How to Introduce People via Email

A Financial Times article offers advice for introducing people by email. Students can reflect on their own experience introducing others or getting introduced.

Most important: Before introducing anyone, ask their permission. Otherwise, revealing an email address and setting an expectation that the person will respond could be awkward. If someone doesn’t want to meet, they’re left with a tricky decision of whether to go through with it anyway, ignore the email and a possible follow-up from the other person, or respond and decline the invitation, which could feel hurtful. For the latter, the receiver could cite deadlines, other pressing priorities, or something perhaps more truthful, for example, “It sounds like you have a lot of interesting work in progress. I find my own interests moving away from xx but wish you the best of luck with your projects.” Maybe students could talk about how they might react to that type of email—or draft their own polite decline, as we talk about in business communication textbooks.

The article gives an example of not asking permission: when someone knows the person very well and sends a thoughtful, complimentary email. Students might agree, particularly if they are looking for work and an introduction gets them close to a potential hiring manager.

The author raises the question of how long to keep the introducer on the email chain. I suggest including the introducer on one email from each responder. “Thanks, Jamie, for the introduction! Matt, I’m glad to meet you . . .” As the introducer (which I was recently, after getting permission from both parties, of course), I like to see that the people responded. But that’s enough. I don’t need to be involved in plans for a lunch to which I’m not invited.

Comms About the Internet Archive Breach

After a major breach, the Internet Archive founder sends casual bad-news messages.

The Archive, including the Wayback Machine, is home to more than 840 billion web pages. Last month, the BBC reported the Archive as a valuable and vulnerable resource, and this month, we’re seeing why. The article also describes controversy about the service offering books and other content for free, the subject of a lawsuit the organization lost in 2023.

Although user information for more than 31 million people was compromised, the founder’s message on X focused on what most concerned the public: the integrity of the content and when the site would be back up.

In addition to the message on X, I found only three short posts on Bluesky and Mastodon—all below and at right:

Update: @internetarchive’s data has not been corrupted. Services are currently stopped to upgrade internal systems. We are working to restore services as quickly and safely as possible. Sorry for this disruption.

A note on the website just says simply this:

Temporarily Offline

Internet Archive services are temporarily offline.

Please check our official accounts, including Twitter/X, Bluesky or Mastodon for the latest information.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

These aren’t the typical data breach emails from a CEO. Kahle doesn’t offer suggestions for users to, for example, change passwords, which others advise.

He sounds like someone who lives in a high-crime area and expects to be robbed: “Sorry, but DDOS folks are back . . .” Kahle says nothing about the group, but a Newsweek article reported that a "pro-Palestinian hacktivist movement” claimed responsibility for the attack. Kahle might be more cautious about accepting that claim—or might not want to give the group publicity, whether it is responsible or not.

FEMA Website and “Rumor Response”

As southern parts of the United States manage through two recent hurricanes, students might find it useful to analyze the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, including its response to criticism.

Students can start by identifying the audience and communication objectives for the website. They might identify the primary audience as people in immediate need and the secondary audience as other U.S. citizens. One main goal is to help people find assistance, and another is to encourage preparation. When I attended a New York emergency preparedness training a few months ago, the speaker was clear about the purpose: to build our confidence, with the theory that we’ll fare better in a crisis if we have some tools (e.g., a to-go bag, a LifeStraw) and a positive mindset that we can help ourselves and others.

On the upside, the FEMA website is kept current. Milton gets top billing, with Helene, just days earlier, on a second screen. I question the graphic choice on this home page. Do we need to see what a hurricane looks like? Two other photos on the carousel seem like better choices: people talking, presumably being helped by FEMA agents.

The next section shows ways FEMA can help. The icons and actions are all clear. Students might compare the current site with former versions at the Internet Archive (currently down because of a hack—another post on that communication is coming). Farther down the page, we see how people affected by Helene, by state, can apply for assistance. Soon, I’m sure we’ll see links for those affected by Milton.

Politicians have criticized FEMA’s response to Helene, and the agency defends itself on a separate page titled, “Hurricane Rumor Response,” a curious title that could also be, “Hurricane Response Rumors.” Either way, “rumor” is a clever framing, clearing some political muck by downgrading the issue to office gossip or a child’s bullying.

