What does a university owe to the community where it is based? The idea of an anchor institution reflects the relational dynamics between a large entity and the often-lower-income community where it is located or does a significant portion of its business. This field-based case examines the social responsibility of the University of Virginia (UVA), a public university founded in 1819 in Charlottesville by the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. UVA's significant growth has led to shortages in affordable housing, as UVA has purchased large swaths of land for its use and UVA students occupy much of the remaining lower-cost rentals near the university. As a result, local residents often find themselves pushed to outlying areas and lacking the public transportation necessary to commute to work. In the Charlottesville community, many have been calling on UVA to remedy the situation for over a decade. This issue is particularly salient in an environment where the president and board chair at the University of Pennsylvania was forced to step down for decisions related to sociopolitical issues beyond the campus. The case presents three different frameworks for considering social responsibility: as an anchor institution, as an entity exempt from property and income taxes, and as a public university subsidized by the state. The case guides students to policies underlying current socioeconomic conditions, the ethics of disproportionate use of limited resources, the obligations of tax exemptions, and the responsibilities of anchor institutions. It provides rich data for students to consider questions including the following: Is it fair for universities to enroll students without supplying housing for them? Does a public university have responsibilities that would not apply to a private university? Are UVA's actions aligned with its culture and, by extension, the Jeffersonian ideal upon which it was founded?

for lucrative prison contracts. Prison and jail operators valued not only the telecommunications platform and the service it provided to inmates and their families, but also the commissions they received in the contracts, which helped to fund their budgets. This industry structure led to mostly rising telecommunications prices being passed on to inmates and their families, even while telecom prices outside of prison had plummeted. Inmates and their families wanted the highest degree of access at the lowest possible price, particularly at a time when the world was recovering from a pandemic. The case provides rich data for students to consider fundamental questions like: Is the current system fair to all stakeholders? Who should pay for prison communications-inmates and their families or the taxpayer? Under what corporate conditions is it possible to do good and do well? Criminal-justice advocates had worked for years to push back against the high price of inmate communications, which they argued caused loved ones to cut off contact with the inmate in order to save money-something that could contribute to mental health issues and increase recidivism. In 2021, the issue seemed to be coming to a head. Aventiv, which had grown through acquisition to become one of the largest prison communication providers (40% market share), had been bought in 2017 by Platinum Equity (Platinum), which was soon targeted by activists for change. In response, Platinum had pledged to make existing telecommunications products more affordable and accessible. It also planned to expand Aventiv beyond telecommunications and into tablet and related technology that would offer education, entertainment, job training, and post-incarceration products and services that would benefit inmates on the inside and help reduce recidivism once they were released. The transformation program represented a significant decision by Platinum to lean into the issues facing the industry, rather than run away from