Call for Gymnastics Board to Resign
As female athletes are recognized in a full-page newspaper ad for their courage in telling their stories of abuse, the U.S. Olympics CEO is calling for the entire USA Gymnastics board to resign by Wednesday.
In an open letter to Team USA Athletes, CEO Scott Blackman apologized and identified four next steps:
1. We Must Change the Culture of the Sport.
2. We Must Change the Governance Structure of the NGB.
3. We Must Know Who Knew What and When.
4. We Must Support Safe Sport Victims and Survivors.
Three members of the board already resigned, but critics say that is not enough. Blackman doesn't accuse any board members of knowing about abuse, but he says the culture must change and this is the best way to achieve that change.
Discussion:
- What is the value of asking for the entire board's resignation? What, perhaps, are the limitations?
- What should the board do?
- How else can Blackman and the rest of the Olympics Committee make athletes feel safe again?
Morgan Stanley Clarifies a Termination
In December, a female reporter accused a former congressman who was hired as a managing director at Morgan Stanley of sexual harassment. Morgan Stanley fired Harold Ford Jr., and he lost his gig as a frequent commentator on MSNBC.
Ford had maintained his innocence, and now, the company is saying Ford was not terminated for sexual harassment but was let go because of other misconduct:
" Morgan Stanley would like to clarify the circumstances of Mr. Ford’s departure. We take allegations of inappropriate conduct seriously, The press has reported that Mr. Ford was terminated for sexual misconduct. He was not. We have not received any internal allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct involving him either before or after his separation became public. As previously stated, his separation was based on corporate policy.”
The statement is curious because it mentions only internal allegations—or maybe I'm reading into it too much.
Discussion:
- How do you read the statement and possible distinction between internal and external?
- Why would Morgan Stanley issue such a statement two months after Ford's termination?
Calls for Michigan State President to Resign
Some believe it's a matter of integrity and accountability; others believe this will start the healing process. In addition to public demands, one Michigan State trustee says it's time for the university president to resign over Dr. Lawrence G. Nassar's sexual abuse of dozens of female athletes.
The rest of the university trustees have shown public support for the president, Lou Anna Simon. In a statement, they said, "President Simon is the right leader for the university, and she has our support." But the sole trustee, Mitch Lyons, disagrees:
“I don’t feel that President Simon can survive the public outcry that has been generated by this tragedy. I feel that our best recourse is for President Simon to resign immediately in order to allow the healing process to begin."
According to a Detriot News story, several university officials, including the president, heard complaints about Nassar. Simons admits, “I was informed that a sports medicine doctor was under investigation. I told people to play it straight up, and I did not receive a copy of the report. That’s the truth.” People question her judgment in not seeing the final report, particularly given the recent explosive case at Penn State University. We will see what happens next.
Discussion:
- Should Simon resign? Why or why not?
- What does it take for Lyons to break rank with the rest of the trustees? How would you describe the possible dynamics on the board?
- How does such abuse go on for so long? About 140 women complained about Nassar when he was working with Olympic athletes, and at least eight students came forward at the Michigan State.
- At the end of the trustees' statement, a reporter asks, "Why no questions?" But the board leaves the room without saying anything. Should they have taken questions? Why or why not?
Shark Tank Episode Illustrates Lack of Listening and Humility
The owners of Birddogs didn't do very well on Shark Tank. In Season 9, Episode 14, investors grilled the makers of gym shorts with built-in underwear and were skeptical about their responses.
At some point, Kevin O'Leary stopped the discussion to ask how they thought things were going. They didn't say much at that point, but viewers knew the answer: they probably wouldn't get a deal. At the end, Daymond John, the clothing expert and most likely partner, said, "You were also telling us about how you're better than everybody else. . . . I think it's a very elitist attitude, and I just wouldn't be able to work with you."
The entrepreneurs spoke in generalities about how their marketing was better than that of anyone else. They also claimed a 40% email marketing open rate, while their competitors had only 4%, which the sharks didn't believe.
When Lori Greiner was asking questions, one of the owners kept trying to jump in. He didn't demonstrate good listening skills.
Perhaps the worst of it was at the end. In closing, one of the men was incredulous about why they didn't get a deal.
Discussion:
- Watch the episode (available on Hulu). How well do you think the team handled the pitch? Do you share the sharks' view that they were arrogant and that their numbers "didn't add up"?
- How do you assess their presentation skills? What would have improved their delivery?
- How could they have listened and demonstrated humility? Try to give specific examples.
President Trump Refers to "S---hole" Countries
During a meeting about immigration policy, lawmakers heard President Trump ask why the U.S. would admit people from "s---hole" countries like African countries and Haiti instead of places like Norway.
I have refrained here as have some TV news stations (NBC, shown here), but the major print news outlets—NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal—all printed the actual profanity. The New York Times explains the decision:
But several media executives said on Thursday that the news value of Mr. Trump’s remarks, which the White House did not dispute, was undeniable.
“It would be futile to mask the word when the language itself, in reference to Haiti and African countries, was so extraordinary,” said The A.P.’s vice president for standards, John Daniszewski.
Discussion:
- Why would some media outlets use the word, while others avoid it? What does the decision involve?
- Some take issue with the reporting about "vulgar," "crude," or "profane" language, calling for the press to call the president a "racist" instead. What are your thoughts? First, does the comment indicate that he is a racist? Second, should the news agencies report this differently?
- An argument could be made that the president is just being himself, authentic. What do you think of this view?
How Does a White Supremacist Change?
Derek Black grew up in a prominent white supremacist family, but his views about race changed when he went to college and met people who cared to challenge him. The New York Times Daily Show rebroadcast an interview with Black, and we hear first-hand about his growing up and about his evolution. (Read the transcript.)
Black's father started Stormfront, a white nationalist website, and his godfather was David Duke, once a leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Black describes his family and friends as a close group, connected by a shared purpose. Although he says that his family doesn't single out individuals, they believe that IQ is linked to race, and that people of color are biologically inferior.
After spending time with Jewish people and comparing research, Black came to understand—over the course of a year—that his research was flawed. He now denounces the white supremacist movement.
Discussion:
- How would you describe Black's transformation? What is significant about his development in terms of understanding cultural differences?
- Black wanted to stay in the background after his discovery, but he says he felt compelled to be more publicly vocal. What are the arguments for and against staying anonymous?
- Describe how Black demonstrates intellectual humility.
Banned Words for the CDC?
The Washington Post may have "mischaracterized" a report that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was "banned" from using certain words in its budget documents. Reports claimed that the Trump Administration would prevent the CDC from using these seven words: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based, and science-based.
But in a Facebook post, CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald denied such restrictions. She is upholding the integrity of the organization.
What really transpired between the CDC and the Trump Administration? The Human Rights Commission, an LGBTQ organization, wants to know. In addition to projecting the seven words boldly across a Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., in protest, the organization has asked for more information:
"In conjunction with the enormous light display, HRC has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for any and all records, including communications with the CDC, relating to the banned words from November 2016 onward."
Discussion:
- How is this an issue of integrity for the CDC? What do you think actually transpired between the CDC and the Trump Administration?
- Where do you think the Washington Post went wrong—or did it?
- Assess the CDC director's response. How well did she handle the issue and rebuild the agency's image?
Roy Moore's Wife Doesn't Help His Case
At a campaign rally the day before her husband's election for U.S. Senator, Kayla Moore tries to convince audiences that he is a good man. As Roy Moore is accused of sexual assault and harassment of minors, Mrs. Moore tells the audience, "One of our lawyers is a Jew."
Mrs. Moore apparently didn't realize that the expression, "Some of my best friends are _______" has become a joke. In addition to her arguments against anti-Semitism, she said, "We have many friends that are Black, and we also fellowship with them in our church and in our home."
We hear weak, scattered applause after this comment. After her note about their attorney, we hear some laughter; perhaps people were embarrassed for her, or perhaps they thought she was poking fun at the old expression. But she was not.
President Trump continues to campaign for Roy Moore as we wait for the people of Alabama to decide tonight.
Discussion:
- How do you assess Kayla Moore's speech? Her husband seems proud. How do you explain it?
- Do you agree with the criticism or find it too harsh?
- What else could Kayla Moore have said to support her husband?
David Chang Improves His Response
When David Chang's restaurant, Momofuku, received a negative review in the New York Times in 2016, he didn't respond with humility. In addition to lots of cursing, Chang rejected the criticism (f-words omitted):
“I can’t ever read that review again—I’ll get so ___ angry, I’ll die. I made a lot of that food! I tasted it! It was delicious. And . . . ___! I believe in the ___ food we make in that restaurant, I believe it to be really delicious, I believe it to be innovative . . .”
This week, we see a different David Chang. A negative online comment received a warning: "Ruh roh, cue Chang rage," but we see an open, humble response from the man himself:
"[N]o Rage. We learn from this and will make them better. We didn't execute and that's on us."
