Question $2-$ Business Ethics chapter $6$: Ethical Decision Making : Employer Responsibilities and Employee Rights : $($pg $106)$

The Choice to Voice

Article $19$ of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

and everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and

ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print. $...$ Later amendments restrict these broad rights when

necessary $[$f$]$or respect of the rights or reputation of others or $[$f$]$or the protection of national security or of public order $($order public$),$

or of public health or morals$\mathrm{.}1$

While some societies respect this concept more than others, the concept of free speech in the United States is so ingrained that

sometimes we focus on the right and omit to consider its limitations$.$ To the contrary, however, our statements are not protected in every

environment. Consider your perspective on the following examples of employees choices to express themselves.

In Fall $2016,$ Juli Briskman posted a photo of herself giving the finger to the U$.$S$.$ presidents motorcade. Her firm terminated her at$-$will

employment, claiming that she violated company policy that banned obscene content on social media. From a legal perspective, the

termination was valid. The employer is a private entity and therefore the First Amendment protection of free speech does not apply. While

Virginia does protect against terminations in direct violation of public policy, a court asked to review the case dismissed it because

Briskman could not point to a particular statute that was violated$\mathrm{.}2$

You may recall another case where someone stood up $($or$,$ in this situation, refused to stand$)$ because of his values. In $2016,$ National

Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick chose to kneel during the National Anthem in protest against racial injustice. In fall $2017,$

he filed an NLRB grievance against the NFL$,$ claiming that the owners colluded to keep him from receiving any offers of employment.

While the NLRB permitted the case to go forward, in February $2019,$ he opted instead to withdraw the grievance after reaching a

confidential settlement$\mathrm{.}3$

In a third case that happened in Fall $2017,$ James Damore, an engineer at Google, wrote a lengthy memo that detailed his concerns

about widespread bias at Google concerning diversity and inclusion, in favor of women. The memo outlined a number of facts to

support Damores conclusion that women are instead less equipped to handle the industry than men. Damore was fired from Google

when his memo became public$\mathrm{.}4$

According to Damores memo, Googles culture was characterized by a political bias that attributed any disparity among men and

women within the technology profession to oppression and that silenced anyone who dared to disagree. The result was an echo

chamber in which only discussions deemed politically correct were allowed. This, according to Damore, created an authoritarian culture

in which unfair and divisive discrimination against white males was the accepted means to address workplace disparity. Damore asserted,

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Googles left bias has created a

politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.

Damores memo then went on to cite the facts and reason that he believed explained the workplace disparity between men and

women. Damore claimed that men and women are biologically different in many ways. These biological differences, in turn, explain

personality differences, which are the best explanations for workplace inequality, especially in such fields as software engineering.

According to the memo, women are more directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. They have a

stronger interest in people rather than things, and this explains why women prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. On the

other hand, men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs $[$software engineering$],$ comparatively more

women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

Damore went on to claim that women are more gregarious than men, who tend to be more aggressive, and that this leads to women

generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up$,$ and leading. Finally, Damore claimed that women

characteristically have higher levels of neuroticism $($higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance$)$ and that this may contribute to the higher

levels of anxiety and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. In contrast, men have a higher drive for status that makes

them more tolerant of longer work hours and a high stress work environment$\mathrm{.}5$

Sundar Pichai, Googles CEO, and Danielle Brown, Vice President for Diversity, defended their decision to fire Damore based on

Googles commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace. They explained that, while Google was committed to the values of free

speech and diverse perspectives, it had a stronger commitment to equal treatment of all employees and to a workplace free from

discrimination. In their judgment, Damores memo violated that commitment.

Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board to protect his concerted activity to address workplace issues

$($rather than under a more general claim of free speech$),$ which he subsequently withdrew. However, before that withdrawal, the NLRB

found that his termination was legal based on the discriminatory nature of his statements$\mathrm{.}6$

$1.$ Using ethical analysis $($rather than the legal analysis included above$),$ evaluate whether it was ethical for Briskman to have been fired,

for Kaepernick to have been blacklisted, and for Damore to have been terminated. Was each of these employees acting ethically in

voicing or acting on their values, and, if so$,$ were their employers acting ethically in their decisions as well?

$2.$ What are the key facts relevant to your conclusion?

$3.$ What are the ethical issues involved in your decision?

$4.$ Who are the stakeholders in this scenario? Are any stakeholders rights compromised or limited by the employers decisions, other

than the three employees mentioned? In what way?

$5.$ Using ethical theories, how would you advocate on the employers behalf in each circumstance?

$6.$ Co$-$author Chris MacDonald suggests, A good test of your moral intuitions is generally to put the shoe on the other foot. In particular,

when you applaud the exercise of autonomous judgment or freedom by some individual, group, or company, ask whether you would

still applaud it if the individual, group, or company had values different from your own. In your answers to the above questions,

consider your own consistency and whether you would respond the same if the content were different.