Google Admits Sexual Harassment Incidents

It’s been quiet until now, but Google has fired 48 employees for sexual harassment. A New York Times article exposed a number of high-profile departures dating back to 2014, including Andy Rubin, who developed the Android.

Rubin was paid $90 million when the company asked for his resignation, but executives never told the entire truth: that Rubin left because he was accused of sexual misconduct. Instead, then-CEO Larry Page, complimented him: “I want to wish Andy all the best with what’s next,” and “With Android, he created something truly remarkable—with a billion-plus happy users.” Rubin denies the claim and the circumstances of his termination.

In addition to this situation, the Times article cites a number of relationships between senior-level managers and employees. An email from CEO Sundar Pichai and the VP of people operations to staff acknowledges the 48 departures, including 13 “senior managers and above.”

Hi everyone,

Today's story in the New York Times was difficult to read.

We are dead serious about making sure we provide a safe and inclusive workplace. We want to assure you that we review every single complaint about sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct, we investigate and we take action.

In recent years, we've made a number of changes, including taking an increasingly hard line on inappropriate conduct by people in positions of authority: in the last two years, 48 people have been terminated for sexual harassment, including 13 who were senior managers and above. None of these individuals received an exit package.

In 2015, we launched Respect@ and our annual Internal Investigations Report to provide transparency about these types of investigations at Google. Because we know that reporting harassment can be traumatic, we provide confidential channels to share any inappropriate behavior you experience or see. We support and respect those who have spoken out. You can find many ways to do this at go/saysomething. You can make a report anonymously if you wish.

We've also updated our policy to require all VPs and SVPs to disclose any relationship with a co-worker regardless of reporting line or presence of conflict.

We are committed to ensuring that Google is a workplace where you can feel safe to do your best work, and where there are serious consequences for anyone who behaves inappropriately.

Sundar and Eileen

Image source.

Discussion:

• Should Google have been more transparent about the previous departures? Why or why not?

• Should the executives say more in the email about the specific departures mentioned in the Times article? Why or why not?

• Assess the email for audience analysis, objectives, tone, organization, and style. What works well, and what could be improved?

• Which leadership character dimensions does Pichai demonstrate and fail to demonstrate?

Facebook's War on "Fake News"

Facebook has taken several steps to banish incorrect information on the site. The company provides three examples of questionable news items and the action they took, including what they missed.

In some of these situations, stories were doctored with images from related situations. One image, with the caption, “Man from Saudi spits in the face of the poor receptionist at a Hospital in London then attacks other staff,” represents a situation that happened at a veterinary hospital. The post explains, “On Facebook, we’ve seen years-old images of violent acts, protests and war zones reposted and used to inflame current racial or ethnic tensions.”

Another story promised that NASA would pay people $100,000 “to stay in bed for 60 days.” Although this may sound appealing—and it did garner millions of Facebook views—again, this claim referred to an older article in which a journalist was paid $18,000 for staying in bed for 70 days. But the offer no longer stands.

A Standard study reports that Facebook’s efforts are working to reduce misinformation, although we don’t yet see the same effects on Twitter: “Interactions then fell sharply on Facebook while they continued to rise on Twitter.“ A Mashable report explains:

“Mark Zuckerberg and company may be on the right track when it comes to fighting fake news, but as you can see from those engagement numbers, it’s not a success story quite yet. Even with the downward trend over the past 2 years, Facebook is still responsible for much more of the spread of fake news than a social platform like Twitter.”

Discussion:

• How do you interpret Facebook’s progress?

• Assess the Facebook post. How well is the company taking responsibility and explaining what still needs to be done?

Facebook's Messaging Over Time

The Wall Street Journal reports how Facebook has repositioned itself since its founding in 2004.

In 2005, at Harvard, founder Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook’s purpose is to ”look people up” and for “connecting to people.” In 2008, Facebooke expands and messages focus on helping people “share information. . . and share parts of their identity with each other.” In 2010, Zuckerberg’s vision enlarged: “People can have instantly social and personalized experiences everywhere that they go.” Soon after, Zuckerberg focused on problem solving.

In 2012, Zuckerberg said, “Our mission isn’t to be a public company. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.” By 2013, Zuckerberg was seeing Facebook’s role in selecting governments, getting healthcare access—improving people’s lives.

More recently, given concerns about privacy and misinformation, Zuckerberg’s messages focus on responsibility.

Image source.

Discussion:

• The WSJ video has a negative connotation about Facebook’s changing message, particularly in light of today’s news about shareholder proposals to split Zuckerberg’s roles. Do you agree with this assessment?

