Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/

by cleverjake • 12 years ago

33 66 12 years ago

blog.mozilla.org

danhak3• 12 years ago

This post is to clarify Mozilla’s official support of equality and inclusion for LGBT people, and to outline a series of actions we are taking to reaffirm this position.

I read the whole post several times and did not find a single concrete action, let alone a series. On the other hand, I am aware of one concrete action undertaken by Brendan Eich that is directly counter to all the feel-good rhetoric spouted off by this post.

thirsteh10• 12 years ago

I imagine what remains of the Mozilla board are having many unscheduled meetings right now.

MisterBastahrd• 12 years ago

If the best candidate for the head leadership role of your company is a divisive figure because of documented bigotry, then the entire board has failed the rest of the company.

Spittie3• 12 years ago

That's because there is no need for concrete actions. Mozilla as a foundation/corporation never discriminated anyone, and they already have guidelines that promote equality.

thirsteh10• 12 years ago

And then there's the part where they made someone who is absolutely, positively against the concept of gay people having the same rights as everybody else the figurehead of the organization.

azakai7• 12 years ago

I'm not sure what that part of the blogpost refers to, but one relevant act is mentioning and re-affirming the Mozilla code of conduct, as done here, which guarantees fair treatment for everyone.

Another relevant act is

http://lukasblakk.com/ascend-project-kickoff/

a hacker school-type thing for LGBT and other underrepresented minorities in tech.

sb057• 12 years ago

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

cookiecaper2• 12 years ago

The first paragraph makes it sound like Eich's appointment as CEO stirred some controversy around LGBT inclusion. Did I miss something? I haven't seen anything about this yet. Barring some event like this, I think it's stupid for Mozilla to make a politically charged statement just for the heck of it.

thirsteh10• 12 years ago

Brendan Eich donated $1,000 in support of Prop 8, which made gay marriage illegal in California.

cookiecaper2• 12 years ago

OK, thanks for the information. If there's a link to an HN thread or two about that discovery/controversy, I'd be happy to see it.

Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for asking for more information, but such is HN I guess.

Zarathust• 12 years ago

While I do support LGBT people, I fail to see how my browser's CEO should take a stance on this. You may call me short sighted if you want, but I fail to see how caring about the employee's personal values have anything to do with Mozilla's products.

There are plenty other fields where personal values can be reflected on your work, but Mozilla? I can't even find sarcasm on how they could make a prejudice.

I know that people called him out on twitter, but this whole story is going nowhere.

bjackman• 12 years ago

To be honest, I suspect Brendan Eich probably has some pretty fucking stupid opinions about homosexuality. But what does that have to do with software? And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be, without worrying about their effect on his career?

On one hand, corporate "position statements" (which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure) like this are pretty sickening. On the other hand, I think it's a bit silly that the tech community has required Mozilla to make this one.

justizin• 12 years ago

he has the right, but his job is to foster cooperation and in many cases to have people work for him and if the community doesn't accept his leadership, that pretty much means any period of time that he's in charge is a waste of time at best and a regression at worst.

thirsteh10• 12 years ago

Opinion, yes, but that is not what this is. We know with absolute certainty that he donated a non-trivial amount of money to block gay marriage legislation in California. That is an action solely intended to deprive a people of the rights granted to everyone else, not merely an opinion.

Jach3• 12 years ago

$1k is a pretty trivial amount of money to anyone with a career in tech as long as Brendan's.

boomlinde2• 12 years ago

And shouldn't he have the right to hold those opinions, offensive as they may be, without worrying about their effect on his career?

Since you are bringing this to the table, let's turn the question around: Should he? Why? I agree that he should have the right to hold an opinion, but what earns him the right not to have his public exhibition of it affect his career?

