“You have to work out how a system works in order to transform that system.”
Sara Ahmed

Originally posted: Feb 2021

It’s near intoxicating to work for one of the most powerful corporations in the world. It’s so exciting to know things that other people don’t know and to get to use products before anyone else. You feel like you’re part of a really cool and exclusive club. It’s powerful to watch news reports get written about products and features that you helped build. There’s no feeling like it. It’s an incredibly strange and exciting feeling.

There’s also nothing like realizing that you have unwittingly become a small and unimportant enemy of said corporation. A liability. A problem. A troublemaker. Immediately, nothing is real and everything is confusing. HR tells you to take a leave of absence. Your boss tells you you’re underperforming, even while getting rave reviews from your colleagues. You question your self-worth. You question your ability. You question the mission of the organization that you had believed in and been so excited to join. You question your friendships and their loyalties. You question How you could be so naive? You thought they were different. There really is nothing like being gaslighted and retaliated against by a large corporation to make you feel worthless. You begin to blame yourself for not being more cunning and manipulative and for not ‘playing the game.’ And it’s at that moment you finally realize that it’s not about truth or justice or safety — it is a game, and you’re losing it. I wish I could tell you how I got a firsthand look at this experience, but I can’t. You’ll have to take my word for it.

Unfortunately, this experience is not unique, but prevalent amongst those who aren’t white, cisgendered, straight-passing, men in Tech. This kind of retaliation can be especially damaging and demoralizing for those early in their careers, either in work or university, but is a traumatic brush with power no matter the career-level. In a talk entitled, “Complaint as Diversity Work,” Sara Ahmed describes her research into this type of retaliatory, gaslighting within universities. She says, “It is because of the difficulty of getting through the complaints’ process that a complaint often ends up being, as it were, about the system…You encounter what you complain about when you complain about what you encounter” (Ahmed, 2018). In other words, until you’re faced with the mechanics of the system, you can’t fully understand all the inner-workings of the problem that you were complaining about.

Once you see the hidden reasons that the issue exists in the first place, you realize there is a much bigger, systemic problem. It’s not a one-off. There’s a system in place that is incentivised to cover up institutional problems. She goes on to say that this shared incentive is the reason why many organizations often choose the side of the accuser: “Damage to a person is deflected by being treated as potential damage to an institution (reputational damage) and to a person if a person is identified by a complaint…Organizations become aligned with those who abuse the power given to them by virtue of their position because they share an interest in stopping what is recorded by a complaint from getting out” (Ahmed, 2018). This rational organizational response can make sense from a monetary and reputational stance up to a point, however, that very tolerance for abuse has been shown only to create more abuse over time (Willness et. al, 2007). At some point, these incidents mount up and can’t be swept under the rug anymore. Over the last couple of years, this has become the case at some UK universities, as Sara Ahmed argues, and, as we will see, at the tech behemoth that is Google.

On November 1st, 2018, tens of thousands of Google employees walked out of their jobs in protest of “the company’s treatment of women and its handling of sexual assault cases” (NPR, 2018). In co-organizaing this walkout, Meredith Whittaker, co-founder of the AINow Institute and lead of Google’s Open Research unit, enacted the role of feminist killjoy (Ahmed, 2010) as proposed by Sara Ahmed, former feminist professor at Goldmsiths College. Whittaker’s story of protest against sexual harassment at Google mirrors the experiences and research of Sara Ahmed around systemic sexual harassment. Ahmed’s subsequent research on the subject of institutional complaint shows the ways that companies and universities are both incentivised to take the side of the harassers, shut down complaints quickly, and keep them as quiet as possible.

In this essay, I will analyze the causes and ramifications of the protest, Google Walkout for Real Change, through the lens of Sara Ahmed’s figure of the Feminist Killjoy and her research into complaint as diversity work. Enough has been said about the high profile scandals that prompted the organizing of the walkout. Instead I will focus on the story of one of the most high-profile walkout organizers, Meredith Whittaker, as a case study of a feminist killjoy and the effects that her official complaint has had on the institution, the culture at large, and other activists who may follow in her footsteps.

