
Brendan Eich - jseliger
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2014/04/06/brendan-eich/
======
jchrisa
In my opinion the real issue has little to do with Brendan Eich's political
views. Regardless of how you stand on the issue of whether one's politics
should impact one's suitability for a job, no one can claim surprise at the
community backlash. Least of all the Mozilla board.

The real issue is that the Mozilla board saw this coming, and didn't think it
mattered to upset a big chunk of the community. That is hubris, plain and
simple.

When your organization is dedicated to community, you can't put community
second in your decision-making process. The decision made the Mozilla board
look out of touch with their mission.

Following this line of thinking, you can see how even an ardent opponent of
gay marriage could be upset by Brendan's appointment, purely on the basis that
risking the community is the last thing they should do. I wish more of this
discussion would be about the Mozilla board's tone deaf decision, and less
grandstanding about politics or freedom of speech.

~~~
mcav
It's unreasonable to expect the Mozilla Board to have the foresight of the
community's reaction. There was no large sect upset by Brendan's appointment
on political grounds. There were a few squeaky wheels, a few silent ones, and
a silent majority that had no problem with it.

Hubris? Nah. They just misjudged the ability of the media and vocal critics to
not spin a historical donation as a wildly out of scope controversy for the
sake of attention, pageviews, and a misguided sense of social rights.

~~~
crygin
As a single, useless data point, I'm not at all involved in the Mozilla
community (though I've been a user for a very long time), or in the same-sex
marriage fight, nor am I a resident of California. And my first thought when I
heard the announcement was basically "really? The Prop 8 guy?"

This is pretty basic stuff for high-profile executive appointments...

~~~
mcav
I agree that it should have come up in the discussion; I think that even if it
did, it is a reasonable decision to think that his appointment as a whole
would be worth the risk.

That's really what this was -- a calculated risk, just like all CEO
appointments. I think it's just as reasonable to believe that it could have
gone the other way -- that there wouldn't have been as big of a backlash.

------
daleharvey
Its fairly sad that the only post about this whole situation that isnt writing
linkbaiting headlines to the point of lying is filled with fairly weak
arguments.

Its a divisive topic, and it deserves to be, but I would really love to see
more thoughtful conversations being given attention, despite them not having
catchy titles like "employees revolt"

* [http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html](http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html)

* [http://ryanmerkley.tumblr.com/post/81840965137/get-right-wit...](http://ryanmerkley.tumblr.com/post/81840965137/get-right-with-difference)

* [https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2](https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2)

~~~
001sky
The third link ("for the record") is particularly useful.

Just FYI -- It is also part of this submission (liked in text). And also was
submitted earlier on HN. And promptly burried by flags etc. During the
#Hot_topic discussion the day the news came out.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7535127](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7535127)

~~~
Camillo
The subtitle is more memorable: "For the Record - and The Tragedy of Mozilla".

That was definitely a better article than this one. I'd say that the flagging
over the past few days has had a negative effect on HN's ranking of posts.
Perhaps the mods could step in to counteract it under such circumstances?

------
MichaelGG
As terrible these threads tend to be...

Eich might have defenses, but Philip's writing here is extremely weak.

1\. A lot of people aren't viewing it as a "political" view like they would
taxation or immigration. They see it as straightforward human rights. Just
like we'd expect backlash against someone against "interracial" marriage. Even
if we're saving those cross-race couples from expensive litigation!

2\. He spoke about his views and got all cagey. If it was an accidental
donation for a friend, he could simply admit so. Instead he refuses to
elaborate. Perhaps he hates Prop8 and just wanted to see where this would end
up. Or perhaps he is against all marriages in their current construct. If such
things were true, then he could state his proper views and it'd be finished
and mostly blown over.

3\. It still might be an overall loss as civil rights will almost certainly
end up in the right place. But it's not clear that an open web, for as much as
Mozilla is fighting for that, will happen. I'd accept a hand from the most
evil person in the world if my alternative was drowning.

~~~
outis
I agree that Greenspun's arguments are disappointingly weak.

I'd like to try to tackle your point 1, since I haven't seen people do that
before. I should preface that I am indeed in favor of marriage equality, yet I
think that it is incorrect to treat it as a human rights issue, or even an
issue of equality before the law.

If you treat it as such, then marriage itself (or, rather, its sanctioning by
the state, with all the attendant privileges for married people and
corresponding burdens on the community) is an inherently discriminatory
institution. Fiscal benefits? Extended insurance? Visitation rights? Why
should these privileges be enjoyed solely by married people?