• How well has Zuckerberg handled messages about the evolution of Facebook in the past 14 years? What, if anything, can he do differently now?

• Do you agree with the proposal to split the CEO and chairman jobs? In other words, does Zuckerberg have too power? Does he need help at this point?

• How is Facebook’s evolving messaging a potential matter of integrity?

Senators Send Harsh Letter to Google

The U.S. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation sent a strongly worded letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The senators question what the company has done to protect 500,00 users whose profile information was stolen in 2015. Their anger stems from knowledge of an internal memo, cited in a Wall Street Journal article, discouraging disclosure because of fear of “immediate regulatory interest” and the requirement for Pichai to testify before Congress.

In the letter, the senators compare Google’s response to Facebook’s in light of the Cambridge Analytica breach:

“At the same time that Facebook was learning the important lesson that tech firms must be forthright with the public about privacy issues, Google apparently elected to withhold information about a relevant vulnerability for fear of public scrutiny.”

The senators then list specific information about vulnerabilities for Google to provide by October 30.

Google logo image source.

Discussion:

• Read the Wall Street Journal article for more background information. Did the senators respond appropriately? Why or why not?

• What is Google’s accountability in this situation? What is the committee’s accountability?

• In addition to responding to the senators’ requests, what, if anything, should Google communicate to the public at this point?

• Google may have been avoiding its own vulnerability.

Climate Change Report

If you weren’t already concerned about climate change, a new UN report may change your thinking. The extraordinary report, written by dozens of scientists from 40 countries who reviewed more than 6,000 studies, reveals a bleak picture for the Earth’s future. The introduction, titled “Chapter 1: Framing and Context” is 61 pages, and the rest of the report is a long, deep dive into the data.

The most significant conclusion is that global warming must be limited quickly. The authors write with great urgency that the Earth’s temperature has already increased and that further increases will create heatwaves, eliminate ice in the Arctic Ocean, melt massive ice sheets, devastate coral reefs, and produce intense storms. Further, global warming will result in more poor people: "Climate change is projected to be a poverty multiplier, which means that its impacts make the poor poorer and increase the total number of people living in poverty.”

The authors suggest limiting the planet's warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures to avoid catastrophic results. They also warn that this requires "rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."

A New York Times article, “Dire Climate Warning Lands With a Thud on Trump’s Desk,” describes President Trump’s disinterest in the report findings. Similarly, a text search on today’s Wall Street Journal home page finds an article about Exxon but nothing about the UN report.

Discussion:

• Analyze the report audience, objectives, writing style, and organization. Which business writing principles are followed?

• What improvements would you make to improve report readability?

• What are your views about climate change? What evidence leads to your conclusions?

WhatsApp Message Causes Dramatic Infibeam Stock Price Drop

Infibeam, an India e-commerce company, lost more than 70% of its stock value after a WhatsApp message questioned the company’s governance. The message was reported to be sent by an analyst at Equirus Securities months ago, but it only recently surfaced and went viral. Equirus denies involvement.

An India Times article explains the message:

“The note said the company gave an interest-free and unsecured loan to a subsidiary with negative net assets to be repaid over eight years. The note also mentioned that the company has re-classified its co-founder, who continues to hold a large chunk of shares, as non-promoter.”

An Infibeam spokesperson responded to the controversy:

“The company has given interest-free unsecured loans to its wholly owned subsidiary NSI Infinium Global since inception. These loans are short-term loans which are repayable on demand and have been utilised by NSI solely for its business and operations. Further, there has been no change in the promoters from the list of promoters identified and disclosed by the company info in the offer documents for its IPO.”

Discussion:

• How can people do a better job at distinguishing between real reports and rumors?

• How well did Infibeam respond to the news? What effect do you expect on the company stock on Monday?
  
  
  

Facebook Breach Announced Today

Millions of Facebook users inadvertently gave hackers access to their accounts, and the company is trying to fix the problem. Hackers found a way in through the “View As” feature, which people use to see how their profile looks to others.

The company learned of the issue this week and today held a conference call with reporters. To the extent to which Facebook could manage the story, it’s the perfect day for such a report, when the country is focused on whether lawmakers will support Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court despite allegations of sexual assault.

On the conference call, CEO Mark Zuckerberg stressed that fighting hackers is an ongoing concern:

"This is a really serious security issue. This underscores there are just constant attacks from people who are trying to take over accounts and steal information from our community. This is going to be an ongoing effort." 

