Stoic Ethics Post 2

Discussion of the H-1B Visa System

Proponents of the H-1B visa systems argue that it encourages the migration of skilled laborers to the US by providing additional inlets to the country as long as they secure work in desired fields, and it is true that in the modern quota-based immigration system, the H-1B and H-1B2 are essentially opening up additional slots for workers with merits that are currently considered “special.” It is also true that the H1-B visa requires sponsorship from an employer, which can give employers some choice in the workforce coming in to America and guarantee work to skilled laborers before their visas are issued. Because re-applications are allowed and don’t fall within the 85,000 visa cap, the H-1B can be continuously renewed as an option for continued living in the United States. In a more abstract sense, it ensures that skilled workers with degrees from outside the country to share ideas from abroad and increase the diversity of thought in American business.

Opponents of the H-1B allege that it is unfair to workers and other countries can make the US look bad by making better offers. The median salary for workers in the US on an H-1B is about $25,000 less than a US citizen working a similar position in tech. While the data here is not completely unambiguous to position types or experience level, it certainly seems that there is a hire gap, especially when one considers that most workers with H-1B visas work in outsourcing companies, who sell labor to other companies (and are thus incentivized to provide workers for less than a regular hire). Even if the hiring was completely fair,sponsoring an H-1B visa osts an employer several thousand dollars in added fees, and there is economic incentive to raise that money by cutting other benefits.

To make matters worse, if the H-1B is actually intended to encourage skilled labor migration into the US, then it is currently being outdone by other systems. The H-1B traditionally lasts 3 years, with a stipulation to expand to 6, but isn’t permanent. A worker interested in living in the United States full time must apply for a Green Card. In addition to increasing the amount of paperwork needed to become a citizen, the wait time for Green Cards has expanded to the point someone interested in working in the United States could apply for an H-1B and a Green Card at the same time, work out their entire extended H-1B period and still have to wait several years until they will receive a Green Card (during which they are now unable to work in the US). To complicate matters further, workers on an H-1B visa cannot bring their families with them, their families must apply for H-4 nonimmigrant classifications, with narrower restrictions than the H-1B. Other nations, Canada in particular, due to its cultural similarity to the US, have adopted simpler systems with lower backlogs. An increasing number of workers are choosing to look elsewhere from the US either to avoid migratory hassle or after being forced to seek other options after waiting in long lines.

Stoics say that people should concern themselves with acting rationally in accordance with universal virtue, and therefore the issue of migration is fairly indifferent. If it makes sense for an individual or a family to migrate, then they should, if it doesn’t make sense, then they shouldn’t. Nations have a right to encourage labor more or less as it serves their principles. There are definitely extenuating circumstances to this policy, such as refugees, but in general acceptance of outsiders the pervue of

However, when discussing the H-1B visa system in particular, we can examine its ethics in terms of the intent of the visa itself and by how the laws changing H-1B and H-1B hires have maintained those intentions.

As long as the H-1B visa system has a consistent intention and is honestly represented to it applicants, it is an ethical system. And the H-1B has a fairly consistent set of parameters: workers apply for the visa under the sponsorship of a prospective employer to receive the right to work in the US for 3 (extended to up to 6 years). After the H-1B is up, another can be applied for and under most circumstances is easier to secure the second time as it is not beholden to the initial H-1B issuance cap. Where problems have arisen with the terms of the H-1B is new legislation, which attempts to change quotas, or incentivize/disincentivize H-1B hires. Some of these changes have modified the promise of the H-1B and even changed the circumstances for current H-1B holders, which is certainly not consistent with the advertised intentions of the H-1B. The H-1B visa system at face value isn’t unethical, but changing the conditions H-1B on people who accepted the old conditions is.

The conundrum presented by the ethical issues is the H-1B debate is that the H1-B can’t really be made more ethical, all the problems arose out of the legal system that changes the rules and incentives surrounding H-1B visas. The guiding definition of “good” for stoicism is something that is good in all cases: and the changeability of the H-1B is provably not good in all cases. Therefor the H-1B visa system is not technically ethical. In fact, unless a visa system could guarantee certain rights to a holder once it is awarded, it cannot be totally ethical.

