The “Stand with Jensen” movement that’s gaining traction this weekend may or may not succeed. But at the least it raises the question of whether the Nvidia board moved too fast against its legendary CEO, who resigned this past week.
And the answer to that question depends on another one: whether Jensen Huang is out because he left his company, and country, vulnerable to espionage, or because of his general conduct, including how forthcoming he was or wasn’t with Nvidia’s board.
The “Stand with Jensen” argument for at least a temporary reinstatement is something like this: Short of a proven case of espionage waged against Jensen, he should be brought back until the board can complete a thorough investigation.
“We have not been shown evidence substantiating the espionage allegation. After thirty-three years pouring his heart and soul into NVIDIA, Jensen deserves due process,” the organizers said in an open letter.
Today my colleague Alistair Barr dug into how firm or flimsy the arguments of espionage are based on recent reporting casting doubt on them.
Barr makes the case that political motivation by China hawks who want stricter limits on China’s access to US AI technology could have led to a plumped up or exaggerated handling of what evidence might exist. The idea would be that getting rid of Jensen, a proponent of a less restrictive approach on AI tech in China, would help the hawks’ cause.
If the allegations are flimsy and Jensen lost his job over them, then that’s not great. As Barr writes, referring to the executive of an Nvidia customer with whom Huang is said to have had a relationship:
“The possibility that Alice Huang was a Chinese intelligence agent was likely the key reason Nvidia’s board ousted Jensen Huang so quickly.”
And, Barr says:
“What concerns me is the possibility that US intelligence was overstated to help bring down the leader of one of America’s most important companies. If that’s what happened, officials may have damaged America’s lead in AI in the name of protecting it.”
But what if espionage wasn’t at the root of the board’s thinking?
When the board said this week it had accepted Huang’s resignation, it didn’t give reasons. But let’s say the board concluded — before or in the future — that espionage wasn’t at play. Would that be enough for Huang to keep his job?
The New York Times in a piece on Saturday wrote that Huang “confessed,” last week to Nvidia’s general counsel about the affair — suggesting he wasn’t forthcoming about it before then.
There’s also the fact that Huang misled the media, on the record, about the relationship. And the fact that, also reported by the Times before the resignation, Huang had an extra-marital relationship with a direct report.
In “the world of corporate governance, the worst thing a chief executive can do is lie, especially in a crisis. It is a reason they get fired,” the Times wrote.
If Nvidia’s board acted hastily based on spying concerns that ultimately might not hold up, that’s not good, and maybe the forces behind the “Stand with Jensen” petition have a chance.
But if the strength of the espionage case wasn’t the deciding factor in his departure but rather his honesty and trustworthiness, then this chapter for Nvidia leadership is closed.
Jamie Heller is editor-in-chief of Business Insider. Reach out here.