Facebook’s VP of product development posted a “Security Update” statement on Facebook’s news site, including this reassurance:

“People’s privacy and security is incredibly important, and we’re sorry this happened. It’s why we’ve taken immediate action to secure these accounts and let users know what happened.”

Cover image source. Spotlight image source.

Discussion:

• Do you agree that Facebook timed the announcement when a bigger story would likely overshadow the news? Or am I just cynical?

• Assess the Security Update as a persuasive message. Describe the tone and organizational strategy. How well does the statement achieve its objectives?

• How well does the company take responsibility for what happened?

Nike Addresses Kaepernick on Earnings Call

On a quarterly earnings call, Nike CEO Mark Parker addressed head on the new ad campaign with former NFL player Colin Kaepernick. Following strong first-quarter earnings and revenue growth, Parker expressed confidence in Nike’s sponsorship agreement, particularly related to social media engagement:

“How we look at it is how do we connect and engage in a way that’s relevant and inspiring to the consumers that we’re here to serve. Our brand strength ... is a key dimension that contributes to the ongoing momentum that we’re building across the Nike portfolio.”

About an ad campaign that also features athletes Serena Williams and Lebron James, Parker said,

“These are actually very inspiring athletes, and again we feel like that campaign has delivered on that message in a way that’s really connected with people around the world.”

But the stock did fall in after-hours trading after the earnings report. Analysts say investors expected more than 10% revenue growth, and they note this is the first quarter since a sexual harassment scandal hit the company.

Stock image source.

Discussion:

• The company executives tout the campaign results on social media. How much do these results matter compared to the earnings report?

• Maybe this is another example of how quarterly reports aren’t the best measure of company performance. Should we be looking longer term? Why or why not?

Papa Johns Rebranding

Papa John’s will lose the apostrophe, signaling a distancing from its founder and owner, John Schnatter. An AdAge article chronicles issues with Schnatter, starting with his blaming the NFL’s handling of players “taking a knee” and ending with his taking out an ad in a Louisville, Kentucky, newspaper, shown here. The ad reads, “The Board wants to silence me” and points to his own website, savepapajohns.com.

The final straw was when Schnatter used the “n” word and made other questionable racial comments on a conference call. Soon after, Schnatter was removed from the board of directors.

With the slogan, “Better Ingredients. Better Pizza,” the company hopes to divert attention from Schnatter back to the pizza.

Discussion:

• What’s your view of the revised company name? To what extent will the change achieve the company’s objectives?

• Take a look at Schnatter’s website. The AdAge article says, “Who’s to say whether it’s delusional . . . “ What do you think? What does Schnatter hope to achieve, and how well does the site achieve his objectives?

Google CEO: No Political Bias

Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote an email to staff with a clear message: Google does not have a political bias in search results. Pichai is responding to President Trump’s allegations as well as his own employees’ concerns about suppressing conservative news.

In one part of the email, he writes,

“Recent news stories reference an internal email to suggest that we would compromise the integrity of our Search results for a political end. This is absolutely false. We do not bias our products to favor any political agenda. The trust our users place in us is our greatest asset and we must always protect it. If any Googler ever undermines that trust, we will hold them accountable.”

Pichai may also be defending the results of an internal email chain in which employees discussed ideas for including information in search results. Here we see some of the internal debate:

“Can we launch an ephemeral experience that includes Highlights, up-to-date info from the US State Dept, DHS, links to donate to ACLU, etc?” the email added.

Several officials responded favorably to the overall idea. “We’re absolutely in…Anything you need,” one wrote.

But a public-affairs executive wrote: “Very much in favor of Google stepping up, but just have a few questions on this,” including “how partisan we want to be on this.”

“To the extent of my knowledge, we’d be breaching precedent if we only gave Highlights access to organizations that support a certain view of the world in a time of political conflict,” the public-affairs executive said. “Is that accurate? If so, would we be willing to open access to highlights to [organizations] that…actually support the ban?”

Pichai image source.

Discussion:

• Read Pichai’s entire email to staff. Who is the audience and what are Pichai’s communication objectives? How well does he meet them? What organizational structure does Pichai use?

• How well does Pichai take and assign accountability about Google’s search debate?

• What’s your view of the internal email discussion? What, if anything, surprises you about this discussion? It was, of course, intended to stay internal.

Uber Rebranding

In the past, Uber had been criticized for questionable business practices and ethics, and the company is still trying a turnaround. They hired Dara Khosrowshahi in August 2017 and distanced themselves from founder Travis Kalanick.

