attacks, etc. Students can discuss how effective the revisions or add-ons are and whether they satisfied critics. Students also may consider what character dimensions are illustrated, or not. Here are a few statements:

Stanford University
“Statement about support and resources for students as crises unfold worldwide” (Oct. 9)
“An update for the Stanford community” (Oct. 11)

Cornell University
”Response to the terrorism in Israel” (Oct. 10 and updated later that day)
”Supporting one another as we stand against hatred (Follow up on events in Israel)” (Oct. 16)

Harvard University
See the series of statements, including the original on Oct. 9, the follow-up on Oct. 10, and the president’s video on Oct. 12 (shown here).

Donors Pulling Funding

Related to the criticism of elite colleges, this article provides examples of donors pulling funding based on universities’ responses. Discussion questions could include the following: How do funders explain their decision? What reasoning or evidence do they provide? What do funders say they want in return? How effective do you believe this strategy will be?

Joint University Statement

Leaders of Yeshiva University, University of Notre Dame, United Negro College Fund, Baylor University, and others issued a joint statement, “We Stand Together with Israel Against Hamas.” Discussion questions could include an analysis of the statement (what’s said and what’s missing), why some leaders would choose to sign this statement and others would not, and how Baylor’s fuller response provides context for the university’s decision to sign.

Firms Denying Jobs

Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman called for Harvard students who signed the pro-Palestinian statement to be revealed, so he wouldn’t “inadvertently hire” them. The CEO of Sweetgreen and others agreed. A law firm rescinded job offers to three students who had signed statements. Discussion could include students’ thoughts about these decisions. What ethical questions are involved? What character issues are at play? What are the possible positive and negative consequences to leaders who make these public statements—and decide not to hire certain job applicants? Here’s one opinion on Ackman for students to discuss.

Comparing University Statements About Israel

As an in-class activity or assignment, students can analyze and compare what university officials are saying about the conflict in the Middle East. Here are a few statements and, below, possible questions for discussion. The Harvard situation is particularly charged. The university is facing criticism because, despite issuing a statement supporting Israel, so far, it hasn’t responded to a post by 34 student organizations: “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine.” (Update: The president posted a response on October 10.)

Statements

Brandeis University
Harvard University
Hunter College
New York University
The Rockefeller University
University of Connecticut
University of Miami
University of Washington

Questions for Discussion

• Who are the primary and secondary audiences for the statement?

• What are the communication objectives?

• For each statement:

  • How does the writer describe the issue; for example, is it called a “war,” “conflict,” “tragedy,” “attack,” or something else?

  • What’s the significance of how the issue is described? In other words, how clearly does the university support a position?

  • How might the university’s mission, student population, location, and other factors affect the message?

  • How would you describe the tone? What language illustrates your characterization?

  • How do connections to the region affect the credibility of the message and the writer?

  • What resources are offered for students?

  • What does the message say about campus conduct and safety?

  • What, if any, action does the university promise?

  • How does the writer illustrate character dimensions, for example, compassion, accountability, integrity, or courage?

  • What else distinguishes one statement from another?

• What universities are missing statements? Why might they choose to stay out of the conversation? Or are they just slower in responding, and why might that be?

Image source.

Bud Light's Failed Crisis Communication

A Fortune writer summarizes the Bud Light controversy well: “As it turns out, people do really have thoughts and values.” Business communication students will recognize failures around crisis communication and character in this story.

By almost any definition of crisis communication, the company failed. Backlash started when Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev formed a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. After two weeks of memes, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a vague statement that the Fortune author appropriately calls “corporate gobbledygook that tries to appease all sides and achieves nothing.” Of course, the company is in a tough spot, mocked by conservatives and criticized by Mulvaney and LGBTQ+ advocates for not taking a stand.

Whitworth did an interview with CBS in July, although students will recognize his general responses. Gayle King tried to get personal: “What has this been like for you?” He doesn’t sound like someone whose employees are being laid off and whose brand is suffering staggering losses. Of course, we expect a CEO to be optimistic, but wouldn’t a two-year CEO also be personally devastated? Consumers today want to see more from brand leaders—we want to know them as people.