Jach3• 12 years ago

If public outrage becomes so effective at creating a policy to not hire people with certain opinions, and to purge people who are discovered to hold certain opinions, indeed purging people from entire professional fields to which they may have devoted significant portions of their lives mastering, then we are condemning those people to a kind of economic death. This is only marginally better than actually condemning them to death (which doesn't seem beyond some of the "die x-scum die" types).

intslack• 12 years ago

You're esentially asking why he shouldn't be publically bullied out of a position in which he's the most qualified because of his (assumed) belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman (a belief that the majority Californians who voted in 2008 also held.)

I don't agree with that belief, but the comments here and around the web have been absolutely disgusting: comparing him to the KKK and the Nazis, claiming he hates gays, calling him a bigot, etc.

More likely, his belief stems from ignorance instead of hate or bigotry. Why shouldn't the public exhibition of his opinion affect his career? Because people should be taking the moral high ground and empathize in a way that Eich obviously didn't when he made that donation.

Perhaps, instead of shitposting on HN or parading around Twitter about his (assumed) opinions when people haven't actually met Eich, they should reach out and offer their perspective by sending him a personal e-mail detailing how his actions have harmed people. He might even see it your way and change his deeply held belief.

amputect• 12 years ago

which declare opinions like cells declare osmotic pressure

I got a good laugh out of this, well put!

Brendan Eich has the right to hold those opinions and whatever other opinions he wishes to hold. He has the right to publicly express them in the form of spoken or written words, campaign donations, or any other number of legal rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Here's some rights he does not have: 1) The right to unconditional employment, or a constitutional right to be the CEO of Mozilla. 2) The right to freedom from criticism of his beliefs. 3) The right to freedom from social consequences of his beliefs.

Remember that criticism is not censorship, those are different things entirely and when they are conflated it's almost always to protect people with those aforementioned pretty fucking stupid opinions. His opinions about homosexuality are offensive and disappointing to a lot of people. Why shouldn't they be able to express that to Mozilla? And if Mozilla feels like enough people are upset with their decision, they have the right to respond to market demands.

Let's veer wildly into strawman territory here. Let's say that instead of Brendan Eich, let's say Mozilla found some other extremely talented technologist to take the reins, but they were coincidentally an active, avowed white supremacist. Would you still think he has the right to hold those opinions without worrying about their effect on his career? What if he believed that non-Muslims should be put to the sword, or that women should be the property of their husbands, or any number of other horrible, backwards beliefs. Still cool with him as the CEO of Mozilla? If not, then we're really just disagreeing over how horrible someone's opinions have to be before they disqualify them from the position as the head of the CEO of a company that prides itself on inclusiveness and equality.

bzbarsky6• 12 years ago

Would you describe someone who made a single monetary donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago and didn't say anything about it to anyone at the time, such that it took 4 years to discover the donation had even been made, an "active, avowed white supremacist"?

I'm not saying there are easy answers here, but I think that your hypothetical assumes someone who lets their horrible backwards beliefs affect their professional actions.

So let's consider the counterfactual that more closely models the current situation: someone who made a single donation to a white supremacist cause 6 years ago, has not publicly expressed any white supremacist views other than making the donation, routinely works with non-white colleagues in a reasonable way, and supports workplace involvement in Black History Month activities is appointed CEO. What should happen? I want to say I'd be OK with this, but it's hard to predict visceral reactions ahead of time. :(

As another interesting counterfactual, say that instead of donating to a white supremacy organization they donated to Nation of Islam. Otherwise, assume it's all the same: works fine with Jews and whites, doesn't speak out on race/religion issues in day-to-day interactions. I want to say I'd be OK with this too, though personally I'd have more skin in the game here than in the other cases, and I suspect people would generally be more OK with this situation than with the person who donated to a white supremacist cause...

(As an aside, would you consider Nation of Islam as an organization that believes "non-Muslims should be put to the sword"?)

