
Corporate Leaders Need to Keep Their Mouths Shut
After more than a year of exhausting controversies over free expression at colleges and universities, America's business leaders would do well to take a simple lesson from embattled leaders in higher education:
Keep your mouth shut.
The lesson has become even more important with the recent gravitation of some corporate leaders toward President Trump. Such public fawning, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, demonstrates how unprincipled and fickle corporate political positions have always been.
Increasingly, universities have adopted neutrality policies to recommit to their core mission. So can corporations. The key is committing to institutional neutrality, which requires leaders to stay silent on social and political issues that do not directly affect their operations. This means reining in corporate political statements — progressive and conservative — as well as the political activity of chief executives like Elon Musk and political flip-flops by companies like Meta. Our own university, the University of Chicago, committed to this ideal in 1899 and restated that commitment in the seminal Kalven Report of 1967. This has freed individuals in our community to express their own opinions and ideas in lively debate.
For decades, few other universities have made this commitment. But its value for them — and for business corporations — has become clearer over the past year. The Gaza war created a no-win situation for university leaders accustomed to speaking out on political issues. On the one hand, bland institutional statements on current events have no impact, satisfy no one and relegate the institution to a role as a second-rate political actor. On the other, statements with real substance threaten to alienate and silence those who disagree. As a result, more than two dozen schools, including Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania — whose presidents resigned, in part, after stumbling at a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism — have now adopted neutrality policies akin to Chicago's. More are in the works.
Corporate leaders in the private sector can benefit from these hard lessons.
Along with students and faculty members, some employees, shareholders and customers take the view that 'silence is violence.' They demand that management take positions on issues outside the remit of the company, even if there are other stakeholders — older employees, customers of a different political affiliation — who would disagree. Corporate boards and chief executives have increasingly given in to the demands, creating a virtue cascade. As more companies speak out, it creates competitive pressure on others to join in. They have taken to issuing vanilla statements conveying no real information about their culture or purpose. And predictably, the few times when statements veered away from the mainstream, the corporations were pressured to backtrack.
Notoriously, Disney's now former chief executive Bob Chapek drew criticism from employees and a furious response from Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida with his reaction to the state's Parental Rights in Education legislation, also known as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. Waffling from silence to explaining that silence to a firm statement of opposition, Mr. Chapek's approach was a fiasco that alienated almost everyone, including Mr. DeSantis and the Disney employees who opposed the bill.
While some other corporate leaders may be enjoying the favor they have found in taking sides, they would be wise to heed the lesson of Ivy League schools that discovered the benefits of institutional neutrality a little too late. These corporations would benefit from adopting a formal policy that guides their leaders on when, if ever, they may speak out.
A policy of this sort should have two foundational components.
First, there must be a commitment by the corporation and its leaders to refrain from speaking. This is valuable because it allows one to assert that silence is a considered (and consistent) policy. In fact, institutional silence should be the default assumption. With regard to individual chief executives like Elon Musk, this default policy should require silence in any context where their speech, like that of university presidents, might be attributed to the entire company. Mr. Musk may present a unique case because his pervasive policy influence, for now, on the Trump administration, and because its regulatory activity could actually benefit Tesla and Mr. Musk's other companies. But for most chief executives, political advocacy that is unrelated to the corporation's core operations tends to be self-defeating. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Musk's political gambit will be an exception or prove the rule.
Of course, there will sometimes be a compelling business case for corporate speech. Ben & Jerry's, for example, has adopted a strong social justice branding that does not seem to hamper its bottom line. Other times, a unified or crucial employee bloc or customer base may have such strong views that the corporation adopts a formal policy of speaking on a specific issue.
In 2020, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association issued a statement on racial injustice and police brutality that was consistent with the positions and boycotts taken by a unified bloc led by its marquee players.
