Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/

by rrrazdan • 12 years ago

82 83 12 years ago

tiles• 12 years ago

The strangest omission from articles like these is the effect that it had on people inside Mozilla, many of whom spoke out. You can exclude every reaction given by people on Twitter, HN, and personal blogs—and Eich stepping down as CEO still seems like the likely outcome.

slantyyz3• 12 years ago

> many of whom spoke out

Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out?

I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely as others.

gcp3• 12 years ago

planet.mozilla.org has a blogroll.

ZanyProgrammer• 12 years ago

Conservatarian disagrees with progressives and concern trolls. News at 11.

sliverstorm10• 12 years ago

He's a self-proclaimed progressive, if I read that article right.

GFK_of_xmaspast• 12 years ago

He can proclaim himself to be whatever he likes, but money speaks and a thousand bucks to prop 8 is a pretty regressive act.

crazygringo• 12 years ago

You know, the flagging here on HN is starting to get annoying. 30 min ago this was on the front page, now it's at position #91:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055

Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing.

Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

briantakita10• 12 years ago

Censorship at it's finest. I also expect to be downvoted despite raising a good point, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

nailer2• 12 years ago

It might also be the controversy filter - the 'Eich stepping down' article also moved quickly from the front page.

sliverstorm10• 12 years ago

#102 now.

Do you think an HN algo is demoting it, or do you think people are using "flag" as a proxy for "disagree"?

wglb• 12 years ago

anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place

Well, there must have been on the order of 30 submissions of the anti-Eich articles that got no votes, but got flagged early.

mkr-hn• 12 years ago

Close to 1000 people saw my own article on the subject in the 5 minutes it survived the front page. Enough people to carry on a discussion if they were inclined to do so. I'm not too bothered by it.

wyclif3• 12 years ago

I came here to convey this same sentiment, well done. I agree that it's getting tiresome. This is a topic relevant to HN. Why can't it be discussed civilly?

Crito5• 12 years ago

Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; certainly nobody pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists.

It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a lot of ground to cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and sexuality equality.

briantakita10• 12 years ago

That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama?

People change.

This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary.

---

Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.

parfe• 12 years ago

People change.

What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same sex marriages should be annulled and banned?

npsimons4• 12 years ago

What evidence, besides the popular vote (52%? Wow, that's a big majority /sarcasm), that Prop8 was popular? How about factoring in the ton of money the Utah Mormons threw behind Proposition 8?

Crito5• 12 years ago

You're right, people change. And when people change, they can be forgiven.

Frankly all it would have taken to squash this controversy is an apology. I am confident that a quick "People change, I've changed. I understand now that people deserve the same rights and equal protection of the law, regardless of what gender they fancy." would have put this all to rest.

An apology is what we would expect from a CEO that was found to have been racist in the past. It is not unreasonable to expect it now. If he hasn't actually changed, therefore making an honest apology possible, then your "People change." is rather irrelevant, isn't it?

Edit: And downvotes are not censoring. Everyone can see and read your post even when you are downvoted, so quit your bellyaching.

wyclif3• 12 years ago

Your "gay is the new black" argument is invalid.

You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only” and “gay only” water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage” and being sold for raw goods.

Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle.

All of this is why I've always considered the "gay = racial minority" argument weak sauce.

mikeash2• 12 years ago

Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole controversy:

What are we supposed to do about it?

As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously happened.

Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact, the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe. Even then, what should we do? Writing long articles about how terrible it is doesn't help at all unless we have something we could actually do to change things.

What actual concrete proposal is being made? Is there one? Or are people just wringing their hands?

sliverstorm10• 12 years ago

The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.

mikeash2• 12 years ago

OK, and how do you do that exactly?

Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach for changing the public's behavior?

npsimons4• 12 years ago

Except for the fact that a large chunk of the support for _California's_ Prop8 came from outside the state (specifically: Mormon Utah), especially in the form of money. How do you counter that "sociopolitically"?

That aside, I can agree that someone shouldn't be crucified for a bad decision that is well in the past, especially if they've learned the error of their ways.

vidarh3• 12 years ago

I think you will find the public will learn the opposite of what you want: This is an example to progressives that they too in some situation have the power to send strong signals about standards expected of those who expect to be in leadership positions - even in private companies.

This has been the case "forever" for moralists on the right, from long before McCarthy. Try to become a politician or high level exec in the US while showcasing features of your personal life that does not fit into a relatively conservative, Christian narrative. Your odds just became vastly worse.

