Under Fire
Original image found at Techsupport Pro
This last week, Brendan Eich, the newly-appointed CEO of Mozilla, famous for developing the Firefox web browser, resigned his shortly-lived position – 10 days – over his position on gay marriage [which he is against and pretty much still against, even though his $1,000 donation to the Prop 8 campaign was 6 years ago]
And while people that are against gay marriage are throwing up the “Free Speech” warning, never at once were Mr. Eich’s free speech rights violated or undermined. He’s always been free to hold whatever beliefs he wants. But once he became the face of a corporation, his beliefs came into question, at least to the corporation he was appointed to helm.
Free Speech
You see, a corporation has to have the best interest in mind for its customers and employees and polices that it supports. If these policies and positions are in direct conflict of a leader and face of the corporation, then they have to make decisions on the future direction. And while Mr. Eich was employed at Mozilla for years, his views were not at the forefront of the corporation. They were not policy changers when he was CTO. So in the 10 days of him being CEO, his views on gay marriage came to the surface and he was scrutinized. OKCupid detected visitors to their site and displayed a message to those using Firefox, bringing to light Mr. Eich’s views and single donation.
Against Others
So back to the anti-backlash for a bit. The cry against his outing from those who are not supporters of marriage equality takes the angle of “why can’t he have his views and be CEO?” Let’s take a trip back in history. What if he didn’t support interracial marriage? What about being against the right for women to vote? How about if he believed that handicapped access at the workplace harmed his company? How many people would still be supporting these positions, given his resignation as CEO?
Evolved Society
All of those above views used to be held by various company CEOs or business owners. Years ago, there were many against interracial marriage. Males in power fought to keep women from voting. Handicapped people were not provided proper access to workplace. And there were a group of people who fought those views and wanted change. They wanted equality and equal treatment of humanity. And in the last 100+ years, there are a growing number of those who push, advocate and fight for equality. Those who hold antiquated views of exclusion are shrinking. And that includes those against gay marriage.
Intelligence
I personally question a person of intelligence like Brendan Eich when he holds onto beliefs against gay marriage. Here’s a guy who created the Javascript language, obviously using his skills and intellect to expand on options. Be open to new technical possibilities. Using a language to allow all sorts of progress on the web and in billions of devices and platforms to move forward the usage of his creation. Yet when it comes to expanding his view of people in society, there are limitations he wishes for some.
At Odds
And this is where the decision by Mozilla and Mr. Eich to step down as CEO came to be. His personal views became a limitation. This isn’t about free speech or limiting one’s views. It was about a conflict of views that were at odds with the direction of the company he was the short-lived leader of.
Those who refuse to see that are limiting themselves. They hold onto archaic views of exclusion and judge anyone that pushes for fairness and equal treatment under the law. And just like those who believed in treating blacks, women and disabled people as less than equal have shrunk, so will those who undermine lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender (LGBT) today.
History is on the side of equality.
Links
Article: Gay marriage, Mozilla’s Brendan Eich, and the role of a CEO
Related Posts
About The Author
How are his personal views a limitation to doing his job? Did he refuse to work with gay people? No, because his views are against gay marriage, not gay people. Did he refuse to allow his platforms to be used by anyone who was gay or sanctioned gay marriage? No, and I’d challenge anyone to come up with ANY reason that his own personal views should have led to professional limitations – his own, or employees on his watch.
The vitriol against him is only aimed at one person who happens to be against gay marriage – there are many who are, but they are not anti-gay or “haters”. And I’m pretty sure they aren’t losing their jobs because of it. This issue has become such an inflammatory one that the minute someone expresses views against gay marriage, they are no longer able to be respected, no matter who they are.
It’s the very same “logic” that follows when someone disagrees with what Obama is doing in office and said dissenter is immediately labeled a racist.
One person’s private views do not interfere with his or her ability to do a job; and again, there is no evidence Brendan Eich was failing in his capacities as CEO of Mozilla.
His views on gay marriage are his private views (well, until they got outed). $1000 donation 6 years ago does not make him a hater or someone who actively campaigns against gay marriage. But now I’m starting to wonder – will this now become an interview question, and the prospective job held from the best candidate because the candidate’s views don’t hold up with the PC perspective? Since when did one’s personal views become a reason for them to be deemed unfit for the job? What next? Will jobs hinge upon these types of personal preferences?
It’s a VERY dangerous and slippery slope, and I think Mozilla made a huge mistake (it’s obvious he was pushed out). They will come under fire for it as the days move on.
I didn’t think you would agree with me (we still have Apple and LEGO in common). And nothing I say here in response, will be anything you will agree with, no matter what I say. But I will take a small stab.
Did Mozilla jump the gun? Sure, they could have waited until something happened (or nothing happened). But the outcry for someone who believes (and obviously still does) that a certain kind of human doesn’t need marital rights would have been too much for Mozilla to manage.
Why do you feel that someone should keep a CEO position and hold views that people that work for him don’t deserve a civil right that others have, just because of who they are?
What if Brendan Eich had personal views that undermined Jewish people and donated money at one time to take away a right he didn’t feel that Jewish people should have? Would you still want him as a CEO? Especially if he still held those beliefs. That’s a valid question.
