
Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to “step down” - steveklabnik
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/mozilla-employees-to-brendan-eich-step-down/
======
eigenvector
The fact that they can come out and say this demonstrates that these
employees, the people best able to assess this, don't believe that Eich will
retaliate. That Mozilla is and remains a place where any employee can express
their views on political issues, even if they know they're contrary to the
CEO's. And that destroys any argument for Eich's role as CEO creating a
conflict with Mozilla's ability to welcome LGBTQ employees and community
members.

You have a right to work for whom you choose, but not to demand that everyone
above you in a company concurs with your political views. This is the social
media witch hunts we've seen in last few years reaching into actual corporate
boardrooms and tossing out a man's career because he holds a view that is not
only mainstream, but that he has demonstrated he won't bring into the
workplace.

Let me be clear: I believe Brendan Eich is wrong about gay marriage. But I
don't think the price of his convictions should be his career at Mozilla, a
company he's played a large role in building, when there is no documented
instance of him ever disparaging or otherwise harming LGBTQ employees or
community members.

~~~
Jormundir
I wouldn't call it a witch hunt. Now every Mozilla employee's work is
contributing to Eich's paycheck. The paycheck with which he will (has)
donate(d) to oppose gay marriage. If I was a Mozilla employee, this is not
something I would want to be contributing to.

This argument can obviously be applied to any employee in the company, but
it's severely exacerbated when it's applied to the CEO, who's getting a huge
paycheck and is serving as the face of the company. It would be nice if we
could separate his work from his personal life, but that separation does not
actually exist. His personal endeavors are fueled by his professional life.
(This is why we all work, really).

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
Do you support employees being fired for supporting gay marriage then?

I don't see any difference in the two positions (both are using their
paychecks to advanced a political cause), except that you personally agree
with one position and not the other.

~~~
PeterOliver
Where did all of this moral relativism come from?

What Eich believes goes against basic human rights. This isn't some argument
about tax rates.

~~~
twoodfin
I think free speech is a basic human right, too, but I wouldn't demand my CEO
be fired if he gave a million dollars to try to get a Constitutional amendment
passed to overturn _Citizens United_.

~~~
lotsofmangos
I'm sure there exists a political cause that if your CEO was funding it, would
cause you to demand their resignation or make you leave the company.

Say they are funding a campaign calling for speech restrictions of a group of
which you are a member, for instance. You presumably have a line somewhere.

~~~
dkuntz2
You're positive about that? They could fund a campaign calling for speech
restrictions for a group I'm a member of, and I'll probably feel peeved about
it (or even stronger feelings), but so long as it doesn't affect the
workplace, and the CEO is still doing their job, I wouldn't call for their
resignation.

~~~
lotsofmangos
That's pretty lucky for them then, because you won't legally be able to after
their bill goes through about speech in the workplace.

edit - that's a pretty unfair hypothetical, and it would be directly affecting
your work then, but I still suspect you have a line, if only to avoid things
ever getting a little bit too Kafka.

~~~
dkuntz2
I suppose it's lucky for them, but I don't see removing them as CEO as an
action helpful to the cause. It probably won't weaken their beliefs, and might
even strengthen them. They might even want to retaliate against the group they
see as booting them out.

I just don't think that stripping them of their lands and titles really helps
anybody. Arguably they won't have a source of income, except that they
probably would receive a fairly nice severance package, and could still look
for more work elsewhere.

\----

I really like your last line of "things ever getting a little bit too Kafka".

------
mikestew
Just the CEO? Who else shall we burn at the stake? Mary, the office manager,
goes to church every Sunday. How did she vote? John over in mobile dev is a
devout Muslim, I'll bet he doesn't take kindly to such things as gay marriage.
Time to start scanning through those campaign contribution records for Prop 8
and seeing if a JOIN on the employee database gives us any results.

I've always held to the idea that my job is to make my manager look good. I
don't know that mouthing off on twitter such that Ars Technica picks it up is
fitting to that philosophy.

~~~
intortus
There's a _huge_ difference between holding general religious beliefs and
contributing financially to a political movement specifically pursuing
institutional discrimination of a large class of Americans.

I'm a little troubled by the chilling effects that career and public opinion
can have on political expression, but it's hard to generate sympathy for
blatantly unconstitutional, horrendously discriminatory forms of political
expression.

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
You're wrong on two points:

a) Contributing financially to many religious institutions is explicitly
financing groups who opposed gay marriage, and is an activity than many
religious people undertake.