Now Uber has a new branding initiative. The marketing campaign, "Doors Are Always Opening,” is credited to 72andSunny, a Los Angeles firm.

A video shows significant events in people’s lives—giving birth, meeting your partner’s parents—and how people rely on Uber.

Paulie Dery, Uber's executive creative director, describes the objectives as follows:

"What we are really saying is opportunity happens everywhere if you are willing to move. You know what happens when you sit still? Nothing. And I think that is a great Uber story. We've always had a certain amount of hustle and belief that movement creates something better for everybody, and that's really at the center of the idea."

The company also has a new logo: simply the company name, which insiders hope will become a verb, like Google.

Discussion:

• Uber’s previous campaign was called “Moving Forward” to distinguish the company’s controversial past with its future. How well do you think this new campaign will accomplish its objectives?

• What’s your view of the new logo, simply the company name?

Accusation and Defense of Brett Kavanaugh

On the final days of interviews with Brett Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice, a woman has accused him of sexual assault when they were teenagers, more than 30 years ago. Professor Christine Blasey Ford wanted to stay anonymous, but she is now known as the one who claims Kavanaugh assaulted her at a Georgetown Preparatory School party when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. She revealed her allegation in a letter to her congressman. Dr. Blasey believes that she would have been raped if Kavanaugh weren’t drunk. Both will testify on Monday.

For leadership and business communication students, let’s look at the arguments on both sides. Here is some of the evidence presented so far:

• Twenty-four women who attended private school with Dr. Blasey supported her in a signed letter “to attest to her honesty, integrity, and intelligence.” (For some letter-writing history, read the defense of Professor Avital Ronell and the subsequent explanation.)

• Dr. Blasey passed a polygraph test, but critics say the test is imperfect for proving truthfulness.

• Although Dr. Blasey doesn’t remember some details (for example, whose house they were at), trauma experts say this is typical for people who experience such a trauma.

• Kavanaugh denies the incident: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

• Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s roommate at the time, said, “I have no memory of this alleged incident." Dr. Blasey claims he was in the room during the incident. Judge also said, "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” He also said they were raised in Catholic homes that didn’t tolerate such behavior and that Kavanaugh was “brilliant” and not “into anything crazy or illegal.” Judge wrote a book, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, about his time at Georgetown Prep.

• Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook has become public and is “raising eyebrows,” as MSNBC and CNN both report. The yearbook includes captions such as “Do these guys beat their wives?” and “100 kegs or bust,” indicating a party culture. Mark Judge’s yearbook page, shown here, includes a quote: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”

The FBI and/or congressional investigation is a nearly impossible task. Does this evidence help?

Cover image source. Yearbook image source.

Discussion:

• Which of these evidence points do you consider most and lease relevant to the question of whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Blasey?

• What biases might you bring to the analysis? Think about your own assumptions and how they might affect your interpretation.

• What advice would you give to members of Senate Judiciary Committee as they decide what happened and, ultimately, whether Kavanaugh should be elected to the highest court position.

Changes at Riot Games

Following allegations of sexism, Riot Games has apologized and is making changes. A long report by Kotaku placed blame mostly on the fast company growth and sexist working environment.

Trying to shed its “bro-culture” stigma, leaders have acknowledged that the company could be more inclusive. In a long statement last month titled, “Our First Steps Forward,” the company starts by apologizing to “to all those we’ve let down.” The statement then lists steps the company will take around inclusion initiatives, staffing, training, and so on

In a more recent statement, the company announced hiring a “leadership and strategy expert,” Frances Frei, who had also worked with Uber. The statement includes this quotation from Frei:

“After spending time with Riot’s leadership and many others across the organization, it became clear that Riot is truly putting everything on the table and committing to evolving its culture. In my interactions with Rioters, I’ve seen extraordinary levels of engagement on these issues across the company. Every Rioter with whom I’ve met truly cares about inclusion, which means real change is possible. Riot isn’t interested simply in fixing problems on the surface, it has the ambition to be an industry leader and to provide a roadmap for others to follow. I share that ambition and am eager to help Riot navigate this process.”

Frei image source.

Discussion:

• Read Kotaku’s report. How credible do you find the investigation and reporting? What could increase the credibility?

• Assess Riot Games’ statement. Who is the audience and what are the communication objectives? How do the organization, writing style, and tone affect your assessment?

• Now assess the statement about Frei. What’s your view of including Frei’s statement? What else, if anything, should be included in the statement?

• Overall, how well is Riot Games demonstrating accountability? What other leadership character dimensions are demonstrated?