Discussion:
- Assess Chang's response to @oafloaf. Who are his primary and secondary audiences, and what does he hope to accomplish?
- How do you explain Chang's different reactions? The sources are different, and it's one year later. What else?
NBC Fires Matt Lauer
Another media star has fallen after reports of sexual harassment. NBC fired Matt Lauer after one complaint, but the company mentioned more were likely—and they have come.
Several women tell about Lauer's inappropriate attention, advances, and exposure. He played what Variety called a "crass quiz" at work that categorized women.
Lauer worked for NBC since 1994, mostly as a "Today" show co-host. Known as "the crown jewel of the network’s news division," Lauer interviewed U.S. presidents and other senior leaders and celebrities throughout this career.
On air, Savannah Guthrie, Lauer's co-host on the show, read a statement from NBC Chairman Andy Lack. She was emotional as she read the decision.
Lauer issued this apology statement:
"There are no words to express my sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused others by words and actions. To the people I have hurt, I am truly sorry. As I am writing this I realize the depth of the damage and disappointment I have left behind at home and at NBC.
"Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed. I regret that my shame is now shared by the people I cherish dearly.
"Repairing the damage will take a lot of time and soul searching and I'm committed to beginning that effort. It is now my full time job. The last two days have forced me to take a very hard look at my own troubling flaws. It's been humbling. I am blessed to be surrounded by the people I love. I thank them for their patience and grace."
Discussion:
- How well does Guthrie handle the announcement?
- Did NBC do the right thing in terminating Lauer? Was it too much of a risk after just one complaint?
- Assess Lauer's apology. How convincing do you find the statement? What else, if anything, could he say?
"Happily Gentrifying" Isn't Well Received
A Denver coffee shop is facing backlash from neighbors after posting a sign outside the building: "Happily Gentrifying the Neighborhood Since 2014."
Not everyone is a fan of gentrification, which typically means higher-income shops coming into a neighborhood with increasing rents. Often the result is that people of color and with lower incomes get driven out.
The coffee shop faced a broken window, graffiti outside the building that read "White Coffee," and about 200 protestors.
After initially dismissing the complaints and calling the sign a joke, the company founder said he didn't "fully appreciate the very real and troubling issue of gentrification." He also said, "I recognize that we had a blind spot to other legitimate interpretations. I sincerely apologize—absolutely and unequivocally."
Discussion:
- Should the founder or store manager have know better than to post such a sign? Or was it a careless mistake? Or something else?
- How do you assess the founder's initial and follow-up responses? How could he have demonstrated more humility?
CBS This Morning Responds to Charlie Rose
After CBS co-host Charlie Rose was suspended for sexual misconduct, Gayle King and Norah O'Donnell were left to pick up the pieces. They didn't shy away from addressing issues directly.
O'Donnell read from a script, and King had a script but didn't follow it as closely. She spoke from a more personal perspective, saying she is "not OK," and "I am still reeling." She mentioned her personal relationship with Rose but said, "He doesn't get a pass."
King hit on some points we haven't been hearing much about during all of reports of sexual misconduct, for example, the impact on women's bodies and on their careers and on what it's like for people close to an accuser to have conflicting, confusing feelings about the person.
The Washington Post covered allegations of sexual misconduct against Rose, including eight women, whose stories had "striking commonalities." Rose issued an apology statement:
“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement provided to The Post. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.
“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.
“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”
Discussion:
- What's your view of this segment? How well do you think the co-hosts handled the situation?
- Assess Rose's apology. How does it compare to others we have seen?
- Rose was revered in the industry, but CBS didn't hesitate in suspending him. Did they do the right thing?
More Criticism for Starbucks' Coffee Cup
Starbucks' coffee cup isn't spared another year of criticism. In 2015, Donald Trump, before he was president, said the company participated in a "War on Christmas" because its cup was a solid red color with no Christmas symbols.
This year, the company is accused of having a "gay agenda." At one point during the promotional video, two women have their hands on a cup and are looking at each other. A company spokesperson said, "This year's hand-drawn cup features scenes of celebrating with loved ones-whoever they may be. We intentionally designed the cup so our customers can interpret it in their own way, adding their own color and illustrations."
A compilation of Starbucks Christmas coffee cups shows an interesting history. The first holiday cups, in 1997, were in four colors, none of which were red. Also, although this year's cup is identified as "not red," many of the drawings are red.