b) Advocating for something that in some views is unconstitutional is a
constitutionally protected activity. The practice itself may be
unconstitutional (I certainly think so), however, the political advocacy
itself is not.

~~~
intortus
a) When you fund "mormonism" or whatever, there is a _lot_ of plausible
deniability that you're not a bigot, as this is a huge population of people
doing a mix of things, mostly good. In contrast, when you specifically fund
Prop 8, you need a _really_ good excuse.

b) Advocating for something that is purely prejudicial and hateful is
deserving of censure.

As I said, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about holding people accountable
for their political views in general, but I do have some rationale for leaning
toward censure in this particular case.

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
Yes, the solution to all the ills of the world is to censor people who
(society|the majority|intortus) decides are purely "prejudicial and hateful",
because that will clearly make politics better and less oppressive!

I don't even agree with these people, but people who express views like yours
- that we should censor views we find distasteful so they can't even be
discussed openly - make it really hard to comfortably take a stand against
them.

I'm not for censorship, even of views I find extremely distasteful, and don't
advocating punishing people merely for holding or articulating them.

Is there any evidence he's done anything besides be part of the political
process, such as discriminate in the running of the nonprofit?

*Edit to fix typo.

------
rjknight
Should I be able to quit my job if I don't like my boss's politics? Yes
(though your boss should never be able to force you to quit, and should never
be able to use their position and authority to make you feel that you have no
choice).

Should I be able to ask my boss to quit if I don't like his politics? Yes
(though you should not expect him to agree to this).

Is it a good thing for the world in general if people are asked to quit their
jobs because of their politics? My instinctive reaction is that it isn't a
good idea, because we can't know what political views will be popular or
unpopular in the future (in other words, it could be _your_ opinions that make
you the object of some campaign in the future). I can't defend Eich's
opinions, but the principle that "you are not your job" and that what you do
outside of the job should remain outside is something that should protect
everyone and I'd require some pretty strong arguments to convince me
otherwise.

We should remember, however, that plenty of people don't have Eich's profile
or history of positive contributions (he was contributing to what became
Mozilla before Mozilla even existed). Political firings do happen, and people
do get fired for stuff that they might reasonably expect should be part of
their private sphere, and only sometimes does this result in a court case or
compensation being paid. Anyone who defends Eich's right to his political
views should remember that, the next time a colleague or acquaintance is on
the wrong side of an inappropriate dismissal.

edit: typos

------
david927
It's his personal view. What does freedom mean if it's only about views that
everyone likes?

~~~
ivanca
How far does it go? Would you say the same about a nazi or KKK member?

~~~
devrelm
Godwin's Law in 16 minutes. Not bad.

~~~
freehunter
That's not a Godwin. Nazis were/are well known to promote hate based on
differences between people and promote laws to keep certain groups oppressed.
It's a perfectly valid comparison.

------
brandon272
I have a huge level of mental conflict on this issue!

I am a supporter of equal rights and gay marriage. When I see comparisons made
to other civil rights issues (i.e. "Would we accept this guy as CEO if he
thought interracial marriage was wrong?" or "Would we accept this guy as CEO
if he thought women deserved less pay?") it seems like a no brainer to me
that, no, a person who held _those_ views would never be tolerated as a CEO.
And gay marriage, gay rights are an important issue and should be held in the
same regard. Using that logic, one could conclude he is not CEO material. Not
to mention that as a representative of the company they are getting some
unpleasant press over this, nor does he seem to have the confidence of his
employees that a leader should have.

On the other hand, it seems distasteful to me that we say to people, "We don't
like your views. You need to go away now." ... Shouldn't diversity of thought,
diversity of social and cultural and religious views be considered a good
thing in an organization? Shouldn't we be trying to build teams of people with
whom we _aren 't_ always going to agree on things with?

------
suprgeek
This is in a perverse way a Great test for Mozilla's stated commitment to
inclusiveness. Will they buckle under this pressure to have one of their
Employees (CEO) leave because of a Personal Stated opinion, (Barring any
evidence to the contrary) solely because of persecution for those views?

Watching this with great interest - how will it play out? Will Brendan Succumb
to the pressure and quit to avoid this issue becoming a distraction?

Will he ride it out? Provide clear guidance that it was a personal issue and
emphasize personally that this does not reflect Mozilla policy? Something
else..?

------
simias
I haven't followed that particular drama, are they asking him to step down
solely because of his anti-gay activism? Or are there other reasons as well?

Assuming it's the former and as long as he's not pushing his agenda through
Mozilla (discriminating against gay employees or whatnot) I'm not sure it's a
good reason to "fire" a CEO.

~~~
phpnode
Does making a one time donation to a political organisation really constitute
"anti gay activism"?

~~~
freehunter
When the political organization in question exists solely to promote anti-gay
laws, then yes. Yes it does.

------
cmhamill
Some very strange reactions in this thread. The idea that this somehow
validates the notion that Eich's politics don't affect Mozilla as a workplace
seems particularly bizarre, to me.

My read on this is that there are employees at Mozilla who feel strongly
enough about this to speak publicly, and the most likely reason is because
they believe that Eich as CEO _will_ affect their workplace.

~~~
bentruyman
He's been CTO since 2005. Now his views will suddenly begin to "affect their
workplace"?

~~~
wpietri
CTO is a technical role. CEO is boss of everybody, and organizational
figurehead. So yeah, it's very different.

------
spikels
This is a bad idea. Your personal views - religious, political, whatever -
should have nothing to do with your job as long as you don't bring them to
work. If it is acceptable to demote or fire someone because of their political
views or activity outside of work, we are opening a huge can of worms. I hope
everyone can understand this.

~~~
wpietri
In general I agree with your theory. But I think it's different when you want
to be the figurehead and ultimate authority over thousands of people.
Especially you've helped to strip civil rights from some of those people.

------
chrismcb
How can "@mozilla stands for openness" if you restrict who can run the
company?

