Reading04: Codes of Conduct and James Damore
Personally, I feel like the question of whether codes of conduct are necessary for companies is akin to asking whether laws are necessary for jurisdictions. Just as laws should lay out a set of rules that citizens are expected to follow and the punishments associated with breaking them, codes of conduct should provide a set of expectations employees are expected to uphold and the consequences for failing to do so. Such policies protect both companies and their employees by providing a written explanation of what behaviors are forbidden and precisely what will happen when violations occur, thus reducing the scale of potentially problematic gray areas. This should comfort employees because it helps prevent arbitrary complaints from placing them in serious trouble given that the behavior was in line with the code.
However, the similarities between codes of conduct and laws do not just stop with their benefits. Unfortunately, just as unjust laws can be enacted, unfair codes of conduct can be put in place. Ideally, codes of conduct should include reasonable protections against violence and harassment without infringing on reasonable expression (and most do). There do exist, however, some blatantly ridiculous codes of conduct that give all such codes a bad reputation. For instance, the Geek Feminism Code of Conduct states “Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment.” While this may seem reasonable on the surface, it forbids some reasonable (and even some morally demanded) behaviors. For instance, if someone on a message board stated that they needed a few hours before they would get back to work because they needed to shoot up heroin, it would be against the code of conduct to advise against this life-threatening behavior. This sentiment is echoed in this anonymous anti-code of conduct blog(though I definitely do not agree with all its statements). Thus, a code of conduct is only as good as its least reasonable requirement, and I believe that all codes of conduct should go through screening by a diverse set of individuals before enactment.
Before concluding, I wish switch gears and briefly discuss the controversial case of James Damore, the Google employee fired in August 2017 for an internal memo he circulated railing against the supposed ideological echo chamber existing at the tech giant. Before any further discussion, it is important to note that Damore’s writing skills are exceptional. This outstanding rhetoric allows him to relate even his most controversial ideas quite convincingly, so this is important to keep in mind. That being said, I find most of his assessment to be a reasonable and even needed counterpoint in the liberal realm of Silicon Valley. I particularly agree with his assessment that the conservative viewpoint has been silenced by political correctness. I think a diversity of ideas is crucial, and such diversity is impossible if one side of the political spectrum is completely silenced. However, where I think Damore went too far was his insistence that a major part of the gender gap in technology can be explained by biology. While I will allow that it is possible that certain psychological factors could predispose different genders to be more interested in certain fields, making blanket statements that suggest women as a whole are less suited to technology is both counterproductive and offensive. So much more of the gender gap has been proven to come from environmental factors stemming from a child’s upbringing, that suggesting women are simply genetically less able to perform in a tech job is a dangerous idea. Damore may be right that we shouldn’t necessarily strive for equality of representation, I feel it is absolutely essential to strive for an equality of opportunity and give any woman who wishes to enter the tech industry every chance to sharpen her skillset to make this possible.