I think that the lack of diversity is a bit of a problem in the tech industry. I think it is something that we should address moving forward. Obviously, societal gender roles and past stereotypes of the roles women should play in society continue to haunt the way in which women are perceived in certain industries, and the only way to fight these incorrect prejudices is by tackling them headfirst by encouraging more and more women to enter into industries they previously would not be expected to be a part of.
Some obstacles faced by women and minorities include ignorance from narrow-minded individuals who find it rare or special for certain individuals to be working with them. These challenges exist because there are still so many pockets of society where certain roles are imposed upon those of a certain race or gender. The tech industry and society in general can work to remove these barriers by widening jobs to be more inclusive. I think it is fair that there are programs targeted to specific minorities as it helps to provide resources to those who may find it hard to otherwise access knowledge into a certain industry. I hope that these programs would do a better job of targeting individuals based off of other indicators besides race as race may not always be the best factor in determining one's access to resources of a certain industry. I would address claims of privilege by saying that this definitely exists whether or not the individual gaining the privilege is aware of it. The events at Uber are frankly horrendous and unacceptable. It angers me to think that a workplace such as the one that appeared at Uber was even allowed and tolerated. I think these events say that there is still a lot to learn when it comes to accepting diversity in the tech industry. Even while the numbers may be improving on paper, diversity of genders, races, and ideas have to be accepted for true change to happen. True diversity happens when the culture of a workplace is open and accepting for all ideas, no matter what background someone comes from. I think Codes of Conduct definitely can have a place in the workplace when they define rules and boundaries that ensure no one's rights are infringed upon. For the most part, I believe they serve a valid purpose in ensuring everyone that works in a workplace are on the same page and can be held accountable for improper actions. For the most part, most of the codes of conduct above seem fine. While some may seem a bit extreme, such as being unable to "out" someone else's gender, I understand that the intention is to simply prevent potential harm in the workplace. In this regard, I don't really have an issue with following the rules. If someone is complaining that it's impossible to make a joke anymore with all of these rules, I'd say that there are plenty of comedic jokes that do not have to involve making fun of someone's race, gender, religion, or beliefs. I think the Google memo that was put out is unacceptable. While I don't disagree that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, by so clearly putting out a biased and factually incorrect post explaining away the lack of women in an industry in a company setting like that is an incredibly dumb move. The arguments are definitely unreasonable. I think the firing of James is justified. Yes, employees should be fired for violations of codes of conduct if they agreed to them in the first place. Any speech that does not infringe upon the rights and boundaries of others can be tolerated. I believe individuals should have the responsibility of knowing who their audience is and where they are speaking before engaging in certain types of speech within the workplace. Yes, I think you can separate politics and beliefs from the workplace. People are definitely able to successfully get along and work together regardless of their beliefs as long as they have a common goal. While it may be easier to get along and work with someone with similar beliefs as oneself, it shouldn't be impossible to work with someone with very different beliefs from you.
0 Comments
The main controversy surrounding the H-1B Visa concerns whether or not it achieves the goals it initially sets out to do. While the Visa was originally created as a way to bring in immigrants to work and increase the economy of the US, today, it is mainly used as a cheap labor source for tech companies. The arguments for the program is that it creates opportunities for immigrants to contribute to the US GDP and boost the economy in the hopes that the immigrants benefit business in the US. The arguments against the expansion are that tech companies are abusing the system against immigrant workers with no leverage while also costing natives jobs in the process. Personally, I stand against the use of the Visa, or at least an overhaul to address some of these issues.