Response to the Internal Google Memo:

In August 2017, Gizmodo.com reported on a 10-page memo written by a nameless male Google employee that was spreading amongst company employees. The employee was expressing his disagreements with initiatives within Google and beyond to ensure equal representation between female and male workers in tech, an industry long dominated by men. Such initiatives include the prioritization of diversity during the hiring process and the birth of several company programs that are open exclusively to women. The employee believes these initiatives exist due to an incorrect sentiment within society that women and men should equally represented in all fields of work.

He believes that there are inherent, physiological differences between men and women that make certain genders more apt for certain careers. He then presents several differences that might explain why there is (and, therefore, naturally should be) a gender gap in tech, expanding on each point in depth. Additionally, the memo’s author disagrees with Google’s diversity initiative as he believes it is founded on false political biases to create equality in all representation. He strongly believes that acknowledgement of inherent differences between men and women is not sexist, and is, in fact, necessary to effectively address the social well-being of those in the workplace.

To a Stoic, some elements of the memo’s argument are quite respectable. The author founds his argument on the belief that gender-equality initiatives are the result of incorrect biases and beliefs. While making specific suggestions to improve gender relations in the industry, he states, “Relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.” Stoics champion the absence of biases and passion during decision-making, making this aspect of his argument very appealing. The author seems to respect the intentions of the initiatives he criticizes – he just wants to limit discussion to established facts and not personal anecdotes.

There is another aspect of the author’s argument that is compatible with Stoicism. He takes issue with the culture of “shaming” directed towards those with right-wing beliefs. He states, “Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.” Stoics certainly disagree with a culture of shaming – it is often an oppressive action based on intense emotion. Differing beliefs are inevitable, and it is important for individuals within a company to be comfortable communicating with each other.

Stoics, however, will be hard-pressed to ignore certain flaws with the memo. Most glaringly, the memo presents many alleged facts regarding physiological differences between men and women without supplying sources for such information. As the majority of his argument is dependent on these claims being true, it is crucial that he supply citation – yet he does not. There is no reason for a Stoic to believe his claims over the beliefs of those he derides. Additionally, he presents certain “alleged” physiological differences, yet only uses them to show why a woman less likely to be a good fit for a tech role. Despite acknowledging that many inherent differences exist, he does not acknowledge the possibility that some differences may give an average female a unique value not possessed by the average male. This shows a possible bias on the part of the author to cherrypick only the facts that support his views. He tries to avoid allegations of bias by claiming himself as “a classical liberal” who “strongly values individualism and reason,” but this does not make him impervious to allegations of bias.

Overall, Stoics appreciate his call for a discussion on gender issues void of all emotional engagement and bias, but have trouble overlooking the lack of sources for many of his foundational claims, as well as his alarming tendency to only acknowledge woman’s inherent differences as flaws in the tech industry. With proper source documentation and consideration (as well as rebuttals) of more arguments that run counter to his beliefs, this Google memo would fare significantly better in winning over those of a Stoic mindset.

Analysis of Gender Bias in Tech:

When it comes to gender issues in tech, stoicism is certainly having a moment. Many people are turning to this ethical framework to address key problems, specifically the belief that there are innate gender differences that account for different levels of ability, interests, preferences, or intelligence between men and women. To expand on this discrimination, a quote in Liza Mundy’s article for the Atlantic reads, “Women not only are hired in lower numbers than men are; they also leave tech at more than twice the rate men do… studies show that women who work in tech are interrupted in meetings more often than men. They are evaluated on their personality in a way that men are not. They are less likely to get funding from venture capitalists…And in a particularly cruel irony, women’s contributions to open-source software are accepted more often than men’s are, but only if their gender is unknown.” As if blatant bias and misrepresentation wasn’t enough, women are consistently judged, even by themselves, as lacking the “genius” trait that define the stereotypical male tech guru, and by consequence don’t consider a role in the industry or aren’t considered by others for more technical roles.

However, research on gender differences is often interpreted incorrectly. In many cases, the societal shaping, pressures, environment and unconscious bias is not incorporated into explaining studies. One thing research does conclude is that there is no hardwired difference between men and women. Instead, these differences arise from the societal boundaries that have historically defined gender. So far, the industry’s answer to gender issues has been understanding and identifying bias.

