RealEconomist

I am a professor at the @UofCalifornia. I am appalled by the conduct of one of its Regents, Scott Galloway, appointed in August by Governor Newsom. @profgalloway is one of only 26 voting Regents entrusted with governing a university system serving hundreds of thousands of students & employing tens of thousands of faculty & staff. Twice, first on a live Pivot episode featuring Hillary Clinton & on Prof G with Fareed Zakaria, Galloway called Elon Musk a “traitor to the West.” He invoked Julius & Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for espionage, and declared that Musk should be held to the same standards. He didn’t explicitly demand Musk’s execution. But invoking the deaths of two convicted spies while calling an American citizen a traitor makes the implication hard to miss. Musk has not been convicted of treason. Indeed, “treason against the West” isn’t even an actual crime. Now imagine UCLA alumnus @BenShapiro, appointed a UC Regent, saying the same about George Soros. Would the Governor defend his right to serve? Would Regent leadership shrug and call it provocative commentary? Or would there be demands for resignation? But there’s something worse here than another of Scott’s trademark podcast rants. He sits on the Regents’ Academic & Student Affairs Committee. The committee’s charter says it oversees student conduct, faculty conduct, academic personnel, & campus climate, among other responsibilities. This is not some honorary title. The Board sets university policy, controls institutional budgets, & appoints senior university leadership. You can unsubscribe from a podcast. A student who finds Scott’s comments morally repugnant can’t unsub from the Regents. UC bylaws require Regents to serve the public trust with a “high degree of ethics and candor,” including as private citizens. Professors owe students intellectual integrity. Regents bear an even greater duty: they govern institutions that teach it. Yet a Regent serving on the committee responsible for student & faculty conduct invokes executions while labeling a fellow citizen a traitor. What does that say to our students? That intellectual restraint is expected of the governed but optional for those who govern? That standards of conduct depend on whether the target of your rhetoric is politically fashionable to despise, as long as the audience applauds? This isn’t about defending @ElonMusk. He needs no defense from me. Nor is it about silencing Scott. As if that were possible. He’s free to express his opinions, however reckless they may be. But freedom of speech is not freedom from accountability, and holding a university office of public trust is not an entitlement. There is an enormous moral chasm between exercising your right to speak recklessly and demonstrating the judgment required of one of the 26 people who govern our great public university. The UC Board of Regents isnt a podcast sponsors can boycott. It’s a public trust. One final irony. At @NYUStern, Galloway teaches Brand Strategy, including a session on crisis management. His own prescription for leadership in a crisis is unequivocal: acknowledge the problem, have leadership take responsibility, and “overcorrect.” He’s praised the departure of corporate leaders as evidence of effective crisis management. Now Galloway himself sits on the UC Board of Regents. Will he hold himself to the standards he teaches, or does accountability apply only to other people’s institutions? Professor lecture thyself! I believe Scott Galloway should seriously consider whether his continued service on the Board of Regents is consistent with the ethical standards and responsibilities of that office, or whether he should resign. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with Galloway directly, including what standards we should expect of those entrusted with governing the world’s best university. Scott, you have an open invitation to join me on @Into_Impossible for an honest conversation.