The rumors are so plentiful that FEMA apparently has a database searchable by text or topic (two hurricanes so far). Someone spent some time on this, and a worthwhile class discussion would ask students why. Officials have talked about rumors preventing people from getting available help they need—and about morale issues within the agency (which I’m guessing is already feeling beleaguered). It’s, indeed, a strange time when the agency deployed for a crisis faces one itself.

Perhaps writing them as positive actions people can take instead of as negative rumors would more likely achieve the agency’s purpose, as in this example:

Why not surface the second part first? I would hate for someone, reading quickly, to take away that “FEMA only provides loans.” The point is to get people to apply for assistance, not to highlight the rumor.

Reflections on Copyediting

I’m reviewing suggestions from a copyeditor on my new book (Recovery at Work: Using Twelve Step Principles for Professional Success—more about that later!) and have a few observations about the editing/proofreading process:

• Editing is not proofreading. We teach students the difference, and this should be clear in the Business Communication and Character text. Still, what is called copyediting, at times, seems to include only proofreading. Not that proofreading isn’t important! But I’ve had to change my expectations about the type of assistance I’ll get during the copyediting process.

• Editions change. The copyeditor for my book suggested I hyphenate email and coworker, which the Chicago Manual of Style stopped suggesting with the 17th edition back in 2017. Guidance for formatting references changed since then too.

• Copyeditors can be wrong. In addition to the edition confusion, the copyeditor has different ideas about punctuation. Here are three “corrections”:

  • Do we “walk the talk” and “practice what we preach?"

  • What starts small, affects people in future generations.

  • If this is your introduction to Twelve-Step programs, you’ll see how they have helped millions of people not only get and stay sober but live more peaceful, productive lives.

  The first two errors are obvious to business communication faculty. The third could be debatable but not if we follow CMOS guidance (see examples of “graduate student housing” and “high school diploma”). Misreading as 12 step programs is unlikely. I also chose to capitalize and spell out Twelve Step to follow program convention.

• I have work to do. My annoyance and impatience about the copyediting process remind me to continue working on my humility and perfectionism. The copyeditor is an imperfect human just like me. A friend and colleague suggested I recognize that errors are likely in printed books. I’m trying to accept that.

Employees Unhappy After Amazon's RTO Message

Andy Jassy’s latest message to employees is a good example for students to see a CEO’s update—a mix of good news, bad news, and of course, persuasion. Employees aren’t happy with the part that most affects them: a return-to-office (RTO) plan.

News reports highlight that most signification part—requiring staff to work five days a week in the office—but the message starts neutrally:

Hey team. I wanted to send a note on a couple changes we’re making to further strengthen our culture and teams.

Jassy provides his goals and views of the company, and then lays out two points:

Two areas that the s-team and I have been thinking about the last several months are: 1/ do we have the right org structure to drive the level of ownership and speed we desire? 2/ are we set up to invent, collaborate, and be connected enough to each other (and our culture) to deliver the absolute best for customers and the business that we can? We think we can be better on both.

The first directive comes in paragraph 8:

So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025.

The second comes in paragraph 10:

…we’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID.

He acknowledges, “We understand that some of our teammates may have set up their personal lives in such a way that returning to the office consistently five days per week will require some adjustments.” To solve this problem, he says, the implementation date will be January 2, 2025, which doesn’t seem like much time for families to reconfigure their lives.

Several surveys show employees’ negative reaction to the news. About 75% are “rethinking” their Amazon careers or looking for a new job. Speculators say attrition is a goal of returning to the office. If that’s the case, then Jassy’s message makes more sense. Presenting the change as insignificant and providing little support for employees to make the transition could be part of the plan. Employees can sign on for full-time office work—or leave.

Students might imagine a different message, one that encourages employee retention. Paradoxically, the news might be frontloaded—presented as the main point, with details following about potential paths and highlighting the benefits of RTO. Would employees have more positive reactions to the news? I’m not sure, but the messenger might seem more compassionate and sincere.

Image source.

Bud Light Ad, Demographics, and Visual

An AdAge article describes a new Bud Light ad and references a movie from the 70’s, raising questions about the target demographic.

The scene is a dean’s office, with a student being accused of plagiarism. The joke is that others admit to failings just to get a cold bottle of Bud Light.

The AdAge writer describes “a scene recalling Dean Wormer admonishing the Deltas in Animal House.” Although the movie is of my generation, I have no memory of that scene and wonder whether others do. It was a cult film at the time, but still, the cohort is in their 60s now. Maybe students know the movie—or think the ad is funny regardless.