This is one in a short, but growing, set of examples of situations where people have been successfully ousted for supporting relatively mainstream but still bigoted viewpoints.

gcp3• 12 years ago

I think that's a good point. Realistically, once the cat was out of the bag and the initial PR response from Mozilla failed to connect, the matter was realistically out of their hands. They could've encouraged Eich to stay and weather the storm, ensuring that the controversy kept going and Mozilla itself remained in the background of the gay marriage question, or they could've let him do what he did, and now endure the controversy from the other side.

plorg• 12 years ago

Assuming for whatever reason that these things need concrete proposals and takeaways, and that criticism and analysis are not sufficient, maybe the idea is to suggest individual corrections in the readers' responses to things like this. Perhaps to not use the politics of an employee to judge a company unless, maybe, they were outspoken about those politics.

The point seems to be that pronouncing judgment for political expression only ends up making everybody more frustrated with the people with whom they disagree.

As someone who moves in circles heavily dominated by conservative evangelicals, I've been thinking about the parallels between this story and that of World Vision, the evangelical aid and development organization. They recently announced an intention to begin hiring married gay and lesbian people, if the marriages of those people were ordained by their congregations. This was described as a 'neutral' position in that they receive (or at least used to receive) support from quite a variety of churches including Episcopal, UCC, and ELCA congregations which support and conduct gay marriages where legal. But WV received a severe blowback from conservative church leaders and members, many who began withdrawing funding and child sponsorships over the desire to include married gay and lesbian people in their organization. Since the majority of their supporters come from more conservative churches, they decided after only two days to reverse course, lest they would no longer be able to support their core mission: to provide clothes, food, and shelter to those who need it around the world. This in turn disappointed and enraged liberals who had only cautiously supported the decision in the first place.

My point is that enforcing litmus tests, as described in the article, tends to divide people who have otherwise mutual goals to make the world a better place.

nailer2• 12 years ago

"Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?"

I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insisted they're fine with people having such viewpoints as long as they're never exercised) would not protest against other religions which hold similar viewpoints.

As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone. And also a shitty way to advocate gay rights.

crusso2• 12 years ago

As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone

Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable.

And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret?

You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.

fiter2• 12 years ago

I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?

tasty_freeze• 12 years ago

I've watched this from the sidelines, and I read the mozillazine blog site at least daily. There was plenty of support for Eich within Mozilla, and many gay employees blogged their support for him too.

I read mozilla's statement of "we let you down and should have been better" as referring not to promoting Eich, but that they let the internet infection fester and didn't attempt to lance it immediately.

If my read is correct, then the entire basis of Friedersdorf's article is wrong.

gcp3• 12 years ago

I agree. Though you could argue that the internal support for him also wasn't strong enough that he stayed on. Silent majority?

chez17• 12 years ago

I wonder if he had denied the holocaust or was an active KKK member if this author would be singing the same tune.

kyberias• 12 years ago

Yeah, and why not just compare him to Hitler?

slantyyz3• 12 years ago

Side note: Where I live, holocaust denial is a crime (considered to be hate speech). I was a little surprised to read that it's actually legal in the US.

gdwatson• 12 years ago

It's constitutionally-protected in the U.S -- a ban would require a constitutional amendment, which is very, very hard. Many of us on both sides of the political spectrum consider America's robust free speech protections to be the keystone of our society and government.

pvnick• 12 years ago

One of these articles has to survive the flagging brigade (likely made up of the same McCarthyites that brought us to this position) and stick to the front page. Maybe this will be it? It's certainly fair and well-composed.

Edit: Nope.

programminggeek• 12 years ago

Between the way our industry has handled this latest thing with Mozilla and the way that related issues like gender inequality is handled at various conferences, I am finding myself less and less wanting to be involved with the community at large. It feels more and more like if you disagree with what a very vocal minority believes, you are going to be ostracized to the point that you could lose your job.

I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I don't doubt that many of the other people that get caught up in these incidents are in a similar situation.

So, every time I consider speaking my mind publicly or even being involved in a public tech conference as an attendee, I think twice and am starting to just avoid them altogether.

It's sort of a shame because even local conferences are getting besieged by self-righteous people who are hell bent on righting some unintentional "mistake" by the people who work very hard to put them on in the first place. I find what our industry's community is starting to be something I don't much want to be associated with.

briantakita10• 12 years ago

It's not just the tech community. It's a broader issue with Social Media. I'm not sure if this is a minority view, however. It's mob justice.

I'm really bothered by this too. I feel like my freedom of expression is at risk by the internet mob.

vajorie• 12 years ago

I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal.

I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.

panarky• 12 years ago

You're getting downvoted for spreading disinformation. Be honest or be gone.

wyclif3• 12 years ago

I share all the same concerns you just voiced. It's unfortunate, but I think one of the unintended consequences of all this is that it will drive people into enclaves—exactly what the people who trolled Eich into resignation claim they want to avoid. But maybe fairness and openness is something they feel only they deserve. Political incorrectness apparently has no rights anymore in the Valley.

moskie• 12 years ago

Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position?

I don't think it's useful to try to find some blanket rule that works for this case and all other cases somewhat similar to it.

