Larry D. Lauer

Not too long ago I got a phone call from a reporter asking what I thought about a university president who took a strong public stand on the issue of hate speech.  His statement drew responses from those who agreed with him, but it also drew what seemed to be even stronger criticism from those who believe that freedom of speech in our country applies to all forms of speech, especially in the academy. As a strategic communication and marketing professional, I tried to explain to this reporter how I would make my decision regarding giving advice.

First of all, a CEO must begin with the premise that his or her primary responsibility is to advance the integrity and interests of the whole institution. An academic institution clearly exists fundamentally as a forum for the exploration of all sides of issues, but can the president taking a stand on one issue affect the basic health and well-being of the institution? 

In the case of hate speech, would it be better to make a general observation about the possible dangers of such speech, and then just ask others to seriously consider the possible consequences? Or, would it be better to deny making a comment, suggesting that it is not proper for an institutional leader to offer comments on such issues?

It’s true, I could advise to always take the position that it’s safer to keep the president out of controversies like this, and to leave the entire debate to others.  But, then, occasionally I have encountered presidents who saw their leadership role as being able to bring visibility and long-term recognition to the institution by stepping out with strong personal views, and staying visibly engaged.

As with so many other kinds of judgements that communication advisors are called upon to make, I found my answer here to be: It depends! It depends on the established culture of the institution measured against the natural inclinations and style of its current leader. If the institution’s culture and values embrace taking stands on issues, and the CEO is comfortable getting engaged in ongoing public dialogue, then ultimate long-term good can result.  But, the institutional mission, brand, and leadership style must clearly embrace the decision. 

On the other hand, if the institution is more traditionally academic, and the president is hesitant about stepping out personally, it is never wise to push getting engaged in controversy.  Making one bold statement, and then backing off, is never an option.  Once you step into a debate, you are in it for as long as the issue remains hot.

For some institutional leaders, getting involved might depend on the nature and volatility of each issue.  Hate speech is one thing, but stepping out as an advocate for international human rights, or taking the lead in advocating new forms of clean energy, can be seen as a totally different situation. 

In the final analysis, communication advice in a controversy must be appropriate to the culture of each institution and how each president sees the CEO role. Sometimes my best approach was merely to conduct a thorough pros and cons analysis, and then let the CEO make the final call based on what he or she felt compelled to do. Sometimes the bottom line is that you can’t ignore the sincere instincts and passion of an informed and dynamic leader.