Disneyland Employees Speak Out

Disney employees are on screen in a New York Times op-ed video, "I Work at the Happiest Place on Earth. Why Can’t I Pay My Rent?" A 30-year concierge and a cosmetologist are featured more prominently. One is currently living in her car, and another says, tearfully, that she has spent time in her car. Both say they love their jobs, but along with 75% of Disneyland employees, they can't afford to pay "basic expenses every month." Data comes from a questionnaire and report, "Working for the Mouse."

The argument is for Disney to pay a living wage, and the call is for citizens to vote for an Anaheim proposal that affects Disneyland employees and some local hotel workers. In the video, one claim is that real wages have declined because of inflation—what $15 per hour bought seven years ago isn't the same today.

Business leaders who are fighting the measure say that the increase would hurt jobs. One local Chamber of Commerce member argued, "We estimate 3-4,000 jobs lost over next year or two by companies having to absorb this new increased cost. They're going to reduce hours and reduce jobs."

Senator and former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is also featured in the video. He is proposing a bill he calls "Stop BEZOS" to tax Amazon and other large companies for public assistance received by their employees. The idea is for companies with 500 or more employees to pay the government back for support paid to their employees who cannot survive on earned wages.

Image source.

Discussion:

• How well does the video make the case for higher wages? Which are logical and which are emotional appeals? What evidence is presented?
• Assess the credibility of the questionnaire and report, "Working for the Mouse." From your assessment, what makes the report both credible and questionable? In what ways does the report reflect business communication standards, and in what ways does it fall short?
• Research the impact of raising wages on industry, for example, this Cornell report. What's your view of this argument? It's a complicated question because of different industries, locations, labor supply, rates, etc.
• In what ways do the employees featured in the video demonstrate courage? What risks did they take in appearing on screen?

Twitter Denies Shadow Banning

"Shadow Banning" was a big topic at yesterday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearings with Facebook and Twitter. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey denied the claim that tweets are suppressed based on political ideology. But he did admit that candidates' tweets were affected in search results.

In a blog post, Twitter executives explained the definition of shadow banning and denied the practice. The post also explains how search results are ranked:

• Tweets from people you’re interested in should be ranked highly
• Tweets that are popular are likely to be interesting and should be higher ranked
• Tweets from bad-faith actors who intend to manipulate or divide the conversation should be ranked lower

The executives confirm a technical issue that prevented Republican politicians tweets from showing up in searches, but they write, "some Democratic politicians were not properly showing up within search auto-suggestions as result of this issue." Like Dorsey, they don't specify numbers affected on each side.

Cover image source.

Discussion:

• Assess Dorsey's response to Representative Joe Barton's questions. How well did he respond? How do you assess his delivery skills?
• How well does Twitter take responsibility in the blog post?
• How well does the blog post explain the situation and defend the search results?

Nike Takes a Chance on Kaepernick

Former National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick will be the new celebrity face of Nike's "Just Do It" campaign. Kaepernick was the center of controversy when players were both complimented and criticized for "taking a knee" to protest racism and promote social justice.

Nike and Kaepernick already had a sponsorship deal, but this new contract extends it. The deal may be "awkward," to use The New York Times's phrase, because the NFL has not been able to stop player protests, to the dismay of President Trump and others.

Also, Kaepernick hasn't played in the league since 2016 and has an active grievance, accusing the league of conspiring to prevent him from playing.

But neither Nike nor Kaepernick are shying away from the message. The first ad shows Kaepernick with the caption, "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

As part of the deal, Nike will contribute to "Know Your Rights," Kaepernick's foundation to "fight oppression of all kinds globally, through education and social activism.

Discussion:

• What risks is Nike taking with this contract? Do you believe the campaign will be well received, divisive, or something else?

• Nike didn't respond to The New York Times for comment about the story. Should the company include a comment or make a statement? Why or why not?

• What leadership character dimensions are illustrated by this story?

In-N-Out Responds to Boycott

Eric Bauman, chair of the California Democratic Party, called for a boycott of In-N-Out Burger for donating $25,000 to the GOP, but the company had a strong defense. Bauman tweeted to his 11,000 followers:

“Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party . . . it’s time to #BoycottInNOut — let Trump and his cronies support these creeps . . . perhaps animal style!”

But Bauman didn't get support from his party. A spokesperson said, "It was his personal tweet and doesn’t reflect party policy. That said, he is giving force to a sentiment many people feel right now. Which is that, in this era, with the stakes so high, engaging in things like personal boycotts is a way for people to effect change.”

