Every so often I put a blog post up, start getting feedback on it, and realize I’ve got things horribly wrong. And then sometimes, very rarely, the opposite happens: I put up a post and discover that I was more right than I ever suspected. My post on Tim Cook’s sexuality is one of those times.
Which is not to say that it’s uncontroversial. I’ve had significant pushback on it, and on this video, from both inside and outside Reuters. The negative responses fall into a few broad categories:
Haven’t we moved on?
This is rarely accompanied by an elucidation of exactly what it is we’re meant to have moved on from. If it’s the kind of world where people are scared to come out at work, then, first, I’m sorry, but we haven’t. There are, obviously, no reliable statistics on how many LGBT people are out at their work, partly because “out” isn’t the nice, binary concept that a lot of journalists would seem to like it to be. (More on that later.) But I can tell you that I’ve had a lot of private feedback from gay professionals thanking me for my post, saying that it’s still hard for them to come out in the workplace, and that more open discussion and open acceptance of executives’ homosexuality is something we’re only beginning to work towards.
It’s still not normal, in most workplaces, to have an open and accepting culture where all gay employees feel comfortable being open about who they are and who they love. Apple, by all accounts, is very good on that front, and Steve Jobs’s other billion-dollar startup, Pixar, is even better. But the very fact that neither Apple nor Tim Cook has ever said anything about this aspect of his identity is a clear indication that people are still worried about it. The closet is an institution designed to protect LGBT individuals from scorn and hatred; without that scorn and hatred, it would not exist. It exists. And, lest we forget, neither the federal government nor most states gives equal rights to gay couples; in most states, including California, it’s still entirely legal for a company to fire someone just for being gay.
More generally, it’s still the exception rather than the rule for successful gay people in the public eye to be out. Some gay people who achieve success feel a responsibility to serve as role models and advocate for equality and public acceptance. That’s great. But what we see very little of is the people who simply don’t hide who they are, and who don’t make a big deal of it — the non-political gays. And the reason we see so little of it is because it’s a very tricky act to pull off. Instead, we have the institution of the “glass closet”. Which is clearly just a stepping stone on the path to full acceptance. So I think it’s reasonable to say that we’re a very long way from having “moved on”.
Why should shareholders care?
The number of things that shareholders care about, with respect to any given company, is as varied as the number of shareholders itself. But certainly there’s no particular or obvious reason why Tim Cook’s homosexuality is relevant to Apple’s shareholders, qua shareholders. As journalists, however, the media has a responsibility to more than just a company’s shareholders: its responsibility lies to the public as a whole. Including millions of gay professionals, their friends, their families, and people who aspire to being gay professionals. For these people, seeing Tim Cook rise to a position of such prominence and power is something to celebrate. If the media keeps that news on the down low, we’re therefore doing a disservice to that large and important part of our readership. Meanwhile, if shareholders don’t care, that’s fine. Most news is of no interest to most people. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be published.
What business is it of mine what Tim Cook does with his genitals?
This isn’t an issue of sex, it’s an issue of sexuality — a central part of who all of us are. It’s about attraction, and identity. Not genitals.
The fundamental question not addressed by the above: Did Tim Cook say that he is gay? If not, it's speculation on someone's private life, and that's just tacky.
#1 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 03:32 PM
It really, really doesn't matter. And conscripting someone to be a part of someone else's crusade is an appalling thing to do. And unfortunately, crusaders tend to wrap themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness, and declare the interests of individuals as irrelevant. Let's just judge Tim on his performance as Steve Jobs' replacment, which is going to be challenge enough.
#2 Posted by Ian, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 07:39 PM
Agree with the other commenters. You never thought to ask Tim what he thinks about it, did you? That speaks volumes.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 26 Aug 2011 at 08:46 PM
I agree with the other commentators.I don't think you've got a leg to stand on, and I think you know it, otherwise you wouldn't be protesting as much as you are about your stance.
Cook's, or anyone else for that matter, private life is his private life. The only time someone's private life should become newsworthy is if they are caught saying one thing and doing the opposite in their private life (see most members of Congress) or break the law.
This shouldn't be news unless Cook raises it as a point in an interview.
Its just like Lord Browne's sexuality wasn't newsworthy at BP. It was his abject failure to stop BP's well from polluting the US coastline that was newsworthy.
#4 Posted by Paul, CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 03:08 PM
So...
When the topic is the sexuality of a Supreme Court nominee, the bottom line for CJR is "Let’s find something else to obsess about"...
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/politico_kagans_not_gay_story.php
But when the sexuality of a "Wall Street" exec is in question, then it's fair game?
Just the latest stark example of the liberal bias that pervades this "neutral" joke of a publication.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 27 Aug 2011 at 03:39 PM
"As journalists, however, the media has a responsibility to more than just a company’s shareholders: its responsibility lies to the public as a whole."
Indeed. It lies by omission. It lies by commission. It lies, lies, and lies some more until its favorite evil gets passed as law, elected, exonerated, appointed, etc.
Focusing on the "gay Apple CEO" is another fine way to ignore the legal abuses and moral atrocities being committed by the Obama Administration and the federal govt.
#6 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sun 28 Aug 2011 at 03:07 AM
I still know you are right!
Most of these protesting commenters, in my view, betray their own hysteria about the issue. It just shows why you were correct in writing these pieces, an attempt to dispel the hysteria.
#7 Posted by Domby, CJR on Thu 1 Sep 2011 at 02:39 PM