Starbucks is no stranger to controversy. During the political firestorm earlier this year, CEO Howard Schultz promised to hire 10,000 refugees by 2022.
Discussion:
- How do you interpret the coffee cup? What does it mean to you? Do you think Starbucks is trying to promote a "gay agenda"?
- This may be another example of "brand activism." Should Starbucks stay out of the fray or take a stand on some issues? What are the advantages and downsides of each approach?
Papa John's Gets Clear About Neo-Nazis
After Papa John's CEO John Schnatter criticized NFL leadership for allowing players to kneel during the national anthem, the alt-right claimed Papa John's as their "official pizza." The announcement came on The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website.
This was a little too close for Schnatter, and he denounced neo-Nazis in a series of tweets, the last one including a middle finger. In addition, company wrote in a statement, "We condemn racism in all forms and any and all hate groups that support it. We do not want these individuals or groups to buy our pizza."
Papa John's has softened its stance. The company also replied to a critical tweet after this series was tweeted:
Discussion:
- Read all of Papa John's tweets. How well is the company recovering from the situation?
- Clearly, they are alienating neo-Nazis-and that seems to be the point. What are the benefits and downsides of their approach? On balance, why do you think the company made this decision?
Sweetery's Harsh Response to a Bride
When a prospective customer decides not to pursue a contract, what's the best reaction? Certainly not how Sweetery responded, with a long, insulting email. Amanda De Pascale says she was considering offering the company's food truck to her wedding guests as a fun addition, but the $2500 quote was more than she wanted to spend. After she told the company her decision, she said she received multiple phone calls from them and then this email. She posted screenshots on her Facebook page.
You may want to skip some parts.
Amanda -
We have zero idea what type of warped sick games you are playing with us, but now it is time for us to have a say.
You are a despicable bottom feeding wretched disgrace of a person, who is as disgusting as they come.
How many times have we called you to follow up on the proposal that we expanded time and effort to produce based on your request and each and every time you cowardly hang up the phone on us when we identify who is calling, what an absolute low life twisted miserable individual you have to be [sic].
We also send you multiple emails that you don't have the decency to respond to, who do you think you are, because we are here to tell you that you are a weak, meager [sic] spineless empty sack low life piece of trash.
We work very hard to do right by client [sic] both existing and perspective and although rarely do we come across a pile of dog ____ like you, it is cowards like you that are not worth the gas that we pass. If you were not interested in our services that [sic] open your mousy measly trap and say so, but no not you, you would prefer to hang up on us countless time [sic] pretending that you cannot hear us to which we would normally say get a new phone but it is clear that you should get a life.
You are despicable and that is probably on your best day, on your worst day you are a complete waste of humanity, I know dogs when they lift their legs that have better manners than you do.
What kind of trash would ask a company to do work for them and then not have the decency and respect, or the respect for their own self, not to at the very least say. . . .
At right is a screenshot of the last part of his message. 
At first, Sweetery's owner, whose name is listed on the bottom of the screenshots, Grant DiMille, told Fox News, "Yes, it came from a company computer, but it was not sent by myself or any member of management. It's a terrible offense, yes, but everyone makes mistakes."
Later, DiMille said he fired the employee who wrote the message, and he sent an apology to De Pascale: "It does deeply matter to us that you were offended by what was written to you. I know it will be difficult for you to believe this but our company's culture is not like what your experience has been, yet the experience that you encountered did happen."
Discussion:
- We hear only one side of the first part of the story. What, if any, justification could Sweetery have for the strong response?
- How well did DiMille respond? What could explain his name on the screenshots?
- How is this story a lesson in humility?
NAACP Warns Travelers
The NAACP issued warnings to African-American passengers flying on American Airlines. In a news release, the organization described four "troublesome issues." One is described below:
"An African-American man was required to relinquish his purchased seats aboard a flight from Washington, D.C. to Raleigh-Durham, merely because he responded to disrespectful and discriminatory comments directed toward him by two unruly white passengers."
The release explains the impetus for the warning:
"The NAACP for several months now has been monitoring a pattern of disturbing incidents reported by African-American passengers, specific to American Airlines. In light of these confrontations, we have today taken the action of issuing national advisory alerting travelers-especially African Americans-to exercise caution, in that booking and boarding flights on American Airlines could subject them disrespectful, discriminatory or unsafe conditions."
American Airlines didn't respond about the specific incidents but invited the NAACP to meet with headquarters staff. A spokesperson also said, "We do not and we will not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We have reached out to the NAACP and are eager to meet with them to listen to their issues and concerns."