Are you one of us or not?
Tech companies love to build “campuses.” These campuses are basically self-contained communities. They have restaurants, coffee shops, juice bars, salons, gyms, doctors, pinball rooms, living rooms, reading nooks, sleeping pods…the list goes on. As designer and author Mike Monteiro has put it, this is by design: “Facebook, and companies like Facebook, want you to feel like you’re not just at work, they want to be your de facto community. They’ll provide you with everything you need…Modern tech campuses don’t just rival college campuses, they obliterate them in scope, activities, and money. Losing a job doesn’t just mean losing a paycheck, it means being ostracized from your community” (Monteiro, 2018). Providing for an employees’ every need seems to benefit the employee, but Monteiro argues that it benefits the company much more, in that it increases loyalty and dependence thus making it more difficult for employees to criticise any wrongdoing (Monteiro, 2018). Campuses, both university and tech company, create insular communities that are meant to engender feelings of loyalty within its members in order to protect each other from outside dangers. If you protect the community, they’ll continue to protect you.

Feminist Killjoys disrupt this type of community togetherness by pointing out the ways in which people within the community are being ‘problematic.’ Ahmed says, “[Feminist Killjoys] disrupt the flow of conversation…The problem is not simply about the content of what she is saying. She is doing more than saying the wrong thing: she is getting in the way of something, the achievement or accomplishment of the family, or of some we or another, which is created by what is not said. So much you are supposed not to say, to do, to be, in order to preserve that we” (Ahmed, 2017, p. 37). Tech companies love ‘disruption’ unless it’s at the expense of their accomplishments. They would prefer to be the one doing the disrupting, not being disrupted. But that’s exactly what a feminist killjoy does, disrupts. Former Google employee and tech activist, Liz Fong Jones stated that to be successful at Google, you have to keep your head down (Duhaime-Ross, 2019). Feminist killjoys don’t keep their heads down. They speak up when they see or hear things that should not be happening according to a community, an organization or even a family’s professed values. There’s a sense of disappointment in being a Feminist Killjoy — ‘I thought we were better than that.’

In the past, tech companies and universities have proudly flaunted their diversity and inclusion statistics and programs in order to portray a progressive and welcoming atmosphere to all potential community members. When the promise and the realities of a situation come into conflict, organizations often point back to these programs and policies in order to give the appearance of promoting an environment that does not tolerate gender-based harassment or violence. Google’s own code of conduct encourages this type of behavior by stating “don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right — speak up!” However, as Ahmed explains, “The gap between what is supposed to happen [the official policy] and what does happen is densely populated” (Ahmed, 2018). This conflict between expectation of an institution, especially those with the most progressive images, and the reality of it not living up to its own values is disappointing.

Why must you ruin our good time?
In 2017, Google pivoted to a focus on artificial intelligence as the future of the company (Bohn, 2017). It was heavily investing and putting all of its eggs in the possibilities of AI as the future of not just it’s products but humanity as a whole. Before and after the Google Walkout, the most vocal organizer, Meredith Whittaker worked to combat and bring awareness to the dangers of biased artificial intelligence. She did this as both a researcher at Google and as the co-founder, along with Kate Crawford, of the AI Now Institute. By placing herself in direct opposition to the optimistic sentiments of most AI proponents, including many working at Google, Whittaker set herself up as the Feminist Killjoy of Artifical Intelligence. Ahmed explains, “When we make violence manifest, a violence that is reproduced by not being made manifest, we will be assigned as killjoys. It is because of what she reveals that a killjoy becomes a killjoy in the first place” (Ahmed, 2017, p. 256). By pointing out the failings of AI, in both the biases of its data and practitioners, Whittaker became a huge disruption to Google’s attempts to put itself forth as a benign leader in the AI future of humanity. Mostly, she made a lot of men feel bad.

In April 2019, six months after the walkout, the AI Now Institute released a paper detailing the growing crisis of lack of diversity in the field of AI and the risks this imbalance poses for the future of AI and for society: “Given decades of concern and investment to redress this imbalance, the current state of the field is alarming. The AI industry needs to acknowledge the gravity of its diversity problem, and admit that existing methods have failed to contend with the uneven distribution of power, and the means by which AI can reinforce such inequality” (West, Whittaker & Crawford, 2019). By going outside of the organization to make a complaint about diversity within the field of AI, Whittaker set herself up as an outsider at Google. It’s fine to critique the community within the campus walls, but when you go outside to make a statement you become a problem for the community. The walkout actually made for some good press for Google, so they were willing to put up with it. But it was this paper that finally made Google decide that Meredith Whittaker had to go. “And then of course you get witch-hunted, you get scapegoated, you become the troublesome uppity woman, you become the woman who does not fit” (Ahmed, 2018). Whittaker became a problem because she wouldn’t be quiet when she saw something needed to be fixed and working with the institution was proving to be mostly futile, as she realised her seat at the table was “mostly symbolic” (Whittaker, 2019).

So the institution came down on her. Whittaker and her fellow organizer Claire Stapleton reported that after being at Google for a combined 24 years, they had both been demoted shortly after the Google Walkout (WIRED, 2019a). Google cut their funding for the AI Now Institute and Whittaker was given an ultimatum to cease her work there or leave the company. In a statement about the retaliation they’d experienced since the walkout they stated they’d collected similar stories of retaliation from hundreds of other Googlers, explaining: “Our stories aren’t the only ones. Google has a culture of retaliation, which too often works to silence women, people of color, and gender minorities. Retaliation isn’t always obvious. It’s often confusing and drawn out, consisting of icy conversations, gaslighting, project cancellations, transition rejections, or demotions. Behavior that tells someone the problem isn’t that they stood up to the company, it’s that they’re not good enough and don’t belong” (WIRED, 2019a). Without resolution, Whittaker and Stapleton left Google soon after.

In forcing Whittaker out, Google attempted to solve multiple institutional problems. 1) She wouldn’t be able to organize anymore on-campus activism. 2) It would be a thinly-veiled threat to all those who might want to follow in her footsteps. However, by choosing the importance of her AI research over her Google career, Whittaker was able to continue to be a vocal proponent for ethics and diversity in the field of AI. In her public resignation letter, Whittaker reiterated her commitment to the values that Google purported to stand for when she joined thirteen years before: “The result is that Google, in the conventional pursuit of quarterly earnings, is gaining signi­ficant and largely unchecked power to impact our world. I’m certain many in leadership — who learned what Google was and why it was great over a decade ago — don’t truly understand the direction in which Google is growing. Nor are they incentivized to” (Whittaker, 2019). Caring about your supposed shared values is what creates disappointment in your former community. Disappointment drives the Feminist Killjoy to want to build a better future.

But we would never!
Now, to be fair, Google has maintained that it does not and would not retaliate against anyone for organizing a company-wide walkout or speaking to the press about the failings of it’s AI programs. Google stated that they actively encourage this kind of conversation: “We support the collaborative and consultative process that many are pursuing, and encourage stakeholders everywhere to participate … [and we] hope to find opportunities for Google to continue to listen to, learn from, and contribute more actively to the wider discussion about AI’s impact on society” (Wiggers, 2019). But as Ahmed pointed out, the existence of official policies can be an attempt to silence any form of critique about an institution: “A policy is a sign. A policy can be about what ought not to exist…Policies can be used (even if they are not in use) as evidence of what does not exist…as if saying it makes it so” (Ahmed, 2018). So by reiterating the official policy, Google attempted to discredit Whittaker and others who claimed retaliation for their activism.

Adrienne Rich would describe this reiteration of official policy in disregard of experiential truth as institutional gaslighting: “Women have been driven mad, ‘gaslighted,’ for centuries by the refutation of our experience and our instincts in a culture which validates only male experience. The truth of our bodies and our minds has been mystified to us. We therefore have a primary obligation to each other: not to undermine each other’s sense of reality for the sake of expediency; not to gaslight each other” (Rich quoted in Popova, 2014). It’s difficult not to doubt your own experiences with sexism and retaliation. It’s only through sharing similar stories of an institution not living up to its professed policies and values that you realize that it really did happen. Feminists are obligated to let each other know that ‘you’re not crazy. That really did happen to you.’ Even on their way out, Meredith Whittaker and Claire Stapleton had the experiences of others on their minds and made sure to let them know, you’re not alone.

So what are you saying?
Now am I saying that those at Google, especially those in power, are definitely sexist and anti-feminist? Surely you could point to other recent events, like the firing of engineer James Damore for posting statements on an internal message board that amounted to, ‘women just aren’t smart enough to be engineers and we should stop pretending that they are as good as men.’ as proof that Google is not sexist afterall. Google was swift in it’s official condemnation of this statement and subsequently fired Damore for discriminatory behavior, a decision which was recently held up by the National Labor Relations Board. I am not saying that those in power are all anti-feminist and anti-women, though undoubtedly some harbor such sexist motivations.

