Brendan Eich, We’ve Failed You. I’m Sorry.

by anotherhacker • 12 years ago

154 246 12 years ago

anon13855• 12 years ago

For goodness sake, when are people going to understand that freedom of expression doesn't (and shouldn't) mean freedom from criticism. This is not a difficult concept people.

mschuster913• 12 years ago

What happened with Eich was not criticism any more, rather a full blown witch hunt, complete with forks and fire.

The internet has become too much of 4chan the last few years.

kolektiv2• 12 years ago

I haven't been paying overly close attention, but all of the reaction I have seen has generally been blog/twitter based expressions of sadness/disappointment/betrayal. Has it really escalated far beyond that? (Genuine question).

beaker523• 12 years ago

It's called smear. It happens to people in high places whose pyramid of power is missing a keystone or two.

pohl• 12 years ago

So that's what a "witch hunt" is these days, eh...people blog, comment on the blog, post the blog to social networks, comment on the social network posts, make claims about how they'll change their consuming habits in response to the post...

There once was a day when "witch hunt" actually referred to strapping live human beings to kindling and setting them ablaze.

rmc6• 12 years ago

A witch hunt? Is he dead? Has he been beaten to death like man LGBT people?

DerKommissar• 12 years ago

Seems to me they found a witch. Or is bigotry just a myth?

Wintamute• 12 years ago

The people who felt criticised by Eich's expression of criticism and then felt compelled to drive him out of his job would do well to remember that too, don't you think?

anon13855• 12 years ago

I don't see your point. I don't see anybody in here (yet) saying that the article we are discussing (or any other article defending Eich) shouldn't have been written or published - merely some people disagreeing with it. I have seen plenty of people over the last week or however long it has been saying criticism of Eich should not have been written or published because to criticise somebody for their views is being 'intolerant'.

marrs2• 12 years ago

He wasn't criticised for his views, he was fired

higherpurpose2• 12 years ago

By the same token, the people who forced him to resign shouldn't be free of criticism. Right?

beaker523• 12 years ago

CEOs, like any other employee, are representatives of the company they're employed by.

Just as if I were to post racist comments on my [Generic Social Media], my employer is going to need to do something to protect the company, because as the article points out: people (clients, customers) are judgemental, critics of gay marriage and critics of Brendan Eich included.

madeofpalk• 12 years ago

CEOs, like any other employee, are representatives of the company they're employed by.

Executives of companies are representatives so much more than the rest of the employees.

jellicle• 12 years ago

True. And yet normally, the CEO is immune from the consequences of her actions, while the employee risks getting fired for the slightest deviation.

awwducks2• 12 years ago

I think the concern centers more around the perceived double standard on seemingly arbitrary issues. For instance, if Eich was a strong supporter of gay marriage, I have a hard time seeing him forced to step down.

I get that gay marriage is not an "arbitrary issue" for many people, but I think the definition of what is arbitrary and what are violations of fundamental civil rights can get tricky.

alohahacker3• 12 years ago

great point!!

rsynnott8• 12 years ago

Look at it this way. If he'd been funding a campaign to make a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage, do you think he'd have been able to keep the job?

Like it or not, in the West, gay people are increasingly in the category of people who most people assume should have equal rights.

Methusalah3• 12 years ago

We do not need to be tolerant of intolerance.

pete_b• 12 years ago

You sound quite intolerant.

Methusalah3• 12 years ago

Intolerant of people who seek to use our government to oppress minorities due to their own ignorance and hatred? Definitely.

Solarsail2• 12 years ago

To not be tolerant of intolerance is to be more intolerant than any religious fundamentalist or extremist.

Methusalah3• 12 years ago

Oh right, I forgot how religious fundamentalists and extremists are universally praised for their ability to accept contradictory views and lifestyles! What a powerful argument!

saalweachter2• 12 years ago

Meh.

There is a selectively low bar on persecution these days. He wasn't being denied the right to marry, they right to make medical decisions for or visit a loved one in the hospital, the right to adopt. He wasn't even being denied the right to a decent living.

He was denied access to a particular leadership position. While there is a slippery slope to be found in denying leadership positions based on belief, there are also two sets of rights to consider. The rights of the (potential) leader, and the rights of the workers he leads. Given that the belief he expressed through his donation concerned the civil rights of other people and not himself, why should I expect that he will respect the rights of any LTBG workers in his employee?

mhurron• 12 years ago

He was being denied access to a particular leadership position.

He wasn't denied access to the position, he had it. Others made it clear they were not interested in being lead by him. A decision had to be made to either let those people leave or he had to choose to leave.

bzbarsky• 12 years ago

I did not see a single post from someone who would be led by Brendan saying they did not want to be lead by him. In fact, the opposite.

Please do look up the difference between the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation. He was picked as CEO of the _Corporation_ but the Mozilla employees who called for his resignation were employees of the _Foundation_, and hence wouldn't be led by him at all. The Corporation employees who spoke out in public were saying things like https://twitter.com/Jason_Duell/status/449265719474008064 and http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZFsNqrZ... (since deleted, apparently) and http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of...

It's hard to tell from the outside, of course, since everyone involved just claimed to be working from "Mozilla", so it's easy to make the mistake you made.

kolektiv2• 12 years ago

We haven't failed him. While the old "may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" trope gets used here, it doesn't mean you need to protect people from the consequences of their speech.

Brendan Eich can donate to whatever causes he wishes, and rightfully so, but there is rightly no protection from the public opinion based consequences arising from those donations. Equally, justifications such as "meritocracy" imply that being a CEO is a very narrow thing - it isn't, it's a position of authority and leadership, and if you can't (near universally) inspire confidence in the people you're intended to lead, that is a problem with your ability to function as CEO.

matthewmacleod3• 12 years ago

Thank you for stating this in a polite and straightforward manner – that is also my take on this issue.

I struggle with the opposition to this move when the reaction against Eich's position is de facto evidence that he would not have been able to perform in the role.

ralfd2• 12 years ago

But the (feared) reaction against gays in the military was taken as argument for denying them entry. It is a bit of a circular argument.

sspiff2• 12 years ago

I agree that people shouldn't be protected from the consequences of what they say or do, and I don't agree with Eich's point of view.

However, I feel like the reaction to his becoming CEO and trying to get him to step down were unjustified.

I believe that someone shouldn't be judged on his political or religious affiliation when being considered for a new job or a new role. I have political convictions which are perpendicular to some of my colleagues ideas, and guess what, we get along just fine at work.

I fail to see how his opinion on same-sex marriage (or his sponsorship of conservative politicians in general) would be a problem for guiding Mozilla forward. As long as he doesn't use Mozilla as a tool for his personal agenda.

oneeyedpigeon9• 12 years ago

Some opinions are very difficult to separate from behaviour. When you hold the view that someone is less entitled because of their sexual orientation, it is probably difficult to prevent that from affecting your relationships with some members of your workforce, however well-intentioned you may be, however hard you might strive.

What about if Eich had donated money to an organisation trying to stop black people getting married? Would you still think him entitled to be the CEO of a commercial organisation, without dissent?

rmc6• 12 years ago

Because Mozilla relies on donations of time and labour and open source contributions. If you can't get people to contribute, Mozilla is in trouble.

CaptainZapp• 12 years ago

Andrew Sullivan (who can hardly be accused of being a gay basher) put it quite succinctly and very eloquent:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-br...

I have to agree.

cyphunk• 12 years ago

The story is different when it comes to open source. OSS projects are communal in nature and much more democratic than their non-OSS counterparts. It should be no surprising to see the dynamics of state politics, such as examination of unrelated actions from actors, apply to OSS communities.

On that note, you can only be the dictator and force everyone to look at the bits alone, when you have something people need or you have endless patience to outlast your competition. This would be the Linus strategy. I dont think Mozilla has this option. ALSO, both consumers and employees in non-OSS establishments are making on CSR and meta-politics an priority. This will continue to increase in significance.

steven20126• 12 years ago

Wrong. As far as I know, he has not divulged his religious or political views. We do not know if he is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, atheist or pastafarian. We do not know if he is a Democrat or a Republican.

We do know, however, that he was so incensed by the ideas of gays getting the right to marriage that he donated a very large sum of money to help fight the legal battle against it.

That speaks volumes about his personal bigotry. He was not being attacked for his religious or political views. He was attacked because he wants to discriminate against an entire class of people.

Tloewald• 12 years ago

In your own example, you (a) aren't head of the organization and (b) are not, I assume, advocating a view that some of your colleagues should be second class citizens.

fabman• 12 years ago

Well said, every time I heard someone use that excuse it comes to my mind what would it be if he put money on an association like the kkk?. Those people would say too "I'm sorry to judge you for being a fucking racist"?. Because right now they're saying "I'm sorry to judge you because you're a fucking homophobic".

speeder• 12 years ago

I am seeing this.being.thrown.aromasso much, not.only in US but here in Brazil.too,.that when someone try to.insult me.calling me homophobic, I will reply: "yes, with pride"

Seriously, homophobia was supposed to mean "strong fear or.aversion to homosexuals" not "opinion that homosexuals dislike"

intslack7• 12 years ago

if he put money on an association like the kkk?

Great comparison, it's not like the KKK murdered thousands of people or anything.

rjzzleep• 12 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

i'm sure if he was anti-gay, all those gays working for him for 6 years as a cto would have noticed a little earlier, everyone was surprised when they heard about this in 2012. and it didn't stop people from using mozilla products then. if you don't think that the cto of a large tech research company has at least a little say in who gets hired, you need a reality check.

let's not kid ourselves. someone wanted him out of the way, and we all played our role. congratulations for being the toys at hand of the powers that be.

i'm really curious who the next cto/ceo of mozilla is going to be. IN FACT I'm worried on who it might be.

here's a crosspost from recode:

I am in full support of gay marriage, I'm against prop 8. But I'm also utterly opposed to railroading people out of work because of personal opinions they hold.
Today the bullies won. Today tyranny gained a toehold. The next time some religious group throws out an employee or leader because he donated money to planned parenthood or gay rights group, remember this day for you laid the foundation.

nodata• 12 years ago

Crap. If he wanted to stay in that position he would have made the standard "Mistakes were made.. I've changed/learnt/grown.. " speech. He didn't, which didn't inspire confidence, so he was unfit to lead.

camus23• 12 years ago

McCarthyism

Give me a break.

Why didnt you link to nazism ? or communism ? Eich is like a jew persecuted by this army of pro gay nazis ... not.

You cant expect us to take what you say seriously after that hyperbole.

vidarh3• 12 years ago

McCarthyism

Bring that up if it turns out that he is blacklisted across the valley, and unable to land a new job. Given the number of millionaire VC's alone that have come out supporting him on Twitter, I kind of doubt he'll face anything resembling McCarthy level persecution.

If you don't see the difference between people being upset about having a known supporter of discrimination in a role where he is shaping public opinion about an organisation like Mozilla, and the person ultimately responsible for a workplace vs. someone being blacklisted across an entire industry, or worse, and paraded in front of congressional committees to confess their "sins", then that shows a scary lack of understanding of just how nasty McCarthyism was.

jlbhbkhg2• 12 years ago

Re McCarthyism, this seems particularly relevant: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Anticomm...

xmonkee2• 12 years ago

Jesus Christ, man. On the one hand, thousands of people lost their status in society and their dignity due in part to Eich misusing his wealth. OTOH, this guy loses one job. Who's the real bully here?

toddmorey• 12 years ago

Whoa, that's ridiculous. As the most public embodiment of the organization, wouldn't Mozilla's policies of equality ring hollow if they'd left him in place? His values did not align with the organization. As Jobs always said (perhaps with a bit of false modesty): "The CEO serves at the pleasure of the board." (Side comment about "all those gays" noticing: I can't believe you a genuinely a stranger to opinions and convictions being held in secret.)

coldtea8• 12 years ago

We haven't failed him. While the old "may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" trope gets used here, it doesn't mean you need to protect people from the consequences of their speech.

Actually it means exactly that.

The way you put it ("supporting your right to say it doesn't mean you shouldn't suffer the consequences of your speech") is totally absurd.

"Your right to say it", means exactly the right to say it and NOT suffer consequences.

If we accept "suffering consequences" as orthogonal to "having a right to say it", then we come to the absurd conclusion that even people in the most opressive regime, or those threatened by the Inquisition had "free speech".

They said it, and then, they suffered the consequences (from getting fired to getting set on fire, depending on the period).

Free speech means anybody can say anything, and people supporting his right to say anything, without any personal consequences (other than others potentially disagreeing with him and answering back to what he said).

Anything else is not free speech.

kjjw12• 12 years ago

Your thinking here is awkward, confused, conflated and simplistic.

famblycat• 12 years ago

"Your right to say it", means exactly the right to say it and NOT suffer consequences.

It depends what consequences we're talking about here. There's a difference between the consequence of being thrown in jail for something you said and people thinking less/differently of you because of something you said. I suspect OP was referring to the latter.

WilliamMayor• 12 years ago

I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.

Here we're talking about how the public's treatment of Mozilla and Eich have changed because of their speech. This is perfectly rational.

To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say. I have to think "well he said all those racist things but I've never seen him in a KKK uniform so my opinion is still neutral".

TL;DR On issues of free speech we, the people, can make people suffer consequences as we see fit. The state cannot.

Tyrannosaurs4• 12 years ago

So if I'm your fiance and you suddenly find out that, say, I am a member of the KKK, you can't decide not to marry me (that would after all be a consequence beyond simply disagreeing)?

Obviously that would be absurd. As an individual I'm entirely within my rights to respond to the views of another beyond simply disagreeing and debating with them.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that I would be able to choose not to spend time with someone with views I found abhorrent.

So how about choosing to work (or not work) on a voluntary project being run by someone whose views I disagreed with?

danielweber3• 12 years ago

Legally, you are fully right that "free speech" doesn't mean you are free of social consequences of speech.

Socially, while I disagree with Eich's political views, I really worry about starting a tit-for-tat here that leaves no one the winner.

You might think your views are socially dominant. And in your time and place, maybe you are even right about it. But this will not always be the case.

Back in the 60's my dad risked his job to go march with Martin Luther King when MLK was in Detroit. His boss didn't like MLK and would have canned my dad if he found out. If my dad had been fired, I really hope you wouldn't be so blase as to say "well, he's just reaping the consequences of his speech."

saalweachter2• 12 years ago

I think it is possible to hold both views (it is acceptable to force Eich out; it was immoral to fire workers for being part of the civil rights movement, blacklist workers for being communists). And you don't even have to appeal to the "my side is always morally right" non-argument.

I think the critical distinction is workers versus management.

If an engineer were fired from his job for a donation he made to any organization -- the ACLU, the KKK, the Communist Party, Prop 8 -- then yes, we would have a problem.

Low power individuals, they need to be protected. High power individuals, we need to be protected from them.