There's a lot of variables in play. The likeliness of affecting change. Eich's worth as CEO. What Mozilla stands for. How his political beliefs and political actions relate to people. The list goes on. Each individual with an opinion on the matter made a call, factoring in the variables that are important to them, and acted accordingly.

If you find Eich's specific beliefs regarding gay marriage to be disgusting enough to suggest he not take the specific position of CEO of Mozilla, go for it. Does that mean that you should protest against every CEO of every company you have stake in, if you disagree with them on some political level? No, of course not. You should make the call on a case by case basis.

themoonbus• 12 years ago

I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue, but one thing people sometimes leave out of the discussion is the fact that a CEO is the public face of the company. Part of your job is to "embody" or communicate the brand, mission, what have you, of the company you represent, and I don't think Eich had the ability to do that. His interview with the Guardian was bizarre, and not what I'd expect from a CEO dealing with controversy.

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

sliverstorm10• 12 years ago

It's sort of a dystopian fantasy that I don't really believe will actually happen, but you can easily picture the natural endgame for this sort of behavior. Much like union & non-union shops, you wind up with conservative & liberal companies. Not just companies that tend one way; companies that say "You want to work here? I'm sorry, I see you voted for Reagan, goodbye," Signs that read, "Liberals need not apply".

(Again, I know this is wild & somewhat exaggerated)

owenjones• 12 years ago

"In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees."

You know, except for contribute to Prop-8?

lisper7• 12 years ago

Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code. There is not, and never has been, any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimination against opponents of gay marriage is morally justified, just as discrimination against other kinds of bigotry is.

In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not morally justified on its own merits, it would be at least as morally justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to see enshrined into law.

sliverstorm10• 12 years ago

It's awfully convenient that his discrimination is immoral, while your discrimination is not only moral but a moral imperative, isn't it?

lisper7• 12 years ago

No, it's not convenient, it's simply a fact. The discrimination against Brendan was based on something that he did. Discrimination against gays is based on something that they are. The former is morally justifiable, the latter is not. It really is that simple.

microscopic2• 12 years ago

"He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot, that he has a broken moral code."

Just because a person is a bigot doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is a bad person.

I've met racist people and even I am able to maintain some level of respect for them. This is what being open-minded is.

Hurting people just because they have a different philosophical belief than yours is the same kind of narrow-mindedness that leads to racism and religious fanaticism in the first place. Back in the past, if you said the world was round, people would classify you as crazy by virtue of you having an opinion that the majority did not believe. This kind of narrow-mindedness holds back open dialogue and progress.

As 'bad' as it is to be your definition of a bigot, to denote all bigots as having a broken moral code is as negative as bigotry itself.

I hate how people have this misconception that you have to hurt people to make them change.

lisper7• 12 years ago

I didn't say he was a "bad person", I said he had a "broken moral code." Those aren't the same thing. Maybe his moral code is only a little bit broken and he's otherwise a fine person (I have no idea). But this little bit matters a lot if you're the CEO of a company.

BTW, I am not taking a position about whether removing Brendon was the correct decision (I don't have enough information to have an opinion about that), only that is was justifiable.

dragonwriter• 12 years ago

He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot

On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?

And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired), what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.

lisper7• 12 years ago

I simply used "fired" as shorthand for "pressured to resign." And I think it was because of his inadequate response, not the initial donation. If he had fully repented, apologized, admitted he was wrong, I think he might have been forgiven. But that's not what he did. But my point is simply that however you reckon it, his ouster was justified.

daveqr2• 12 years ago

the particular political donation he made is evidence that he is a bigot

This is silly. It's nothing of the sort.

lisper7• 12 years ago

Of course it is. It may not be proof but it is definitely evidence. He wants to deny gay people equal protection under the law. One of the reasons one might want this is anti-gay bigotry.

In fact, in light of the fact that all of the objective arguments against gay marriage have at this point been completely debunked, I don't see too many other possibilities.

pyronite• 12 years ago

Brendan Eich has the freedom to support what he wants to support. The public (and Mozilla employees) have the freedom to respond how they wish to respond. It is up to Mozilla to choose what to do with that public response and now they've chosen.

Too often this "what about freedom of speech?" argument fails to apply the same logic to both parties. People were unhappy that someone with this controversial belief was elevated to a leadership role – why should Mozilla employees have stayed quiet?

jessaustin• 12 years ago

I wonder what people will use instead of javascript now?

academicish• 12 years ago

Here is a topic I am tired of hearing about. Being liberal, apparently, means tolerating bigoted and backwards-looking values - rly?

daveqr2• 12 years ago

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

npsimons4• 12 years ago

People are more than free to express any opinion they have, including the opinion that bigoted discriminating opinions are wrong, and don't really fit the ideals of an organization such as Mozilla.

Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

Related Stories