AB let issues linger. A stronger response might have staved off the boycott and revenue decline we see today: Bud Light is no longer America’s top-selling beer, and almost $400 million in lost sales is associated with the controversy.

I’m reminded of the Bud Light controversy in 2015—the “Up for Whatever” campaign. At that time, the company posted a clear apology.

This time, AB seems lost. A partnership with country music band Midland is only fueling the controversy.

A company can’t market, advertise, or partner its way out of a crisis. Only a clear, consistent communication strategy can do that. Although it might lose some support by taking sides, AB is losing all support by taking no sides.

At this point, the best approach might be for the leadership team to demonstrate good character. Courage requires leaders to take a stand despite risks. They are overdue for executing on crisis communication principles: admitting their failings, apologizing for wrongdoings, and having an unequivocal path forward. This includes clearly acknowledging criticism and the damage done.

Northwestern's Statement on Coach Termination Lacks Compassion

Northwestern University’s president published a statement explaining the decision to fire the head football coach after investigating claims about hazing. The message could be an example of persuasion—and either good or bad news, depending on your perspective.

Taking responsibility up front, President Michael Schill put his name at the top of the statement, which was posted online. His accountability for the decision is reinforced in his first line: “This afternoon, I informed Head Football Coach Pat Fitzgerald that he was being relieved of his duties effective immediately.” Later, he writes, “While I am appreciative of the feedback and considered it in my decision-making, [need a semi-colon here] ultimately, the decision to originally suspend Coach Fitzgerald was mine and mine alone, as is the decision to part ways with him.”

Schill convinces his audience—primarily the Northwestern community—by showing the pervasiveness of hazing (“systemic dating back many years.”) and by providing examples of acts (“The hazing included forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature, in clear violation of Northwestern policies and values”).

But he minimizes the impact (“I am grateful that—to my knowledge—no student suffered physical injury as a result of these behaviors”) and defends himself (“I only recently learned many of the details”). His statement seems to lack compassion towards those affected by the hazing. Complaints must show that people were negatively impacted. Where is that acknowledgement in the statement?

Demonstrating courage and leadership, Schill does acknowledge controversy about the decision. He describes the coach’s positive impact on many, but identifies a replacement and encourages moving forward. Some say the decision is long overdue, with reports of racism dating back to the 2000’s. Schill doesn’t mention that.

The statement ends with misplaced gratitude, which feels like a last-minute add-on. The nod to the Board chair would have been more appropriate in the second paragraph, where he describes input from the chair and others. Lobbing off that sentence, the ending is strong: “While today is a difficult day, I take solace in knowing that what we stand for endures.”

Image source.

Chronicle Recommendation for Full Disclosure Raises Character Questions

A Chronicle of Higher Education article suggests that academic leaders practice full disclosure when applying for jobs. The recommendation is to avoid issues later in the hiring process, and the decision tests candidates’ character, particularly integrity, courage, and authenticity. Our students face similar decisions.

Here’s the search consultants’ advice:

Be forthcoming and candid about any sensitive or confidential information that may affect your candidacy. Search committees and hiring managers—and I can’t stress this enough—hate surprises. So it’s critical to disclose a potential roadblock as soon as possible once you’ve decided to become a candidate.

Hiring managers “hate surprises” for a few reasons. First, no one wants to waste time. If a candidate, even at an entry-level, will be ruled out, HR wants to know early on. Students with a criminal record of theft should not bother applying for an auditing position. Second, employers want to hire people with integrity, which includes being honest up front. This takes courage, a worthy topic of discussion with our students. Yes, students risk missing out on a job offer, but better to remove themselves from the process early than wait until the third interview or, worse, after they’re hired. When I worked in HR, terminating hired employees after a discovery was a painful process, and this only makes it harder for someone to find another job.

In their list of disclosures, the search professionals include legal issues, negative publicity, barriers to relocating, and leaving previous employers on bad terms. Students might want to discuss gaps in employment, negative social media posts, family obligations, and job terminations—not all at once, of course. Depending on the situation, job market, industry, and so many other factors, students have difficult decisions to make about whether, how, how much, and when to disclose issues that might negatively affect their candidacy. Some of the advice in Business Communication and Character is rooted in Chalice Randazzo’s work: "A Framework for Resume Decisions: Comparing Applicants’ and Employers’ Reasons” (BPCQ, 2020).