Ygg24• 12 years ago

It still feels, like a character assassination. Lots of great men were fucking weird... Hell most of us are really fucking weird. Gratefully most people today don't emphasize.

Mozzart had a fetish for shit, which he extensively exchanged with his cousin. Imagine someone squatting a big chunky shit on your shit each time you hear his music.

Einstein was for lack of better world a whore. He had sex with bunch of his cousin from his maternal and paternal side. He slept with his cousin, her sister and early slept with cousin Elsa's daughter.

Tesla had a fetish for pigeons, thought he could talk with aliens and was afraid of germs more than anything else. And he had OCD to top it all off.

swampangel2• 12 years ago

Lots of us are really weird, but only a few of us are in charge of mid-to-large organizations. And of the examples that you gave, I don't think any of them worked to have their brand of weirdness enforced over other people as law.

Eich claimed to support LGBT equality at Mozilla, but when given the opportunity, he refused to say anything like "I regret supporting a law that had negative consequences for our employees" or even "I would abstain from supporting a similar law in the future". This silence suggests he may advocate for equality at one level and against it at a higher level, which is hard to reconcile.

marrs2• 12 years ago

Very true, but I've not heard any news that he didn't have the support of his employees, or that he wasn't inspiring confidence in them. His position was made untenable by the actions of people outside of his charge.

I would think that your point applies if Mozilla had discounted Eich for the role in the first place, but it appears that his views only became an issue for them after they started receiving negative attention.

In any case, Mozilla have demonstrated quite clearly that they are not the champions of equal rights, free speech, or diversity that they claim to be. I wonder if this will be a problem for them in the long run. I think a lot of people still use their product over Chrome et al because of support for these views.

zimpenfish3• 12 years ago

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/after-supporting-prop-8-bre...

gyardley• 12 years ago

Absolutely - you don't need to protect people from the consequences of their speech.

So why are there no consequences for the sort of person who's not professional enough to keep a person's activities outside work separate from their work itself?

Most hiring managers wouldn't hire a bully. Why do they continue to hire people who have a history of disruptive behavior, calling for the firing of others over things that happen outside of their workplace?

The Eich situation will repeat itself again and again and again (and at lower levels, and perhaps next time over an unfashionable political opinion that you just happened to hold a year longer than the President of the United States) unless there's real consequences for being an unpleasant, uncivil busybody who goes around demanding people get sacked for their behavior outside of work.

If we're really so incensed by the way Brendan Eich was treated, and we're not just being mouthy on the Internet, I ask you all - where are these consequences?

rsynnott8• 12 years ago

If he'd been funding a campaign for a constitutional ban on interracial marriage, he'd never even have been considered for the role in the first place (and rightly so).

Certainly, he has the right to say, think and fund what he likes, but if you're funding an effort to remove peoples' rights, you shouldn't be too surprised if people are disinclined to let you have a job which places you in authority over a company full of people.

alohahacker3• 12 years ago

We're tolerant as long as we share the same views. The irony in tolerance in this case is unreal.

oneeyedpigeon9• 12 years ago

But what's the point of tolerance if you just blindly accept any view, no matter how controversial or offensive, without challenging it? I see nothing wrong with the position of "everyone is entitled to air any opinion whatsoever, so long as anyone else is entitled to challenge them". No-one, as far as I know, has attacked Eich, threatened him, etc. they've just expressed concern about his views, which everyone is perfectly entitled to do.

agapos• 12 years ago

"But what's the point of tolerance if you just blindly accept any view"

khm acceptance is acceptance, and tolerance is tolerance. You do not accept it, you tolerate it. Not the same thing.

alohahacker3• 12 years ago

If you read the comments and tweets there were a lot of nasty personal attacks on Eich and reported physical threats against him for donating to prop 8 five years ago. A amendment that actually passed by the way.

I'm fine with respectful open discussion but the entire situation left me with an uneasy taste in my mouth. If another CEO supported gay marriage and it created a stir like Eich's case did, I would feel the same way. Imagine if Sergey Brin donated to a gay marriage group 5 years ago and it caused such a stir that sites like fox or disney asked you to switch from chrome. Imagine the thousands of tweets criticizing him and the right media making a spectacle out of it calling out his character. That would be ridiculous.

It's about mutual respect and discussing ones differences in a cordial human way. In this case, it was anything but that and the double standard was obviously apparent.

rmc6• 12 years ago

We tolerate everyone's rights except those who try to take away rights of others

nwhitmore• 12 years ago

Does that include the right to keep and bear arms?

ZeroGravitas2• 12 years ago

Why don't we "hate the sin, but love the sinner"? Isn't that what Christians that think all gay people (amongst many others blameless groups) are condemned to burn in eternal hellfire say?

otikik• 12 years ago

Please don't include me in that "we".

eik3_de• 12 years ago

lomegor• 12 years ago

It's a sad day when homophobia is not a valid reason for so much people to fire a representative of your company.

voicereasonish• 12 years ago

A majority voted the same way as him. The president held the same views. But you're singling him out as homophobic??

natch2• 12 years ago

This line of thinking is juvenile. He was being singled out as the CEO of Mozilla.