Bud Light’s target demographic is younger, according to this report:

While among Baby Boomer beer drinkers Bud Light has a brand popularity score around 30 percent, it’s almost 40 percent among Gen Z consumers. Similarly, around 40 percent of Millennials have consumed Bud Light in the past 12 months, as compared to 24 percent of Baby Boomer respondents.

According to this Statista chart, Baby Boomers consume less Bud Light than the other demographic groups. Students might redesign the chart. To be fair, the main point isn’t about consumption but is about all key performance indicators (KPIs) of the brand. Still, one obvious problem with the chart is the similarity of colors, which makes them difficult to distinguish in the legend. We’re also missing the total, which is greyed out in the legend. In addition, students might question the order of the KPIs on the x-axis, which, at first glance, appear to be in rough numerical order, but that doesn’t hold when we see the Buzz group. Maybe a radar or bubble chart would work better—or at least a horizontal bar.

OOO Messages That Allow a Break

Out of office (OOO) messages are getting new attention, as people feel increasingly inundated with email and desperately need a break. Students can compare messages and draft one of their own.

Examples show how OOO communication objectives have changed. In the past, the main objective might have been be let people know we won’t respond in our typical timeframe; in other words, we managed their expectations while we were away. More recently, people want to manage expectations on their return; they won’t be responding to 1,000 emails on day 1. People also want to reduce the email they receive to avoid the onslaught when they do get back.

OOOs seem to be getting more personal too. In the past, we might read that someone’s “away" or “on vacation.” Today, it’s more likely to read what they’re up to, for example, why they’re away, where they are, and the importance of taking a relaxing break. These messages follow trends towards authenticity, including employees’ willingness to share more personal information.

I’m curious how these messages affect senders—and those away. Are fewer emails sent, or are they saved up for the person’s return? Or does someone (as I just did) write a long discussion thread post awaiting the person’s return? (My thinking is that it’s better to read one post than 15 emails. Right?)

Striking the right tone in OOO messages can be tough. Here’s one example:

I am out of the office having way more fun than communicating with you. I will likely forget to email you back.

Maybe students will have better ideas. Here are 100 examples, but students may want to identify their communication objectives first. If they want to ease the email burden before and immediately after their break, these need editing.

Google Pulls Gemini Ad

Google's decision to pull its Gemini ad offers lessons for how students might interact with LLMs. The big question is, Does the girl need help?

In the ad, which is still on YouTube but no longer runs during the Olympic games, a father asks Gemini (formerly Bard) to help his daughter write an appreciation letter to U.S. hurdler and sprinter Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.

Professor of Advanced Media Shelly Palmer's blog post explains the many issues with the Gemini ad. The post itself is an argument students can analyze. To me, his most influential point is the overstatement of LLMs' ability to convey human thoughts and feelings—and a lack of confidence in a young girl's ability to express herself without the help of technology. As Palmer says, "Give me a heartfelt message over a grammatically correct, AI generated message any day."

In response to controversy, a Google representative said, “We believe that AI can be a great tool for enhancing human creativity, but can never replace it. Our goal was to create an authentic story celebrating Team USA,” and “While the ad tested well before airing, given the feedback, we have decided to phase the ad out of our Olympics rotation.” We don’t hear a lot of regret, apology, or learning from this response. I wonder how the disconnect happened between the ad testing and public response. That is one lesson Google could take away from the incident.

Delta Refuses to Use "You"

Students will easily rewrite this Delta Airlines message by applying business writing principles. Using “you,” tightening, clarifying information, and reorganizing would improve the email. Delta’s reputation suffered greatly during the outage, and emails like this one to customers don’t help.

Here are a few changes students might make:

• Clarify the main point. The email subject was “Important Information About Your Upcoming Flight,” but the message has no information about the upcoming flight. The focus is something like, “How to Get Flight Updates and Rebook if You Need To.”

• Sharpen the first paragraph. This is a slog to read, partly because of the language but mostly because it’s giving mixed messages. Maybe change to something like, “Your flight is scheduled as planned. But outages have caused cancellations, and here’s what you need to do if your flight is cancelled.” Maybe move the bit about the app to a separate line with bold type. That’s the first thing customers should do.

• Use conversational language. Change “The operation of your flight” to “Your flight.” We know it’s operating—or not.

• Use “you.” The writer seems to avoid speaking directly to the audience. Change “When rebooked travel occurs” to “If you rebook your travel,” and “customers may cancel their reservation” to “you may cancel your reservation.”

