The last four days have been incredibly difficult for me personally, as I the whole issue of the gay-rights bill played out on the blogosphere, in the press, and inside Microsoft. I've been struggling mightily with what, if anything, to write here on the issues involved. This is a hugely important issue (actually several ones) and until I figured out what to say, it seemed trivial to be blogging about anything else. It was the proverbial elephant standing in the middle of the room, and I felt compelled to talk about it -- once I figured out what to say.
The first thing I needed to get straight in my own mind was "What do I know, and what do I not know." And in truth, I know very little, as I have not been involved in any of this as it actually transpired over the past few months. I think it's important to note, however, that very few people actually know anything about this firsthand - there's a lot of "he said, she said" going on, and their accounts of the discussions, the sequence of events, and the cause-effect relationships differ.
The fracas last week started with an article in The Stranger, which is a left-leaning, alternative newspaper in Seattle. As someone who also leans way to the left, I do read it from time to time, and while I have never called into question their journalistic integrity (and am not doing so now), I have never thought of The Stranger as a bastion of journalistic quality and rigor in the stories that they print. I think they are sincere and believe what they are reporting, but the Wall Street Journal they are not. When I read the article, I was dismayed at the lack of corroborating facts behind the assertions they and their interviewees made. In other words, I thought it was a weak story (independent of whether or not it was true).
And in terms of how the blogosphere reacted, I think we saw the best and the worst. The buzz spread quickly, which is great and shows the power of the Internet and blogs to rally a group of people around an issue. But no one stopped to question whether The Stranger could have gotten it wrong - in fact, my guess is that most of the people who passed on the links and spread the word never actually went back and read the original article, let alone with a critical eye. To take something that incendiary as gospel, without subjecting it to critical review, is an easy mistake to make - but a mistake nonetheless. Hey, it's on the Internet, so it must be true. Not.
My personal reaction could best be summed up as "cognitive dissonance." I've been working at Microsoft for almost 17 years now. I remember at the Company meeting in either 1988 or 1989, at the customary employee Q&A session at the end of the meeting Jon Shirley was asked when Microsoft would extend benefits to same-sex partners. Jon quickly dismissed the idea, and was nearly booed off the stage. Within about a week, the company announced that it would start extending benefits to same-sex partners, and the scuttlebutt inside the company (I have never confirmed this) was that Bill personally insisted that it happen. As a manager I have to go through mandatory training sessions to make sure that I am aware of our HR policies, and am very familiar with - and very proud of - Microsoft's record on this issue. So for me to read what Microsoft was being accused of made no sense to me at all.
Furthering my sense of confusion: while I wasn't involved, I do know several of the "players" from the Microsoft side, including Brad Smith, Steve Ballmer and many of the people in our Government Affairs group. Brad's kids and my kids went to preschool together and played together afterschool for years. I've worked with Brad, and I've socialized with Brad. I can't possibly imagine Brad doing what the Stranger article accused him of doing. And I can only imagine Steve's reaction to being threatened with a boycott (if that really happened). Despite what you might read elsewhere, my personal knowledge of both Steve and Brad have led me to the conclusion that they are honest men of high integrity. The same holds for everyone in our Government Affairs group - they are all people of high integrity.
So in the end, since I have no firsthand knowledge of the facts, and since The Stranger didn't really elaborate on the facts, it all comes down to whom I believe is telling the truth, given what I know about them and their agenda. And let's face it, everyone involved has an agenda. In fact, one of the ironies in this whole thing is that Microsoft is catching flak from both extremes for trying not to have an agenda on a polarizing issue. But that aside... in the end I know and trust Brad and Steve, and I believe Steve and his account, which Scoble posted here.
I fully realize that many others don't trust Microsoft, and don't trust Steve Ballmer or our lawyers. And I realize that it's highly unlikely that I could actually change their minds. But for those of you who know and trust me, I wanted you to know where I stand on this, and hope that minimally you'll go back and have another look at where this all started with a more critical eye before you come to your own conclusion. My own conclusion: Microsoft spokespeople are speaking the truth when they say that they decided that MS would only weigh in on a narrow range of topics this year, and that decision was made before the beginning of the session. In my mind, the question of whether MS was right to allegedly back down due to religious pressure is moot - I don't think it happened that way.
It actually heartens me to see that a lot of the debate, even on Slashdot, has moved to the other issue, a much more worthy discussion that abstracts beyond the specifics of this particular case: whether it's appropriate for a corporation to voice opinions on social issues. And once again, there are strong opinions at both ends of the spectrum. I'm still mulling that one over, though I tend to agree with Steve Ballmer that how directly related it is to the corporation's business is a huge factor, and that is never black-and-white - it's a spectrum. If, say, the legislature tried to pass a luxury tax on PC's, most people would expect Microsoft to have a public opinion. On the other extreme, I think most people (not everyone) would think it strange for MS to have an opinion on an abortion-rights bill (and it's safe to assume that at least one of those will come up in this legislative session too). The middle of the spectrum, as always, is where it gets very difficult to make decisions, And as Steve points out, there's also the dimension of whether there is a consensus opinion on the issue, even if it is clearly relevant to Microsoft's business.
Last point: this is a lose-lose issue for Microsoft. If it voices an opinion on the bill, people get upset. If it doesn't voice an opinion, people get upset. If it responds to pressure from religious groups, people get upset. If it doesn't respond, people get upset. Microsoft is a company with a very big footprint that is trying to be socially conscious and take care of its employees and shareholders, and this is one of dozens of issues it faces in trying to understand how to do that. These are great debates, and everyone benefits from having the debate take place, but for the sake of the next company that finds itself in this trap, let's abstract it away from any one company now - particularly since Microsoft carries so much emotional baggage for so many people already that will just cloud the discussion. It could have been any company, and soon enough it will be.
And I'm going to go ponder all this some more. I have many questions, and very few answers.
6:04:15 PM 
|
|
