By Christine Rosen
Thursday, April 04, 2019
Among the many challenges plaguing Big Tech companies
these days—I’m talking about the likelihood of tougher government regulation,
consumer concerns about privacy violations and data breaches, evidence that Big
Tech companies allowed foreign powers to meddle in elections and spread fake
news—internal employee politics at companies like Google might seem like a
sideshow.
But companies outside Silicon Valley would do well to
take note of a trend that Google has been dealing with recently: the rise of
the woke workforce.
Last week, Google made what should have been an anodyne
announcement about its creation of an advisory council (the Advanced Technology
External Advisory Council) to review Google’s artificial intelligence (AI)
work. The council “will consider some of Google’s most complex challenges that
arise under our AI Principles, like facial recognition and fairness in machine
learning, providing diverse perspectives to inform our work,” the announcement
said.
Like many advisory groups, Big Tech companies like to
convene to demonstrate that they care about ethical concerns, Google’s purpose
in creating the council is generating good PR, not tough-minded philosophical
debate. It’s an attempt to assuage critics who think Google cares more about
its profit margin than its ethics when it comes to the development of AI
technologies.
But the council’s creation comes at a time when Google
(and other Big Tech companies) face increasing criticism for being hostile to
conservative views—including lawsuits from former employees like James Damore,
who claims Google fired him for expressing unpopular views about workplace
diversity on an internal employee message board.
To that end, the Google executive tasked with selecting
the committee decided to kill two PR problems with one stone and include a
known conservative on the panel—Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James.
Google employees were not amused. As The Verge reported, “On internal message boards, employees
described James as ‘intolerant’ and the Heritage Foundation as ‘amazingly
wrong’ in their policies on topics like climate change, immigration, and,
particularly, on issues of LGBTQ equality. A person with James’ views, the
employees said, ‘doesn’t deserve a Google-legitimized platform, and certainly doesn’t
belong in any conversation about how Google tech should be applied to the
world.’” Others called James’s inclusion on the panel “horribly negligent” if
not “outright malicious.”
On Monday, employees circulated a petition calling for
James’s removal from the advisory board, singling out her views on trans
people. “Google cannot claim to support trans people and its trans
employees — a population that faces real and material threats — and
simultaneously appoint someone committed to trans erasure to a key AI advisory
position,” the petition noted. They are incensed over tweets like this
one, where James signals her opposition to Democratic-sponsored legislation
like the Equality Act. One person invited to join the advisory council declined
the invitation, ostensibly because of James.
Some tech journalists were more than happy to advance the
woke workers’ narrative. Techcrunch claimed Google’s appointment of one
conservative (to a council of eight people) “epitomizes big tech’s ongoing fear
of looking out of step with the right” and argued that Big Tech companies “have
often over-corrected to the right and continue to do so.” It’s doubtful
Techcrunch would have complained about Silicon Valley’s “obsession with a
misguided notion of ideological balance” had the new appointee been the
president of the Center for American Progress, for example. The website Gizmodo
simply called James a “ghoul.”
The woke Googlers argued that appeals to viewpoint
diversity amount to “a weaponization of the language of diversity.” By
appointing James, they argued, “Google elevates and endorses her views,
implying that hers is a valid perspective worthy of inclusion in its decision
making. This is unacceptable.”
But it’s only unacceptable if, like Google’s woke
employees, you confuse political disagreements with the ability to make ethical
judgments. James’s views about trans rights are far from invalid—in fact, they
are shared by half of all Americans, according to Pew Research Center data.
True, opinions about transgender bathroom access, transgender athletes, and the
like are sharply divided along partisan political lines; but that’s because
Americans are in the midst of deciding how best to answer many of these
questions. Just as censoring debate about the challenges surrounding
transgender rights would be wrong, refusing to include the views of someone who
represents half of the country’s current thinking on transgender issues would
also be wrong.
This isn’t the first time Google employees have attempted
to warp political debates by invoking the “weaponization” of diversity.
Activist-minded Google employees complained to Wired in January that in the wake of the Damore lawsuit, “some
employees have ‘weaponized human resources’ by goading them into inflammatory
statements, which are then captured and reported to HR for violating Google’s
mores around civility or for offending white men.” One Google engineer said,
“Now it’s like basically anything you say about yourself may end up getting
leaked to score political points in a lawsuit.”
Which is, of course, what Google employees like James
Damore complained they had to do with regard to expressing their opinions
around the overwhelmingly woke workforce at Google. The difference is Damore
lost his job for expressing his views. The woke employees usually get warnings.
As Wired noted of Google senior
engineer Alon Altman, a self-described “diversity advocate” at the company, he
“got a verbal warning for writing on an internal board that certain employees
should be fired.” “I meant only bigoted white men should be fired. They
interpreted it as applying to all white men,” Altman said, as if this absolved
him.
As for the uproar over Google violating its “principles”
by associating with the views of someone like James, it’s hard to take seriously
employees who are so selective in their outrage. There is plenty of hate for
conservatives and for Pentagon projects, for example, but much less
follow-through when it comes to working with repressive regimes like China
(which for decades enforced state-mandated eugenics through its one-child
policy and currently runs mass prison camps for its Uighur minority).
And it’s difficult to take seriously the views of woke
workers at Google when they employ similar tactics to those used by
“deplatforming” activists on college campuses—the small groups of radical
students who engage in loud and disruptive protests in order to convince
college administrators to disinvite speakers with whom the radicals disagree
(not surprisingly, those speakers are overwhelmingly conservative). This isn’t
tolerance; it’s censorship. And it’s unequally applied via a diversity
hierarchy where the “wrong” views trump everything else about a person; the
fact that Kay Coles James happens to be an African-American woman is canceled
out by her conservative politics, for example.
Like campus deplatformers, woke workers are on permanent
high alert for offenders. As Wired
described the activities of one trans activist and Google employee, “Over the
past few years, she learned to keep a close eye on conversations about
diversity issues. It began subtly. Coworkers peppered mailing lists and company
town halls with questions: What about meritocracy? Isn’t improving diversity
lowering the bar? What about viewpoint diversity? Doesn’t this exclude white
men?” The employee was quick to report such supposedly intolerant questioning
to human resources.
Google’s motto has morphed considerably from its founding
days. The sanctimonious “Don’t be evil” has given way to the more milquetoast
“Do the right thing.” (If Google does wholeheartedly embrace China, it’s next
motto should be, “Oh, what the hell.”) Thus far, Google executives have stood
by their decision to appoint James. But the controversy is clear proof that
many people in Silicon Valley believe conservatives should have to pass
ideological litmus tests that aren’t applied to liberals.
It’s also evidence that the polarizing and often petty
arguments once confined to internal company message boards at places like
Google have spilled over into the broader corporate culture. If Silicon Valley
is a glimpse into our collective future (and if an outspoken progressive
defeats Donald Trump in 2020), then Google’s challenge—to reconcile its
employees’ woke politics with the company’s profit margin—is one the rest of
the business world will likely be contending with sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment