To quote Mammy (Hattie McDaniel ) in “Gone With the Wind”, “I done told you an’ told you!” In two scenes, she used that introduction to remindScarlett that “you can always tell a lady by the way she eats in front of people” and Rhett that “it just ain’t fittin’ for a girl child to ride astraddle with her dress flyin’ up!” Well, I’ve done told lawyers, business executive and anyone else with a job that requires public trust and that affects a larger organization to eschew making political statements on social media, even in jest. Nobody listens.
Jane Smith, the chief executive of a Family First Credit Union in Michigan was fired after posting a photo of her family in sweatshirts that read “Lake America.” She allowed the picture to go viral as her family left on September 11 for a 10-day trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Subsequently Family First Credit Union announced that Smith was no longer with the company.
“We weren’t trying to make a political statement,” Smith told Michigan outlet WJRT as she pleaded her case. “However, we were kind of poking fun at the fact that one of the Great Lakes’ names were getting changed.”
Her actions put me in mind of the New Mexico judge who recently excoriated a lawyer who had cluelessly submitted an AI-composed court document without checking its accuracy. “Do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what’s going on in the world?” she asked, incredulous that any lawyer would be so unaware of all the recent AI debacles in court. The same questions apply to lack of awareness regarding Trump Derangement. What a normal person might consider a joke about our President’s re-naming obsessions, a Trump Derangement sufferer, and there are millions of them, might well let the Cognitive Dissonance Scale take over and refuse to do business with a bank whose CEO goes on social media to extol the “Lake America” episode.
“We sincerely apologize for the concern, disappointment and pain this situation has caused our members and community,” the bank wrote on Facebook.
Of course it did. I don’t feel sorry for her, and neither should you. If Jane Smith couldn’t see this the danger of this familiar sequence playing out sufficiently to stop her from posting the “Lake America” photo, she’s not smart enough to be a CEO anyway.
Why paint a bullseye on your back when people (organizations, activists, etc.) are already shooting at you? This is definitely an unforced error.
Jack, this is a nice post. Thanks.
It seems the safest thing to do is simply to shut up. That will be a post for another day.
I want to redirect this comment to the topic of your experiences on Facebook. I’m not an expert on the the topic but I’ve had a Facebook account for approximately 20 years now. Like many of us.
You often post that you are surprised by the sorts of posts and comments and behaviors you see on Facebook from people you know personally and/or professionally.
Here’s the way it looks to me. If Facebook has ever been a place where people went to debate things in good faith, or to seek the truth, or to strive after correcting error, that time is long gone.
What we see on Facebook (maybe some of the other social media services are a little different) is a signaling of tribal allegiance. Democrat or Republican. Pro Life or Pro Choice. Pro ICE or anti-ICE.
When people post things (or often, repost using the share function) that is much of what is going on. Many individuals don’t think hard along the lines of “Hmmm, is this thing I’m about to post or share or comment actually *true*?” They go by their tribal affiliation, as it were. Additionally, many people share just to demonstrate that they are active, rather than lurking or never even logging in.
My favorite recent post on this issue is the digressive but analytically sharp Substack post
“Because it’s wrong” by Mark Atwood. (I’d never heard of him until finding the post, which doesn’t mean anything much).
https://markatwood.substack.com/p/because-its-wrong
= – = – = – =
The disconcerting theme of Mark Atwood’s post is that for many people, most of what they say or write or share or repeat is, to use his languge, “a move.” Truth is not a concern.
To quote him,
“In any social environment where statements are understood as moves (corporate, political, academic, activist, media), every public assertion is assumed to be strategic. You say things to advance your position, to signal your affiliation, to attack your opponents, to build your brand. Communication is a game. Every utterance is a play. The question is never just “what did he say.” The question is “what is he doing by saying it.” “
–Mark Atwood
Thanks for reading!
charles w abbott
rochester NY
I have come to believe that every thing in communication is a shibboleth.
Is it ethical for the bank the fire the CEO for an innocuous statement at a sweatshirt? Would she have been fired for an anti-Trump message? Am I wrong in my perception that disciplinary actions because of an expressed political sentiment tend to go in one direction, having the result that conservatives have to walk on eggshells in the public sphere, while there are barely any consequences for expression in the public sphere of hard left sentiments in sometimes obscene wording (e.g. “Fuck ICE”)? Just asking.