Here’s an inspiring story about a researcher at Intel who decided to talk about his history of addiction during his job interview. In the end, what students choose to reveal reflects on their character. They might find this discussion and handout about the Character, Audience, Message (CAM) Model useful.

Image source.

Negotiating Salary for "Mission-Driven" Organizations

Applicants are hesitant to negotiate higher salaries when organizations use “social impact framing” in job ads, but using business communication principles, students can get more pay. New research published in Organization Science found that candidates feared seeming selfish and reducing their chance of an offer. You never know how managers will perceive salary negotiations, but we know that people in majority groups are more likely to negotiate and that taking the first offer can lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost pay over someone’s career.

In Business Communication and Character, I recommend the following process to help students muster up the courage to negotiate. I hope these suggestions are useful for your students:

• Consider the entire package. Negotiating an increase in salary is best because annual merit increases will build on a larger base every year. But the compensation and benefits package also could include bonus and equity (company stock) pay, healthcare benefits, relocation assistance, tuition reimbursement, sign-on bonus—and other aspects of the job that you may value, such as, how much time you can work from home, the start date, and so on. Think about what is most important to you and where the company might have flexibility. For example, vacation time and retirement plans may be fixed for every new hire at your level, but a hiring manager might have more leeway with relocation, a sign-on bonus, and remote work options.

• Know your value. Review your resume and focus on your skills and accomplishments related to the job and company. Be confident about what you bring to the table. People in dominant identity groups may have an easier time with this idea, which is part of the explanation for the gender pay gap in the United States and elsewhere.

• Research starting salaries. Explore your college’s career management office, Glassdoor, PayScale, Salary.com, and other sites to determine the likely range for the position and location. You might share your offer with other students; people are surprisingly willing to talk about their finances, and transparency helps reduce the pay gap. Keep your expectations realistic. You can ask a recruiter about a salary range—but not too early in the process. Negotiations typically don’t start until after you have a job offer. If asked about your requirements, try to get a salary range from the employer first, so you don’t “low-ball” yourself.

• Highlight your assets. When you begin to negotiate, give concrete examples, for example, similar work and accomplishments at other companies. Think about why the employer should pay you more. Often, they are looking for your motivation level. In other words, how can you prove—with evidence—that you’ll work harder than other employees and, therefore, be worth the extra compensation? Avoid talking about your needs, for example, student loans; other than relocation, an employer will pay more for what you can contribute—not for your expenses.

• Decide on your approach. Include all your requests up front so the employer doesn’t get frustrated and feel manipulated when you negotiate each term separately. If you don’t get the salary or other terms you request, what will you do? Be clear about what you’re willing to compromise and at what point you will decline the offer.

• Practice. Practice what you’ll say with friends and others to address counterarguments and hold your ground. You don’t need to apologize (“Sorry to bother you with this. I know you’re busy”). Instead, adopt a confident, persuasive, yet friendly tone (“I’m very excited about the position and joining the team, and I know I’ll bring a lot of value to the table, particularly because of my experience at ___ [or something relevant you accomplished]. I'm wondering if we can explore a slightly higher starting salary of $ ___”). Your goal is to convince the employer, without sounding too demanding, that you’re worth the extra compensation.

Press Conference About School Shooting

This may be too raw to share with students, but this video serves as a good example of a crisis communication press conference. Officials from Richmond, VA, describe a shooting after a high school graduation that killed two and left five injured. The conference is just hours after the incident, so little is known at this point, but authorities say, with confidence, that a suspect is in custody.

