Blog Post 2: Diversity and Immigration

H-1B Visas

Arguments For

If the H-1B visa system is followed as it is outlined, it is a benefit for the state. Any infractions can be reported and dealt with accordingly, discouraging behavior that would damage the visa system, and in turn the state. The H-1B visa system has potential to act in accordance with the legalist framework in theory.

Arguments Against

Many of the arguments against the H-1B visa system expose how the system is currently being abused. The first argument is that the visas are not going to the most highly trained workers. The H-1B visa system is supposed to provide a pathway to bring the most highly skilled workers into the United States. This is not the case, however. At Tata Consultancy, Cognizant Technology, and Infosys, the three companies with the most employees with H-1B visas, 80% of visa holders only have a bachelor’s degree. Of the 85,000 visas available each year, only 20,000 are reserved for people with advanced degrees. For the remaining 65,000 spots, a lottery systems is used. There is no prioritization within the lottery system, so many people with advanced degrees end up not getting a visa. It is often argued that the workers that come in with H-1B visas fill a skill gap, but it is unlikely that this is the case since most of these workers only have bachelor’s degrees. If there was a lack of qualified American workers to fill these positions, the use of the visa system in this way could be validated, but this is, again, not the case. Only half of U.S. college graduates who receive a STEM degree get a job in the STEM field. Specifically in computer and information science and in engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students than are hired into those fields each year.

Another argument against the H-1B visa system is that it can be abused to allow companies to import cheap labor. The system allows companies to hire non-American workers and pay them non-American wages. Although some companies pay their H-1B employees a fair salary that is equivalent to their American coworkers, many companies, such as outsourcing and consulting companies, do not. For every visa used by Google to hire a talented non-American for $126,000, ten Americans are replaced by outsourcing companies paying their H-1B workers $65,000. Wipro, a large outsourcing company, paid its 104 program analysts in San Jose exactly $60,000 each in 2016. Brocade, in contrast, paid their programmer analysts $130,000 in the same city. Not only does this impact the foreign workers looking for a job in the United States, it also affects American workers. Results from a study to examine how H-1B visa holders affect the economy shows that the wages and employment rate of American computer scientists were lower due to the influx of workers with a H-1B visa.

Sources:

Legalist Response

When deciding whether the application of the H-1B system is unethical, legalism would return to legislative documents such as the Constitution or previous cases involving the matter. If neither of these provide insight, then a judgment could be made on whether H-1B visas act as a stabilizing influence and increase the power of the central government or not. According to the U.S Department of Labor:

Employers must attest to the Department of Labor that they will pay wages to the H-1B nonimmigrant workers that are at least equal to the actual wage paid by the employer to other workers with similar experience and qualifications for the job in question, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment – whichever is greater This statement is a product of the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, which, among other things, stated that employers must pay workers at least 100% the prevailing wage. Although normally legalism would seem to take an anti-foreigner stance, the legal precedent already set by this legislation means that H-1B workers must be paid at least the same as other workers, and it is worse to violate the current law than to hire foreign workers for cheap labor or mistreat them. This means paying these workers less than others is an ethical violation of our framework, in line with a legal violation.

Google Internal Memo

Summary

In mid-2017 an internal memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” circulated around Google after it was published by a male software engineer. The article explains the engineer’s personal opinions regarding diversity issues in technology and contains several main ideas. First, the memo argues that differences in representation in industry fields related to technology (specifically software engineering) between men and women are a result of biological and personality differences between the genders and not a result of bias. Second, it argues that Google has a political bias that sees freedom of offense as equivalent to psychological safety and thus suppresses opinions that differ from its progressive agenda. Lastly, it argues that Google’s suppression of opinion has resulted in the view that all differences in representation are due to oppression and that the only way to fight oppression is through discrimination.

The memo goes on to give a number of suggestions as to how these presented problems could be solved. The main premise of these suggestions is that non-progressive opinions, which are the minority within Google, should not be suppressed. This would encourage a discussion which would lead to realistic and effective solutions to diversity issues and underrepresentation which could be implemented efficiently. It also suggests that demoralizing diversity issues and deemphasizing empathy would allow practical programs that make a difference to develop more effectively. Finally, it suggests that the intention of words should mean more than how they are taken or understood by others who hear them spoken. This, the memo claims, would allow individuals to express opinions without risking backlash from their peers, leaders, and subordinates within the company.

Danielle Brown, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance, responded briefly to the memo with a company-wide email. The email stresses that Google does not endorse the opinions expressed in the memo and that it is working hard to put into place programs to address diversity issues in technology. It also states that it encourages discussion and the expression of opposing viewpoints in the workplace so long as the discussion stays within the boundaries laid out by Google’s Code of Conduct.

Ethical Elements

It is likely that according to the legalist ethical framework that the domination of a single set of rules/biases ascribed to either the left or right political sides would be considered ethical. Though this is not what the writer is advocating for, having policies that lean completely left or right and enforcing those policies would be ethical according to legalist ethics. For example, the writer cites Google’s left bias as having created a “monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence”. A legalist would praise this practice as one that correctly enforces a centralist attitude. Another example would be what the writer points out about discrimination to achieve perfect equality of representation. According to legalist ethics, Google’s top people have every right and obligation to enforce this authoritarian version of equality on the company.