Edit: I think at the heart of the issue is that people have a really hard time accepting that someone might make such a donation but be OK working with the sort of people the organization they donated to is against. I know _I_ have a hard time imagining anyone who donates to a "women should be the property of their husbands" organization interacting well with women in a workplace environment. It doesn't help that I don't know any people who would make such a donation, leaving me guessing at the reasons why one would, and Occam's Razor would say be that they hold deep-rooted beliefs about women being inferior. I've tried to come up with some other reasons someone might make such a donation while being OK working with women, but they all seem contrived to me. If faced with an actual example of a person who made such a donation but works well with women, I would be _very_ interested in talking to them to find out where they're coming from.

As a result, people are operating from assumptions which don't actually match reality as well as they should in this case. Your counterfactual of an "active, avowed white supremacist" more closely models how people are perceiving this situation, based on their knowledge about the donation only, and no knowledge about Brendan's day-to-day interactions with LGBTQ colleagues, than do my counterfactuals. But mine more closely model what's really going on...

benjohnson• 12 years ago

I have to admit that this whole episode had given a small doubt on if my company can have an inclusive environment.

I have very conservative religious and political views - but I recognize that people have good and amazing attributes regardless of my opinion on their personal lives.

I enjoy being working (and friendships) with diverse people who challenge my beliefs, and who I can help in meaningful ways despite our differences.

My pause comes from my wondering if the company develops a significant group of people who won't let my own personal beliefs remain separate from the work environment.

I'll hopefully forget this sad episode in a few short weeks, so I doubt anything will change in my heart for the worse.

danhak3• 12 years ago

Having personal beliefs is fine. Taking away the freedom of others is not. You don't have to back proposition 8 to believe homosexuality is immoral, just like you don't have to outlaw pork in order to keep kosher.

akerl_3• 12 years ago

Telling someone that they can hold views that differ from yours as long as they never show those views or act in support of them seems like one of the very arguments that the equal rights movements are fighting against.

natrius• 12 years ago

Some political views are unacceptable. If you think that the government should prevent people of different ethnicities from getting married, I don't want to work with you. If you don't think the matter at hand falls in the same bucket, I don't want to work with you.

We're not talking about disagreeing on tax policy here.

bzbarsky6• 12 years ago

I accept that some some political views are unacceptable to you.

Do you do background checks on people you might work with to see whether they hold such views? Or do you just avoid working with people about whom you found out by accident that they hold such views?

That is, are you actively making sure that none of the people around you hold the views you find unacceptable, or is it more of a don't ask don't tell kind of policy, where you don't care if people have unacceptable views as long as they don't mention them in your hearing?

brighteyes2• 12 years ago

Are you saying you consider the political views of almost all Republicans "unacceptable", and you wouldn't work in the same place as them?

Because - sadly, because I agree with you that they are wrong - over half of California opposed gay marriage in 2008 (and while things have improved somewhat, they remain far from where they should be).

They are wrong, but their position is a mainstream one. I'm not sure refusing to work with them is practical. (It might be in a small company, especially in ideologically uniform regions like the bay area, but not in general.)

chroma5• 12 years ago

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7201428:

I'm a trained nuclear physicist, and a biblical literalist.

You're probably a talented, hard-working, good person. I wish you no ill. In fact, all else equal, I'd prefer you to lead a happy, successful life.

But I'm as likely to hire you as I am to hire a believer in alien abductions. Such beliefs are evidence of a person's thought patterns and general mental stability. Even if otherwise competent, hiring would be risky. If ever "social fit" were an excuse not to hire, this would qualify.

I'm sorry if that sounds bigoted or close-minded, but beliefs affect behavior. This is true no matter how much one tries to keep quiet at work.