• Eliminate bullets. Single bullets are not logical; bullets, like subheadings, divide something into multiple parts. A different visual design might be more appealing and more easily read.

• Eliminate numbering. Numbers indicate a hierarchy or sequence. Again, a different visual design might help.

• Clarify fares. That last bullet refers to “end of ticket validity,” which sounds confusing. Some tightening might help here too: Do we need “applicable fare difference”? Maybe better language for #3 is something like, “If you can’t rebook [why introduce “reschedule” here? Or is that something different?] within __ [define], don’t worry. You have up to one year to use whatever part of a ticket you don’t use for this trip.”

• Skip the false politeness. Thanking customers for being patient or understanding assumes that they will be, which is unlikely in this situation. Maybe a sincere apology or an acknowledgement of the inconvenience (havoc!) would be better.

---

UPDATE: Contrast this message with a LinkedIn post from Shane Goronkin. He focuses on teamwork, sounds natural and sincere, and demonstrates compassion in the last two paragraphs (and defines IROP earlier):

Know that many of you have been impacted by this IROP and I am truly sorry. I heard countless heartbreaking stories over the weekend 😢. Really, really terrible.

We still have more work to do, but we will get back on track soon.

OpenAI and Johansson Comms

In what The New York Times refers to as a “lengthy statement,” actress Scarlett Johansson describes OpenAI’s use of a voice that sounds like hers. This situation offers much to explore with students, for example, integrity, brand reputation, voice recognition, deepfakes/synthetic media, and of course, writing.

Apparently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman asked Johansson whether the new ChatGPT could use her voice. She declined, but the company may have used it, anyway. Altman seemed to confirm doing so in a post that refers to the movie Her, which starred Johansson as an affectionate virtual assistant. OpenAI agreed to pull her voice, and Altman tweeted, “also for clarity: the new voice mode hasn't shipped yet (though the text mode of GPT-4o has). what you can currently use in the app is the old version. the new one is very much worth the wait!”

A few days later, OpenAI published a statement about how voices are selected and explained that the likeness to Johansson’s was just that, a likeliness, recorded by an unnamed actor. Even so, Altman’s post seems to fuel the controversy.

I’m stuck on the NYT description of Johansson’s statement as “lengthy.” It’s 312 words. Business communication students can identify the communication objectives and decide whether they agree with this characterization. If it’s too long, what could be omitted? I’m not finding much fluff in her explanation of what happened and the significance.

Maybe the comparison is to Altman’s single-word Her, which might be enough to hit his own communication objectives. One writer’s view is that this situation illustrates OpenAI as ”a company with little regard for the value of creative work led by a scheming, untrustworthy operator.” The story may have raised the profile of ChatGPT but hasn’t helped OpenAI’s reputation.

Domino's Website About Tipping

A new tipping program at Domino’s illustrates reciprocity, one of Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion, and students can analyze the webpage and functionality.

With the title “You Tip, We Tip,” Domino’s clever program gets at the heart of frustration with tipping since the COVID-19 pandemic. In exchange for a tip of $3 or more, customers get a $3 coupon. Of course, the company benefits by getting another order and can avoid paying workers more than the ridiculously low federal minimum wage of $2.13 per hour (higher in some states and localities). A website explains the program in three sections: How It Works, Videos (which includes only one), and FAQs.

Domino’s explains how the program works in simple terms on an interactive screen. Personally, I find the repeated clicking unnecessary on the last screen, which could show all four boxes under “How It Works” at once. The “gamification” seems overplayed.

The video is funny, including an officiant presenting a tip screen in the middle of a wedding ceremony. Anyone can relate to feeling awkward when seeing that screen.

For a simple program, the website lists a lot of FAQs. Also, almost all answers are only one or two sentences, so the content could be presented more efficiently. Each question is a drop-down, but answers could be incorporated into the question, for example, the one below.

Overall, the program is easy to understand, and the website is clear. But I find it overdone for the purpose, which could contradict and complicate the simplicity of the program.

U.S. Marines Change Outdated Dress Policy with Outdated Message

In a decision that feels so 1990s, the U.S. Marine Corp is allowing women to choose whether they wear hosiery with their long skirts. The announcement may sound strange for those of us outside the military and might interest both military and civilian students.

