
Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club - rcknight
https://gist.github.com/drtortoise/5dc254c614d6b6a19116
======
tptacek
I probably don't agree with Sandvik about Google's complicity, but that
doesn't matter. Silencing her to accommodate a company sponsor is both
unethical and counterproductive.

There are forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being
a director. If Sandvik was criticizing Google's participation with "Code Club"
or making claims directly relevant to the project, that would be germane to
the board. But that's not what happened here.

Silencing project members also doesn't help Google. Instead, it contributes to
a perception that any support Google has comes from the barrel of a financial
gun.

If Sandvik was given an ultimatum to stop criticizing Google to avoid annoying
a sponsor, that was a terrible mistake on the part of the project. They should
do what they can to correct it.

~~~
kjksf
It doesn't matter that what she says is a lie?

It's interesting how you twist yourself into a pretzel (you "probably", maybe,
a little bit, think that what she says about the sponsor is a lie) to end up
with the conclusion that her actions are somehow justified and the board is
committing some terrible crime of censorship.

The validity of her complains is very much the core of the issue.

She only gave one example (that Google is "involved in corporate mass
surveillance") and presumably that is in context of NSA spying and the
consensus around that is that it's a lie.

At her level badmouthing a partner is grossly nonprofessional. Spreading
vicious lies - that's a no brainer reason to fire her.

Also, let's not be naive about the context of her complaints. When she says
"when someone asks me..." she (or the board) doesn't mean "my college friend
at a dinner party" but "a member of the press".

And given the state of journalism, "the member of the press" is not interested
in Linda's perspective on Google's spying because she has literally nothing
new to add.

In that context the only value for the press is to reduce her views to a
click-baiting headline of "Code Club board member accuses sponsor Google of
mass surveillance" which would damage Google precisely because they were nice
enough to sponsor Code Club.

If she complained about AT&T (which actually did illegally spy on Americans in
massive constitutional violation, for which they received a retroactive
immunity), there would be no story because AT&T is not a Code Club sponsor or
Linda doesn't feel like complaining about AT&T.

I'm not privy to the details but the simplest interpretation of what we know
is that she was hell bent on spouting nonsense of the "Google mass
surveillance" kind to the press and the board was very justified in worrying
about a press creating a mountain out of a molehill to the point they felt
they had to intervene.

So far there is 0 evidence that Linda had some novel complaints that are
serious enough to risk damaging an organization that helps kids learn to code.
So far all I see a selfish, self-righteous individual.

~~~
ChuckMcM

       > It doesn't matter that what she says is a lie?
    

That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about this
situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?

I have observed that there are at least two weighting components to an
opinion, the person and the person's position. The same opinion uttered by a
programmer at corporation X has different weight than when it is uttered by
the CEO of the corporation. I have also observed that it can constrain the
ability of highly opinionated people to achieve positions of higher authority.

So without an understanding of what the statements were, and what her basis
was for making those statements, and even the context in which the statements
were made. It is not possible to judge the appropriateness of her actions.

That said, I have spoken to many managers who have been chastised at some
point in their career for expressing negative opinions about entities that
were important to the organization (sponsors, customers, investors, Etc.) How
folks internalize that feedback varies from individual to individual.

~~~
Alupis
> That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about
> this situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?

With no additional information available, it is not logical to jump to extreme
conclusions, in either direction. If anything, you should assume they don't
rather than they do (you know, the entire not-guilty until proven thing)

------
Someone1234
I'm conflicted. I respect someone for standing up for what they believe in
(freedom to express their views) but this also seems like one of those "pick
your battles" situations. Google like it or not are a key sponsor of Code
Club. They do some good and some evil, but they're a key sponsor, and as the
director you need to put the organisation ahead of your personal
issues/complaints.

The complaints might be entirely valid (and they likely are), but when you're
in that kind of position you might not have the luxury of expressing valid
complains about the people who literally pay the bills.

So I guess my thought is: Maybe this is best for all parties. Code Club gets
to continue, Linda Sandvik will be able to express herself openly, and Google
will be able to continue to be a Code Club sponsor without conflict.

It is just unfortunate that these personal complaints couldn't be put to the
side for the betterment of the organisation as a whole.

~~~
otakucode
Why do you take it as implicitly acceptable that Google should expect silence
about their bad actions simply because they sponsor the club? Is Google
sponsoring the club to support teaching kids to code, or to buy some
ideological allies in the tech ideas sphere? If the second, why should we
accept such a thing?

~~~
paulhauggis
From Google's perspective, why would I want to sponsor a group that thinks I
am evil (and spreading this opinion around)?

If I was sponsoring a company/group (IE: paying them money) and they said
anything negative about me, I would drop them in a second.

If they really don't like Google, they can deny their money and press as a
result of the sponsorship.

They didn't and then the director thought it was okay to spread her negative
opinion around. You don't get it both ways. She was obviously not on board
with the rest of the company and now has to deal with the consequences.

It seems many people commenting here want to be able to express any opinion
(bad or good) without any consequences. The world doesn't work this way.

