Year: 2005

According to a story in the Seattle Times today, it does seem as though Microsoft has been "surprised" at the strength of the reaction to its decision to switch from a position of "support" to "neutral" on an anti-discrimination bill in Washington State.

Only goes to prove what I thought earlier – they were asleep at the wheel.

However, this may not yet be the end of the story, over at AMERICAblog, there’s a claim that Microsoft has been paying $20,000 a month to Century Strategies, a consulting firm headed up by the less-than-attractive figure of Ralph Reed. Methinks this story has a few more twists and turns to go before it is played out.

Well, the inevitable has happened, Steve Ballmer’s internal memo over the Washington State anti-discrimination bill has been posted to the Internet.

And, while I have some sympathy with what Ballmer is trying to say, another part of me basically says: either you don’t get it, or you are just spouting political bullshit.

Let’s look at some extracts from the memo:

"As long as I am CEO, Microsoft is going to be a company that is hard-core about diversity, a company that is absolutely rigorous about having a non-discriminatory environment, and a company that treats every employee fairly.

I’m proud of our track record on diversity issues. We were one of the first companies to provide domestic partner benefits, or to include sexual orientation in our anti-discrimination policies. And just this year, we became one of the few companies to include gender identity or expression in our protection policies."

This is good stuff. Microsoft does have a right to feel proud of what they have done in this field, and I have no problems in acknowledging that fact.

"When our government affairs team put together its list of its legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation."

Yes, Mr. Ballmer, but as I’ve said elsewhere, did no-one realise that the change of stance on such a sensitive issue would not go unnoticed? This is such a jaw-dropping change, that if you and your people did not realise the effect, then all I can say is that someone was asleep at the wheel. He goes on:

"On this particular matter, both Bill and I actually both personally support this legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me."

It is very good to hear that Ballmer and Gates would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Three cheers for that. But then, of course, comes the depressing kicker: many employees and shareholders would not agree with me. While on the one hand I recognise that people hold deeply held beliefs, when push comes to shove, some of those beliefs are responsible for much of the evil in this world. And it is the mark of a man, or woman, that they are prepared to stand up and say that.

He goes on to say:

"It’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it’s much less clear when it’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry – and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more
appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions between my personal views on policy issues and when it’s appropriate to involve the company."

I can appreciate what Ballmer is saying here. But, alas, from my perspective, he has been weighed and found wanting. Perhaps I have high ideals. Perhaps I want a Mandela, when all I get is a Ballmer. Pity that, what the world needs is more Mandelas – or at least people who aspire to be such.

The rumblings from Microsoft’s decision to drop support for an anti-discrimination bill in the state of Washington continue. Now the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, which four years ago presented Microsoft with an award for its progressive stance on diversity issues, has asked Microsoft to hand the award back.

In addition, the Human Rights Campaign has sent a letter to Steve Ballmer (Microsoft’s CEO) expressing their profound disappointment over Microsoft’s decision.

Apparently, Ballmer has issued an internal memo to all employees putting his side of the case, but this has not been made public outside of the company. What Microsoft has said publicly, has come through their PR people. Tami Begasse, a senior corporate spokeswoman for Microsoft, said yesterday that the company’s stances on diversity and nondiscrimination had not changed and noted that Microsoft issued a letter in support of the Washington legislation, which has been introduced annually for many years, as recently as the last session.

However, the simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft has indeed switched its position on the bill from one of "support" to one of "neutrality".

Begasse said Microsoft’s government relations specialists chose to focus their legislative efforts this year on more central priorities “that have a direct impact on our industry and our business,” specifically computer privacy, education, competitiveness and transportation.

What I find most dismaying about the whole affair is that Microsoft management appears not to have had the nous  to realise that any change of position on such a sensitive issue would have major reverberations. I mean, d-uuh!  John Aravosis over on AMERICAblog makes the same point with somewhat more colour, but then, I’m just a diplomatic brit. 

There is a storm brewing in the blogsphere and beyond over Microsoft’s action (or rather inaction) over a recent attempt in the state of Washington (Microsoft’s home state) to include reference to sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation.

While there’s a lot of "he said, she said" noise foaming up at the moment, once you blow the foam away, it does appear that Microsoft stepped back from supporting the legislation in the state senate. The outcome was that the legislation was lost by one vote, and many are blaming Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for that. 

In the past, Microsoft has been very supportive of diversity and inclusiveness in its company policies, and that extended to its GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) staff also. It is regrettable that their internal support can no longer be counted on when it comes to society at large.