A spokesperson admits, “Within the spirit of common sense, our Uniform Board recommended a change to the policy that required women to wear hosiery with skirts. Hosiery is now optional." The message looks like what it is: a military communication. With what appears to be a typewriter font, the message uses no pronoun and scarcely an actor, for example, “Effective immediately, the wear of hosiery with skirts is optional.” The numbering, which we also see in legal briefs, is odd, with paragraphs lined up as though they have equal weight and no relation to one another. I wonder how this message was distributed.

Although we encourage business communicators to explain the reason for changes, I find this one a bit defensive and obvious: “When hosiery is not worn, shoe liners or no-show socks will be to be worn [sic] for hygienic purposes and to avoid abrasions or blisters caused by direct contact and rubbing between the foot and shoe.” For color guidance, no explanation is given and perhaps none is needed: “Hose, when worn, should harmonize with the natural skin tone of the individual.” Maybe “blend” would be a better word choice?

The Marines are the last to cave to such lax standards. In 2022, the Air Force made hosiery optional for women and softened other rules, such as allowing scalp tattoos (for men only, which seems inconsistent to me). In 2021, the Navy changed its standards (with photos!) in 2021. Students may enjoy comparing these messages.

The Navy photos, at right, look funny to me, something out of a 1960s Sears catalog. But they use “flesh tone” for color, which seems a better choice than “harmonizing.” I find the message format—showing a series of entire “deleted” policies and then the “added” policies—inefficient and confusing. A better choice would be simply showing the revised text highlighted or in another color (not necessarily flesh tone). Students will have other ideas.

Does a Brand Have a Soul? Does Starbucks?

Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz wrote a letter to Board about preserving the “soul” of the brand. Students can analyze his letter and discuss whether a company or a brand has a soul. Does Starbucks?

The context of Starbucks’ unionization efforts likely drove Schultz’s thinking. (All three Starbucks in Ithaca, NY, have come and gone because of unionization efforts, the company’s response, and local backlash. Costco may be a better role model for accepting and negotiating with unions. A useful project for students would be to analyze the effects of unions in the past several decades.)

Schultz writes that this definition of soul is from Webster, but it doesn’t match what I see in the dictionary listing, which is worth comparing. Here’s his list:

a) the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b) the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c) spiritual or moral force

Schultz then writes, “Webster did not anticipate the necessity to define soul in business terms for the very reason I am addressing it. It rarely exists, and it’s almost impossible to define.” Or, perhaps a business or brand cannot have a soul. Perhaps his view is an overreach, reflecting the exact arrogance for which Starbucks is criticized. After all, the company sells coffee. This is a cynical view, and students may believe, or feel, otherwise.

Also worth analyzing is the purpose of the letter. What are Schultz’s communication objectives? In addition to the Board audience, he forwarded the letter in an email to those of us on his former Schultz-for-president distribution list. After reading the letter, will the Board feel inspired, and if so, to do what, exactly?

Image source.

President Biden's Foray Into TikTok

President Biden needs to connect with younger voters and prove wrong the justice department’s label of him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” But is TikTok the right platform?

His new account, bidenhq, is managed by his campaign staff, not by him personally (in case that isn’t obvious). The profile picture of Biden—with explosive, red-light glasses—might not be the image he wants to portray. If I didn’t know this was real, I might think it was a parody account.

The account is a strange mix of videos. Of the 20 videos posted so far, 12 are about former President Trump, and two compare Trump and Biden. Some of them show Trump “confused on stage” and describe Trump as “rambling incoherently.”

In the first video posted on the account, Biden is doing his best to be cool. In a clearly edited, fast-paced Q&A, Biden answers popular-culture questions. The caption reads, “lol hey guys."

During his first show back as The Daily Show host, John Stewart found his target. In addition to multiple jokes about both candidates’ age, he showed a clip from that first TikTok video. When asked whether he prefers Jason Kelce or Travis Kelce, Biden said, “Mama Kelce. I understand she makes great chocolate chip cookies.” Stewart made him look silly and, as always, the clip out of context looked worse.

At this point, the account has 156.2k followers, not a great showing compared to, for example, Taylor Swift with 24.8 million. Although Biden wants to reach younger voters on TikTok, the medium is an odd choice. The app is banned on government-issued devices so, in a way, this feels like an integrity issue. Despite security concerns that prevent the president himself from having the app on a phone, he’s using the app for his campaign.

Taylor Swift's Missing Apostrophe

So few of us care about apostrophes—until Taylor Swift gets grammar policed. Maybe students would be interested in debating how her new album title is, or isn’t, punctuated.

