Faculty Publications

In an age of social and political activism, speech has become an important corporate tool. This may be a profit-maximizing marketing strategy, as a cynic might say, or an initiative to use power for the greater good, as an idealist might say. Regardless, today's corporate speech extends far beyond the ambit of a company's services or expertise and well into caustic social and political terrain. And the more that companies speak, the more pressure there is for companies to continue to speak. As pressure to speak intensifies, corporate communications and public relations departments take on the unenviable task of wordsmithing statements that aim to say just enough to have substance, while dodging the many perils of misspeaking on fractious issues. Yet, for all that careful vetting, companies are comprised of employees, whose speech may be more impulsive than that of their employer.

Running parallels my life in just about every way imaginable. Below are five lessons that I have drawn from my running and applied to my teaching.

The imposition of a guardianship exacts an extraordinary toll on both the life of the person subjected to the guardianship, curtailing fundamental freedoms and basic civil liberties, and the life of the guardian, redirecting to that guardian the overwhelming burden of taking on a decision‐making role that should ordinarily belong to another human being. This Article will examine the legal framework governing the decision-making role of a guardian and suggest that, while many guardianship statutes propose to compel a guardian to make decisions in line with the known desires of a ward, few guardianship statutes are flexible enough to account for wishes of wards that fall outside societal norms. Thus, while recognizing the delicate balance of individual safety and well being with the innate human interest in self‐determination, this Article posits that it is incumbent upon society to deeply examine the guardianship regime, its goals and the means by which it seeks to achieve them. It offers a discussion of guardianship law and suggests that states must offer greater support and guidance to guardians seeking to honor the desires of their wards while acting in compliance with decision‐making standards.