I'd Hate to be Robert Scoble Today
Being the face of Microsoft to bloggers is great on a lot of days, but not on the day when The New York Times has an article that starts like this on its cover:
The Microsoft Corporation, at the forefront of corporate gay rights for decades, is coming under fire from gay rights groups, politicians and its own employees for withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Many of the critics accused the company of bowing to pressure from a prominent evangelical church in Redmond, Wash., located a few blocks from Microsoft's sprawling headquarters.
Talk about a flip flop.To me it's simple: either you think homosexuals are humans deserving of basic rights, in which case you have to fight for them, or you think they are subhuman and not deserving of basic rights. What's Microsoft's take? I'm confused. We all have to cave to political pressure sometimes on some things, but not on basic human rights. I don't see a lot of wiggle room for Microsoft on this one, and bloggers will rightly be making Scoble squirm in the next few days.
Update: He has already addressed it here. He's outspokenly pro gay-rights, which I applaud.
But read the comments from other people on his blog. There are several saying they applaud Microsoft for a shift to being "neutral" on the issue of gay rights, rather than carrying out a pro-gay agenda.
So I got on my soapbox and left the following self-righteous comment (if you scroll down in his comments section you'll see it):
To all you who want Microsoft to be neutral on this topic: There is no neutral when people's basic human rights are being compromised. Either you're against it, or you're complicit.
It's like when the school bully is taking it to a younger kid. Watching is not OK.
Aren't we all glad Abe Lincoln wasn't neutral on slavery? Historians know we almost stayed neutral too long in World War II.
Surely we all have heard this quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller. I bought a postcard of it at the Holocaust Museum, and it's on my desk right now:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
posted by henryabbott @ Friday, April 22, 2005
6 Comments
6 Comments:
What is Microsoft's position on the war in Iraq?
And are they pro-choice, or pro-life - hard to see how they can be "neutral" on that moral question.
Unless, of course, we bear in mind that "Microsoft" is a corporation, not a living, breathing, voting person.
The individual employees at Microsoft should lobby and vote their consciences, but I have a hard time seeing the business connection that would justify MSFT getting involved in this.
Nor do I fully discount the point made in the article:
"Their concern, he said, was that obviously they were hearing from fairly conservative employees who were connected to this minister. They needed to sort out how they were going to deal with those problems."
Blaming the insidious Religious Right is undoubtedly more effective than admitting that MSFT's employees may be divided on this, and that it is none of the company's business (beyond the way they treat their own employees, which apparently is beyond reproach).
And the NY Times stance is fun - as another blogger put it, "Microsoft criticized for not meddling in politics".
Tom Maguire
There are always going to be a lot of thoughtless people out there. People who are, sadly, comfortable with our government going around saying to its citizens "you're a human, you're a human, you're a human--but you, nope, you're not a human. Sorry! Please step aside. No human rights for you."
I recognize that in the grand sweep of history, it's a fairly new idea that GLBT people are humans. I'm OK with the fact that some people haven't fully embraced it yet. I realize that just as it has taken a long time for some people to realize that black people and women are OK, so it will take time for some people time to realize that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are OK too.
What strikes me as wrong here, however, is that Microsoft has demonstrated through its words and actions that the people at the top do already understand the truth that GLBT people are humans, and worthy of full human rights. They shouldn't do an about face for anything--even dissenting employees. For them to back off that stance stinks of cowardly deference to wrong-headed political forces.
And as for the idea that corporations are somehow immune from morality? Consider this: there is not a business in this world that is made up of anything other than people. Everything any business does is something that humans do. Simple as that.
Tom Maguire (whoever you are) here is my challenge to you: find me anything--one moral leader, one bible passage, one inspirational teaching from anyone--that advocates switching off our morals during the time we are at work.
I'm on the fence here (not about equal rights, but about corporate rights). On the one hand, its nice to see that Microsoft (at least originally) took a stance on a fairness issue, external from their own hiring and personnel policies. However, if I am to rail against the idea of corporate personhood (with 'free speech' in the form of political money and so on) I should be asking why does Microsoft the coporation (not Microsoft people the employees) have any standing in this discussion? On the other, other hand, if we face a situation where asshole-minded corporations are going to weigh in on their own pet de-regulatory, robber baron issues why not welcome the ones who come in on the side of justice? Eeesh.
We should ask Mitch Albom to weigh in (if he isn't long-lining Columbia river salmon out to sea, denuding the spring spawning run, or diverting the Columbia upstream for irrigation).
yaakovwatkins, come and cry to me about how disenfranchised you are when you lose the presidency, the house, the senate, the support of Fox News, majority opinion in this country, and popular referenda.
Another right wing victim. Jesus, I though your lot were all about rugged individualism. Pussies to a man, all of you.
yaakovwatkins--
This may surprise you: I agree with your point about personal liberties. I don't think anyone's freedom of speech should be curtailed. I don't want the government in your mouth any more than I want it in everyone else's bedrooms.
But the fact is, as far as the government is concerned, you can say whatever you want. But homosexuals can't marry whomever they want. So let's fix the problems we have, not the ones you imagine we might one day get--especially when free speech is already protected.
And why are you worried? If you are so dead set on delivering hate speeches in America, you're in good company. From the playgrounds, to the pulpit, and even the highest levels of our government, there are plenty of ingorant Americans doing just that every day. (You don't believe me? Ask a homosexual.) No need to feel lonely--this is your time! Enjoy!
Ooh, and one last point. The whole "it's bad for them" argument? Where is that one headed? Smoking cigarettes is bad for you. Not going to college is proven to have a bad effect on your long term health. Eating fatty foods is a leading killer, as is sitting on your duff day in and day out watching TV. Sunbathing too much leads to dreadful skin cancers that make all of our health insurance rates higher. And can we even measure the dreadful effects of cars? Not only do they encourage us to sit down all the time instead of walking, but they belch pollution, inspire wars for oil, and are a leading cause of death thanks to the incredible number of accidents they cause. By any measure, it's an epidemic.
So, do you think we should outlaw everything that might be bad for people? Or should we shade a little more towards that little thing called freedom that the founding fathers were so fond of?
Hnery, thanks for saying all things I wanted to say after I had swalled back the rising bile.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home