Can somebody be fired if a picture goes viral about a person being present at a Trump rally, or at a meeting in support of causes that are unpopular with the left, e.g. immigration enforcement or pro-life?
The First Amendment assumes a culture that is boldly pro free speech. The implication is that people should be free to speak boldly about the issues of the day no matter how controversial without fear of being fired or cancelled; I am willing to make an exception for truly ghoulish speech where people react with glee about assassinations of political opponents. However the forced reinstatement of journalist Karen Attiah by the Washington Post who made ghoulish comments after the assassination of Charlie Kirk reinforces my impression that disciplinary action after expression is a one-way street: conservatives better watch out, but the left can spout out everything that comes to thir mind.
“Am I wrong in my perception that disciplinary actions because of an expressed political sentiment tend to go in one direction?”
In this case, yes, you are wrong. If she had expressed pleasure in Charley Kirk’s death, or said that the US deserved 9-11, the same thing would have happened, and should have.
I agree with the accuracy your premise but they’re hardly equivalent. Support of political motivated assassination and support of terrorism is hardly equivalent to needling over a lake name. Show me the example that doesn’t involve glee in the death of others on the conservative side before I’ll concede equivalency.
The category is “gratuitous polarizing social media posts.” The pro assassination posts and the pro-Trump trolling canada posts are ina spectrum, and its clear that the objective is broadcasting sides. Aspirus Health fired a top executive for commenting postively on a Facebook post by Minocqua Brewing following the shooting outside the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington. The brewery’s owner, Kirk Bangstad, wrote, “We almost got #freebeerday. Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or [Trump] faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle. We’ll never know.” The executive’s comment on that post showed him in a shirt that read “F-D-T” and saying how he loves his shirt.
Tuesday evening, Aspirus Health President and CEO Matt Heywood posted to Facebook without mentioning Kellar by name.
“Recently, we learned of an employee whose social media activity did not align with our shared values,” Heywood said. “That individual is no longer with our organization.”
“This action reflects our commitment to our culture and to meeting the expectations our patients and communities have of us,” he said. “We remain focused on the safety and well-being of those we serve.”
“The brewery’s owner, Kirk Bangstad, wrote, ‘We almost got #freebeerday. Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or [Trump] faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle. We’ll never know.’ ”
Bangstad, an epic Schrödinger’s Douchebag pr!ck with his own set of self-inflicted PROBLEMS, is finding out that “I Hate Trump” isn’t the Catch All/End All he thought it was.
PWS
I am in CVB’s camp. The idea that expressing pleasure in others death and the changing of the the name are hardly the same. It is damn near impossible to argue that a left leaning CEO ever got fired for wearing a piece of logo wear that pushed a different political sentiment because the Right does not get their panties in a bunch when progressive CEOS are involved in political activities.
Why should an American CEO of an American organization get people upset for something they believe in politically? What if the CEO had a Trump sign on her front lawn and was fired over that?
I may personally offended by many of the actions and statements made by Larry Fink CEO of BlackRock whose words and actions are often diametrically opposed. That’s his right. Nonetheless he lobbies for environmental regulations and then buys up the assets and leases them back. He did not get fired when Code Pink confronted him onstage about investments they make in arms manufacture. The issue is are the profits the CEO generates outweigh the noise generated by the perceived slight.
What I find unethical is that so many find it necessary to seek to economically destroy someone because they don’t like their politics. I also find it unethical to recommend that people who enjoy high management positions be on guard and never say anything that might offend some leftist who spends his of her days looking for something to be offended by in order to harm another. In doing so you validate the hecklers veto.
The idea that expressing pleasure in others death and the changing of the the name are hardly the same.
I didn’t say it was the same. What I do say is that corporations are intrinsic weenies, and when the conduct of an employee, and esppecilly a CEO, risks casting them in the wrong end of the cognitive dissonance scale they are likely to pounce. You really don’t think if the CEO had posted photos of her at a “No Kings” rally she would still have her job? I sure don’t.
He did not get fired when Code Pink confronted him onstage about investments they make in arms manufacture. The issue is are the profits the CEO generates outweigh the noise generated by the perceived slight.
Not relevant or analogous. He was confronted by the radical left group and was in political zugzwang. They couldn’t question his judgment in handling it the way he did.
Let’s agree on a rule. Nobody ought to be fired based on political expression that is a) within the bounds of human decency b) made in private capacity c) made on other than company owned forums.
Firing people for mere political expression has the effect of chilling (political) speech in general; this is bad for a republic that needs a climate allowing robust political speech.
The Trump Deranged and other perpetually offended who are losing their shit over a sweatshirt with an innocent trolling text need to get a grip on themselves. Allowing those intolerants to dictate who needs to be fired is akin letting lunatics run a mental asylum.
Also the hypocrisy of the left never fails to stun me. They are in favor of cancel culture (of which the firing of this bank director over a sweatshirt) is an example, but they go completely apoplectic when Jimmy Fallon is reminded if FCC rules after his atrocious and unfunny remarks following Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
No. If an employee makes a statement for public dissemination that reflects poorly on his or her character, professionalism, or judgment and the employer believes it will suffer any negative publicity or reaction at all, discipline is justified, right up to termination for extreme examples. The Lake America shirts are on the more trivial end of the spectrum, but from the judgment perspective, the firing is defensible.
I disagree with the verdict that wearing that sweatshirt reflects poorly on somebody’s character , justifying job termination. For the left any support for Trump reflects poorly on somebody’s character.
So we need to ask the question whether this employer acted ethically. My impression is that they made the wrong choice in an ethics dilemma. The ethical correct choice was to not fire their CEO for political speech made in a fully private capacity. But there was a non-ethical consideration, as a pitchfork wielding mob was baying for blood. So they sacrificed the CEO for reasons of PR and the bottom line. This is an act of moral cowardice that confirms a message: corporations will give in to this type of pressure anytime a mob wants somebody fired for whatever reason; today it is a message on a sweatshirt on Facebook, tomorrow it is a pro-Trump sign in your garden or on the back of your car, or a comment on EA. Please tell me where this stops.
The Code pink analogy was a stretch but the point I was making is that Larry Fink advocates for political points all the time that many conservatives find offensive. I can say the same for most of the DAVOS crowd. I find the notion of one world government an abomination.
Would “coming out” as a homosexual that many find offensive be deemed a firing offense. No, but we used to, because we as a society decided that such individuals deserved the right to not have to hide in the shadows out of fear of reprisal from the perpetually offended for things that have no effect on them.
Should conservatives start banding together and force the ouster of executives that serve up opinions that run counter to their psyche? I certainly hope not. People should not be afraid to express an opinion.
Corporations are only weenies when the the individual in question lacks power. This woman was the CEO of a branch not the entire organization. The question arises, would the highest ranking office in the entire organization be fired for similar acts? I doubt it. The logic that individuals should only publicly mirror the beliefs of the organization that employs them is why our colleges and universities are bastions of progressive thought.
Follow up: It seems to me that the act of firing a person over their political statement is far more polarizing than the the act of wearing the garment for a Facebook post.
The decision to fire the CEO drew far more attention to the organization than any Facebook post might have and the termination could cause those that support the idea expressed in the garment could withdraw funds. Such terminations suggest the organization will support autocratic decision making when it comes to customer service. If the logic is that no one can do or say something publicly that might generate negative publicity then the person deciding that termination was required must also be terminated because of the negative publicity caused by that person’s poor judgement.
Please explain how wearing the garment casts a negative light on the organization that is worse than the publicity generated by the firing of the individual for wearing the sweatshirt. This firing would cause me rule out Family First Credit Union for any banking needs. I suspect others might feel the same. Who made the decision that the benefits outweighed the cost with respect to the firing. Probably no one. It was just expedient.
In this case, the proper analogy would be a family wearing ‘Lake Ontario’ shirts. Would they get fired for that? If not, then this is a one-way political standard.
You are correct that it is wise to eschew making political statements on social media, even in jest. Nevertheless CVB is correct that the company overreacted to harmless humor. I’ll take American Eagle’s posture any day.