I can see where he's coming from: if he refuses to do business with ICE because he disagrees with something they're doing (whether he or they are actually wrong), he's implicitly endorsing every aspect of every customer he does choose to do business with.

This is common 'tech guy' thinking where an action is immoral and impossible unless it can be generalized to apply to every situation for all time.

It's bullshit though. That isn't how life works, it's not a humane standard to hold people to, and no one does it.

You make judgements. The squeaky wheel gets noticed. And just because you notice one squeaky wheel doesn't mean you are required to inspect every wheel for potential squeaks every time you are aware there may be wheels somewhere in the future.

I disagree with that implication. Refusing to do business with ICE in this context is just saying that their actions are so bad that they cannot support that level of evil. All that implies of the people they continue to work is they don't meet that threshold of evil. It's not a black and white thing.

By this logic no one can ever take a stand, lest they be criticized for being inconsistent in the application of their principles. Gotta start somewhere, no?

That’s what these types want, though. They want to have plausible deniability and a solid excuse while they’re cashing their checks, they don’t actually want to make hard choices.

Also committing to scrutinize the internal business practices of every future partner. It's easy enough to point at ICE and say that they're actions don't align with your values. But you're setting a precedent for your company - one that will be very hard to live up to down the road.

You don't see the divide between those who operate concentration camps, and those who do not?

Mr. Crist is not just the CEO of Chef. He is also a citizen of the United States of America. As a citizen, he has duties that should take priority over his responsibilities as Chef CEO. By virtue of his position as CEO, his influence and his responsibility to wield that influence in the public interest are greater.

No they aren't. They haven't scrutinized ICE at all - they're operating on nationally reported information.

What ability does Chef have to change family separation and detainment? These things would still be happening if ICE had to go back to whatever they were using before Chef.

but they might be harder. Which is the point. Private people can resist abhorrent policies by putting up roadblocks or at least not making it easier

Harder how? Explain how making ICEs deployment pipeline slower will make ICE release migrants or stop family separation.

If you want to claim that Chef should cease business with ICE explicitly on the moral grounds that no company should have any business with the agency, that is a valid claim. But to say that Chef had any influence, let alone "all the ability" as the root commenter wrote, to affect ICE's conduct is not a statement I find to be honest.

If anything, this sort of thing makes it worse for the immigrants awaiting asylum hearings: if it's harder to keep track of who's there, it's harder to process them. There was a company whose employees walked out when they found out they were making beds for ICE detainment facilities... resulting in fewer beds for detainees.

I am sure if chef withrdrew their services then suddenly the entire DHS would become sane and kind.

You're suggesting that nobody should every take a stand for what they feel is right and good because their actions are too insignificant anyway? Grim.

People should definitely take a stand against something that they were previously okay with when another administration was in power.

No, the above poster is pointing out the dishonesty in claiming that Chef has the ability to stop family separation and detainment.

I don't see anyone claiming that

> badrequest 17 minutes ago [-]

> > to be clear: I also find policies such as separating families and detaining children wrong and contrary to the best interests of our country.

> "I simply have all the ability and none of the desire to do anything about it"

The root commenter seems to be saying that the CEO of chef has "all the ability" to change this situation.

As CEO of Chef, Barry Crist has the authority to say, "Chef will withdraw from all ICE contracts. We cannot change ICE's policies, but we are not obligated to remain complicit in the harm these policies cause."

He could have said this. He could have taken a stand and set an example. He chose to take the easy way out, and I think there are too many people in this thread willing to make excuses for his moral cowardice.

He may have done the right thing as a CEO, but he has failed miserably as a human being and an American citizen.

No. DHS would not reform. But at least Chef would no longer be complicit.