Unethical Elements

As outlined, legalistic ethics are, overall, decidedly in favor of Google’s overbearing practices. It follows then that legalistic ethics would find many of Damore’s prescriptions to remedy or remove these practices invalid. Beginning with Damore’s second suggestion, to “stop alienating conservatives,” it is clear that an organization that adheres to a legalist ethic would reject this in order to ensure that dissenting opinions aren’t able to gain traction and usurp the status quo. In the same vein, legalism would also not go along with Damore’s idea to “confront Google’s biases.” Next, Damore asks Google to “stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.” However, such actions are valid under legalism. Thus, it is invalid for Damore, who is not someone who oversees the company’s operation or heading, to question these practices. In fact, such insubordination would be met with swift and harsh punishment under legalism (as it was). In summary, Damore’s advocacy for the open discussion of company practices and values is, contentwise, at odds with legalist thought, and, in itself, an act of insubordination, which is unethical according to legalism.

Gender Bias in Tech

Summary

While there are more women today entering STEM fields, the percentage of female computer-and-information science majors has declined from about 37 percent in 1984 to 18 percent in 2017. There isn’t one specific reason why this decline has happened, but it can be hard for younger women majoring in a technology field to feel as though they belong. There is a lack of women professors at university and a lack of women with tech positions in the workforce. This can make it hard for younger women interested in computer science to find mentors and people to look up to. Not only is there a decline in female computer science majors, but women are choosing to drop out of tech for various reasons. These reasons include workplace conditions, a lack of access to creative roles, and a sense of feeling stalled in one’s careers. Another major factor for women choosing to drop out of tech is the undermining behavior that women experience from their managers. It seems that most women who work in tech will experience some form of bias or sexual harassment somewhere along the way. This alone could put off younger women that are thinking about majoring in computer science and other tech related areas which could play a part in that decline.

Legalist Response

The fundamental principle of Legalism is the good of the state, but we can expand its ideals to consider corporations as states. From this perspective, the only relevant concerns with respect to hiring practices are the bottom line and the potential for future income. Nothing is owed to the workers and women who are troubled by the gender imbalance should simply keep their heads down and work. This does not mean that a Legalist company cannot seek to balance its workforce composition, only that it need not do so in service of some conception of justice. Instead, a Legalist corporation that seeks to hire more women would do so because it believes that doing so would increase productivity or decrease costs. The decision to address or not address gender imbalance would be at the sole discretion of high-level company leadership. The judgement of the executives would not be subject to any sort of review, since their authority would be absolute. Furthermore, Legalism does not offer a clear answer to the problem of gender imbalance, only a framework from which the company should derive a decision. Thus, it is possible that the executives of different corporations could institute different policies based on conflicting views about what will strengthen a business. One policy that seems particularly consistent with the underpinnings of Legalism is total disinterest in the demographics of the workforce. Under Legalism, workers receive their tasks from superiors and are expected to perform them effectively and unquestioningly; thinking is left to leadership. In this system, diverse perspectives in the workforce do not have much use. A Legalist might even seek to minimize gender diversity, as uniformity could help minimize individualism. So long as the decision is made by executives with the goal of strengthening the company, it is consistent with Legalism.

Race and Ethnicity Biases in Tech

Summary

Diversity in tech fields has been an outstanding issue that continues to be a problem today. Many of the technology companies in Silicon Valley, including Facebook, Google, etc, were shown to make up no more than 1 percent of technical employees in 2016 according to the Bloomberg article. Looking at the demographics two years later, shows that there are still half as many African Americans and Hispanics in tech and that 83 percent of tech executives are white. These issues stem from the lack of effort in attracting underrepresented minorities and the lack of qualified people from these backgrounds for these positions. Since the students aren’t provided with the same programs, they are underqualified and this results in less students being exposed to technical fields and not be as competitive candidates. This can in turn cause less students of different races and ethnicities to apply and be hired by these companies causing other students of those background to feel isolated and excluded. These race and ethnicity issues continue to be a problem today and require much more work by both parties to fully address them despite the changes and initiatives taken in the last decade.

Sources:

Legalist Response

Since there is no legislation mandating diversity, there is no ethical issue with its absence under the legalist framework. Nor can foundational legal documents like the Constitution assist with interpreting this issue, since any interpretation including diversity would be generous with the source material, and legalism abhors any possibility of ambiguity. The general sentiment of legalism would be against promoting diversity; not necessarily because it is against legalistic practice, but simply because there is no good reason to expend the effort. Improving education so that underrepresented minorities are offered the same opportunities is not a priority as long as the current system obeys legal practices and does not provide value for the people at the expense of an undue burden on the corporation or state. Promoting diversity may have benefits for corporations or the nation, but the reasons for it are largely social as well, an attempt to solve injustice. Legalism tends to ignore current social conditions and focus solely on legal issues, so diversity is beyond its scope.