Why doesn't Google have a doodle for the anniversary of women's right to vote?

By | August 18, 2010, 10:17am PDT

Summary: This article has been updated with an official response from Google.

Second update, 11:07pm: I was just contacted by a very nice person at Google who sent me an official response, to be attributed to a Google spokesperson:

“We enjoy observing special occasions and holidays at Google. One of the many ways we do so is through Google doodles, which aim to celebrate interesting events and anniversaries around the world that reflect Google’s fun and whimsical personality and love of innovation. From time to time, we include a special graphic with text on the Google home page in recognition of an important event in history, just like what you see today, which celebrates the 90th anniversary of the 19th amendment.”

The Googler who contacted me also told me that the reason I hadn’t heard back from them is they had no record of my email. My email generally goes through, but after some investigation, I discovered that the corporate hosting provider I use was having some difficulties today. So, overall, I think we can consider this “mystery solved.” As always, thanks to the nice folks at Google.

Original story begins here

Here’s a weird one. We’ve all come to know and love Google’s practice of changing its logo to mark all sorts of special anniversaries and dates, from the World Cup to Rube Goldberg’s birthday.

Today, however is different.

Today, August 18, 2010, is the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave women the right to vote in the United States.

Actually, the 19th Amendment didn’t, technically, give women the right to vote, it actually said:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

By all measures, this is as important an anniversary as any other and is as Google doodle-worthy as any other. And yet, rather than issuing a doodle, Google placed a special line on their Web site, stating:

Celebrating 90 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote.

Another common practice in Google doodles is if you’re not sure what the doodle is about, you can click it and the result is a Google search that provides further information.

In today’s case, however, neither the “Celebrating 90 years” tag line nor the little icon to its left is wired with a link.

I applaud Google for recognizing this important date, but it is quite curious why this particular anniversary got such a different style of treatment from all others.

I have an email in to Google’s press team and if they provide any insight, I’ll update this article with their comments.

Update 2:24pm ET: This just gets more curious. Still no word from Google.

ZDNet Managing Editor David Grober reports getting different displays and messages for every three refreshes, with none of them mentioning women’s right to vote (where my Google home screen is staying rock solid at the above image).

His latest refresh has been shortened further and simply says, “90th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment”. Here’s one of his screenshots:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

17
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Hooters
jabster17 20th Aug 2010
@SonofaSailor I just had Hooters for dinner...
0 Votes
+ -
Sigh.
frgough 18th Aug 2010
The constitution doesn't grant rights. It prevents government from denying rights. The 19th amendment removed the restriction on women's right to vote.

It's an important but subtle distinction. Thinking the constitution grants rights gets us thinking that government is the source of all our rights and erodes the concept that government derives its power by delegation from the people.

If more of us understood this, the judge who struck down the will of the people in California over proposition 8 would have already been impeached and removed from office.
@frgough Valid and appreciated point. Thanks for the clarification.
@frgough Interesting. But to play devil's advocate, it was the "will of the people" in 1960s Virginia that said mixed race couples could not be married. And the "will of the people" in many southern states that said "separate but equal" was fine. So, when is the "will of the people" tantamount to the "tyranny of the majority"?
0 Votes
+ -
Devil's advocate play
klumper 18th Aug 2010
@bmgoodman

You mean as opposed to where we are now, where basically everything goes, tolerance has no limits, majority views are regularly disregarded (or arbitrarily overturned), and the embrace of the lowest common denominator in damn near everything magically equates to human progress?

Ah yes, and the race was one (er, won) by running slowly. wink

We're being dumbed down by black-is-white and up-is-down metaphysics as it is, and possibly on our way to a return to simpler times [as glimpsed below].
0 Votes
+ -
While I like the assertion, and agree in part
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 18th Aug 2010
@frgough, the part I disagree with is the decision of the court should result in the judge's dismissal.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
0 Votes
+ -
Walker is right, and will be upheld
rgcustomer@... 18th Aug 2010
@frgough , you're correct to point out that the constitution restricts government interference in people's existing rights. That holds even if the government does this by a direct vote of the people. Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it strips away the existing fundamental right to marriage, only from people who want to marry a same-sex partner, typically gays and lesbians, a long-disadvantaged group. It serves no interest. This is plainly unconstitutional.
0 Votes
+ -
@frgough

And "rights" are in reality privileges, being framed of and dispensed per human constructs. They do not have to accord or align with the laws of nature, which are unyielding, infinitely less fickle, and constituted of the highest order = reality. Therein lies the problem.