In the video, we see principles for a crisis communication news conference. Some of the following are out of order or are covered by different speakers: the police chief, Mayor Levar Marcus Stoney, and the school superintendent. The Q&A also illustrates these principles, despite a pending investigation:

• Introduce yourself

• After brief context, give condolences first if people are affected

• Provide a preview (list of topics you’ll cover)

• Focus on the facts; research internal and external sources

• Never lie or misrepresent the truth

• Emphasize the aspects of business that will continue (instill confidence)

• Provide investigation process/status

• Mention your appreciation of support (e.g., fire department, police)

• Say we will provide updates when we know more

• Give crisis hotline information and other resources, if appropriate

• Repeat condolences, if appropriate

Mayor Stoney’s section is a particularly good example of an inspiring speech. He demonstrates courage with his stand about guns, which is controversial. I don’t have good evidence for this opinion, but I remember, years ago, officials avoiding criticism of guns immediately after shooting incidents because it was “too soon.” That seems to have shifted.

Boarding School Admits Responsibility in Suicide

In a written statement one year after a student’s death by suicide, a New Jersey boarding school took responsibility for its role and committed to action. Some call the admission “rare,” which is true, and “courageous,” or taking action despite risks, and I disagree. The statement announces a settlement with Jack Reid’s parents, so its liability is already determined. In other words, administrators suffer few risks by confessing what is obvious.

Statements at the time of his death are typical. After a trigger warning pop-up, we see condolences, vigils, counseling, and other support, and a separate message to alumni.

The recent message, under a tab labeled “Anniversary Statement,” describes a clearer picture about the circumstances surrounding Reid’s death. He was bullied, the victim of a false rumor. News reports say he was called a rapist and was subjected to cruelty as a result.

Providing specific examples of how the school failed Reid and the community is rare in settlement messages and a big step forward. Although the statement isn’t signed by anyone in particular, which would have been a nice touch, the school identifies specific missed opportunities in the third and fourth paragraphs.

The statement is a good model. During the bullying, school officials lacked both accountability and compassion for what was happening to Reid, and they admit this failure. The school is already vulnerable, so why not allow leaders to admit vulnerability. The statement also expresses humility by identifying wrongdoings and the willingness to learn from mistakes.

But is it courageous? The specific examples may open opportunities for more criticism, which is a risk, but the lack of action at the time is fairly obvious. Despite Reid’s complaints, little or nothing was done. A lead bully was suspended but for unrelated reasons. Then, all students saw him return to school—back to Reid’s same dorm. Reid died by suicide that night.

---

We experienced the tragic loss of Jack Reid on April 30, 2022 and through great sorrow, came together in meaningful ways as a community. The Special Oversight Committee of the Board of Trustees conducted a five-month review of the circumstances surrounding Jack’s death by suicide, and produced a summary of findings that were shared with the community in December 2022.

April 30, 2023

The Lawrenceville School and William and Elizabeth Reid, parents of Jack Reid, have reached an agreement in the wake of the tragic loss of Jack, a Fourth Former in Dickinson House, who died by suicide on April 30, 2022. Jack was universally regarded as an extremely kind and good-hearted young man, with an unwavering sense of social and civic responsibility and a bright future. We continue to mourn this loss.

As we seek to improve as a community, we have examined our role and take responsibility for what we could have done differently. Lawrenceville’s top priority is the physical, social, and emotional health, safety, and wellbeing of our students. We recognize that in Jack’s case, we fell tragically short of these expectations.

Jack was a victim of bullying and other forms of cruel behavior at Lawrenceville over the course of a year, including in the form of false rumors in person and online. When these behaviors were brought to the attention of the School, there were steps that the School should in hindsight have taken but did not, including the fact that the School did not make a public or private statement that it investigated and found rumors about Jack that were untrue. There also were circumstances in which the involvement of an adult would have made a difference.

In addition, on April 30, when the student who previously had been disciplined for bullying Jack was expelled for an unrelated violation of School rules, the School allowed him to return to Dickinson House largely unsupervised where students gathered, including some who said harsh words about Jack. School administrators did not notify or check on Jack. That night, Jack took his life, telling a friend that he could not go through this again. The School acknowledges that bullying and unkind behavior, and actions taken or not taken by the School, likely contributed to Jack’s death.

In the ensuing months, the School undertook an investigation of the circumstances leading up to Jack's death. Reflecting on those findings, and discussing them with the Reid family, we acknowledge that more should have been done to protect Jack.