Discussion:
- American Airlines isn't saying much. What else, if anything, should the airline do and say?
- Read the four incidents described in the news release. What's your view of these situations? What else, if anything, would you like to know about these situations?
- Assess the news release. What works well about the NAACP's argument, and what could be improved?
President Trump's Call to a Widow
The media has covered a phone call between President Trump and Myeshia Johnson, whose husband, La David, was a soldier killed in Niger. In an interview on Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos, Johnson describes what the president said on speakerphone in her car:
"The president said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyways. It made me cry because I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said it. He couldn't remember my husband's name… I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband's name, and that's what hurt me the most."
President Trump replied to the controversy in a tweet:
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who lost a son in Afghanistan, said the president had asked him, "What do I say?" when he was preparing to call four families. Kelly defended the president:
"In his way, [he] tried to express that opinion -- that (Johnson) is a brave man, a fallen hero. He knew what he was getting himself into because he enlisted. There's no reason to enlist, he enlisted. And he was where he wanted to be with exactly the people he wanted to be with when his life was taken. That was the message. That was the message that was transmitted."
Offering sympathy, as we discuss in Chapter 6 of the book, is never easy. Perhaps President Trump could have shown some vulnerability-a natural hesitation or discomfort in offering compassion.
Discussion:
- Because we don't have a recording of the interaction, it's hard for us to judge what happened. In addition, an important missing element is tone. How do you think that might have affected how the message was received?
- Other than the phone call itself, how could President Trump have handled this situation differently?
Tarantino Admits to Knowing More
As more female victims come forward to describe Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment behavior, one male celebrity admits to knowing and doing not enough about it at the time. Director Quentin Tarantino said, "I knew enough to do more than I did," and "There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn't secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things."
Tarantino cited incidents with women including his former girlfriend Mira Sorvino and also said, "I wish I had taken responsibility for what I heard," and "If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have had to not work with him."
The director regrets not seeing the larger pattern of abuse and demonstrates vulnerability when he admits, "Anything I say now will sound like a crappy excuse," and "I chalked it up to a '50s-'60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk," he said. "As if that's O.K. That's the egg on my face right now."
Unsurprisingly, Tarantino says others close to Weinstein also knew and did nothing to stop the abuse.
Above is a picture of Tarantino in the movie Pulp Fiction.
Discussion:
- What's your reaction to Tarantino's statements?
- In what ways is Tarantino demonstrating vulnerability?
- Why do you think he's coming forward now? Why haven't other Hollywood men come forward? Should they?
Dove Takes a Hit for Ad Meant to Show Diversity
Dove has been touted for its "Real Beauty" campaign that shows real women, not models. But now the company is being criticized for an ad intended to show diversity. The ad includes women taking off a shirt to reveal another woman underneath.
The trouble is that the ad starts with a Black woman to reveal a White woman, implying to many critics that the Black person "got clean" and became White. In the ad, the White woman then takes off her shirt to reveal an Asian woman.
The company apologized and pulled the ad: "Dove is committed to representing the beauty of diversity. In an image we posted this week, we missed the mark in thoughtfully representing women of color and we deeply regret the offense that it has caused." A spokesperson also said the GIF, "was intended to convey that Dove Body Wash is for every woman and be a celebration of diversity, but we got it wrong and, as a result, offended many people."
Earlier this year, Nivea produced an ad, "White Is Purity." People didn't appreciate that one either.
Discussion:
- Dove says it will review its editorial process for creating ads. What changes do you think they could make?
- Some say screenshots of the ad are taken out of context because only the first two women are shown. What's your view?
Toyota Ads Vary by Ethnicity
Toyota's new advertising approach is to tailor Camry commercials to people based on their assumed ethnicity. If your history shows that you watch Scandal or Sunday Night Football, you'll get a particular ad.
A New York Times article shows the differences for African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and "Transcultural Mainstream."
A group vice president for Toyota explains the strategy, "if a person of any group is looking for communication that is like them, that looks like them specifically, the good news is because of the breadth of something like a Camry campaign, they can find it." The NYT article explains more detailed strategies for eight ads targeted to ethnic groups.
Discussion:
- One argument against the tailored ads is that the U.S. is quite diverse, and people expect to see different ethnicities in ads anyway. What do you think?
- Read the strategies for eight examples in the article. Some, of course, are built on stereotypes. Is this wrong or a good marketing approach?