It is not necessary and potentially harmful because it inherently screws over immigrant workers from receiving pay they are justifiably supposed to receive. Additionally, it hurts native workers who lose employment opportunities to these immigrant workers because of companies trying to save on labor costs. While I understand that America is a nation of immigrants, it is clear that this program does not entirely benefit you unless you are bound to receive a fair pay and really want to live in the US. Otherwise, one would be better off working in a country where their talents are more highly valued, and where they actually have a better chance of even receiving a visa in the first place. Personally, I am not too concerned with competition from foreign workers or outsourcing as this shows that our country should be focused on root causes of these problems rather than just the symptoms. If we are truly concerned about immigrants coming in and taking our jobs, then we should focus on our own education to allow natives to compete with higher-achieving skill sets rather than complaining of losing jobs to someone willing to be paid less. At the same time, we should focus on revising political processes involved with this to ensure that both natives and immigrants are given a fair chance for these talents to show. Rather than curtail programs like the Visa, the US should focus on revising it to prevent tech companies from screwing over immigrants and natives. Instead, the US should focus on improving the Green card process and allow immigrants an easier pathway into becoming citizens. This would allow for equal opportunity for those immigrants and benefit the US economy. From the readings and from my experience, I definitely find it hard for men and women to "have it all." Balancing a work-life balance as a parent is probably one of the most difficult things that can be done in our current society. For the most part, I think that while parents can have successful careers while raising families, there will always be sacrifices involved one way or another. For me personally, having it all means having an ideal balance of being at a high position at work while also having time to care for kids, both with their upbringing and schoolwork. I have definitely dealt with burnout from my internship this summer. Being in New York, and having to commute to work everyday left very little time to relax. The only way to really deal with this situation was powering through and waiting for the internship to end. I think that companies should seek to promote remote workdays so that parents can work from home and still at least spend some time with their kids. While they are not necessarily ethically obliged to do so, I think this is an attractive way to promote a beneficial work environment and may be helpful for both parties in the long run. This is definitely something that factors into my choice for a career or job opportunity because I think it is too easy to be motivated by money and lose focus on things that really matter that can only be spent with time. Yes, this balance is important to me and I hope to maintain it by choosing a job that allows me to have a good balance. Some life-style changes I plan on putting in place would be making sure I have time to relax after work, and to put in time that I personally find fun or beneficial outside of the workplace. Ensuring that I have this time is extremely important and beneficial in the long run. Based off of my experiences last year (I have yet to have any interviews for upcoming jobs), my internship interview process has always been a series of ups and downs. What surprises me about them is how little I can usually tell whether or not I did well. During some interviews that I thought I did well, I end up not moving on to the next round, while for some interviews that I thought went poorly, I end up moving on. One thing that frustrates me is the boring, repetitive nature of interviewers asking the same questions, regardless of what job you are applying for. "Tell me a little bit about yourself" and "Name a time when" are so commonly asked that it seems like I'm more of a robot than a human sometimes. One thing that excites me is the prospect of receiving an interview with a company you really like and them asking questions that are more conversational. I prepared by looking up typical behavioral questions and case interview tips. Last year, I performed well enough to receive an offer. My overall impression of the interview process is that it is somewhat mundane and boring. I think it is efficient for some companies but not for others. The same goes for effectiveness. Overall, I would say it is humane and ethical as no one gets hurt during the process.
No, I did not negotiate my contract and do not plan to because I feel that it would have been rude to do so, especially for a first job where my value as an employee is hard to determine. I am not sure as of yet if I have to sign an NDA. For my internship last summer, cool perks included free lunches and dinners at work. I think the negotiation process seems interesting, and potentially beneficial. I think it is perfectly ethical to ask for more if one believes they can make an impact that is worth the additional compensation. I think it is ethical to challenge terms of a contract if it goes against your moral values or willingness to work for a company. Yes, I have looked at how promotion works at some companies. It seems most follow a 2-3 year analyst program before being promoted to associate. Then, the next promotion typically takes longer. I think the systems of feedback are mainly conducted by one's manager and HR, and tends to be a 3-6 month interview. I think the stack ranking system is not a good way to run a company as it breeds competition between employees and determines your value as a number rather than as a person. While I can see the efficiency of it, I believe that it can be unfair depending on the company and the way individuals are ranked. If most of the ranking system is based on value added to the company then it may be ethical, but if it is based off of personal preference and one's relationship to their manager, then it may not be entirely justified. I would feel pretty bad about participating in that process as I think it could make it hard to create good relationships with fellow co-workers. I see my career changing multiple times as I enter the real world, at least until I find a job that I think I could see myself staying at for a while. I do believe there is such a thing as company loyalty. Yes, I think that you should be loyal to your company and that your company should be loyal to you, but only if they are compensating you well and not infringing upon your moral guidelines. Non-competes and trade secrets can hurt this loyalty, especially if another company seems more beneficial to you. I think these contracts make sense for the business to prevent the competition from taking special information, but they can also be unfair and unethical if it screws over individuals. I think job hopping is totally ethical as long as it is done with respect to the companies involved. Although this may sound as though I am avoiding the question, I believe that computer science can be defined as either an art, engineering, or science discipline, depending on the viewpoint and perspectives of the person involved. I believe that it does matter how it is categorized but