Unconscious-bias training is based on the idea that everyone holds natural biases. The key is to be aware of the bias and actively fight against it. Experts are also recommending changing the structure of a company or system. By implementing a set of requirements and procedures that change the way historically biased operations are carried out, like hiring, promoting, and idea generating, companies can prevent people from acting on their bias in the first place.

Stoicism would offer a different solution, one that would require society to change its behavior and perception of women in tech. Stoicism emphasizes that all people have the same capacity for virtue and the same ability to achieve virtue, regardless of their circumstances. For the Stoics, recognizing equality as humans is a necessity to live virtuously and attain the ultimate goal of happiness. A major component of virtue is serving other human beings and recognizing people’s common humanity. It was the Stoics who encouraged people to not define themselves or others by location, class, gender, or religion. The only true way to live in agreement with nature is to focus on what makes people similar and form a world community that goes beyond local differences.

Stoicism focuses on what one can control, so focusing on actions rather on the outcome is necessary. With this comes the idea that Stoics are ultimately responsible for what they do—they focus on deliberate and rational actions. By not acting or failing to change a system or environment that is oppressive to others, people cannot attain the ultimate goal—so gender bias has no place in this ethical framework.

Analysis of Race and Ethnicity Bias in Tech:

The most prominent tech companies in Silicon Valley are still struggling to become racially diverse. In filling both entry level positions and positions of power they have failed to yet align their demographics with those of society. There are two major views on the source of this problem: that companies continue to show unconscious bias against underrepresented minorities when recruiting, and that minorities of different backgrounds and newer collegiate programs are traditionally less prepared to fill sought-after tech roles.

In recent years tech companies have made new efforts to expand recruiting and hiring to more diverse candidates. This trend corresponds with companies beginning to publicly release diversity statistics. Prior to this, such companies did not often visit historically black universities, like Howard University, and other racially diverse schools. While most prominent tech companies in Silicon Valley now have teams focused on increasing diversity and spreading awareness of unconscious discrimination, the increase in recruiting on campuses has not immediately removed all entry barriers perceived by racially diverse graduates.

Graduates see issues with racial diversity when assessing their preparedness to work for major tech companies and their ability to assimilate to the existing company cultures. Universities like Howard have noticed a difference between their computer science curriculum and those of some elite schools in preparing students. They’ve found their curriculum to be less rigorous and current and lacking in practical applications which companies look for. Additionally, minority students are more likely to begin coding in college, which can be disheartening when comparing themselves to peers who began coding as children. While schools adapt to provide students with the needed practical skills to obtain internships and jobs, minority students often experience “culture shock” upon arriving in Silicon Valley. In workplaces that lack diversity it can be difficult for minority students to feel included if they struggle to find shared interests with peers. It is important for companies to become more inclusive instead of expecting these new hires to assimilate to the existing company culture.

Lack of existing diversity can be discouraging to computer science students and employees of tech companies. A lack of representation can make Silicon Valley seem unwelcoming to minorities. This feeling of isolation is a problem that begins at a high school level and continues throughout schooling leading to a retention issue that results in a lack of racially diverse candidates for teaching positions or other such positions of power. Underrepresented minorities also struggle with stereotype threat and the added pressure of succeeding in a competitive field where it’s easy to feel that you are starting behind.

Both universities and tech companies are making new efforts at diversity initiatives aimed to encourage racially diverse students to continue within the Computer Science field. Student organizations on campuses are lead by student initiative and provide support to minority groups. Tech companies are directing new focus internally to inclusiveness and are increasing recruitment at diverse campuses. These initiatives will take time to have real results in hiring and in bridging educational differences between elite schools and all others.

From the Stoic perspective there is an ethical responsibility to value diversity and promote equality of hiring practices. Stoics value reason beyond all else, and diversity can logically be found to promote value in environments such as classrooms or workplaces. Diversity fosters diverse ideas and thinking practices, which can be beneficial to generating new ideas and solutions. When people from different backgrounds have access to technology it is an opportunity to address problems that would not normally be appreciated and to address the needs of communities who would not normally receive attention. Stoics believe in acting with virtuous intentions, valuing wisdom and justice. They support the need to provide objective equality in hiring practices and in the learning opportunities provided to all students. Stoics do not believe in acting on emotional responses or vices, which are the nature of discrimination by race.