We know the arguments. In The Tortured Poets Department, as it stands, without an apostrophe, poets is an adjective describing the department. A New York Times writer reminds us the same construction was used for Dead Poets Society (although he puts the album and movie titles in quotes; shouldn’t they be italicized?). With an apostrophe before the “s,” the department belongs to one poet; with an apostrophe after the “s,” it belongs to more than one.

I confess to delivering an Association for Business Communication presentation on the apostrophe a few years back. I was aghast and then became obsessed with an apostrophe in the possessive its in early drafts of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (see below). Not my best presentation but probably not my worst either. (Spoiler alert, as though you’re on the edge of your seat: Thomas Jefferson was what Bill Bryson called an apostrophist. The word is, after all, possessive. More here, by William Safire in 1986.)

In Taylor Swift’s case, consensus seems to be that poets as an adjective works just fine—and that Swift can do whatever she wants.

Image source.

Lyft CEO Takes Responsibility but Is Casual About Typo

Lyft CEO David Risher said “My bad” for a typo that caused shares to lift dramatically, and then fall. The error is a good example for students to see the importance of proofreading, and the company response illustrates accountability, to a point.

An extra zero found its way into a quarterly earnings release, so the company reported growth of 500 basis points (5%) instead of 50 basis points (.5%) for the year, indicating a higher margin from bookings. The error still appears on the release. A statement was added to the top, which is an appropriate way to correct an error, rather than simply changing the original:

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Fifth bulleted list, third bullet of release should read: Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion (calculated as a percentage of Gross Bookings) of approximately 50 basis points year-over-year. [instead of Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion (calculated as a percentage of Gross Bookings) of approximately 500 basis points year-over-year.].

Lyft leaders do what we expect leaders to do: They are accountable for errors. The CFO first announced the mistake on an earnings call, and the CEO took a Bloomberg Technology interview.

Risher’s word choices and speech patterns are interesting to watch. He uses colloquial speech to say, “My bad,” but then, within a second, transitions with the time-honored “but” to enthusiastically compliment the company’s good work. He also uses the classic crisis communication strategy of downplaying, as though the error is no big deal. Apology criteria include acknowledging the impact of the mistake, which he failed to do. People made investment decisions based on bad information and lost money. Typos happen, but this one caused an errant $2 billion in market cap.

The first interviewer pushed, asking whether they used AI to create the release. Risher laughed and said “no way.” Another interviewer asked whether the CFO “is safe.” Risher responded, “It’s an unacceptable error, but . . . the team is taking it super-seriously.” That’s good, but Risher didn’t present it that way initially: His word choice and demeaner don’t match the seriousness of the event.

Of course, Risher’s response could be worse. He could not take an interview, or he could blame the CFO or others, who are ultimately responsible for proofreading. Instead, he said he’s ultimately responsible for all company communication, which is true.

FAFSA and Other Form Problems

A parent describes his experience completing the “simplified” Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which was supposed to be easier than the old college financial aid form but still illustrates business communication problems.

The parent received only intermittent access a couple of months after the form was planned to be available. He complimented the clean design, friendly user interface, and fewer questions than on past forms. The biggest issues seems to be that the promised “soft launch” was half-baked—too late, not consistently available, and buggy. He suggested waiting until next year, when it could be fully available in the summer to give families more time.

The Federal Student Aid department’s launch announcement warns people not to “fill out the form immediately when the soft launch period opens” and includes a long list of potential problems. So the reporter might have headed the advice.

Form changes are guided by the FAFSA Simplification Act, which the U.S. Department of Education explains in a message to an unclear audience. The process introduces a new acronym (SAI), and the message is repetitive and includes information that possibly no audience would find useful, for example,

This data exchange has been made possible by the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act (FUTURE Act), which we’ll implement alongside FAFSA simplification starting with the 2024–25 award year.

Students might rewrite this message to an audience of students and their parents, explaining just a little of the rationale for the changes but focusing primarily on the benefits and what to expect. To the department’s credit, a virtual assistant is offered with links to other pages. Students also could analyze communications on this page, whose audience is more clearly parents and students. But I find the video slow and devoid of information.

Communication Issues Around Harvard President Resignation

Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned after weeks of pressure and speculation. The communication issues around this situation are too weighty to properly cover in one blog post. But here are a few angles if faculty want to venture into the topic with students.

