

Mozilla Statement on Diversity - thepumpkin1979
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/03/mozilla-statement-on-diversity/

======
kapnobatairza
I don't particularly think the politics of an executive defines the corporate
culture of a company, so I'm not boycotting Mozilla just because the CEO has
made some questionable political contributions.

However this post sends the wrong message for one reason - It is left unsigned
by the CEO or anybody else in the organization. The omission of any sort of
statement on his behalf speaks more than had Mozilla not addressed the
concerns at all. At the very least, some high-level executive could have
signed the post. The fact it isn't signed by anybody makes it seem like what
could be a hollow promise.

~~~
quesera
Agreed. Eich needs to make a personal statement. We never questioned the
_organization_ , previously.

This is an important matter to the community which created and supported
Mozilla from the beginning.

To us, Mozilla represents freedoms and rights for all people. For the incoming
CEO to have taken a strong (and public) position at odds with that
representation suggests that Mozilla has changed, or will change, or that we
were mistaken.

This compromises Eich's ability to be an effective leader of the community. He
is presumed to support inequality, bigotry, and hatred.

How can we ignore this? Mozilla is bigger and broader and stronger than one
person, but Eich's presumed views are toxic and antithetical to what we
believe Mozilla stands for.

These views should not be elevated to a position of official and executive
leadership in our community.

------
bluthru
The fact that Brendan hasn't publicly changed his position or donated $1000+
to an LGBT organization (to offset his Prop 8 donation) means that this must
be a deeply held belief of his. I trust Mozilla will keep him on a short
leash, but it's still troubling.

~~~
angersock
What's wrong with it being a deeply-held belief? Hell, for that matter, what
exactly _is_ this position everyone keeps ascribing to him?

Other than the donation, what do we know?

~~~
ftfish
"What's wrong with it being a deeply-held belief?"

Wait, what? Alright, let's start from the beginning.

"Hell, for that matter, what exactly is this position everyone keeps ascribing
to him?"

It may seem like we can't really tell, because he never really openly
commented on this, but what we do know is this:

* he donated $1,000 of his own money to support Proposition 8

* the full text of Proposition 8 (according to Wikipedia):

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage
Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California
Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California.

Is it really hard to figure out that Brendan Eich is a man who would pay
$1,000 so that two consenting people in love can not marry if they are of the
same sex?

I am not a gay person myself and I think it's safe to assume you are neither.
And you might have read
[http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...](http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_marketplace/)
by now. But I really recommend doing a little bit of a research on the topics
of gay marriage and LGBTs to see what exactly is wrong with his belief that
LGBT people don't deserve basic human and civil rights.

Note: I was only responding to the quoted text. It's a whole another issue
whether he should resign as a CEO of an organization that prides itself for
being open and inclusive (or at least issue an apology and/or a statement of
his changed mind on this issue). Also another question is whether it is the
right solution to boycott a whole company which I am sure is full of people
who do not agree with the new CEO's belief.

~~~
Don_
>It's a whole another issue whether he should resign as a CEO of an
organization that prides itself for being open and inclusive (or at least
issue an apology and/or a statement of his changed mind on this issue).

Why would either of those options happen? Since when is a person not entitled
to his own opinions and beliefs? Him being the CEO has nothing to do with the
stand on diversity of the organization itself, that was the whole point of
Mozilla's statement. He is not firing his gay employees or enforcing his
agenda upon the organization because that has nothing to do with his current
position at Mozilla. In fact, the money he spent was his own, not Mozilla's.
One can do whatever the fuck one wants with his own money as long as it's
legal.

Making his stance against gay marriage public was probably not a good idea
from a business standpoint, but there's absolutely nothing from that that
should taint Mozilla's image.

~~~
ftfish
The real problem here is that he actually acted on his opinions. If someone is
a homophobe, racist or even a pedophile -- while they are not acting on their
opinions or whatever drives them, I agree, they are free to think whatever
they want. It would be better for them to work those issues out, but hey, if
they're not actually harming anyone, I don't personally care.

We don't really know yet how his personal beliefs will affect the company.
Read through some of the other comments here, I agree it could just be in very
subtle -- yet still negative -- ways.

What I think is more interesting is how this reveals how deeply rooted sexism
and homophobia are in our society. Yes, racism is still obviously a problem,
but think for a moment what the reactions would be if the new CEO was known to
have donated to KKK.

Here are some more fun exercises:

* what if the new CEO was a scientologist?

* what if the new CEO was an African American and it was revealed he donated to a group that attempts to make interracial marriage illegal again because he believes white people are sub-human creatures (the way the actual new CEO probably sees gay people, since he doesn't believe they deserve human and civil rights)?

* what if the new CEO was a neo-nazi sympathizer?

* what if the new CEO was a woman who really, really doesn't like men (and maybe even donated to some cause that attacks men or men's rights in some way)?

You can argue that all of these are just opinions. But where do we draw the
line? People are usually very inconsistent with that. Homophobia is tolerated
while putting a woman in a leading position makes people question this
decision. Heck, people get all riled up over Ben Affleck being the next
Batman, but the fact Bill Murray abused his wife doesn't stop him from being a
geek idol.

