•  
  •  
 

The University of Chicago Business Law Review

Start Page

305

Abstract

In the last few years, corporations have been called upon to take public positions on myriad issues unconnected to core business concerns. Demands for public statements may arise from various stakeholders, as well as from the general public and the media. Sometimes such statements are uncontroversial, but other times, firms find themselves in a no-win position, in which both silence and voice will offend some core constituency. Crafting meaningful public-facing statements becomes a major challenge.

In this article, we ask whether these corporations should adopt some form of express upfront policy on when they will and when they will not speak out. One place to start is to consider the approach of some universities, which have come to resemble large corporations in some ways. In particular, should for-profit corporations adopt something akin to the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action? This report adopts the position that as a general matter the University will not speak on social and political issues of the day, with exceptions for those that directly affect the University’s operations. In answering this question, we discuss the similarities and differences between publicly held for-profit corporations and universities and outline the factors that can guide these corporations in deciding whether to adopt such a policy, what such a policy would look like, and how it might differ from the Kalven Report.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS