- After the overturning of the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade, Meta banned its employees from discussing abortion issues at work.
- This new policy at Meta removes public employee posts on the company’s internal platform with keywords like “abortion” and “Roe v. Wade.”
- Ambroos Vaes, a software engineer at Meta, said this new policy was a massive regression in human rights.
After Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24 in the U.S., Meta (Facebook’s parent company) essentially banned its employees from discussing abortion issues at work.
This new policy at Meta removes public employee posts on the company’s internal platform that contain keywords like “abortion” and “Roe v. Wade.” At least one Facebook employee has spoken out publicly against the policy, according to Business Insider.
“Today is a massive regression in women’s rights (and human rights) for the United States. What saddens me as well is that internally at Meta we are not allowed to discuss it,” Ambroos Vaes, a software engineer at Meta wrote in a now-deleted June 25 LinkedIn post.
Award-winning journalist, long-time radio host, professional speaker and author Celeste Headlee shared her opinion on employee censorship in a Q&A with Allwork.Space.
Allwork.Space: Should companies and leaders be able to ban their workers from discussing certain subjects?
Celeste Headlee: My personal opinion is no; this is an issue of free speech. I hesitate to give an expert opinion on the law since that is not my area of expertise. Personally, I don’t think it is useful — I think it is counterproductive. It’s just going to cause more problems than it solves, if it solves any at all.
Allwork.Space: Will we begin to see more of this in the future?
Celeste Headlee: I’m not sure. We have seen other companies engage in these kinds of issues as well, especially tech companies. Basecamp had similar issues and there is actually great research on what happened there and why a policy on restricting conversation about difficult topics backfired.
I think that we are at such a stage of political polarization and we have come to a moment in which nearly everything associated with our lives (personal or professional) has become political. That’s being between a rock and a hard place…because there is no such thing in current society as not talking about politics.
Nearly every decision you make, from what you wear to what car you drive to the food you eat, is associated in some way with politics. So will we see more of this in the future? We might see more companies try to clamp down on speech, but they will find that is a terrible choice to make.
Allwork.Space: As a leader, how would you approach these sensitive topics in the workplace?
Celeste Headlee: Putting bans on subject matter in the workplace is nearly always an ineffective and wrongheaded response to arguments. The reason why arguments happen in the workplace is because we live in a polarized society and people don’t know how to discuss issues in a healthy way without arguing.
Rather than telling people not to discuss certain topics, which is always going to backfire, companies should invest in conversation and communication training. This allows employees to learn how to discuss difficult subjects without getting into an argument. It is absolutely possible to talk about the most sensitive topics in our political landscape like abortion or gun control or vaccines without arguing and without offending people, but that requires training. In essence, teaching people how to communicate effectively through disagreement is part of teaching them how to work together well.
We are not going to like everyone that we work with and we definitely are not going to agree with them on every single topic. And, because there are already disagreements built in, trying to ensure that there are no conflicts is asking people to suppress their disagreements. That is not a good situation for morale in the workplace, and it is definitely not a good situation for making sure that people have an environment in which they can do their best work and be the most innovative and creative they can be.
There are multiple benefits to giving people training in how to communicate effectively without arguing. That is the solution to the fraught environment in which we live, not banning certain topics.
In a separate Q&A, speaker, equality advocate and author Ash Beckham explained why banning workers from discussing certain topics is harmful.
Allwork.Space: Should companies and leaders be able to ban their workers from discussing certain subjects?
Ash Beckham: Certainly, companies can do whatever they choose, but decisions about banning topics have a more negative effect on workplace culture than any conversation possibly could.
What message are we sending to our people when we determine what they can and can’t talk about? The huge strides that have been made at some organizations around discussions of LGBTQ issues and race have come from having difficult conversations — not by avoiding them.
Employers should facilitate those discussions rather than ban them. Prohibiting discussions because they may be awkward or difficult sends the message that disagreements are bad. But we know that lively, respectful debate leads to more innovative, more inclusive, more profitable organizations. A more effective initiative would be to ban disrespectful or hateful dialogue, rather than ban the topics.
Allwork.Space: Will we begin to see more of this in the future?
Ash Beckham: I think we will not. Organizations know how difficult recruitment and retention is right now. Being more restrictive in what employees can do will put an employer at a competitive disadvantage. This decision to ban topics is an attempt to draw hard lines where nuance is required.
Allwork.Space: As a leader, how would you approach these sensitive topics in the workplace?
Ash Beckham: Set the standard and expectation for respectful dialogue. Ensure all sides are acknowledged and heard. Allow employees to opt-in to these discussions. Create support systems and training on how to have hard conversations. People who want to have these conversations need a safe space to have them where robust dialogue is encouraged. These conversations must be rooted in empathy, and we must have a willingness to understand where the other side is coming from; not so we can change their mind, but rather simply so we can understand them better as humans.