Today's multi-faceted settlement with the Reids is aimed at honoring Jack, taking appropriate responsibility, and instituting meaningful changes that will support the School’s aspirations of becoming a model for anti-bullying and student mental health.

Over the past year, we have focused on four broad lines of action: training and educational programs, House culture and healthy socializing, the structure of our Dean of Students office and disciplinary protocols, and general health and wellness. In addition to efforts undertaken over the past 12 months, we are planning the following:

• Lawrenceville will contract with a specialist on school bullying to help construct policies and training to identify and effectively address the behaviors that lead to bullying and cyberbullying.

• Lawrenceville will contribute to the Jack Reid Foundation, a foundation established by the Reid family focused on education and prevention of bullying.

• Lawrenceville will hire a Dean of Campus Wellbeing. This will be an endowed position focused on the variety of student mental health issues educational institutions face.

• Lawrenceville faculty, professional staff, and students will participate in trainings and workshops to raise awareness and promote better understanding of adolescent mental health.

• Consulting with outside experts as needed, Lawrenceville will continue to review and make improvements to its emergency response protocols and crisis response plans; it similarly will review the safety training it provides to faculty and staff to assure it aligns with best practices.

• Lawrenceville will make a recurring gift to a mental health organization to support research and best practices for suicide prevention in school environments.

There is, of course, nothing that will ever make up for the tragedy of losing this promising and beloved young man. But it is the hope of all of us that Jack's memory is honored.

Miami Beach Tries to Curtail Spring Break

Students might be interested in analyzing a video of the mayor of Miami Beach instituting a midnight curfew. Dan Gelber’s message comes after two fatal shootings, which he puts into broader context: “As is the case with most serious crime in our city, both shootings were between visitors to Miami Beach and did not involve residents.” Using anaphora as a rhetorical device, he also said, “We don’t ask for Spring Break in our city. We don’t want Spring Break in our city.”

The mayor describes the rapid police response but says police action would never be enough considering “the volume [sic] of people in our city, the unruly nature of too many, and the presence of guns.” He demonstrates accountability and courage with a clear plan despite the risks: a midnight curfew on South Beach within a defined area. The rules are clear, and the mayor refers to the city website for more details.

Mayor Gelber wards off criticism by saying they are within their legal rights. He apologizes for the “disruption and inconvenience” but could acknowledge more specifically the potential negative impact on businesses and residents.

Students may find his delivery interesting, for example, his impassioned speech, word emphasis, and gestures. The setting, his attire, and his choosing to reach a script also reflect on the mayor’s credibility and are worthy discussion topics.

Fetterman Admits Depression

Newly elected Senator John Fetterman went public about his depression, and his wife is contributing to the messaging. Months after his stroke and a tight run-off election, Fetterman’s health may be a more prominent news topic than he would like. His decision illustrates character dimensions of vulnerability and courage—and offers opportunities for compassion. According to news reports, reactions are favorable, overall.

John Fetterman’s wife, Gisele, tweeted this note and the official statement from the senator’s office. The message is short and, despite the unfortunate line spacing error, says what it needs to say.

Gisele Fetterman also tweeted, “Thank you for sharing your personal challenges and being so vulnerable with us over the past couple of days. This one felt really important to pass on.” She posted the anonymous note:

I just wanted to say this: today I went to therapy for the first time in my life. It’s been over a decade since I was diagnosed with depression, but I never wanted to ask anyone for help with it. But seeing that one of the toughest people I’ve ever talked to did the same thing today reassured me that I was making the right choice.

Students might see positive results from being vulnerable despite the risks. In a pinned tweet, Giselle Fetterman wrote, “Pennsylvania, the spouse of your new senator is a formerly undocumented immigrant. Thank you.”

M&M Acknowledges "Polarizing" Spokescandies

M&M explained the decision to eliminate “spokescandies”—cartoon images of the candy. The situation is delicate: Fox News anchors criticized the company’s “woke” M&Ms, and Tucker Carlson seemed particularly offended by Purple, which a Mars Wrigley spokesperson explained in September:

“We’re really excited about Purple because she’s designed to represent acceptance and inclusivity. We want her to be known for her earnest self-expression, keen self-awareness, authenticity, and competence.”

