Entertainment celebrities and
businesses alike risk losing customers and thus revenue by taking positions
publicly on political issues. Fearing a surge from political parties on the
far-right, some large businesses in the E.U. took the unusual step of coming
out against those parties, labeling them as “extremist,” prior to the E.U.
election in June, 2024. Typically, businesses there limit their political
stances to particular issues that bear on core functions. This is a prudent
policy, for human beings, being of bounded rationality, can easily translate ideological
disagreement into switching brands. Even universities can get bruised by becoming
embroiled in a domestic or international matter that is controversial. Hence
after the contentious spring semester of pro-Palestine protests at Harvard (and
other many other universities), the university’s administration enacted a
policy not to take positions on issues in which the core functions of the
university are only indirectly touched or are not affected at all. In creating
a “marketplace” for academic freedom, universities themselves are best positioned
by staying neutral. Although it is tempting for anyone (for oneself or one’s institution)
who has access to media to sway public opinion on a political issue, I contend
that the immediate self-gratification is usually outweighed by lost revenue and
the reputation of being partisan. Applying strict scrutiny to one’s foray into controversial
issues is harder to do if some vocal customers are demanding that a position be
publicly taken. The silence of other customers, who would “vote with their purse
or wallet” were an opposing position to be taken, should not be overlooked. The singer Taylor Swift and the actor Robert
De Niro provide us with two illustrations. Stepping out of their respective
domains comes at a cost in those domains, and thus should, I submit, be done
prudently and seldom.
The full essay is at "When Hollywood Gets Political."