What I am saying is that based on recent firings of activists with both conservative and progressive leanings, it would seem that what is happening is a tightening of control over the company’s narrative. It does not want to be taken off guard by bad press from any rogue internal operatives and so has closed ranks in order to silence any form of dissent. Anyone who attempts to speak on matters related to Google that do not fit the official narrative are reprimanded for stepping out of line.

Am I saying that it is always the best course of action to become an overt feminist killjoy in the face of sexist and oppressive institutions? Ahmed has seemingly argued that it is the most laudable route. But many have argued that for some, becoming a martyr for the cause and openly taking on a sexist institution is not the best route. Ultimately, I think this has to be a personal choice because I am of two minds on this matter myself. If we all quit in protest, this might make a statement, but then would they just hire a bunch of misogynists in our place? If we all stayed silent and didn’t make a fuss, then no one would know about these issues and they would never change. For those who are able, both financially and emotionally, to become vocal feminist killjoys, I think it’s a laudable and valuable path. We need them. But having people working from the inside to promote progressive values is critical. Both paths can create change depending on the severity of the situation. Both paths can also potentially lead to emotional burn-out. Ahmed seems to admit this point in a recent blog post where she states, “And so we learn: you can withdraw from an institution to take up a fight. You can take the institution on by taking it out. You don’t put everything you have into it; you do what you have to do to get through…There is only so much you can take on as there is only so much you can take in” (Ahmed, 2020). Take on what you can take on. Sometimes that means protecting yourself by staying in a situation but withdrawing from giving your whole self.

Conclusion
In the case of the Google walkout organizers, three of them have taken the path to stay inside and fight for the values of their community from the inside. The other four, including Whittaker and Stapleton, have chosen to leave Google (WIRED, 2019). But this does not mean they have stopped caring about their former community and the ideals that it once held up. Much like Ahmed has done by resigning from her post at Goldsmiths, she says that you can work on an institution without working at it (McGregor, 2019). Especially since, as she says, no one knows better how to transform an organization than those who have seen the sometimes terrifying machinery of it at work.

Whittaker and the other Google walkout organizers who have left, are now joined by another group of Googlers who were fired last November, one year to the month of the Google Walkout, for attempting to bring awareness to employees rights to organize. Clearly, many Googlers no longer feel protected by their community. “But there is hope here. They can not mop up all of the mess. And it can be a lead. It can be a feminist lead…when you lift a lid, more and more come out” (Ahmed, 2018). Taking a page from Ahmed, those activists who were fired posted their own sort of Killjoy Manifesto which ends with this: “But what they didn’t count on is the strength, the resolve, and the solidarity of Googlers and our allies. Even as you read this, our coworkers are organizing with a renewed passion. More are joining in these efforts every single day, as the company shows its true face. Our coworkers have heard Google’s excuses, and they aren’t buying it. Meanwhile, we too will continue the fight, alongside a broad coalition of those who understand the stakes of Google’s power, and the company’s lack of accountability. As a first step, Unfair Labor Practice charges will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board. We look forward to hearing the NLRB’s findings, which we expect will confirm that Google acted unlawfully” (Berland, et al. 2019). Even as the machinery tightens control, an oppositional tension is building– a solidarity between those inside and those outside. The lid has been lifted. Shared stories have created another community. This fight has only just begun.

Copyright.
Brighton Hudak-Kay
2020

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahmed, S., 2020. Complaint and Survival. feministkilljoys. URL https://feministkilljoys.com/ (accessed 5.25.20).

Ahmed, S., 2018. Complaint as Diversity Work. CRASSH Cambridge. URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ_1kFwkfVE (accessed 5.24.20).

Ahmed, S., 2017. Living a feminist life. Duke University Press Books, Durham NC.

Ahmed, S., 2010. The Promise of Happiness, Duke University Press Books, Durham NC.

Alphabet Inc., 2018. Alphabet Investor Relations [WWW Document]. Alphabet Investor Relations. URL https://abc.xyz/ (accessed 5.26.20).