~~~
Don_
I'm sorry, but you haven't really made any real argument here that wasn't a
baseless non-sequitur or slippery slope, and apparently only acted on the fact
that you have a strong stance against this person. None of the examples you
provided really matter since it just so happens that the fact of the matter is
not the opinions or actions this person has in his private life, but what he
does for the organization (I'm also going to give you the benefit of ignoring
that you just did a huge reductio ad absurdum by comparing being against gay
marriage with the killing of black and jewish people).

Yes, making his opinions and actions public were a bad and stupid idea, but
he's not a criminal for having opinions that differ from yours, and his
current job isn't being the Pope. His job position isn't centered around his
morality, it's centered around his performance as CEO of the organization.
Again, stupid move to make his unpopular opinions public, yes. But having a
personal stance doesn't make him evil.

~~~
ftfish
What on earth are you talking about? Firstly, I don't even know this guy.
Actions in private life? His actions could have had a real impact on real
people if Prop 8 won. And while being murdered or have your loved ones killed
is technically worse than being derived of other human (and civil) rights,
human rights are human rights, they are here for everyone. The same for civil
rights.

It wasn't a "stupid idea" to make his actions public. Actually he didn't,
someone had to discover this. He's actually being a coward and won't even
admit what his views are.

And while it's not criminal to stomp on other people's human and civil rights
-- that is if those people are gay, one day it will be. Taking away (or at
least trying to) someone's rights does make you evil.

------
znowi
I think this statement is unnecessary. Eich's personal opinion on the matter
has never been imposed or interfered with official Mozilla business. It's one
of the most ethical companies I know.

------
cromwellian
Leadership views or behavior can influence corporate culture in subtle ways.
For example, by simply lending credence to the private views of others in the
company, that the bigwigs agree with them. People tend to align themselves
with the viewpoints of people in power, either subconsciously, or
consciouslessly (when brown nosing).

You could say that the private views of Chick-Fil-A's owner do not impact how
the company does business, but I think it would be naive to say that it
doesn't have some effect, both on the employees, and on people external to the
company.

Or to give a non-political example, if your CEO believes the best way to
motivate people is to scream insults at them, tell them their work sucks, or
otherwise keep them in a state of fear, then, even if it isn't official
company policy to do so, that management 'culture' will percolate down to
middle level managers, so that suddenly you have a whole hierarchy of
aggressive, alpha-male scream-bags who think they're the next Steve Jobs or
Bill Gates.

------
codezero
I am happy that Mozilla seems to be very diverse and that the staff are openly
expressing their feelings that it is a non-issue, but publishing something
like this seems pretty weird, like they are overcompensating. I also wonder
about all the people who aren't in the public eye who wouldn't write big long
blog posts, does everyone at Mozilla feel that it's just swell?

~~~
Osmose
mbrubeck mentioned that the staff asked for a public statement of some sort in
yesterday's weekly project meeting, I assume this is in response to that:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460581](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460581)

~~~
codezero
Thanks for that, I'm not sure this particular post is a compelling public
statement though, but I guess there's no way a singular statement could
ameliorate everyone.

------
Argorak
That statement is neither addressing the issue (some people have deeply held
problems with _the person of the new CTO_) nor giving any insight on whether
that was even considered this kind of reaction before choosing. It does in no
way attempt to speak to the people that were hit badly by this.

Your opinion whether this outrage is justified or not doesn't matter. It is
there and Mozilla should deal with it.

------
ronaldx
> even in states where it is not mandated

The whole statement suggests that Mozilla believe treating employees fairly
and equally (at least on the specific point of insurance) is somehow
remarkably good of them.

I found this a very negative statement which makes me think less of Mozilla.

------
ChrisAntaki
> Mozilla provides the same level of benefits and advantages to domestic
> partners as we do to married couples across the United States, even in
> states where it is not mandated.

That is awesome, actions speak louder than words.

------
davidgerard
This post is _literally_ a statement that Mozilla won't seek to actively
violate California employment law. That's the entire substance. Oddly enough,
I'm not convinced that rates applause.

------
trhway
personal beliefs of people in power do affect how they wield that power.
Opposite is true only for machines [not for long though].

------
bowlofpetunias
Coming from a country where this statement would simply mean "we're obeying
the law", I'm not particularly impressed by this cold and formal statement.

It about as strong a stance as saying "we provide clean toilets".

