This letter is written by a person who contributes very little to the organization, yet seems to believe she is entitled to her conception of perfect social justice in all areas of life.
The US has had bad presidents before, and will certainly have them in the future. At no point so far has the CEO of IBM done anything wrong -- and when she does, that will be the time to criticize her. Until then, this is a CEO trying to promote her company to the incoming administration, and nothing more.
This is my favorite part:
> A look at IBM recruitment collateral suggests that the future of the company hinges on realizing an inclusive and welcoming culture, though you do not communicate this vision within the many pages of your letter to a man who will soon be in the top office of the United States government.
The letter is barely 4 pages long printed on US letter-sized paper. Where are the "many pages?"
I am genuinely curious. Why exactly do you think doing this was a terrible idea.
Here's a person who didn't agree with the stand the ceo of her company took. Resigned because she felt morally responsible and announced it because she thought it was the right thing to do. Irrespective of content, that shows principles, integrity, courage and maturity. So again what exactly should an "adult" have told her?
"Eight years ago, IBM helped lead an effort to identify $1 trillion in savings the federal government could achieve through using advanced data analytics, data center consolidation, and the use of cloud technologies to improve the cybersecurity of key government systems."
I'm not a US citizen nor an IBMer, so this interests me only as an outsider. While precious little will change with an 'open letter' like this, since when has having an opinion, resigning due to principles or "saying something" a bad thing?
The way I read it was a person who took a stand and announced it. Nothing more. Why are the commenters here inferring entitlement, immaturity or anything besides an opinion.
Why analyse this from the perspective of IBM? Why not the poster? Are you implying that she should have just accepted the state of affairs and continued her job because one person can't make a difference anyways? Or maybe she should have just quit but not bother with telling anyone why because one person can't make a difference anyways?
If you were really interested in being fair, you would also point out that nobody who worked at IBM during the Holocaust still works there today.
To suggest that the IBM of today is the same as the IBM of that time is absurd, and constitutes an odd kind of essentialism whereby the character of a corporation never changes even though every single person who worked there has been replaced. It ascribes motive, personality, and an unchanging nature to a corporation rather than to the people who run it.
The US has had bad presidents before, and will certainly have them in the future. At no point so far has the CEO of IBM done anything wrong -- and when she does, that will be the time to criticize her. Until then, this is a CEO trying to promote her company to the incoming administration, and nothing more.
This is my favorite part:
> A look at IBM recruitment collateral suggests that the future of the company hinges on realizing an inclusive and welcoming culture, though you do not communicate this vision within the many pages of your letter to a man who will soon be in the top office of the United States government.
The letter is barely 4 pages long printed on US letter-sized paper. Where are the "many pages?"
People like this are impossible to please.