Read Case 8.3 – Speaking Out about Malt and answer the 6questions ABSTRACT:- WHEN MARY DAVIS, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT forplant management at Whitewater Brewing Company, wrote an articlefor a large metropolitan newspaper in her state, she hadn’trealized where it would lead. At first she was thrilled to see herwords published. Then she was just worried about keeping her job.It all started when her husband, Bob, who was working on his MBA,talked her into taking an evening class with him. She did and, toher surprise, really got into the course, spending most of herweekends that semester working on her term project—a study of wineand beer marketing. Among other things her essay discussed thoserespectable wine companies like E. & J. Gallo (the nation’slargest) that market cheap, fortified wines such as Thunderbird andNight Train Express. With an alcohol content 50 percent greater anda price far less than regular wine, these screw-top wines areseldom advertised and rarely seen outside poor neighborhoods, butthey represent a multimillion dollar industry. Skid-row winos aretheir major consumers, a fact that evidently embarrasses Gallo,because it doesn’t even put its company name on the label.86 Mary’sessay went on to raise some moral questions about the marketing ofmalt liquor, a beer brewed with sugar for an extra punch ofalcohol. It has been around for about forty years; what isrelatively new is the larger size of the container. A few yearsago, the industry introduced malt liquor in 40-ounce bottles thatsell for about three dollars. Packing an alcohol content roughlyequivalent to six 12-ounce beers or five cocktails, 40s quicklybecame the favorite high of many inner-city teenagers. Ads forcompeting brands stress potency—“It’s got more” or “The RealPower”—and often use gang slang. Get “your girl in the mood quickerand get your jimmy thicker,” raps Ice Cube in a commercial for St.Ides malt liquor. Like baggy pants and baseball caps turnedbackward, 40s soon moved from the inner city to the suburbs.Teenage drinkers like the quick drunk, and this worries drugcounselors. They call 40s “liquid crack” and “date rape brew.”87Mary’s instructor liked her article and encouraged her to rewriteit for the newspaper. The problem was that Whitewater also brews amalt liquor, called Rafter, which it had recently started offeringin a 40-ounce bottle. True, Mary’s article mentioned Whitewater’sbrand only in passing, but top management was distressed by hercriticisms of the whole industry, which, they thought, damaged itsimage and increased the likelihood of further state and federalregulation. The board of directors thought Mary had actedirresponsibly, and Ralph Jenkins, the CEO, had written her a memoon the board’s behalf instructing her not to comment publicly aboutmalt liquor without first clearing her remarks with him. Mary washurt and angry. “I admit that the way the newspaper edited my essayand played up the malt liquor aspect made it moresensationalistic,” Mary explained to her colleague Susan Watts,“but everything I said was true.” “I’m sure it was factual,”replied Susan, “but the company thought the slant was negative. Imean, lots of ordinary people drink Rafter.” “I know that. Bob evendrinks it sometimes. I don’t know why they are so upset about myarticle. I barely mentioned Rafter. Anyway, it’s not like Rafter isa big moneymaker. Most of our other beers outsell it.” “Well,”continued Susan, “the company is really touchy about the wholeissue. They think the product is under political attack these daysand that you were disloyal.” THE ORGANIZATION AND THE PEOPLE IN IT“That’s not true,” Mary replied. “I’m no troublemaker, and I havealways worked hard for Whitewater. But I do think they and theother companies are wrong to market malt liquor the way they do. Itonly makes a bad situation worse.” The next day Mary met with RalphJenkins and told him that she felt Whitewater was “invading,” asshe put it, her rights as a citizen. In fact, she had been invitedto speak about wine and beer marketing at a local high school aspart of its antidrug campaign. She intended to keep her speakingengagement and would not subject her remarks to company censorship.Jenkins listened but didn’t say much, simply repeating what he hadalready written in his memo. But two days later Mary received whatwas, in effect, an ultimatum. She must either conform with hisoriginal order or submit her resignation. QUESTIONS:- 1. Do youthink Mary Davis acted irresponsibly or disloyally? Does Whitewaterhave a legitimate concern about her speaking out on this issue?Does the company have a right to abridge her freedom of expression?2. Is your answer to question 1 affected by whether you agree ordisagree with the views Mary Davis expressed? 3. Should there beany limits on an employee’s freedom of expression? If not, why not?If so, under what circumstances is a company justified inrestricting an employee’s right to speak out? 4. The casepresentation doesn’t specify whether the newspaper articleidentified Mary Davis as an employee of Whitewater. Is that arelevant issue? Does it matter what position in the company MaryDavis holds? 5. What do you think Mary Davis ought to do? Whatmoral considerations should she weigh? Does she have conflictingobligations? If so, what are they? 6. Is the company right to beworried about what Mary Davis writes or says, or is the board ofdirectors exaggerating the potential harm to Whitewater of herdiscussing these issues?