The company acknowledged but didn’t quite strike back against the controversy—or criticism of the previous push for inclusivity in January (see press release). This tweet downplays the original campaign (“We weren’t sure if anyone would even notice”) and jokes, “even a candy’s shoes can be polarizing.”

After backlash from the initial campaign, the spokeperson also tried to shake off the controversy: “We were thrilled to a large extent because it reminded us how iconic our brands are—that people care so deeply about M&M’s and the characters.”

I’m curious how students assess these comments. The company took a stand—and then seemed to back off. After the initial push for “fun,” the tweet reads formally in parts (“take an indefinite pause from the spokescandies”). Maybe students can think of a more creative way to retire the candies, one that demonstrates more accountability and courage. Could Maya Rudolph have done something funny?

Or maybe the company didn’t have to say or do anything differently, as a Forbes writer suggests? Or maybe a candy company should just make great, classic candy and not try to “bring people together”?

Handwritten Thank-You Notes

About once a year, I read an article reminding us that handwritten notes are still appreciated. The rarer they get, the more meaningful they are. One etiquette coach explains:

Handwritten notes are a differentiator. They show the person you’re thanking that you made a sincere effort to acknowledge their act of kindness or generosity.

I haven’t seen new evidence supporting these thank-you notes, but they certainly can’t hurt as long as they’re sincere. Students also shouldn’t forgo a thank-you email, for example, after an interview: an email within 24 hours of an interview is still expected, while a postal note can take a few days—perhaps after a call-back or hiring decision is made.

Experts suggest just three sentences:

• Thank the giver for the gift or act.

• Say what it means to you: how you’ll use it or how it affects you.

• Say thanks again and write something forward-looking, for example, what you’re looking forward to and how you’ll reconnect with them.

Comparing Company Statements About Kanye West

Since his anti-semitic posts and after pressure from consumers and industry leaders, companies are dropping ties with Kanye West. Here are several statements for students to compare. These messages could be considered positive or bad news, but they are all persuasive. Which demonstrate more courage and compassion?

MRC Entertainment: Company leaders wrote a personal note about their decision to stop distribution of a Kanye West documentary. They explain his flawed logic about Jewish people and call out others for being silent.

Balenciaga: The fashion company gave only a short statement to WWD: “Balenciaga has no longer any relationship nor any plans for future projects related to this artist.”

CAA: Similarly, CAA Talent Agency reportedly dropped West as a client but gave no statement.

United: This talent agency’s CEO, Jeremy Zimmer, was more vocal. In an email, he encouraged staff to boycott Kanye West.

Adidas: After much pressure, including a dropping share price and a tweet and petition from the Anti-Defamation League, Adidas finally announced an end to their partnership. The Adidas statement identified what Kanye (“Ye”) did: “[H]is recent comments and actions have been unacceptable, hateful and dangerous, and they violate the company’s values of diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness.” But the rest of the statement focuses on the financial impact. Fun fact: Adi Dassler, the founder of Adidas, was a member of the Nazi party.

Gap: In as short statement, Gap announced the end of its Yeezy partnership. Posted the same day as Adidas’s announcement, the message doesn’t mention that West ended the relationship in September for breach of contract. The current decision is to stop selling products that were in the pipeline.

Prime Minister's Resignation Speech

After a mere 45 days in office, British Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned. She gave a short speech, giving context about the challenges she faced, the tax plan she enacted, and the agreement for her to resign.

What’s missing is the turmoil that ensued, including how her economic plan rocked the markets. We see little humility and vulnerability, except of course, in the decision to resign—but that hardly seems her choice. She was terribly unpopular, with only 10% approval, the lowest of any PM.

The day before her resignation, Truss faced jeers from House of Commons members. How anyone maintains their composure during such political theater is beyond me. Robin Williams joked, "The House of Commons is like Congress with a two-drink minimum."

I’m all for putting our students in challenging speaking situations, for example, interrupting them or changing the audience or conditions for a planned speech, but this kind of response would rattle anyone. What Truss lacks in humility she makes up for in courage—at least stamina.