The job of management,” proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups … stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.”
To my understanding, this was not a unique or uncommon sentiment for business executives to have in the mid 20th Century. Milton Friedman's widely-read essay "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits" which rebukes this view wouldn't come out until 1970
So the idea that corporations should be active, not passive, in public affairs even when their business is not directly concerned is not a new one.
Indeed, the donations corporations have long-made to politicians often go much further than to serve the business' own interest. Money is fungible. If a company donates to a politician who puts equal effort into deregulation of the company's industry and into increasing mandatory minimum sentencing, you can't delineate the company's support for one objective and not the other.
So for a long time, company's have been exercising a large say in public affairs that don't directly influence their bottom line - it's maybe been more quiet, and subtle - and we're just returning to a previous model, that company's have a duty to act on behalf of their community and the public at large the way they do their shareholders.
In terms of individuals, I think this is where your more salient argument is. A friend of mine runs a small AI tech incubator. Over the summer, he got messages from activists asking him to sign pledges or commit to actions like investing in at least 20% Black-run AI-start-ups per year. He complained that he couldn't commit to things like that - one bad investment could end his firm, and he resented the activists for putting him in this position where if he said no, he would be branded with terrible labels
I guess what didn't occur to him is that he could have turned down a commitment he couldn't afford and at the same time asked the activists what other ways he could show his support - A few suggestions I mentioned to him were to ask and organize all employees to volunteer one day a month (for example, tutoring high school students who were having trouble remote learning) or to hire (paid) interns through a local job-seeker program for disadvantaged people. I'm not in his firm or an activist, so I can't say for sure but doubt that there was really nothing he could do to materially support the activists goals which he ostensibly agreed with, even if he didn't feel comfortable signing a pledge.
Now, what happens when as an individual, you disagree with the activists message? As in the case of your professor friend, you may fear not signing a pledge will tarnish you as against the cause. If you put yourselves in the shoes of the activist though, this is very much the point. You're trying to raise support for your goals and issues, and it's useful to highlight who agrees/disagrees with you, and it's not unreasonable to think that a person would have at least some thoughts on a sustained top issue in public discourse at that moment.
If you're building a mass movement, the "mass" part matters - executives, professors, celebrities - are people who have an outsized influence in society. You would probably think getting them on your team is important, and you have to tally them somehow
Your "right" to remain silent or stay-out-of-it is immaterial to them. They want to know where you stand. If you disagree, good activists will want to convince you (though yes, it's a problem that there are a lot of bad activists who will immediately see you as an enemy to their cause).
What I'm getting at is that this conversation can't really exist outside the context of what activists are incentivised to do. I agree that on paper, it sounds nice that I would never be expected to voice an opinion where I don't want to - But how do we get there, so long as activism is a necessary force to drive any meaningfully large and fast action in society?
The job of management,” proclaimed Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1951, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups … stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.”
To my understanding, this was not a unique or uncommon sentiment for business executives to have in the mid 20th Century. Milton Friedman's widely-read essay "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits" which rebukes this view wouldn't come out until 1970
So the idea that corporations should be active, not passive, in public affairs even when their business is not directly concerned is not a new one.
Indeed, the donations corporations have long-made to politicians often go much further than to serve the business' own interest. Money is fungible. If a company donates to a politician who puts equal effort into deregulation of the company's industry and into increasing mandatory minimum sentencing, you can't delineate the company's support for one objective and not the other.
So for a long time, company's have been exercising a large say in public affairs that don't directly influence their bottom line - it's maybe been more quiet, and subtle - and we're just returning to a previous model, that company's have a duty to act on behalf of their community and the public at large the way they do their shareholders.
In terms of individuals, I think this is where your more salient argument is. A friend of mine runs a small AI tech incubator. Over the summer, he got messages from activists asking him to sign pledges or commit to actions like investing in at least 20% Black-run AI-start-ups per year. He complained that he couldn't commit to things like that - one bad investment could end his firm, and he resented the activists for putting him in this position where if he said no, he would be branded with terrible labels
I guess what didn't occur to him is that he could have turned down a commitment he couldn't afford and at the same time asked the activists what other ways he could show his support - A few suggestions I mentioned to him were to ask and organize all employees to volunteer one day a month (for example, tutoring high school students who were having trouble remote learning) or to hire (paid) interns through a local job-seeker program for disadvantaged people. I'm not in his firm or an activist, so I can't say for sure but doubt that there was really nothing he could do to materially support the activists goals which he ostensibly agreed with, even if he didn't feel comfortable signing a pledge.
Now, what happens when as an individual, you disagree with the activists message? As in the case of your professor friend, you may fear not signing a pledge will tarnish you as against the cause. If you put yourselves in the shoes of the activist though, this is very much the point. You're trying to raise support for your goals and issues, and it's useful to highlight who agrees/disagrees with you, and it's not unreasonable to think that a person would have at least some thoughts on a sustained top issue in public discourse at that moment.
If you're building a mass movement, the "mass" part matters - executives, professors, celebrities - are people who have an outsized influence in society. You would probably think getting them on your team is important, and you have to tally them somehow
Your "right" to remain silent or stay-out-of-it is immaterial to them. They want to know where you stand. If you disagree, good activists will want to convince you (though yes, it's a problem that there are a lot of bad activists who will immediately see you as an enemy to their cause).
What I'm getting at is that this conversation can't really exist outside the context of what activists are incentivised to do. I agree that on paper, it sounds nice that I would never be expected to voice an opinion where I don't want to - But how do we get there, so long as activism is a necessary force to drive any meaningfully large and fast action in society?