~~~
cdmckay
So you'd be ok if he was a racist? Brendan is entitled to express his views,
but it doesn't mean they come without consequences.

~~~
twoodfin
By that logic, I'm sure no one working at Mozilla voted for Barack Obama in
2008 when he publicly held a position you now consider in the same ethical
category as that a "racist" would hold.

This is not so far removed from saying Mary Jones shouldn't be CEO of Mozilla
because she donated to a campaign against CO2 emission restrictions: Again by
analogy with a settled political issue, "She's denying Global Warming. You'd
be OK if she denied the Holocaust?"

~~~
m0a0t0
Sometimes you have to vote for the lesser evil. It's pragmatism. Choose
between the person who will try and stop gay marriage from happening by
enshrining it in law or the person who won't actively stop it (or someone who
has no chance of getting in). Seems quite obvious.

~~~
twoodfin
So you'd vote for a Barack Obama who professed support for racial segregation
as long as the other major party candidate did, too?

I'm not arguing against voting pragmatically, I'm arguing that calling
opposition to same sex marriage akin to racism _today_ is a nonsensical
comparison. Maybe it will look that way in hindsight, but it's not fair to
hold anybody to hypothetical future standards.

------
dpeck
>"McAvoy added that he feels fortunate to work at a company >like Mozilla,
'where I can say that without fear of >retribution.'"

May only be true because of how many eyes are on this. Regardless on how
enlightened a company is I don't think you'll have a good time of things for
very long if you're calling out your boss to quit his job.

------
peterwwillis
This is exactly the same as asking a person to resign because they're gay.
Personal politics do not belong in the workplace, and shame on anyone who
would take away someone's position because of who they are or what they
support in their private life.

------
rootedbox
If Eich had given 1000 bucks to stopping the abilities of lets say hispanics
to marry. He would have never been allowed to be CEO; because we do not accept
that type of bigotry. Sadly however bigotry against LGBTQ is still allowed.

For me it is clear and simple. He can not say he will be inclusive if he at a
low level doesn't believe in it. In his blog post he only apologized he hurt
anyone.. not that his views are outdated, and has changed his mind on the
topic.

------
j2d3
CEO is inherently a political role - a CEO is the face of the company. If the
CEOs political views are at odds with most of the employees of the company as
well as the company's product's userbase, it's hardly surprising that there
would be a movement to get him out. He's the face of the company. If that face
is ugly / mean, then he's probably the wrong choice for CEO.

------
BadassFractal
For those of you defending Eich, what if he monetarily supported white
supermacy instead? Would you still feel comfortable about his position?

~~~
freyrs3
In my personal life no I would find it reprehensible, but in my professional
life that would depend. If an employee wants to go burn crosses on the weekend
with the KKK but comes into work every Monday, and keeps his personal life
separate and still continues generate revenue for the company then that's
their business and not my concern.

------
AnimalMuppet
Those who demand tolerance for themselves should also extend it to others...

------
marcuschristie
Is it legal for Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political affiliations? Is
it legal to ask a prospective CEO hire his or her political views? What I
found from a quick search indicates that it isn't legal. [1] I can kind of
understand how a member of the LGBT community could be disappointed by Eich's
promotion, but I don't understand what they think Mozilla could have legally
done differently.

[1] [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-
employment...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-
discrimination-31690.html)

------
circuiter
If these are the kind of people working at Mozilla it's no surprise Firefox
has been continuously losing market share to both Chrome and IE over the past
3 years.

~~~
m0a0t0
I don't think one person criticising another is going to cause a massive drop
in market share.

You really are being a little silly

~~~
circuiter
Did you read my entire comment? Notice how I said "over the past 3 years".

~~~
m0a0t0
I did. Perhaps I should have phrased my reply a bit better:

People who criticise another person for an act which is contentious is not
going to produce a drop in market share.

Perhaps even this is not obvious enough for you. You're probably being
deliberate obtuse though. The simple point is that you can't infer a technical
ability from their belief on whether gay marriage is right or not.

In addition, even if these people were proven to be bad at their jobs, I doubt
that would cause the drop in market share either. Three people who are not at
the very top of the company are unlikely to have that effect.

------
igreulich
I wonder how history would have remembered Eich if he never got CEO.

The thought has not fully crystallized, and possibly not quite the same, but
Nikola Tesla was a Eugenisist. But we LOVE him.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Societal_views](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Societal_views)

------
ericcumbee
When you consider how quickly opinions have shifted on this issue. Prop 8 was
relatively a long time ago.

~~~
DanBC
He was asked in 2012(?) if he still held those views. He declined to answer.

------
voidr
So the LGBTQ community wants to dictate that the Mozilla CEO be a gay marriage
supporter. They also seem to have trouble separating software from politics.

------
vixen99
Intolerant! As someone put it, toleration is not toleration unless you put up
with that with which you will not put.

------
joyeuse6701
What you hate in yourself you hate in others, and it really shows with this.

------
badman_ting
Huh. Wasn't exactly expecting that.