PaulRobinson• 12 years ago

When you find somebody holds an opinion you disagree with you have a choice of either ignoring them, pushing them away or engaging them in discussion (which requires a reciprocal action on their part).

It seems the latter option wasn't even considered, everybody just wanted rid.

That's:

a) Not very mature b) Worse, a missed opportunity to convince somebody of an alternative view

Well done everybody, you've turned somebody you disagree with into an entrenched and victimised somebody you disagree with who hates you. clap clap clap

oneeyedpigeon9• 12 years ago

So The Guardian offered him an opportunity for dialogue [1], to have that debate. He had a chance to explain why he held the views that he did. He refused.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ce...

rmc6• 12 years ago

Sshh! It's easier to ignore things like that and cast him as a victim of those mean gays!

danso• 12 years ago

Jesus, this is the epitome of naive techie blabbering. Does OP really think that the CEO position is based on "merit" alone? That football teams are all coached by former Heisman Winners? That all generals have Medals of Honor? It's not even worth debating Eich specifically with the OP; his view of the world is astonishingly naive.

steven20126• 12 years ago

This is sickening.

Denying gays the right to marriage is not a free speech issue, it's a human rights issue. Replace gay marriage with interracial marriage and see if the idea of "we failed you because we didn't support your right to believe that interracial marriage is wrong" still stands up.

Trying to equate this to a free speech issue is just another way of discriminating against gays. Eich actively supported the discrimination against gays and there's no way that he has the moral right to lead a company like Mozilla. I for one am glad that he was put through the wringer and hope anyone else that believes in any form of discrimination and wants to lead a company gets the same treatment or worse.

EDIT: someone rightfully pointed out I overstepped my description. I changed "Eich discriminated against gays" to "Eich actively supported the discrimination of gays"

Ygg24• 12 years ago

gets the same treatment or worse.

Lynch Brendan Eich? Dunno he seemed like a person competent to lead Mozilla. Just seems weird how fiery was the criticism.

At this point the homophobes and the anti-homophobe camp are starting to sound eerily similar.

coldpie5• 12 years ago

Just seems weird how fiery was the criticism.

I wonder how you would feel if it was your human rights and dignity being denied, instead of someone else's.

asdfaoeu• 12 years ago

He never discriminated against gays. He expressed his political opinion in the form of a donation.

steven20126• 12 years ago

You are right. I edited my description above.

coldpie5• 12 years ago

He used money influence to deny homosexuals their human rights and dignity. I don't know what definition of "discrimination" we're using here, but that's pretty despicable behavior by any measure.

xmonkee2• 12 years ago

He paid his money to take away some rights from some people. He wanted a certain group of people to not have the same status in society he himself enjoys. That goes beyond expression. That's using your money, effectively your power in society, to step on some elements of that society.

Pacabel5• 12 years ago

I have to ask, do you realize how hypocritical some of your statements sound?

I'm talking about ones like, "I for one am glad that he was put through the wringer and hope anyone else that believes in any form of discrimination and wants to lead a company gets the same treatment or worse."

On one hand you decry discrimination, but then on the other you encourage discrimination against people who you've deemed to have engaged in discrimination. It's very contradictory, and suggests that you in turn should then be subjected to some very negative treatment, "or worse".

kjjw12• 12 years ago

Our rights should extend only so far that they do not inhibit the rights of others. At least, that is what I believe.

He has overstepped that line.

steven20126• 12 years ago

There is no hypocrisy. Being punished and being discriminated against are two absolutely separate things.

coldpie5• 12 years ago

This is a false equivalence. You are presupposing that being pro-marriage-equality and anti-marriage-equality are positions of equal moral value. They are not.

It's like claiming someone being placed in prison for murder is being "discriminated against" for being a murderer. No, we are punishing despicable behavior.

kijin4• 12 years ago

hope anyone else that believes in any form of discrimination and wants to lead a company gets the same treatment or worse.

Is it okay to discriminate against people who discriminate? I'm not being sarcastic, it's a serious philosophical question.

Why do we even apply fair procedures and guarantee the rule of law for murderers, many of whom are racist, misogynistic, and/or homophobic? They discriminate, so why shouldn't we discriminate against them, too?

You're right, it's a human rights issue. But the thing about human rights is that even people who violate other people's human rights retain human rights of their own, merely in virtue of the fact that they are a specimen of Homo sapiens. Without human rights, we'll be left with nothing more than an endless cycle of discrimination, which quickly becomes indistinguishable from an endless cycle of vengeance.

steven20126• 12 years ago

As I mentioned below, you have confused discrimination with punishment. Eich is not being discriminated against, he is being punished. He lost his job because the people he worked for and the customers of his company's product did not want his as their CEO.

If he never works in the tech industry again because he is a shunned pariah, then that would probably be discrimination.

glomph2• 12 years ago

It isn't a new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

tragic• 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but this is fatuous.