~~~
escape_goat
It's true that the world doesn't work that way, in the sense of natural law:
it is neither inevitable nor predictable that one will be able to express any
opinion without consequences, and as you note, were _you_ Google, one would
not be able to express a negative opinion of Google without there being any
negative consequences. I have to concede this point because your own opinion
on the matter might well go into a (newly opened) file marked "things I don't
like about paulhaggis" that could hypothetically affect our future business
transactions, as individuals; people have opinions about each others opinions,
and form inferences about the other person based on those opinions.

However, there's a larger transaction going on here, in the sense of the
opinions about opinion sharing that are simultaneously shared when we voice
and respond to each other's opinions, and this transaction has a scope in
which Google's corporate motto, "don't be evil", has some meaning. (I'm not
asserting that Google will follow it, just that it has meaning.)

I'm going to use the game theory ideas of "cooperation" and "defection"
because most people who read HN are familiar with them. There is indeed a body
of opinion which holds that, in a cooperative system, the value for all
cooperators of the open development and sharing of information -- even
opinions; even distasteful opinions -- greatly outweighs any harm any one
cooperator should fear from that information, unless that entity is actually a
defector.

Google wishes to do good things to (a) invest in its own future, and (b) gain
moral standing as an entity, which it (rightly in my opinion) correlates with
brand effect and future market share. It has very little to fear from the
opinions of any one individual, barring some vast personal influence in
Washington or on Wall Street. I find it unlikely that Google -- in any
decision-taking sense -- actually intends to silence the speech of critical
individuals, simply because the signalling of opinion that that would entail
-- the opinion about opinion sharing -- would be a self-inflicted harm that
would far outweigh any possible benefit.

(It is possible, of course, that there are people at Google who share your
analysis of the situation and have acted independently to express displeasure
to the board.)

What the board has revealed about itself is a collective opinion which agrees
with your own. The board either feels that they should promote Google in
exchange for its funding, or that "the world doesn't work that way", and that
they should be concerns about retaliation against Code Club by Google in
response to the director's opinions. The board feels that Google will publicly
defect from the system of open information cooperation, and they themselves
are willing to (quietly) defect from that system in order to prevent Google's
public defection.

This brings the Code Club board of directors into conflict, in general, with
everyone who relies upon a cooperative system of the open and free sharing of
opinions, and that is why they face retaliation for their actions.

So, that is why you might want to sponsor a group that thinks you are evil and
is spreading that opinion around: because you wish to establish that you are
not evil, by supporting their actions despite their words, and that they are
therefore wrong.

[ed: grammar]

~~~
facepalm
If she thinks Google is so evil she shouldn't (indirectly) work for them.

------
timigen
The Code Club board just taught their students a very important life lesson
about what happens when you stand up for whats right.

~~~
slantyyz
I'm not sure I understand what the life lesson is.

In my mind, the battle with the board should be "either we drop the evildoing
sponsors or I quit", not "I want evildoing sponsors' money but I still want to
retain the right to criticize them or I quit".

~~~
amorphid
I was on the board of my own company, along with my partner, and an outsider.
I learned the role of a board is to represent the interests of the
shareholders. If the company CEO is publically undermining the company's
partners, which may threaten the company's finances, the board MUST deal with
the CEO. Telling the CEO to knock it off or resign was the correct approach in
my decision. The CEO's role does not allow for speaking personal opinions that
conflict with the company's overall health.

I Code Club's board for taking a stand, and respect her for resigning.

~~~
timigen
Its a volunteer organization if I am not mistaken. Do they have a board?

------
petea
What is actually bad about Google's "corporate mass surveillance"?

It sure sounds scary, but when I actually try to think about what it is
actually bad about it, I can't really think of any.

Every single user Google got, they signed up voluntarily. Google never forced
anyone to sign up for their services.

Google attempts to learn about its users just like every other companies. It's
just that Google does it so much better than others. Do you get the label
"corporate mass surveillance", when the company becomes so good learning about
its users?

~~~
ssmoot
Informed Consent.

When I started using Google services many years ago, it definitely didn't
occur to me they could basically track you across half the web. And you don't
really get much of a choice in the matter. You can actively try to avoid
Google sites and they're probably not missing out on a ton.

But more importantly, my grandmother certainly doesn't have any idea what
they're doing.

And to be honest, I'm not much better off. So hard to consent to something if
I'm not even sure what all they're gathering, and what they're doing with it.