Edit: I realize this is religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US. Obviously I would never tell the person the true reason for not hiring. To those who think this is abhorrent: Would you hire a Scientologist? How about a member of the Westboro Baptist Church? We all draw a line somewhere.

azakai7• 12 years ago

I'm an atheist (like I assume you are), but what you just described is straightforward religious discrimination, which is illegal in the US and many other places, for good reason.

bzbarsky6• 12 years ago

How is this argument different from the arguments of people who want to draw the line at hiring transgendered people or hiring women or hiring people who are over 6 feet tall? The only material legal difference, as far as I can tell (IANAL) is in whether you are discriminating against a protected class or not, and what constitutes a protected class seems to be largely a political decision. And religious affiliation is definitely explicitly protected.

These are, of course hard issues. It's _hard_ for all of us to not discriminate against people based on our prejudices. For you it seems to be hard to not discriminate against Scientologists. The right moral response is to realize your prejudices and fight them. The laws actually make that a bit easier in some ways (e.g. it's illegal for you to ask prospective job candidates whether they're Scientologists).

Whether it's a social fit problem depends on two things. The first is whether the person's private beliefs affect their workplace behavior. Obviously in some cases they do and in others they don't. People are pretty good at compartmentalizing.

The second social fit problem is whether the person's co-workers are so outraged by the fact of the beliefs existing (or the person's gender being "wrong" or their hair being red, or whatever these people happen to have personal hangups about) that it affects _their_ behavior. This is pretty common, obviously, and the fault in such cases lies in the co-workers not the hire. There may still not be a good "social fit" as a result, but this situation is cause to look long and hard at the "society" that's not being fit into...

I would like you to also consider a concrete example. You say you won't hire a believer in alien abductions. Would you hire a "tin-foil-hat" type who believes the NSA is spying on everyone? Would you have hired such a person two years ago, or would you have considered them paranoids whose "thought patterns and general mental stability" would preclude a good "social fit"? Clearly your priors have updated since 2 years ago, but it's always worth evaluating whether your priors might be wrong and whether a reasonable person might come up with different priors.

lawnchair_larry• 12 years ago

This statement is incompatible with the actions of the CEO. If the CEO doesn't believe in the mission, this can never be more than lip service.

azakai7• 12 years ago

While it might be incompatible with an action he once took, (1) that was many years ago, and (2) on the other hand in this statement and on his personal blog he voiced support for inclusiveness and fair treatment of everyone, and to follow that up with actions.

paul_f• 12 years ago

Excuse me, but is this a settled issue? One opinion is OK, a different one deserves being ostracized, losing one's job? When did this happen? I don't think I got the memo.

learc83• 12 years ago

Until 2 years ago the president of the United State opposed gay marriage.

It was OK for him to be President of the United states, while publicly opposing gay marriage.

But it's not OK for the CEO of a browser company to publicly oppose gay marriage?

evertonfuller• 12 years ago

I am so bored of seeing this over and over again. There is absolutely no ties between someones professional and personal life. As is, between a foundation/corporation and the views of any of their employees - yes this includes chairman. Give it a rest for crying out loud.

A1kmm• 12 years ago

The Mozilla Foundation (and Corporation) are in a difficult position here, because they are being blamed for someone else doing something unethical, but it would also be unethical for them to do (or have done) anything differently in response to it.

Brendan Eich's behaviour in 2008 in trying to take the choice away from couples to marry just because they happen not to be straight is a despicable step to interfere with the rights of others. His apology this month (https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) didn't express regret for making the donation, only for "having caused pain"; nothing in the apology suggests that he has actually changed his views. It fits the classic pattern of an apology for how other people reacted to what he did, rather than for what he did.

As abhorrent as I find his personal actions, it would not be appropriate for Mozilla to take political activities into account when making employment decisions, such as about promotions or dismissals. If employers could fire people for their political views or activities outside of work, it would be a net loss to our civil and human rights, even if in some cases such laws shield advocates for stripping away freedom and non-discriminatory treatment under the law.

The Mozilla Foundation has acted entirely fairly and appropriately here, and it is not fair to blame Mozilla for the actions of Brendan Eich or for not discriminating against him on the basis of his political beliefs.

Mozilla Supports LGBT Equality

Related Stories