mostly on an individual basis. While there are broader implications involved when defining it as either an engineering or science discipline such as scaring away those who may view it as solely a technical skill, for the most part, anyone interested in computer science should define it however they want to and proceed from there. For example, if you viewed it as an art, then you would most likely design programs for creative uses. On the other hand, if you defined it as an engineering discipline, then you would view it as a much stricter and rigid skill with certain obligations. Based off of the readings, a hacker is anyone that utilizes software and computer skills to solve problems and to help shape the world around them. The key characteristics, at least according to one of the articles above, seems to be a socially awkward individual with an anti-establishment viewpoint. Rather than seeking to gain money, he instead seeks to have an impact using software that can be measured and felt. While I do relate to seeking an impact that can be measured and felt, I do not really identify with many of the attributes listed, especially since I am not a computer science major. Thus, I would not consider myself a hacker. My reaction to this characterization is that while it does have some positive components, I feel as though it is still too generalizing and unfair for those who work with software yet do not fit this description. For the most part, it does seem that the technology industry is a bit of a meritocracy. A meritocracy is defined as a society that tends to be ruled or influenced by individuals with skills and knowledge. In my opinion, especially for an industry that prides itself on innovation and advancements, I would say that the industry being a meritocracy is a good thing. By valuing one's skills and knowledge over one's background, wealth, or beliefs shows that the end result and the final product is what ultimately determines one's worth. In my opinion, I would rank Bill Gates as the most moral and Steve Jobs as the least moral. This isn't to say that any of them are immoral people. The four individuals listed all have done tremendous jobs at transforming our society into something better (for the most part). However, even after reading the above articles praising Jobs (even though he donated very little to charities) and denouncing Gates, I still believe in my initial assessment above. The article above arguing that Jobs didn't need to donate because his impact at Apple was enough to benefit lives is actually quite infuriating. While I have no doubt that Jobs has dramatically improved the lives of many, to say that he is "excused" from spending time to donate to charity is incredibly shortsighted. Does the author truly believe that Jobs helped create products at Apple in the hopes of helping the poor and those in need of help? I honestly don't believe that tossing an iPod at the homeless guy across the street really helps anyone. If we were to actually believe that Apple products were intended to benefit people, Apple should have focused on creating medical products. With Bill Gates, while it is clear that many of his philanthropic efforts may not have succeeded, I don't think it's right for anyone to fault him for at least trying. The sheer amount of time and money he has donated to educational and charitable causes is astounding compared to hundreds of the other billionaires who have only donated and done a fraction of what he has. If the question of who has had the most positive effect on the world rather than the most moral was imposed, I would still say that Gates would be at the top, but that Jobs would no longer be at the bottom. There is no doubt that all four of these individuals have had incredible impacts on the world, and I think it would be unfair to rank any one individual as having the least positive effect. Hello!
Welcome to my first blog post. I am Dane Jeong, and I am a student at the University of Notre Dame majoring in Economics and minoring in Computing and Digital Technologies. For this class, I am hoping to understand and gain a bit more insight into the morality of technology and the responsibility of those who work with technology for society. I am studying economics because I am interested in analyzing markets and the interactions between people when money is used as a medium. I hope to one day apply the tools I gain through this major to make a positive difference on the world. Normally, I determine whether an action is right or wrong based upon my own moral beliefs and obligations. Typically, these beliefs arise from my own personal experiences and are heavily influenced by factors such as religion, my family, and my friends. As a result, the primary ethical framework I tend to utilize is the Virtue Framework as defined by the Brown University academic article. In this framework, ethical and moral decisions are based upon all parts of an individual's human experience, and decisions are based upon whatever an individual believes a virtuous person would do in that particular situation. This means that I would make my decisions based off of several different considerations. These considerations could include what the laws of my country dictate, what my dad or mom would do in a situation, or what my political inclinations allude to. While Andy Ko makes a convincing argument in his article comparing coding to a power of sorts, I feel as though he is merely scratching the surface of what true power is and its relationship with skills that individuals have. I believe that programming can certainly be considered a power, but only because it is an extension of someone's skills and ideas. In other words, real power is held within one's own unique abilities and thoughts. Coding is merely an expression of one's thoughts that can be visualized and interacted with. Power is having an idea that other people are willing to ascribe to. While this can come in the form of coding, it can also come in the form of a variety of other tasks and skills as well. For example, you hire and pay a plumber to come fix your toilet because he has the skills and abilities to successfully convince you that he or she is able to fix your toilet. For that hour in which he or she is fixing your toilet, he or she has power. The same can be said for coding. Changing the way people use transportation through programs like Uber is power, but the same can be said for any other skills or ideas that other people desire. My interpretation of the Parable of the Talents is that having valuable skills is only useful if positive products or additional skills can be acquired. For example, learning your ABCs is great, but it doesn't really matter unless you truly utilize the alphabet to create words. Learning words is great, but it doesn't really matter unless you create sentences. Learning to create sentences is great, but it doesn't really matter unless you can create stories that effectively communicate ideas. Essentially, those with certain skills have the responsibility to utilize them effectively and to create products that can actually make a difference. This applies to my life as a student and to my skills and talents because it is my responsibility to learn as much as I can and to utilize my skills to make a difference as I enter the real world. |
AuthorHello! I'm Dane Jeong, and this is my blog for the Ethical and Professional Issues Class. ArchivesCategories |