The policy of the working world has always been to never bring personal lives – especially romantic lives – into the office, particularly in the corporate world. But reports from The New York Times highlighting the “news” of openly homosexual CEOs in America – and closeted ones – brings romantic lives of prominent business people out of the working world and into the spotlight.
On Friday, The New York Times columnist James B. Stewart wrote in his column, “Corner Closet Opens Up a Bit Wider,” that Trevor Burgess of C1 Financial and Jason Grenfell-Gardner of IGI Laboratories were the only two publicly gay CEOs of publicly traded American corporations.
“There have long been gay chief executives at American corporations, including some who lead relatively open lives,” Stewart wrote in his column. “How many remains a subject of speculation…Both [Grenfell-Gardner and Burgess] said they weren’t aware of any others.”
Stewart, who operates the column “Common Sense” in The New York Times’ Business Day section, included his interviews with both Grenfell-Gardner and Burgess. Neither CEO, both around age 40, noted receiving any prejudiced treatment for their sexuality but acknowledge this may be the result of a more open-minded generation.
“Much of my generation has been in a diverse and accepting environment for all or most of our lives,” Grenfell-Garner told Stewart. “To even think of this as an issue seems like taking a step backward.”
Then there are the CEOs who, although openly gay in their private lives, refuse to publicly declare their sexualities. Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook’s sexuality was revealed on live television by a reporter who regarded the fact as common public knowledge, although Cook never confirmed it as fact. No wonder he and other CEOs are reluctant to come out of the closet to a world that only seems to care about people’s private lives, whether they be eminent corporate figures, politicians or celebutantes.
It is safe to assume, as a notably liberal publication, The New York Times as a whole is not prejudiced toward any sexuality. Therefore, it is surprising they are so interested in exposing the personal lives of homosexual CEOs, particularly when Grenfell-Gardner bluntly expressed the retrogressive nature of it being an issue. Let’s face it, it’s not as if The New York Times would report on a CEO, or any public figure, if he or she were to declare their heterosexuality.
Furthermore, reporting solely on these CEOs’ personal lives detracts from the more important – and publicly noteworthy – news of what they are doing in the corporate world. Should the public care about who the leaders of big business are sleeping with, or how the work they are doing might affect them economically?
The sexuality of public figures has shrouded their more important endeavors in the past. In 2013, National Football League player Michael Sam, then a player for the University of Missouri football team, came out to his teammates. Despite being a hot commodity in the NFL drafts, ESPN and other sports reporters published articles highlighting his homosexuality, disputing whether it would affect him in the drafts and publishing his teammates’ opinions on playing alongside a gay man. Although he was eventually drafted by the St. Louis Rams, acknowledgement of his athletic achievements was overshadowed by photos of him kissing his boyfriend.
Despite this, there is a beneficial element to reports of sexuality such as Sam’s and those featured in The New York Times. Sure, sensationalizing someone’s romantic choices may detract from his or her accomplishments, but it also creates role models. The fact that there are gay men and women in the business world serves as evidence to aspiring CEOs that their sexual preferences won’t prevent them from achieving their professional goals. If more CEOs were to come out of the closet, perhaps the media could stop reporting on it altogether and regard a gay CEO as a normalcy instead of a breaking news story.
Although modern American society considers itself forward thinking, the reality is that prejudice – whether directed toward race, gender or sexuality, has yet to exit the workplace or media. While we can one day hope the gender of a public figure’s lover, significant other or spouse won’t be interesting, today it is news.