• Bill Ackman’s calls for Gay’s resignation were the most fierce, and his antagonism started before October 7. His long, celebratory post provides his version of Harvard’s failings, including its DEI programs, and suggests that the entire Board resign. We see his business perspective, comparing university growth to business standards. He also writes, “I would suggest that universities should broaden their searches to include capable business people for the role of president.” I don’t categorically disagree, but I wonder whether he has anyone in mind.

• Gay’s resignation letter is short and polite. She shares “Personal News” and closes with a forward-looking sentiment:

  “As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity—and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for—and to our capacity to serve the world.”

• The Corporation’s letter is similarly diplomatic, thanking Gay for her “deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence.” They criticized her attackers:

  “We do so with sorrow. While President Gay has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them, it is also true that she has shown remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks. While some of this has played out in the public domain, much of it has taken the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls. We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.”

• Al Sharpton is one of many who also defended Gay and criticized Ackman directly, announcing a protest outside his office. He blamed racism: “This is an attack on every Black woman in this country who’s put a crack in the glass ceiling. It’s an assault on the health, strength, and future of diversity, equity, and inclusion . . .”

• Gay’s opinion essay in the New York Times describes racist attacks against her and the bigger picture of her experience. She defends her scholarship, emphasizing that her research and the contribution of her work were never at question. She discusses courage, a character dimension worth talking with students about in their own communication.

• Gay’s plagiarism might deserve class attention. Examples of minimally rewritten passages in her work could serve as a teaching tool about standards for business communication and other students. This might also serve as an opportunity to put the criticism in context, as she does herself in the NYT piece.

Image source.

CMU's Response to Antisemitism Lawsuit

A Carnegie Mellon University graduate student of architecture filed a lawsuit alleging antisemitism, and the university’s response could be improved. The federal complaint describes incidents since 2018, including a professor’s actions and comments to the student and the student’s reports to the DEI office and the Title IX office, which she says discouraged her from filing a formal complaint.

The university’s response sounds like ChatGPT wrote it. The president uses well-worn phrases for these types of statements, as if they were pulled from those who had faced similar situations, regardless of whether the response was well received or ethical. The most glaring sentence is, “We take these allegations very seriously, are reviewing them closely and plan to respond appropriately.” Of course they do and they will. This is no great statement of accountability: the university has little choice after receiving a federal complaint.

“Values” appears three times in the short statement, the last one linking to the university’s “shared values” that no one but me will read. If they did, they would see that all eight values could appear on any university’s website—or that of most for-profit, non-profit, or governmental organizations.

I am sympathetic. University presidents are leading in extremely challenging times, when no answer, no action will satisfy everyone. This has always been true for organizational leaders, but now seems particularly rough. Related: I found Sophia Rosenfeld’s article, “I Teach a Class on Free Speech. My Students Can Show Us the Way Forward,” to be a poignant, hopeful summary of the current situation.

Image source.

BP Focuses on Misleading Statements, Not Relationships

BP is unusually blunt in publicizing the results of an investigation against the former CEO. But the focus is on misleading, not inappropriate relationships.

I analyzed a previous statement about this situation in which the Board used softer, ambivalent language:

Mr Looney has today informed the Company that he now accepts that he was not fully transparent in his previous disclosures.  He did not provide details of all relationships and accepts he was obligated to make more complete disclosure.

This recent statement holds little back:

Following careful consideration, the board* has concluded that, in providing inaccurate and incomplete assurances in July 2022, Mr Looney knowingly misled the board. The board has determined that this amounts to serious misconduct, and as such Mr Looney has been dismissed without notice effective on 13 December 2023. This decision had the effect of bringing Mr Looney’s 12 month notice period to an immediate end. [The asterisk refers to a note about the interim CEO.]

In detail, the board describes compensation decisions, which amount to the CEO forfeiting about $41 million. Some compensation from 2022 also will be clawed back.

I am curious about the board’s reasoning. “This amounts to serious misconduct” refers to his misleading the board, not the relationships. Are these not also considered misconduct? Or are they just harder to prove—or to talk about?

I also note that the board avoids saying Looney “lied,” which means making a false statement. Wasn’t that the case? “Providing inaccurate and incomplete assurances” sounds like lying to me—maybe not the “incomplete” ones but the “inaccurate” statements. “Mislead” sounds more professional, subtler, which makes the news release blunt, but not that blunt.