Diversity, Social Impact & Net Neutrality: Tech’s Great Hypocrisy

This post was originally published on Medium. It is republished here for the #TechTalksDiversity series.

The tech industry often discusses diversity in a context that acknowledges the business case, but is divorced from other actions that continue to solidify barriers for underrepresented populations.

Last week, we witnessed the latest blow to net neutrality, an outcome that many saw as inevitable under the current administration. What is peculiar, as the New York Times points out, is the almost deafening silence of many of the largest tech organizations. Yet, even more disturbing, is this silence against the backdrop of the tech industry’s newfound espoused commitments to diversity, inclusion, and social impact. All of a sudden, such commitments have now taken on an air of insincerity that the industry may find harder to overcome than its already problematic workforce composition struggle.

At the onset, we should be fair to large companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix. Each of them did take some steps to demonstrate their position on net neutrality. For example, briefs and comments were filed with the F.C.C. and various executives posted statements or issued Twitter edicts and declarations. In the days following the decision, a few companies, like Netflix, have explicitly noted in stronger public statements that they are gearing up for long legal battles with the agency. Additionally, many of the most well-known tech brands have been working collectively within the Internet Association to address the matter.

These efforts, however, do not compare to the extensive marketing campaigns that are undertaken by these companies when they wish to reveal their newest feature or want us to purchase the latest product. Consumers are kept abreast of the top trending hashtags, constantly reminded of memories they shared with friends they no longer have, and regularly receive curated lists of things they do not need based on their browsing history (or some other nebulous metadata). I do recall seeing that #netneutrality was trending for quite some time on Twitter. I don’t recall seeing a Google Doodle drawing attention to the matter. I don’t recall a banner at the top of my Facebook news feed telling me to join in the fight to preserve the current rules the same way it reminds me to vote in local and national elections. I don’t recall a push notification from any of these major companies informing me of simple steps I could take to get involved or even telling me what these companies were doing to help protect my access to an open internet. The lack of overt demonstration of support for net neutrality flies in the face of all of the latest diversity and corporate social responsibility efforts that have become the topic of much discussion in tech.

It is no secret that the tech industry struggles with assembling a workforce that even roughly mirrors the demographics of the available work-eligible population, and continues to take heat for the lack of gender and racial parity across organizations. Over the last few years, companies have launched efforts to hire diversity and inclusion leaders and joined in to support a number of non-profits that aid in creating pipelines for women and underrepresented minorities. Many have even begun to make substantial investments in primary and secondary educational programs to bolster tech education and early exposure— investments largely undertaken in support of the myth that there is a dearth of minority talent skilled enough to be hired into tech roles currently, but great investments nonetheless. It is here where we arrive at this latest hypocrisy in tech.

Take Facebook, for example. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative was launched with the express mission of “advancing human potential and promoting equal opportunity.” Backed by the millions of dollars of the Facebook empire, the organization is poised to be the best-funded organization of its kind. Though the organizations operate separately, it is impossible to not view CZI as the ultimate corporate social responsibility arm of Facebook, making the lack of outward demonstration of support for net neutrality all the more ironic. Tech firms in the Bay Area are especially criticized for their role in the gentrification of San Francisco and for contributing to rising housing prices that have pushed so many out of the city or driven them to homelessness. As a result, most companies have some social impact or CSR function dedicated to giving back to the community in some way. Peruse any of these companies’ career sites to see pictures of them feeding the homeless, giving a sizable check to a local non-profit, or holding a large-scale event focused on diversity in tech. All of this is done with the intent to showcase their values and to market themselves as progressive and socially conscious companies. Providing examples of an organization’s activities around diversity and community impact is an appeal to top talent that values an inclusive company culture. The challenge is that companies must be consistent in demonstrating these values.

There are many misguiding doomsday scenarios about net neutrality circulating across the internet. Consumers should not expect to see major shifts in prices or a cessation of services in the very near future. That said, the repeal of net neutrality could have far greater implications for some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States — the same populations that tech has evangelized about hiring and supporting. The Pew Research Centerfound that disparities in access to broadband internet still persist “based on factors such as age, income, education and community type.” Years of data have also shown that income and educational attainment in the U.S. are also significantly linked to race. Rural communities and low-income areas that lack the infrastructure to support broadband internet are already limited in their access to the opportunities afforded by tech. The repeal of net neutrality rules has the potential to further exacerbate these disparities.

Net neutrality rules protect consumers and internet companies from being charged premiums and tolls by internet service providers (ISPs) for access to some of the websites that have become almost ubiquitous to so many. Take a hypothetical scenario where priority high-speed access to social media sites is now available for a premium. Something like access to Facebook or LinkedIn seems like a ‘nice to have’ rather than a necessity for many. The reality, however, is that the tech industry in particular has become dependent on sites like LinkedIn for the outreach to and the recruiting of top talent. Knowledge of available opportunities in tech is most widely accessible via social media, not so much through postings in printed materials and periodicals. Access to the sites that provide free or low-cost options for individuals to develop the skills that are necessary to be qualified for such positions, such as Lynda.com or Khan Academy, could also now be even more limited. Educational opportunity, income security, and social mobility then start to become that much more unattainable to populations that already struggle to get even the most basic access.

While the focus of the net neutrality discussion is largely on the potential costs to consumers, Business Insider makes the observation that the repeal of net neutrality rules could make large internet companies even more powerful. This is disturbing when one considers the impact on minority entrepreneurs. Recently, Melinda Gates penned a piece discussing the lack of investment by venture capitalists in women and minority-owned startups. She presents dismal figures including, “only 3 percent of respondents rated diversity as one of their top concerns,” and “fifty-nine percent of them said their firms didn’t support any diversity initiatives for founders.” Despite persistent claims that there are just not that many women and minority startup founders, the reality is that these founders often are not given the same access to VCs or the networks that would connect them to the resources they need to be successful. With the repeal of net neutrality rules, smaller startups and fledgling internet companies will likely be unable to afford any of the tolls or premiums charged by ISPs to get their products and content to consumers, while the Googles and Facebooks will have no trouble footing these bills — though they may not like it. Not only does this limit competition, it could effectively lock smaller companies — disproportionately those helmed by underrepresented groups — out of the market. These companies are already under-resourced and overlooked by VCs, and now they could be charged premiums that they cannot afford in order to gain access to their target audiences.

The tech industry often discusses diversity in a context that acknowledges the business case, but is divorced from other actions that continue to solidify barriers for underrepresented populations. If our goal is to attract a workforce that is as diverse as the broader population and to reach a point of parity at all levels of an organization, then we need to have a difficult conversation about our complicity in perpetuating a range of isms. Effective diversity and corporate social responsibility models depend on the actions taken by organizations, not on how much money is thrown at various initiatives. To look candidates from under-served communities in the face and tell them of your company’s commitment to inclusion, while consistently remaining silent when it comes to those critical moments of advocating for the very basic things they need to be successful is hypocritical at best. At worst, it’s a sign to the most vulnerable groups that your values will only be demonstrated and your advocacy efforts will only happen when most convenient for you.

Ulysses J. Smith is founder and CEO of Archetype D&I Consulting. Connect with him on LinkedIn and Twitter. Follow Archetype on LinkedIn for more updates.