~~~
ewoodrich
>But more importantly, my grandmother certainly doesn't have any idea what
they're doing.

Great point. Users are strongly encouraged to create a Google account when
they setup a new Android device, and I suspect a significant portion have
little-to-no idea about how their data is used.

~~~
aikah
I believe you are supposed to read and agree the terms of an agreement when
doing that. 99.9% of the people dont even read the TOS.Who is to blame ? the
user or the corporation ? I think both parties own a bit of the problem.

------
mnarayan01
> "I do not want to get into the specifics of any particular corporation.
> Nonetheless, it’s worth restating that the Code Club board believe X are a
> tremendous partner. As a member of the board I am completely aligned with
> that view."

> I'm not comfortable with lying and so it is in my best interest to resign.

I'm not sure what part of that statement would be a lie?

~~~
Avenger42
I'd think it would be this part:

"As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view."

If she were asked to stop at "the board believe X are a tremendous partner",
then as a member of the board, she'd be implying the last sentence, but not
actually saying it. (I couldn't comment on whether or not she'd be fine with
the implication either.)

~~~
ryandrake
Serious question: Are all members of a company's board typically expected
unanimously agree ("align") with everything the company they direct does?

------
loso
If I had a sponsor and an employee was criticizing the decision to say
something to that employee would be based on how the criticism was done. If
the person mentioned that they just didn't like Google's surveillance program
then I would let it go. But if they ran around yelling about Google is evil
because of said programs then we would have to have a talk.

If I am running a small company and your personal opinions are costing me
money it would be crazy for me to keep you on. Not saying that is what
happened here but that is more of a response from some of the comments I have
read.

~~~
joelanman
Code Club is a not-for-profit organisation, and Linda was a founder. It may
cost them money, but don't the aims of the organisation come into it?

~~~
facepalm
Just because they are not-for-profit doesn't mean that they don't need money
to keep running their business. It also doesn't mean that nobody get's paid.

------
wehadfun
Good job Linda! These type of decisions are hard to make and too many people
are too selfish, scared, ... to make them.

------
automatthew
There used to be a proverb about this sort of thing. Something about being
careful when eating finger foods.

------
pessimizer
Not adding much to the conversation, but good on you, Linda. Money isn't the
only thing that matters.

------
kghose
Here's a thought. If you think google is evil because of surveillance should
you not only refuse to use gmail (and other google products) but also refuse
to send email to gmail addresses, because you don't want to support them?

~~~
schoen
This is a pretty real, concrete concern.

[http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-
bec...](http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-because-it-
has-all-of-yours)

(By the way, you can have this concern without thinking that Google is "evil":
for example, you might think that it's risky to have so much e-mail in one
centralized place and want Internet services to be redecentralized.)

------
kalleboo
Never forget: the mass media you read every day also has sponsors. NPR has
sponsors.

~~~
shuzchen
That's true, but the hope is these media outlets have the ability/integrity to
be critical of their sponsors when it is time to report the news.

------
peterwwillis
When Google tracking its [voluntary] users's activities on the internet
becomes human rights violations, the internet's social justice outrage machine
has jumped the shark.

Bad-mouthing your sponsors is pretty universally considered a business faux
pas. I don't see how it's either unusual or unethical to keep your opinions to
yourself when the funding for your organization is on the line. That said,
there's nothing wrong with caring about free speech more than teaching
children to code. People are entitled to their priorities, after all.

------
otakucode
Linda Sandvik sounds like a fundamentally good person, and the other members
of the Code Club board bad ones. Good on her. They will be harmed by her
absence, and they deserve that.

The belief that sponsorship can buy silence is disgusting and immoral.
Sponsorship should convey absolutely nothing aside from receiving credit for
assisting with the sponsored organizations goals.

~~~
pizza
I think you're reaching a bit there. It sounds like this was a conflict with
the board's practices more than anything, and this problem could have
manifested itself in numerous ways other than sponsorship alignment..

------
bostonpete
Are there a lot of companies/organizations out there that would be comfortable
with employees (or directors) publicly criticizing the organization or its
partners? Outside of journalists (who should expect/demand this sort of
freedom of expression), I suspect the answer is no. It's not clear to me that
Code Club's request was unreasonable.

------
trhway
> either I have to stop saying negative things about Code Club sponsors, or
> resign as a director.

sponsor is basically indirect employer. Don't bite the hand feeding you, it is
just unethical. Publicly saying bad things about your employer is a bad thing.
Resign and, only after that, say whatever you want as long as you don't
violate the non-disclosures you may had signed.