Only the most recent declarations of human rights have included any provisions about sexual orientation at all. The UN declaration was in 1948 - hardly a friendly time for homosexuals. The US bill of rights was held widely, really until the Civil War, to enshrine - implicitly in its provisions on private property - property in people. LGBT people have had to fight hard even to get to the point where gay marriage is even thinkable, let alone considered a fundamental human right, partly because "it's a human rights issue" is question-begging in the extreme. What's your definition of human rights? I bet Brendan Eich's is different. You won't prove one or the other from first principles, I guarantee you.

What we have here, with this little brouhaha, is political bikeshedding. Gay marriage is hard. We just got it in this country (the UK), almost 50 years after homosexual acts were first partially decriminalised. In the US, it seems to be a matter to force through on a tedious state-by-state basis. The obstacles to doing so are huge - because millions of Americans (and millions of British, etc), well organised in right-wing pressure groups and militant churches, consider homosexuality to be depraved and sinful.

Meanwhile, in the tech world, people are generally upping their consciousness on this issue and others. Good. But this is not a problem individuals scattered around an industry can solve. It's a matter for political movements of concerned citizens and always has been.

But there's Brendan Eich. We know very well he donated a whole thousand dollars to the campaign for a cruel, vindictive law (although only because somebody dug it out of CA state records - not because he's on record stating his views). He is in a prominent and vulnerable position of influence - on our turf. Heck, he's in the Valley! We may not be able to do anything about victims of homophobia in West Texas, but we can do something about Brendan Eich. And doing something, apparently, is always better than doing nothing.

Yes, Eich's opinions are vile, and he should be challenged to drop them. But he's not the problem. If he has conducted himself in a bigoted way in his many years as CTO, then that would disqualify him - probably under state or federal law, never mind the morality of it. If not, then there is no material difference whatsoever to LGBT people at Mozilla - any more than there are to LGBT contributors to ES6 or whatever. Don't worry about right-wing hackers who keep their opinions on the quiet and on the side. Worry about the televangelists, the tea party and the rest who breed bigotry to scale.

fredgrott• 12 years ago

In a way we did..

If we carry it to its logical conclusion that the Marriage License is free from religion than by that concept a Muslim living in the US should be able to Marry multiple wives and so should Mormons..

naterator• 12 years ago

There are people fighting for those rights as well. And I don't think they're insane (as you seem to imply). As long as it's clearly agreed upon between consenting adults, it's not so ridiculous. Perhaps the logistics of that are more complicated, but should they be denied that if they really want it?

camus23• 12 years ago

And you know what, that's perfectly fine to me, as long as they are all adults,they are not forced, and they can divorce. Why should we impose whatever notion of marriage on mormons, or muslims ? if they want to have 12 spouses ,let them have 12 spouses...

intslack7• 12 years ago

I agree with Sullivan's take[1] posted yesterday. If this is the gay-rights movement today, a bunch of extremist Social Justice Warriors, I want no part of it.

Not only that, but Catlin's reaction to it[2] is also shameful: 'oops, we thought he would evolve like President Obama did, our bad. but hey, we're putting our apps back on the marketplace!'

[1] http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-br...

[2] http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/04/03/a-sad-victory/

intull• 12 years ago

If this is the gay-rights movement today, a bunch of extremist Social Justice Warriors, I want no part of it.

Partially true. This episode has been disturbing, yes, but at the same time, it has held strong by the community and the public. And it'll only get stronger till there is equality. It is the frustration of people, friends and family which makes episodes like these escalate. Only a strong movement can bring an impact.

So are they a bunch of "extremists"? No. Are they moderators then? No, again. Its somewhere in the middle.

SchizoDuckie• 12 years ago

Very very intolerant and hypocritical of everybody that basically bullied him away. There's finally a self made rock star in a position of power and somehow people have played in such a way that he's the boogie man. Over a fricking PERSONAL point of view.

I can make many many analogies to other businesses and some religious institutions, but this would have happened nowhere but Mozilla.

Stop using #mozilla for your anti-gay/pro-gay/liberal/conservative/libertarian platforms. Read the manifesto: http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/

edent4• 12 years ago

He just didn't have the right culture fit for Mozilla.

(Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere.)

Essentially, it's really hard to lead people who don't respect you.

We can all have a civil disagreement about whether vi or emacs is superior, or if Political Party X is better than Y. But when you specifically attack the fundamental rights of your employees and their friends / family, then refuse to apologise for it, you're simply not going to be a credible leader.

Here's the other thing - in capitalism, you have to listen to your customers. If the "Moral Majority" wants to boycott your shop/browser/TV show because your CEO isn't sufficiently deferential to their god - they can go for it.

If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not.

In Mozilla's case, they have (belatedly) seen the way the world is turning. Good for them.

DougBTX• 12 years ago

He just didn't have the right culture fit for Mozilla.

I find that hard to believe, his Wikipedia page says he started working for Netscape in 1995, founded mozilla.org in 1998, and helped found the Mozilla Foundation in 2003. If it was a culture fit problem, it took a long time for them to find that out. Seems more like a lynching after he became too publicly known.

edent4• 12 years ago

You appear to have your irony filters set too high...