Countering that anyone who wants these benefits can get married is as obtuse
as pointing out that homosexuals always had the right to marry someone of the
opposite sex. If I am unmarried, why can't I name my cousin as a dependent for
health insurance? Why can't I have my best friend immigrate to the US to be
with me, instead of a spouse I don't have? What if I plan to be celibate all
my life, but have strong platonic relationships? What if, instead, I am a
polygamist?

It's quite obvious that, if these are indeed civil rights, let alone _human_
rights, then any individual citizen should be able to enjoy them; and those
that necessarily involve more than one person should be applicable to any
pairing (or group?) of a citizen's choosing. Why should people who are not in
a romantic relationship be treated as second-class citizens?

If, instead, they are not human rights or civil rights, but privileges granted
by the state because there is a public interest in encouraging and supporting
marriage, then the question of how far and to whom these privileges should
extend is a perfectly legitimate matter of debate.

~~~
MichaelGG
I strongly agree; the entire setup of marriage enshrined in law the way it
currently is is just wrong. It discriminates against polygamists, as you note,
any certainly other groups. The societal rights and burdens of marriage should
definitely be available to arbitrary consenting parties.

Even more so then, that the genders of the parties involved are completely
irrelevant.

------
chasing
Brenden Eich did not bother to clarify any of this (as far as I know), so
we're all left to our own best guesses as to what he believes and why he gave
that money.

And, sure, maybe someone broke into his home and held a gun up to his head,
forcing him to give that money. Or maybe he got a bit too drunk at a pro-gay
marriage rally and accidentally checked the wrong box while making a donation.
I can imagine a million excuses.

Or maybe he just doesn't like the homosexual lifestyle for whatever reason and
decided to support the continued pointless theft of freedom from a large class
of Americans.

~~~
kevingadd
If you read the article linked in Greenspun's post you would know that Eich
could not have actually clarified his views without violating Mozilla
guidelines. He has been very consistent about adhering to those guidelines.

~~~
MichaelGG
He could not clarify his views if they conflict with Mozilla's (if they're
exclusionary). So if that was the reason, then that sort of clarifies his
views, doesn't it?

------
bbunix
The real issue is that he was appointed CEO of a non-profit... dependent on
the generosity of others for its survival. Controversy, like this is
kryptonite to _all_ non-profits. Eich gets points for stepping down rapidly.

~~~
timv
Technically he wasn't the CEO of a non-profit.

He was CEO of Mozilla Corp (for-profit) not Mozilla Foundation (non-profit).

However, the majority of people will not know or care about the difference so,
in matters such as these, the difference is negligible.

------
cma
If Brendan Eich used to be a Grand Wizard of the KKK, it might alienate some
people, even if we weren't sure of his current views.

~~~
clarkm
Was there ever a movement to force Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) to resign? He
was actually a former member, but he kept winning elections until his death in
2010.

~~~
jdp23
Tyler Lopez contrasted Byrd and Eich in his Slate article about Mozilla:

After years of publicly promoting virulently racist ideologies, Byrd came to
see the harm he had caused, eventually noting in his memoir, "It has emerged
throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very
graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career, and
reputation." But he didn’t stop there. In fact, he never stopped apologizing,
once saying in 2005: "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in
America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over
and over again. I can't erase what happened." By acknowledging his past racism
so candidly and emphatically, Byrd salvaged not just his career but also his
dignity.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_h...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_homophobic_past_should_we_forgive_him.html)

~~~
clarkm
So here's something to think about: Why do people find it so easy to forgive
Robert Byrd yet so hard to forgive George Wallace?

~~~
MisterBastahrd
I personally hold both in extremely low esteem. I suppose their apologies
would mean more to me if they weren't groveling for mercy of how people would
remember them at the ends of their hateful lives. Not that it matters, but if
they truly meant the words they said and were alive today, I would wish them
peace, but the funny thing about legacies is that they're usually founded on
what you did more than what you said. We put kids in prison for decades for
crimes that impact virtually nobody but these monsters terrorized hundreds of
thousands behind the force of government and got away with it.

------
wvenable
This post begins with a lot of questions:

> “How do we know that he is anti-gay? Has he been quoted as saying anything
> against gay people? Can we reliably infer from a donation made in 2008 what
> his opinions might be in 2014, six years later? Do we know anything about
> why he made the donation six years ago?

I think the worst bit of PR about this whole thing is that Brendan didn't just
come out an answer these questions when this became an issue again. You could
easily argue that he is no way required to do that, and I would agree with
that, but that course of action doesn't make the issue go away.

