The lack of diversity is definitely a problem within the technology industry that needs to be emphasized, focused on, and in which actions must be taken to resolve. It is obvious even from walking into my classes at Notre Dame where I look around the room and see a pretty homogenous white, male population. While there has been slow improvements to female and minority participation in STEM and the tech industry, it is visually obvious that these improvements are not enough. This is a very possible feat, as has been seen in the past with reducing barriers of entry for women and minorities in medicine, business, and education as a whole. When energy and efforts are poured into programs that challenge structural and institutional undermining biases, there is hope for improvements. For example, while the argument for biological differences in gender creating differences in degree earning still stood at the time, the programs developed to challenge this argument proved successful, showing how wrong this argument was and the benefits of implementing programs to reverse the pattern. There is no reason that the gender gap in STEM participation should be any different than these passed issues. Those that are falling back into beliefs of biological and psychological differences between men and women in STEM job performance are supposedly in favor of complete meritocracy of the tech industry over the emphasis on inclusivity and diversity. However, I do not believe that these ideals cannot meet and compromise somewhere in the middle.

While I am a large proponent of diversity and inclusion programs (both in the workplace and outside to increase female interest in STEM, specifically coding), I also believe that there are points on the opposing side worth considering. First, there may well be a feeling among women that causes them to choose “people” oriented careers over “thing” oriented careers. However, I believe that with an earlier introduction to technology and more support for women entering the industry would help to reduce this feeling and remove barriers to entry. While women may more often choose non-technical career paths, this is not a biological characteristic that cannot be changed (as some people like Damore suggest). Instead, it is an issue that must be addressed. I also agree that maybe the present programs are not actually addressing the root cause; more studies should be done not only on the existence of the gender gap but also on the programs’ ability to address the problem. However, while programs may not actually be successful, this does not conclude that the gender gap is actually a biological or psychological difference in male and female behavior and it is still our social ethical responsibility to work to open opportunities for marginalized groups. All together, I believe that there is a real gender gap in the tech industry. I think it is important for the industry to not only implement programs that emphasize diversity but also to study how these programs are working and continually explore different methods to engage women and minorities in technology.

While I do think it is not possible for women to have it all in the working world (due to concerns with maternity leave, gender pay gaps, and differing expectations between men and women that do not give women space to work to the best of their abilities), I do feel that we could move towards a more equal workplace partially through employers making an effort to develop and encourage a healthy work-life balance and workplace culture. The Amazon article is a perfect example of how some employers are completely undermining all of the work made to close the gender gap as well as simply ensuring a work environment that develops employees holistically, both professionally and personally. I strongly believe that there is no possible way that a person can be pushed to the extent of pulling all-nighters to do work or fired because they wanted to move forward in life to start a family and still perform his work to the best of his abilities. There are many things that lead to happiness in life and while work is one of them, it is definitely not the only one. And while there is something to say about the feeling of success after pouring your all into one activity, that is a choice the individual must make, and should absolutely not be pushed on them by their employer threatening to leave them without a job if that route is not taken. I completely agree that there should be some program and push for professional development and success but I completely disagree that working 85 hours a week and tearing apart coworkers’ ideas are the way to do so. Burnout is the worst and I think most people I know would agree; it is never a nice thing to get completely tired of something you love (take the statement about athletes retiring in the last article as an example) and often leaves you empty and broken without any plan as to what to do next. I have felt this so many times throughout my college career during breaks between semesters where because I had slaved away on codes, homework, and studying for exams for months straight before I just did not know what to do with myself nor did I have the energy to do anything at all. I think this is one of the drawbacks of higher education all together and therefore, I think it is a problem of the tech industry as well.

I strongly believe that employers have an ethical obligation to ensure that their employees are at least getting a chance to find a work-life balance while still achieving success. Some people love to work and that is okay, let them dig deep and work hard, but it is wrong to demand that their employees put their entire lives on hold for the duration of their career at the company. Unfortunately, because companies like Amazon exist (and I want to desperately stay away from the extreme intensity and competition that the culture fosters) it will play a big role in my career search. I would like to work at a company that has the ideals of collaboration, service, AND success ingrained in its culture and that works to pursue them through teamwork and integration instead of overwork and stack ranking. There are so many important things in my life: family, friends, health, travel, and simply intentionally experiencing every minute of the day. I would hate for work to completely take those things away from me as college has. Basically, Amazon isn’t for me and I hope that the CEO one day realizes the unnecessary pressure he is placing on his employees.

I see my career heading in the direction of job hopping and moving quickly from one job to another or at the very least one project to another within the same company rather than staying with one company for a long time. I do not feel that this is because I am unable to make a commitment to one position, rather I have found the most happiness in times that I am undergoing a change, whether that be moving to a new place or starting a new semester. I feel like I am always counting down to the next change in my life and it is something I would like to incorporate into my future career. I think there is definitely some truth in saying that staying with one company or working on one project for a long period of time is draining and can become monotonous, which affects my ability to focus and stay engaged on my work and makes me less productive and effective. I also enjoy the challenge of adjusting to new situations and experiences and am attracted to the amount of skills and knowledge that are gained when you constantly are working with new ideas and in the context of a new work environment. However, I understand that this career path may not be the best for everyone and respect the choice of staying with the same company for a long time, but I do not think that this lifestyle is for me.