The point I'm trying to make is that we see countless example of "Culture Fit" being used as a poor excuse to get rid of an employee for having the temerity to be female, gay, disabled, an ethnic minority - or anything other than the narrowly defined "bro" culture which sadly seems to infect some high-tech companies.

coldpie5• 12 years ago

more like a lynching

Yes, being fired from a powerful position because you actively tried to deny some of your employees and fellow countrymen their human rights and dignity is exactly the same as being hung from a tree for innate characteristics.

Get some perspective.

visualR2• 12 years ago

If the business wants to succeed, it has decide whether it will be more profitable to capitulate or not.

economic blackmail is wasteful and silly. I'm an atheist are you ok with the religious attacking my livelihood as a small business owner? That's not capitalism that's the dark ages.

edent4• 12 years ago

It's neither wasteful nor silly. It's the only avenue of protest left available to citizens in a capitalist society.

In the UK, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate when offering services to the public - you can't stick a sign up in your bar saying "No Gay/Black/Atheists Allowed."

But, as a customer, you have the absolute right to vote with your wallet. If you don't like my stance on Open Source, don't buy my products. If you hear the pub landlord cracking a homophobic joke, you can either politely ask him to change his opinion - or you start drinking somewhere else.

As an atheist myself (nice to meet you!) I wouldn't want you or me to be attacked or harassed. That hasn't happened here. Customers have said "well, if that's your attitude, I'll go elsewhere."

The only other thing we can do is ignore it - and that's simply not an ethical option for many people.

amalrik_maia• 12 years ago

nnq• 12 years ago

Will we ever stop conflating opinions with competency, in general? A person can just as well be a full-blown racist or xenophobe and at the same time a very competent leader. The only thing you show when pushing someone down from a leadership position because of some of his opinions is that "that was not a real leadership position, we just needed a puppet good for PR".

Human beings are not things you can take "as whole". A person can be total asshole in one aspect and a great guy in another aspect. You need to see people as "bags of ideas that happen to coexist in a mind and body" and the concept of "individual" as mostly an illusion, and look for the bags with the most good pieces, even if they can have some poisoned beans in them. And it's the same thing for leaders. If you look for an "overall great human being with no great flaws in any aspects" you can only get: (a) a mediocre person that is not "too bad" in any way but also not exceptionally good in any way or (b) a highly skilled liar and manipulator, most likely a very advanced psychopath, that can perfectly hide all his flaws and appear "overall an awesome guy". Oh wait, I've just described 99% of the world's leaders...

Another thing you get by going this way is that you end up with the people really "calling the shots" staying in the shadows, leading through puppets they manipulate and being completely unaccountable.

kijin4• 12 years ago

Some CEOs have donated to a political campaign of questionable merit on one occasion in the past.

Some CEOs kill elephants for fun.

And there are many shades of gray in between.

I'm not sure exactly where the threshold for "This guy needs to get lost" is, but I'm pretty sure the cutoff is somewhere between the two cases I just alluded to, rather than to one side of both.

Sure, Mr. Eich could try to fire gay employees (if that's legal, which I doubt), but he could just as well help make Mozilla an even brighter beacon of free speech than it already is, indirectly helping the LGBT community and thereby atoning for whatever sins he might have once committed against it. What matters is that the "community" (or some subset of it) didn't even give him a chance to demonstrate, through actual decisions, which path he will choose and how he will try to strike a balance between his personal beliefs and the needs of the community. I guess we were too impatient -- or more likely, too lazy -- to wait for some actually relevant evidence upon which to base a solid opinion.

What's next? Boycott FOSS products whose authors are found to be religious? DDoS attacks on companies that donated to Romney's campaign? By the way, is anyone still using ReiserFS?

kefka2• 12 years ago

Sure, he could try to fire gay employees (if that's legal, which I doubt)

It is legal in 29 states to fire someone for their sexual preference.*

*Source http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/10/18/...

kijin4• 12 years ago

AFAIK Mozilla is based in Mountain View, California, where (according to your infographic) it is indeed illegal to fire someone for their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Not sure if that also applies to remote workers who live in other states, though.

breakall• 12 years ago

The blog posts, comments, and tweets aren't really what provided the direct pressure for him to resign.

Far more likely that corporate partners, donors, etc. called the remaining board members or anyone else of any influence and told them that the money would dry up if this problem didn't go away.

I find it interesting that the fact of his donation came up in 2012 when he was CTO of Mozilla (the organization he co-founded). This didn't become an issue in 2014 organically -- again I think it's far more likely that someone had it out for Eich, and saw their best opportunity to revive a two year old issue and get rid of him when he became CEO.

zimpenfish3• 12 years ago

Or it's just that people are ok with CTOs having unpopular dodgy opinions (because the power and influence of that position is limited) but that becomes a -much- bigger problem when they move to being the CEO (figurehead of the company, etc.)

meshko• 12 years ago

Sigh. You are talking about the guy who created JavaSCript. Show no mercy.

kjjw12• 12 years ago

This article hits my two pet peeves.

Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to.

Also, please don't use the term 'meritocracy'. Ever. Are you referring to the idea of rubber stamping people for positions of power based on their parents ability to pay for for the most expensive university courses and degrees? No, I didn't think so.

pbhjpbhj9• 12 years ago

Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to. //

Lets suppose I believe the exact opposite. Doesn't your claim then extend beyond you and infringe on my rights.

Or better yet let us suppose that a society has a right en masse, for example for taxes to be used to aid child-rearing. That could infringe on your conception of personal rights too.

As to meritocracy - you appear to confuse the term with plutocracy. Now it's true that those from privileged families may be better able to perform certain tasks, but to refuse to allow them to perform those tasks simply because their families are rich, isn't that rather ridiculous? Meritocracy is quite the opposite, if you can perform the task to a sufficient degree is the only measure; whether you have been to an expensive university or not is irrelevant to the meritocrat.

kjjw12• 12 years ago

No I am not confusing the word at all. A meritocracy is a society built on the idea that one must (quite literally) gain a 'merit' before being considered for some role. This is open to obvious abuse - the ones that get into power can decide how one can gain the merit. In the US, it has been decided that one must pay for it.

I repeat: you have completely misunderstood the definition of the word 'meritocracy'. The condition is not 'can you perform the task' but 'do you have the requisite (and very literal) merit (passed an exam, for example.)

Don't worry though - a lot of people make this mistake.

dragonwriter2• 12 years ago

Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to.

That's a nice idea if you don't think about it closely, but it doesn't work because rights always interact and you have to decide which takes priority in which circumstance. You can't just assert that they stop somewhere before they infringe on each other and leave it at that, because that doesn't actually resolve the boundaries.

The easy answers are easy because they aren't actually answers at all.

kjjw12• 12 years ago

Of course - the boundaries must be tested. And in fact they likely must change depending on circumstance. I did not imply that someone could write up some set of rights somewhere that are so perfect they do not overlap. But such boundaries do exist and should be considered.

danpalmer2• 12 years ago

We should not be tolerant of intolerance.

hajile• 12 years ago

Building a moral framework atop a paradox seems like poor logic to build upon.

Here's a related point: All governments rely on the persecution of groups (almost always minorities) for their continued power. Government would cease to exist were it not persecuting people.

You're simply quibbling with Eich over who gets persecuted (and more basically about who's morals are superior).

Keep in mind that his "intolerant action" was only intolerant if the state dictating personal morality is good (I would note that things like murder are uni-directional intra-personal actions and thus quite different).

I think a better answer is to abolish government-dictated marriage and allow people free reign in their private lives as this satisfies both the gay community and the anti-gay community while also solving the issues of less-vocal groups (eg. polygamists). In fact the general principle of government staying out of citizen's private lives solves a whole host of issues.

danpalmer2• 12 years ago

Maybe I didn't say this in the right way. What I'm really saying is that I will 'tolerate' or accept any view point as being fine, and entirely a persons right to hold, unless they are holding one that is actively intolerant to others. I don't think part of being tolerant is to sit back while others are abused by those who don't share our views.

It's his personal right to hold his belief, but once he put that into action by making the donation, or if he had voiced his views publicly, that now means we have a duty to hold him accountable, rather than sit back and let him do what he wants. In this case, I think demanding Eich not lead Mozilla because of his views is an appropriate way to hold him accountable.

sehr2• 12 years ago

could this be considered recursive?

Jean-Philipe• 12 years ago

I accidentally upvoted this post. Can I undo my vote?

smallsharptools• 12 years ago

I'm not sorry. He can disagree with other people and make decisions about his own life, but once he gives money to a cause that is working to restrict the basic rights and freedoms of others he's crossed the line.

I'm not sorry one bit.

pbhjpbhj9• 12 years ago

All CEOs that [don't|] support abortion should be fired then?

enekomh• 12 years ago

This is bullshit. I am not discriminating him. I am punishing him with the power I have (my freedom to not use the products of his company) to punish his discriminating point of view. The same way he has the right to use his money to help a discriminating law go ahead, I have the right not to use his products and criticize his opinions.

unreal372• 12 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Prop 8 pass? I mean, didn't the majority of California voters vote in favor of Prop 8? It was only struck down after by the courts.

Seems like there's a lot of people who should be forced to resign from their jobs over this. Not just one.

wonderzombie• 12 years ago

We failed him? How overwrought can you get?

He wasn't incarcerated, executed, sued, or tried for a crime. He lost his job. As we're all fond of implying here, there's no right to employment, let alone the right to be a CEO.

Don't hide behind "meritocracy" and "tolerance" to defend morally repugnant ideals. You demean those words and yourself. You reveal your lack of understanding of what an open and free society means when it comes to the more vulnerable, less privileged members of same.

dragonwriter2• 12 years ago

He lost his job.

He quit his job. It may be that he was forced to quit to avoid being fired, but that's not at all clear.

dgivney• 12 years ago

Basic humanity, that's what we do.

Brendan Eich, We’ve Failed You. I’m Sorry.

Related Stories