You said: “Since when did one’s personal views become a reason for them to be deemed unfit for the job?”
Check the employee manuals of many companies. There are many limitations, a lot based on personal views, that are not allowed at work.
I will end with this. It’s been years since interracial marriage has been done away with. And society today looks down on those who still hold beliefs that black and whites shouldn’t marry. Any smart company would be foolish to hire a CEO that still wants to keep blacks and whites from marrying. Someday, that will be the case for those that believe gay marriage should be against the law. Even those with personal beliefs. It’s a form of discrimination and most workplaces do not condone discrimination of any type.
Frankly, I’m not defending Eich’s position – I’m just concerned that this will lead to a deluge of personal views affecting one’s employment status.
I stand by my position that if a person is doing his or her job, whatever they believe is irrelevant. I’m pretty sure my views go against every (or almost every) person I meet up with in academia. Would my stance on the 2nd Amendment be just cause to force me out of a job? Would my conservative views be enough? Would my outspokenness against this president be enough for a company or organization I might work for in the USA to push me out?
Not if what I am doing is what’s asked of me, and I’m doing it to the benefit of my employers.
If Eich wasn’t bringing his personal views to work, they had no right to vilify him. I’m sure there are many people who don’t believe Jewish people are equal to whatever THEY might be – but if they keep that to themselves, and do their jobs, they are not fair game for firing or “resigning”.
I don’t believe this president holds the rights of the Jewish State as valued as he should – many people agree. But that isn’t enough to get him out of office. I believe he is more pro-Muslim (as is evidenced by his allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood) than is safe – and he holds the safety of the entire country in his hands. So why isn’t HE being vilified the way Brendan Eich is? He gets a pass for his views actually breaking laws and violating the Constitution – and the media STILL fawns over him. But Brendan Eich is suddenly the Devil Incarnate.
There are plenty of double standards inherent in this argument. And as I said, I’m not defending Eich, only his rights to hold personal views that don’t affect what he was hired to do.
I never thought you were defending his position or beliefs. And I do get your point about his treatment if he’s done nothing to get fired for it.
I’m going to respectfully not directly address your Obama comment. I get the analogy you are making, but I know your dislike for the man and it’s pointless to say anything more.
My current boss at work is not for gay marriage, but he keeps his views to himself (he mentioned it in an outside of work conversation we had). He is also not in any prominent position to make company policy. Should he be let go just because people don’t agree with his views. No, he should not. He does his job and we have civil discussions. But let’s say he gets a promotion to CEO and we find out he donated money and time to keep gay marriage illegal here in Utah. Should he be asked to resign? If the company feels that his views are of such that he is a liability to the company, then the company has to do what they feel they need to in a business environment.
The term I’m getting at here is policy maker. When Eich became CEO, he had the ability to change policy. Mozilla made a business decision based on feedback from others, to come to a resignation. They certainly could have kept him around and addressed the PR nightmare for as long as he remained CEO. The perception of the company was at stake. Is this fair? In many ways, it’s not. But in this case, looking at the 10 day period Eich was CEO, I think Mozilla made the decision that was best, in the long run.
Why would people vilify someone for something they never did? Oh, maybe because Prop 8’s passage took away a civil right to many for over 5 years and most people that are against gay marriage do not really care about the people they affect (“we love them… “hate the sin, love the sinner” – idle words). The Mormon church, who did donate money and told their members to donate time and money, are vilified to this day, mostly due to their actions and a couple of well done documentaries that exposed what they were not being upfront with.
I support people to hold their personal views, regardless of any direct conflict they might have. But when you have someone who holds beliefs AND acts on those beliefs to create a form of inequality, the company you work for should exercise it’s options, given the circumstances.
If there is a decision that Mozilla made that they shouldn’t have, it would have been not to make Eich CEO. There were other issues before his donation to Prop 8 became public that caused 3 board members to leave. Perhaps, he really wasn’t qualified to lead the company.
I haven’t followed much of the discussion on this topic, so perhaps this is well-covered: Do we really think browser-based discrimination is a good idea? I supposed it’s acceptable as long as it isn’t demonstrated that it is a mechanism of discriminating against a protected group.
This is assuming that OKCupid actually blocked access. If they only put up the message and then allowed FF-browsers to click thru, then I suppose that’s not quite the same.
Just wondering….
OKCupid didn’t block access. They just put up their notice and then at the bottom, they have a link to continue onto their site.
The amount of negative publicity Mozilla were getting outweighed his ability to do the job at hand. I think he did the right thing to step down when he did.
Here was a man hired to be the leader of a company. As such he had many gay people under his employ. When your personal views go against your employees civil rights that’s an issue and really the crux of the argument. I couldn’t care less what his other personal views are, I mean if he said he believes there’s a floating wheelbarrow around Mars I’d be alright with it. That’s his right afterall. But stray into civil rights issues, different ballgame entirely.
I like your wheelbarrow around Mars analogy. And yes, the direct action into removing a civil right from someone was the deal breaker.
Keep posting.