I think you're right that it is a misconception that there is a legal obligation to put shareholder value (profit) first. It seems that it's more of a doctrine.
I was wrong to state it as a claim without any backing to my claim.
From what I am reading online (I am not a lawyer), it stems from a court case "eBay v. Newmark"
"The Delaware court's decision in eBay v. Newmark has been viewed by many commentators as a decisive affirmation of shareholder wealth maximization as the only legally permissible objective of a for‐profit corporation."
"A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders.""
yep-- The economic ethics and models espoused by business schools focus on an economic system where companies are expected to maximise short-term gains regardless of consequences.
A focus on profit over everything else. It's a matter of law as well-- heads of companies are legally compelled to prioritize shareholder value.
Hopefully state legislatures, university administrators, and bankers will get the signal-- the tuition versus value equation is makes less and less sense. Especially with many free & low cost self-taught education options online, and the debt burden facing millennials.
NSA could easily tell these corporations that they have to deny existence & feasibility of such technology. Anyone who takes their word for it is a sheep.
As long as there's engineers, there will be hope ;)