The California Republican Party also disputed the call:

“I have no idea what possessed the California Democrat Party chairman to attack a California institution like In-N-Out, especially considering the fact that the organization gave more money to Democrats than Republicans recently. I’m sure he got many angry phone calls from Democrats who have benefited from In-N-Out’s generosity, and that’s why he not only went dark following the tweet, but forced the party’s spokesperson to distance the party from the comments.”

In response to the charge, In-N-Out defended its giving and other practices.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Like the Facebook employees' call to join a FB group, calling for a boycott is one way to get attention. In this case, is a boycott a good strategy? Why or why not?
• Analyze In-N-Out's statement. How well does the company defend itself against the boycott?

Facebook Memo from Conservative Employees

Reminiscent of last year's Google memo titled "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber," a group of politically conservative employees at Facebook wrote a memo titled "We Have a Problem With Political Diversity." The message is similar: employees who hold conservative views do not feel included at the company.

The memo emphasizes two major points:

• "We are a political monoculture that’s intolerant of different views."
• "We do this so consistently that employees are afraid to say anything when they disagree with what’s around them politically."

The writer includes some evidence, and business communication students may want more. The end of the memo, which is much shorter and less divisive than Google's, includes a call to action: for interested employees to join a Facebook group, now showing 1422 members.

Discussion:

• Assess the memo for organization. Are the headings clear and parallel? What are the strengths, and what could be improved?
• Now assess the evidence. Which facts and examples do you find most and least convincing? What additional evidence would improve the arguments?
• What's your view of the employees' approach? Do you find the memo and call to join a Facebook group an effective choice for the company? What could be some alternatives? 
• In what ways is this situation an example of diversity and inclusion at Facebook?
• In what ways does the memo demonstrate courage?

Louis C.K. and Steve Wynn Are Back

Comedian Louis C.K. showed up unexpectedly at a comedy club in New York and performed his usual act. You may remember that five women accused Louis C.K. of sexual harassment, for which he wrote an apology, admitting to the acts the women described. Since then, he has been out of the spotlight.

Comedy Cellar owner Noam Dworman said the crowd responded positively and gave him a standing ovation as he took the stage. Dworman acknowledged the risk he took in having Louis C.K. perform:

“I understand that some people will be upset with me. I care about my customers very much. Every complaint goes through me like a knife. And I care about doing the right thing. . . .[but] there can’t be a permanent life sentence on someone who does something wrong.”

Some business leaders accused during the #MeToo movement are also trying to make a comeback. Steve Wynn, for example, has started an online art gallery featuring paintings by Picasso, Warhol, and others. When asked whether Wynn's history would have a negative effect on his venture as an art dealer, his lawyer, Michael Kosnitzky, said he, "didn’t believe so." Kosnitzky also said that Wynn still denies the charges and believes “people should look at the totality of the man.”

Image source.

Discussion:

• What do you think factored into Dworman's decision to allow Louis C.K. to perform? Did he do the right thing?
• Louis C.K. didn't include any material about sexual harassment or his apology. This would have demonstrated his vulnerability. What would have been the benefits and drawbacks?
• What's your view of Steve Wynn's attempt to reinvest himself as an art dealer?
• Wynn's name doesn't appear on the website. Do you think that's the right decision? Why or why not?

Ohio Football Coach: Another Case of Deleted Messages

Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer will forgo pay and the ability to coach three games because of his failure to appropriately handle a staff member's misconduct. A New York Times article chronicles issues with Zach Smith's behavior, including paying $600 at a strip club during a recruiting event, a domestic violence charge, and an affair with a staff member.

During a press conference, Meyer apologized, saying, "I should have done more, and I am sorry for that," and "I followed my heart and not my head."

The Times article also describes a conversation between Meyer and Smith about deleting text messages. I should count the number of stories on this blog since 2010 illustrating that deleting texts and emails fail to get the desired result. These messages are almost always recoverable, and the act of deletion makes the accused look even more guilty. 

In addition, in this situation, Ohio State officials at first failed to produce messages requested by the school newspaper. Worse, several staff knew about the request, but no one even approached Coach Meyer to retrieve them.

Image source.

Discussion:

• Once again, where are the many places deleted messages may be stored? How else can they be retrieved?
• What's your view of the strip club visits? Could Meyer reasonably argue that this is just part of the recruiting process? After all, no students were invited—only university and high school coaches. 
• Assess the press conference. How well did university officials, including Meyer, respond to reporters' questions? Did the team appropriately take accountability?