Batty, D., Weale, S., Bannock, C., 2017. Sexual harassment “at epidemic levels” in UK universities. The Guardian.

Berland, L., Duke, P., Rivers, R., Waldman, S., 2019. Google fired us for organizing. We’re fighting back. Medium, Google Walkout For Real. URL https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/google-fired-us-for-organizing-were-fighting-back-d0daa8113aed (accessed 5.27.20).

Bohn, D., 2017. Sundar Pichai says the future of Google is AI [WWW Document]. The Verge. URL https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/4/16405174/ceo-sundar-pichai-interview-google-ai-artificial-intelligence-interface (accessed 5.27.20).

Cooper, M., 2017. The 3 Things That Make Organizations More Prone to Sexual Harassment [WWW Document]. The Atlantic. URL https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/organizations-sexual-harassment/546707/ (accessed 5.26.20).

Duhaime-Ross, A., 2019. The Google Walkout, One Year Later [PODCAST]. RESET by Vox.

Durkee, A., 2019. Google’s Alleged Union Busting Is Now Under Federal Investigation [WWW Document]. Vanity Fair. URL https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/google-investigation-national-labor-relations-board-union-firings (accessed 5.26.20).

Fitzgerald, A., 2017. Sara Ahmed: “Once We Find Each Other, So Much Else Becomes Possible.” Literary Hub. URL https://lithub.com/sara-ahmed-once-we-find-each-other-so-much-else-becomes-possible/ (accessed 5.25.20).

McGregor, H., 2019. 3.28 Living a Feminist Life with Sara Ahmed [PODCAST] Secret Feminist Agenda.

McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., Blackstone, A., 2012. Sexual Harassment, Workplace Authority, and the Paradox of Power. Am Sociol Rev 77, 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412451728

Monteiro, M., 2018. Facebook Isn’t a Community, It’s a Company Town. Medium. URL https://medium.com/@monteiro/facebook-isnt-a-community-it-s-a-company-town-3837f9d09d9d (accessed 5.26.20).

Popova, M., 2014. Adrienne Rich on Lying, What “Truth” Really Means, and the Alchemy of Human Possibility. Brain Pickings. URL https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/11/13/adrienne-rich-women-honor-lying/ (accessed 5.27.20).

Robertson, A., 2018. James Damore’s labor complaint against Google was completely shut down [WWW Document]. The Verge. URL https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/16/17021714/james-damore-google-nlrb-complaint-diversity-discrimination (accessed 5.26.20).

Swisher, K., 2019. Meredith Whittaker and Kate Crawford: How AI could change your life [PODCAST]. RECODE by Vox.

Wakabayashi, D., Benner, K., 2018. How Google Protected Andy Rubin, the ‘Father of Android.’ The New York Times.

Weale, S., Batty, D., 2017. New sexual harassment claims at Goldsmiths spark calls for inquiry. The Guardian.

West, S.M., Whittaker, M., Crawford, K., 2019. Discriminating Systems: Gender, Race and Power in AI. AI Now Institute. Retrieved from https://ainowinstitute.org/ discriminatingsystems.html.

Whitley, L., Page, T., 2015. Sexism at the centre: locating the problem of sexual harassment.

Whittaker, M., 2019. Onward! Another #GoogleWalkout Goodbye [WWW Document]. Medium. URL https://medium.com/@GoogleWalkout/onward-another-googlewalkout-goodbye-b733fa134a7d (accessed 5.27.20).

Whittaker, M., O’Neil-Hart, C., Parker, S., Anderson, E., Stapleton, C., 2018. We’re the Organizers of the Google Walkout. Here Are Our Demands [WWW Document]. The Cut. URL https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/google-walkout-organizers-explain-demands.html (accessed 5.26.20).

Wiggers, K., 2019. How Google treats Meredith Whittaker is important to potential AI whistleblowers. VentureBeat. URL https://venturebeat.com/2019/04/24/how-google-treats-meredith-whittaker-is-important-to-potential-ai-whistleblowers/ (accessed 5.27.20).

Willness, C.R., Steel, P., Lee, K., 2007. A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Personnel Psychology 60, 127–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x

WIRED, 2019a. Google Walkout Organizers Say They’re Facing Retaliation. Wired.

WIRED, 2019b. Most of the Google Walkout Organizers Have Left the Company. Wired.