I also feel like Brendan and Mozilla misunderstood the issue from the
beginning. The concern people have is not limited to equality _at Mozilla_ but
concern people have with equality _in the world_. The official statement made
by Brendan and Mozilla was limited to the former and placated no one.

~~~
kevingadd
He _couldn 't_ answer those questions because doing so would have been against
the guidelines he agreed to as a Mozilla employee & contributor. All the
interviews were with Brendan Eich, the new Mozilla CEO, not with Brendan Eich
the person.

~~~
wvenable
Whether or not he _couldn 't_ or _wouldn 't_ or just _didn 't_ the result is
still the same. This whole situation was easily diffused in many ways.

------
ojbyrne
The first comment on that post points out the most obvious logical fallacy of
this post - CEO != employee. The primary role of a CEO is to be a spokesperson
for a company, and as such, what they say (and political donations, at least
according to the Supreme Court, are speech) matters.

------
mythz
What's surprising in all this was that his 2008 donation was already old news
known back in 2011, it just took a new news cycle as his new role as CEO for
the story to be resurrected and for it to create a backlash essentially
personifying him as a major Prop 8 activist, when he was just a single donator
in 2008, known only to the public due to Californian law requiring donations
to be open for public record and as far as anyone can tell has has never made
any public comment in favor of Prop 8 or otherwise since.

A pretty complete and accurate account of the events were captured by a
Mozilla employee in:
[https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2](https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a2):

In essence, the entire incident felt like mob Internet justice dispensed,
where he was depicted as the Prop8 leader and if you believed in Prop 8 you
should also be demanding his resignation. Like many divisive issues with
strong public opinions online before it, it doesn't take long before it
descends into forming divisive stand points, fusing characters involved with
the issue itself and opponents demanding maximum harm and consequences. It
seems all to easy to demand the end of someones lifetime career.

It will be interesting whether public crucifixion and boycotts will continue
for the hundreds of other employees of major tech companies that also donated
to Prop 8 (of which Obama was a supporter in 2008), where more than 60% of
Intel employees that donated were in favor of Prop 8:
[http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-
mar...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-marriage-
donations-in-silicon-valley/)

I don't understand what the message is in all this, that if you donated (or
voted?) you should not be allowed to be a CEO of a technology company? Any
company? Even a company you founded? Even after 6 years without any signs of
discriminating behavior? How long should it take or is it a life-sentence?

It's also concerning the major role Media can have, who seemingly have the
ability to be a catalyst victim selection and control of public opinion, able
to spark outrage with their influence and interpretation bias.

Will it end here, or was Brendan Eich just an example of token justice? Seemed
strange that out of all donators, a founder of the Mozilla foundation and a
crusader for the open web, ended up being it.

~~~
MichaelGG
Are other companies owned by foundations and mainly a "community"? Does it
seem strange that a community to further help the Internet would be strongly
for equality? Or even that they might think that arbitrary restrictions based
on gender is an inelegant hack, and someone that would favour arbitrary rules
to not be thinking very well?

And are other companies really beholden to their users so much?

The duration wasn't relevant as he explicitly declined to say anything about
his "personal views", leading people to believe he still supports them. Other
companies are fairly good at backpedaling and saying they didn't really mean
it, whatever it may be.

And anyways, no one is saying he's not allowed to be the CEO. Just that
apparently a lot of people got annoyed at that and felt it to be wrong in some
way. I don't see any "life sentence" here. If I start promoting the idea that
stupid people be discouraged from reproducing, I shouldn't be surprised that
folks might not want me in a public role, even if I'm right.

The whole mob mentality is a bit concerning - I don't recall much discussing
about Eich's suitability or the higher importance of what he's doing.

GoDaddy got quite a bit of hate due to the founder smiling with a shot
elephant.

~~~
mythz
Yeah a couple of Mozillians who've worked closely with him mentioned news of
the donation were at odds and struck them by surprise, also because it was not
otherwise observable in any of his behavior.

It starts to become a litmus test when trying to define when it's acceptable
to boycott and demand resignation. Was Mozilla a special case because of their
mission and foundation status? What behavior makes someone's position
unacceptable? A large donation? a small donation, a vote? Or is it due to
outside community consensus at the time? so when the donation was discovered
in 2011, it wasn't appropriate, but reappearing after more passing years it
is?

------
cpeterso
Does Mozilla even need a CEO? Are there examples of large organizations (with
>$100M annual budgets) that are run using a more democratic model?

------
donniezazen
You must be really dumb to have contributed a 1000 bucks for an anti-humane
law and not be aware of it.

