Dear Nancy,

I am disappointed that you are unable to separate your personal views from views that you can appropriately express in your capacity as the dean of the Washington University School of Law.

You recently wrote a piece—published in St. Louis Today—supporting Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants (Carl’s Jr., Hardee’s), for Secretary of Labor in the Trump administration.

It seems clear that you were speaking in your capacity as dean of the law school. You omitted the standard disclaimer that the opinions expressed were not necessarily those of the law school or the University. And had there been such a disclaimer, it would have rung hollow. You stated that you “have seen [Mr. Puzder] at work” as a member of the law school’s influential National Council, “an important advisory board to the dean.” You said he is “a great voice to have on a university campus.” And on the basis of your contact with Mr. Puzder, you lauded him for core values prized by any university—what you characterize as his desire for “authentic dialogue,” his “deep and complex views,” his being “eager to listen and learn” and his “welcom[ing]…critical thinking.” In short, readers could not help but have the impression that you were speaking on behalf of the Law School.

If as dean you want to tout Mr. Puzder’s contributions to the law school, that is fine. However, in advocating for his confirmation as Secretary of Labor, you went well beyond the bounds of decanal propriety.

You acknowledged that Mr. Puzder has controversial views, but you attempted to minimize the controversies by claiming, without example or citation, that Mr. Puzder’s critics “are often missing the nuance of [his] views.”

One of the controversies surrounding Mr. Puzder that you mentioned is CKE’s advertising. Nancy, there is nothing nuanced about scantily clad women consuming burgers. See this example. These advertisements are widely viewed as sexist and as demeaning to women.

And there is nothing nuanced about the fact that Mr. Puzder is proud of these advertisements. For example, he has said of the commercials: “We believe in putting hot models in our commercials, because ugly ones don’t sell burgers,” “ I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it’s very American,” “We target hungry guys, and we get young kids that want to be young hungry guys,” “I’m 64 years old, I want to be a young, hungry guy. Young ladies like to date young, hungry guys,” “I used to hear, brands take on the personality of the CEO. And I rarely thought that was true, but I think this one, in this case, it kind of did take on my personality.”

Mr. Puzder’s advertisements and his statements about them are not consistent with the values of the University or the School of Law. You have compromised the law school’s good reputation and honor.

You also cited Mr. Puzder’s position on the minimum wage as one of his controversial positions. Mr. Puzder’s views about the minimum wage are part of his larger skepticism about and in some cases outright hostility to worker wage and safety regulation.

Nonetheless, you claim that Mr. Puzder is “an advocate for workers,” your only evidence being the unsubstantiated generalization that “without an efficient and satisfied workforce, a business is rarely successful.” That generalization ignores—to mention only some examples—the many successful Southern plantations that thrived on slave labor, businesses today that profit from the sweat shop conditions in foreign countries, wealthy mine owners who have disregarded the health and safety of their employees and many large and small retail operations that exploit their workers.

You, of course, are free to agree with Mr. Puzder’s views, to regard him as “an advocate for workers,” and to promote and publicize those views on your own behalf. However, precisely because Mr. Puzder’s views are, as you acknowledge, controversial (to say nothing of self-serving), you have no business promoting him on behalf of the Law School for a position where those views will make a difference.

The law school community and all readers of St. Louis Today deserve an apology.