The closer one aligns to the laws of nature, the closer one embraces and comprehends the truest reality of all [bah humbug, what lessons are to be learned re self-sufficiency and self-preservation as taught by nature, when one can worship self-deception and mortal illusions-cum-delusions in its place?]

And man created god, and saw that it would do, then promptly left with the devil.
0 Votes
+ -
Constitution and the Majority
rick.sheeley 19th Aug 2010
@frgough

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean everyone is out to get you..........
Please be gentle when you come to sew the yellow star on my striped pajamas and drag me out of sight from the "moral majority".......

Rick
@rick.sheeley
I believe the proper quote is "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there's no one out to get you". Makes a world of difference

Oh, and by the way, some of wear the yellow star with great pride and resist with all available means any effort to drag us away...
@frgough Sorry, but you have it backwards. The constitution is the framework that defines of our rights and freedoms. (Albiet your 2nd sentence is correct though) As humans we do not have inherited rights. Even if you refer to the Bible, there is no definition of what our rights are. Our freedoms and rights are defined by the governement.

Re: Prop 8. The judges are not to look at the will of the people when it comes to the law. If that was the case, the ruling from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas would have never occured and we would still have segregation in our schools. That ruling was one of the most unpopular decisions, yet one of the most important decisions ever made.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
sullivanjc 19th Aug 2010
@sojumaster

Wrong. Humans have inherent rights. Collectively, they define government (and other institutions). The government is supposed to be an instrument of the people, not the other way around. A properly constructed government protects the indvidual from the tyranny of the majority and places strict limits on governmental power.

To say that it is the government that decides freedoms and rights of the people and not the people who decide the limitations of government is not just wrong, it's dangerous thinking that leads to authoritarian societies.

With regard to proposition 8, the judge rightly ruled that individuals have inherent rights that trump mob rule. (However, my ideal view on the whole subject is not that government should be allowing gay marriage but rather that marriage of any kind should not be a government issue, - period)
@frgough But of course the USA was only playing catchup. In Australia women could vote from 1901 on.
Aboriginal Australians only got the vote in 1967 but they have been punished since 1995 by every Australian government. Gender is not the only issue in the world.

Mick
0 Votes
+ -
Just imagine:
SonofaSailor 18th Aug 2010
A pair of tits replacing the Google "o"s
0 Votes
+ -
Hooters
jabster17 20th Aug 2010
@SonofaSailor I just had Hooters for dinner...
0 Votes
+ -
Simpler times
klumper Updated - 18th Aug 2010
Why doesn't Google have a doodle for the anniversary of women's right to vote?

Maybe because some are still wondering if it was the right thing to do. ;)

There's something to be said for simpler times of pre-constitutional yore, back when we walked around with club in hand and dragged our women around by the hair.

The taxman had yet to surface either. *sigh*
Most people try to discount the Declaration as being a part of the law of the United States, thinking that it's only the Constitution that determines everything. However, the Constitution derives its justification from the Declaration; without which we would still be under the laws of England.

The Declaration of Independence establishes us as a separate country, a legal entity, the purpose for which the country exists. The Constitution spells out how we go about organizing this country. Both are necessary; something that our Supreme Court Justices need to go back and get a refresher on.
Thanks for this, David. I also thought it rather odd that Google doodles for even the most obscure anniversary, but just a squib for the 19th Amendment.

@frgough: *Siiiigh* back atcha. If more people would remember the name of the country is "The United States Of America" NOT "We're United When It's Convenient For Us States Of America" we wouldn't have these arguments.

If more of the current "Constitutional Scholars" would actually read the Document instead of handed out pamphlets, they'd see something called The Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Reading it & knowing it makes it all easier to understand.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix