We can pick our battles, but our battles shouldn’t be chosen for the trophy of social praise and recognition.

In August of 2013, the CEO of advertising company RadiumOne, Gurbaksh Chahal allegedly threatened to kill his girlfriend Juliet Kakish and delivered 117 blows to her head after uncovering her infidelities, according to the criminal complaint filed against him.

Although he recently defended his actions in his personal blog GChahal, the advertising guru pled guilty in court last week to misdemeanor domestic violence and battery charges, according to the Huffington Post.

In response to his criminal conviction and denial of his poor behavior, TechCrunch, a technology news website, publicly dropped the advertising service, RadiumOne, as a sponsor shortly after the decision. The senior editor of TechCrunch, Leena Rao released a statement addressing the issue:

“We simply couldn’t sleep at night knowing that we were supporting and promoting a company led by someone who does not share our values on the issue of domestic abuse.”

Her statement, although heartfelt, suggests the decision was made on moral grounds rather than on business benefit. While the choice to initiate such an action carries noble weight, it shouldn’t serve to elevate a company’s social standing.

Although violence of any kind must not be tolerated, TechCrunch took one person’s moment of failure and turned it into a personal endorsement. By publicly denouncing RadiumOne as a sponsor, TechCrunch certainly delivered a message to the listening ear.

Through the financial severance with RadiumOne, TechCrunch proclaimed itself to be a hero.

While companies may choose to drop sponsors for any number of reasons, they should not augment the moral goodness of their actions to gain favor in the public eye. There is no reward for denouncing an ethically retributive act.

Of course no one supports domestic violence or any criminal act. No one excuses poor judgments or unruly temperaments.

But when one company proclaims their supposedly honorable motivations in making a business decision, they are rewarded with public support.

Inherently, Chahal’s poor behavior will come under inevitable scrutiny considering his high profile position within a fairly large company. By emphasizing the ethical component to TechCrunch’s business decision, the company does little to help the situation.

Chahal already received his conviction and the public already denounces his actions as wrong. When companies elevate their decisions based on the grounds of justice, they merely serve to raise their status among their peers, an action hardly deemed worthy or honorable.

Retributive acts committed by any individual, famous or not, will almost always be met with the appropriate consequences. Companies need not insert themselves in other’s battles for the sake of getting a “like” on Facebook or a retweet on Twitter.

That’s not what justice is about.

– Michelle Chan is a sophomore animal science major from Phoenix, Ariz. She can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of Student Publications.