While I do believe that an employee can be loyal to his company, I do not think one career path is more ethical than the other or that it should be held against you in the hiring process. It should be considered strictly as a characteristic of an employee’s career that does not determine whether he is more or less qualified for the job. In addition, I believe that it is possible and important for an employee (and employer) to be loyal and dedicated to his company for the extent to which he works there, whether that be three years or 25, by putting full effort into his work every day and achieving the best results, not necessarily by working there for a long time. In other words, I consider a short-term dedicated employee to be more loyal than a long-term ineffective one. Similarly, I agree with the use of NDAs as another aspect of company loyalty and another characteristic of the employee-employer relationship. I think it is important to respect the property (including intellectual property) of your employer, but would not go so far to protect the skills or knowledge you gained from working there as it could be used to be more successful in any future endeavors. On the other hand, I find non-compete agreements to be hindering to peoples’ economic mobility and are therefore unethical, especially when they last for many years past the employee’s resignation. It is not fair to limit a person’s job opportunities in order to uphold a company’s reputation and status in the industry.

 

I believe Bill Gates to be the most ethical and moral of the four philanthropists. While I may be simply uninformed and unaware of current events in the technology industry, I do not think Bill Gates has nearly as much ethical criticism as Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and has implemented many programs to improve global health and education. While according to the optional article on the Gates Foundation’s effectiveness in battling these issues, the foundation has struggled to make a notable impact, I think it is more important to consider his intentions and the amount of effort and money that he has committed to solving social problems. I do not think it is fair to hold him to a higher standard in improving the national education system when we as an entire society have not found the solution. While his education reform movement did not prove to be as effective as intended, I am not sure what more we could ask him to do than design a possible solution and implement the program to its fullest. I believe that his willingness to spend so much time and money on issues he finds important and critical to improving the quality of life itself is enough to show me that he is the most moral. In addition, while his program ended up being rather ineffective, I admire his willingness to return to the drawing board to come up with another solution. Altogether, I feel this makes him the most ethical and further, has had the most positive impact on the world. I strongly believe that in order to have a positive impact on the world, one must also be moral and ethical. Morals and ethics are an individual’s cornerstone that influences every decision he makes and they underlie his ability to enact social changes. Therefore, while it may be time to refocus work on new issues and solutions, I respect Bill Gates and the work his foundation has implemented all over the world and I do not believe that his programs’ ineffectiveness in any way hinders his morality.

On the other hand, I feel that Mark Zuckerberg is the least moral and ethical of the philanthropists. While the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has undertaken the responsibility of working for positive social change and Facebook has been successful in connecting people with each other and the global community, he has still had the most ethical criticism, especially when it comes to issues like privacy or freedom of speech. As discussed earlier, I do not feel that someone could be effective in impacting the world in a positive way if he is not moral or ethical, therefore I question his ability to be as influential and successful as Bill Gates in this way. However I do believe that he has potential to reach this height if he continues to mature and grow as a philanthropist and in his character. I believe CZI has great social philanthropic ideas that could make a real lasting change if Zuckerberg is able to do so.

In my opinion, the Parable of Talents reflects on the idea of investing your talents and skills that you have been given to best serve God, meaning to use them morally, ethically, and in service to others. In the parable, the master gives his slaves talents and leaves them to do with them as they please. When he returns, the slave that had been given five talents returned with five more, the slave that had been given two talents returned with two more, and the slave that had been given one talent buried it and returned with nothing more in addition. The master praises the first two slaves but does not approve of the actions of the third slave that did not invest his talents. Reflecting on this, the parable shows that one should use what they have been given without fear and reservation to the best of his ability as the talents have been given to them by God and should be empowered to do so responsibly. If one does not use use their skills in this way, he is wasting gifts that God has given them. It is also important to understand that because gifts have been given by God then it is required that the investment be ethical and for others, which can be connected to the pillars of Catholic Social Teaching.

These ideals are should be incorporated into the ways in which I use my skills, talents, and knowledge in the workplace and in all aspects of my life. I have been given the opportunity to study Computer Science at the University of Notre Dame and learn the skills necessary to be successful in the future. This is an opportunity that not everyone gets to have and therefore I have been given a talent that I could (and should) invest, most likely through my future career and projects. I personally feel the call to invest my skills in the nonprofit and social realm as I feel it is the only method to which I can reap the most benefits for others, therefore investing and producing ethical and moral profits as mentioned in the discussion above. By doing so I would be serving God to the best of my ability and putting to use what I have been blessed with, especially because others have not been blessed with the talents and gifts that I have. However, others have been given talents that I have not been given. Therefore it is important for every person to invest their talents in order to collectively make the most of God’s gifts.

However, I question whether this interpretation of the parable is at odds with the fact that the profits of the talent investment come at the expense of others (e.g. others lost their talents when the slaves gained them). If this is true then in fact, the third slave was the only one to act correctly and the first two acted immorally. It seems that there should be a way to reconcile the two to ensure that God is being served according to his will.

Hello, my name is Raelene Alvarez McDermott and I am a senior Computer Science major and Sociology minor. I am interested in the ways in which people interact with technology and its power to improve marginalized communities. After spending this summer as an intern at BOSCO-Uganda, I was able to see first hand the impact that modern technology can have on disadvantaged communities and in developing countries when these people and their needs are kept in mind. BOSCO is an NGO in Northern Uganda that works to provide ICT services and entrepreneurship and computer skills classes to those impacted by the LRA in the early 2000s. The organization’s mission is to connect people to each other and to the global world while preserving their rich cultural identity, which strongly represents and reassures my interest in the intersection of sociology and technology. Academically, I hope to explore the fields of data management for non profit organizations and Computational Social Science, which uses computing tools and technologies to analyze data in the social sciences.

The concepts in this class are closely related to my interests in that ethics and morality are extremely important when considering marginalized communities. Many topics are relevant such as, but not limited to diversity in computing, immigration, and computer science education and I am excited to dive deeper into these topics this semester. I am especially interested in freedom of speech segment of the class because I feel it is the most pressing ethical challenge faced by engineers today. With such a volatile political scene and prevalence of social media, it is really important to think morally about social issues and use this to make informed decisions in technology development.