The recent policy flips that Mark Zuckerberg announced at Meta — ending its fact-checking program and loosening content moderation — may constitute another gray area. On the one hand, these are operational decisions. On the other, their original adoption and more recent recission were undoubtedly related to politics. And a company or university's need to backtrack — just as in the cases of Mr. Chapek at Disney and the presidents at Harvard and Penn — powerfully demonstrates the no-win nature of playing amateur politics.
For large corporations, such operational exceptions should be rare. In a world of diverse viewpoints, the decision to favor one constituency over another is fraught and should not be made lightly. With varied employees and customers — young and old, liberal and conservative — meaningful statements are more likely to alienate than to satisfy. At the very least, the decision to speak on political issues should be part of a deliberate corporate governance policy.
Second, there must be a clearly stated — and ideally, narrow — exception for statements that are necessary to maintain or defend the company's ability to operate. Boards should think about exactly which types of circumstances warrant an exception and then leave it to the judgment of management about how to apply the policy. One could imagine a company saying, 'It is our policy that Best Widget Inc. will not make institutional statements on political matters that do not directly affect our ability to operate. We influence society through producing the best widgets.' This would allow speech on widget regulation, as well as on policies implicating the business's direct relationships with employees and customers. But it would not include a corporate policy extrinsic to its business interests.
Without neutrality policies, we can expect many of the same chief executives who have been currying favor with Mr. Trump to turn back left with the next political wind.
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘This president has shown he wants to get what he wants'
Good morning, Early Birds. The Chicago White Sox couldn't get much worse, but at least they have the pope. Send tips to earlytips@ Thanks for waking up with us. In today's edition … DOGE cuts could get a vote in the House … a détente between Musk and Trump? … but first …


CBS News
28 minutes ago
- CBS News
Protests against immigration raids continue to spread across the U.S. Here's a look at many of them.
Protests over federal immigration enforcement raids and President Trump's mobilization of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles continue to spread nationwide. While many have been peaceful, with marchers chanting slogans and carrying signs against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, some protesters have clashed with police, leading to hundreds of arrests and the use of chemical irritants to disperse crowds. Activists say they will hold even larger demonstrations in the coming days with "No Kings" events across the country on Saturday to coincide with Mr. Trump's planned military parade through Washington, D.C. Here's a rundown of many of them: LOS ANGELES A group of demonstrators who'd gathered outside the federal buildings in the city's downtown marched out of the curfew zone just after it went into effect for a second night. A smaller crowd of people nearby was seen being taken into custody about 20 minutes after curfew, with the CBS News Los Angeles helicopter overhead. SEATTLE Police say the demonstration began with a peaceful march but officers intervened when some people set fire to a dumpster at an intersection late Wednesday night. As police waited for the Seattle Fire Department to arrive, some people "from the group confronted them, throwing bottles, rocks, and concrete chunks at them," police said. "A protestor threw a large firework at officers, but no one was injured. Police issued dispersal orders and moved the crowd out of the area making eight arrests for assault and obstruction." Protesters stand in front of a dumpster that was set on fire in front of the Henry M. Jackson Building in Seattle during a June 11, 2025 demonstration against federal immigration raids Ryan Sun / AP SPOKANE, WASH. More than 30 people were arrested in downtown Spokane Wednesday night as anti-ICE protesters clashed with police, CBS Spokane affiliate KREM-TV reports. The station says community members gathered at the Spokane ICE office Wednesday afternoon to protest the detainment of a 21-year-old Venezuelan man seeking asylum. Mayor Lisa Brown imposed a curfew in the city's downtown after the demonstration at the ICE office. Police Chief Kevin Hall said protesters were arrested and officers deployed "pepper balls" on the crowd. LAS VEGAS Hundreds of people gathered outside the Las Vegas Federal Courthouse in the downtown area, CBS Las Vegas affiliate KLAS-TV reported. The protest remained peaceful until around 9 p.m. when police issued a dispersal order and declared an unlawful assembly "due to protestors engaging in illegal activity." The crowd dispered 15 minutes later.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump vs. Musk shows us depths of the GOP's moral rot | Opinion