Recently I criticized Microsoft for implementing polices that don’t give gay gamers a lot of faith that anyone at Microsoft has their best interests in mind. Microsoft has taken the firm stance that any Xbox Live member who states their sexual orientation in their gamertag or profile will be suspended. As I stated before, this policy alienates gay users and helps promote an intolerant environment on Xbox Live. Gay users may find it hard to trust a company who’s policies prevent them from connecting with other gay users in order to find players who are supportive, rather than aggressive towards them. It seems that there may be another reason for gay gamers to feel uneasy about Microsoft’s corporate policies.

Jamie Durrant, a game designer at Lionhead Studios is suing Microsoft for homophobic abuse that took place after Microsoft’s buyout of Lionhead. Jaimie began receiving abusive emails with subject lines such as ‘I’m Jim and I’m Gay’ and ‘Me and My Favourite Men’. The Daily Mail reported Durrant’s account of Microsoft’s response to these events:

Mr Durrant said he complained to human resources chiefs and agreed not to raise a formal grievance to avoid creating an ‘uneasy atmosphere’. He instead agreed to an email from HR reminding staff of ‘how to behave responsibly in a diverse office’ but, after months went by, he was told the firm would have to draw up new policies before any such email could be sent.

It seems that Microsoft may have been trying to sweep Durrant’s grievances under the rug… perhaps in much the same way Microsoft has swept the issue of homosexuality on Xbox Live under the rug. Policies and attitude toward both employees and customers reflect heavily on the overall message of a company. In this case Microsoft has demonstrated a level of apathy when dealing with issues concerning homosexuals, both on Xbox Live and at the workplace.

This isn’t to say that Microsoft, the giant corporate entity doesn’t deal well with issues of diversity. In fact, you could say that their reputation for progressive steps towards workplace equality is gleaming. It’s easy for gamers to forget, but Microsoft is much bigger than the Xbox and gaming, but way back in 1989 sexual orientation was added to Microsoft’s anti-discrimination policy, which was pushed through by GLEAM (Gay and Lesbian Employees at Microsoft). GLEAM also played a part in Microsoft becoming one of the first fortune 500 companies to offer benefits to same sex domestic partners. So despite the recent attention it seems that Microsoft’s overall corporate message towards GLBT employees has been exceptional.

Bringing our attention back to the Gaming division of Microsoft, in response to the gamertag policy, public figures like Major Nelson and Stephen Toulouse have expressed that they are supportive of gay rights and that their policies are in place to protect users. Regardless of who makes the policies, I can confidently say that neither of them feel negatively towards gays and would never want any community members to be harassed on Xbox Live. So even if there are people in the game division who would harass a coworker, that doesn’t represent the attitude of everyone involved in gaming at the company.

So with some conflicting information about Microsoft’s overall actions regarding homosexuality and equality, it’s hard to see a crystal clear reflection of the company’s message. There’s one more interesting piece of history about Microsoft’s actions that adds a bit more insight into this confusion. After Microsoft employees testified in support of a bill mean to extend anti-discrimination laws to people with alternate sexual orientations, a religious group interpreted this as Microsoft actively supporting the legislation. They then demanded the company reverse the support. On April 22, 2005, CEO Steve Ballmer stated in an email to Microsoft employees that the company had decided to focus their lobbying efforts on issues relating to their core business and that employees and shareholders were welcomed to get involved, but not on the company’s behalf. GLEAM responded with a proposal to restore the “lack of trust” caused by Ballmer’s email urging Microsoft to reach out to the LGBT community. During this time over 1700 employees petitioned that Microsoft support the bill. By May 6th Ballmer sent another email where he admitted that perhaps the issue of equality in the workplace is in fact an business priority. However, this was too little too late since the legislative year had ended and the bill was not passed until the following year. While Microsoft eventually supported the bill, essentially supporting equality in the workplace on a legal sense outside of their own company, Ballmer’s initial hesitation impacted if not the results of the legislation, the GLBT community. This event points out that while Microsoft overall tends to take a progressive stance on issues of equality in the workplace, they are willing to ignore matters of homosexuality, presumably in this case to protect public opinion.

There seems to be a disconnect in terms of what Microsoft’s stance on any of these issues really is. Though their history demonstrates great strives in equality in the workplace, Jamie Durrant’s lawsuit indicates their policies need some work. Durrant’s claim that they needed to make policy changes to address the issue, I can only assume relates to Lionhead’s policy, and not Microsoft’s. After all, GLEAM has done quite a bit to ensure that GLBT employees receive the rights and protection they deserve. Their failure to get involved could simply be due to hesitation. However, even if that is the case, as owners of Lionhead, Microsoft has a direct responsibility to get involved and protect their employees from harassment, especially considering the harassment started after their buyout.

Throughout the years Microsoft has shown great leadership in equality in the workplace, something they’ve been recognized for. However when Ballmer sent out that email in 2005 he sent a message to the employees and GLBT community that officially the company is not involved. And only when it hurt their public image did he go back on the decision. In the case of Jamie Durrant’s lawsuit, while there are few details available at the moment, one could only imagine that had Microsoft dealt with his Durrant’s complains sooner, it could have been prevented. (After all, the suit is not for a lot of money, which says to me it’s not ABOUT money). Seeing this trend in Microsoft’s history and seeing how the company’s failure to act at times can hurt them, I’m forced to wonder how long the company will ignore their restrictive policies on gamertags and how it effect them in the long run. Reciting verbatim Xbox Live policy every time it’s intent is called into question doesn’t address the concerns of the GLBT community nor does it solve any of the deeper social problems involved.

In light of the news about a Microsoft employee facing harassment at work, it’s hard know for sure if Microsoft’s overall stance on equality has carried through to their gaming division. And knowing that in the past they were reluctant to consider equality at the workplace an issue that concerned their company suggests that they might not do the right thing unless pushed. Again I must ask why Microsoft, with a history of promoting a safe workplace and suportive place for women to game does not do something more proactive to help gay XBL members connect and game in a positive environment. Until Microsoft takes any real steps towards creating a more equal and supportive gaming community gay users may find it hard to trust that the company has anyone’s best interest in mind but their own.

-Jenni Chasteen

Sources:
GLEAM
Wikipedia
The Daily Mail

Tags: community, gamertag, gay rights, Microsoft, XBL Policies, Xbox Live

Subscribe to the Check Your HUD RSS Feed