Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[grumbler]

Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list of people who shouldn't do anything some vocal minority will dislike to all CEO hopefuls.  Of course, if you're not a CEO hopeful and are a little clever, you should probably still preemptively put yourself on that list, because who knows what other positions at your future place of employment will become "representative of the company", with all the corresponding retroactive re-calibration of standards.

Or else, like any other position in the company, you will need to build qualifications that overcome any liabilities you bring to the position.  The liabilities bad press brings to the CEO position are more than those bad pub brings to most other positions, so be prepared to deal with that (unlike this this guy, who was not).

[DGuller]

Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list of people who shouldn't do anything some vocal minority will dislike to all CEO hopefuls.  Of course, if you're not a CEO hopeful and are a little clever, you should probably still preemptively put yourself on that list, because who knows what other positions at your future place of employment will become "representative of the company", with all the corresponding retroactive re-calibration of standards.

Or else, like any other position in the company, you will need to build qualifications that overcome any liabilities you bring to the position.  The liabilities bad press brings to the CEO position are more than those bad pub brings to most other positions, so be prepared to deal with that (unlike this this guy, who was not).

That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

[Sheilbh]

Would you defend just as vigorously if he was a hindu who lobbied for a caste-based system, a Muslim who did likewise with Sharia law or a neo-nazi who practiced Ásatrú or is this just a prerogative of Christianity?

Yeah. I think people are stupid for boycotting Jane Fonda movies and will defend the Redgraves to my dying breath.

I also think this is politically stupid. I mean there's a campaign in Portland to boycott shops that stock certain produce because the (Mormon) organic farmer opposes gay marriage. It's mad that gay marriage was dead if not dying as a vote getter for social conservatives and now it's a recruiting tool again - because you could be the next person who most publicly disown their views.

Edit: It's a troublingly 'error has no rights' attitude.

[Jacob]

There are two factors that make this not much of a concern to me, to be honest:

1) I still contend that he could have dodged the issue by evolving in the issue, much like Obama. If he'd busted out some "it made sense to me at the time, but now I realize I was wrong, how hurtful it was and I'm sorry" statement he'd likely have been fine. The issue is not that he donated to a hateful cause back when it was considered okay and normal (by many) to hold that hate; it's that he did that and then refused to walk it back or otherwise engage in any kind of damage control once it became an issue after social mores changed.

2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here. People who are on the record as contributing to blatantly racist organizations, even if they did so back when such organizations were more palatable than they are now, should probably not expect to retain a CEO position at a company aspiring to wide consumption once it became public if they refuse to back down from it. I don't think most other political issues carry the same ethical weight as trying to deny human rights to a minority.

As an aside, I do believe that people in the US occasionally lose their jobs over creationism/evolution and on where they stand in the culture wars surrounding abortion. How does that fit into your take on this situation?

[Razgovory]

I was referring to your own relationship with your brother. But they're his parents, they helped mold him into the unpleasant profanity-shrieker he is.

His two siblings aren't like that.  My brother and I are opposites.  I'm withdrawn he's outgoing, he throws temper tantrums, I coldly pound someone's head in.

[Jacob]

Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list
That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Well, he - and Mozilla - could have gotten some PR people to help him with this. It's not like it's impossible to manage, nor is this particular guy without resources.

[DGuller]

Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list
That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Well, he - and Mozilla - could have gotten some PR people to help him with this. It's not like it's impossible to manage, nor is this particular guy without resources.

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

[Sheilbh]

2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here. People who are on the record as contributing to blatantly racist organizations, even if they did so back when such organizations were more palatable than they are now, should probably not expect to retain a CEO position at a company aspiring to wide consumption once it became public if they refuse to back down from it. I don't think most other political issues carry the same ethical weight as trying to deny human rights to a minority.

Well I don't think marriage is a human right. But I also don't think you are necessarily bigoted or homophobic because you oppose it. If I don't have any evidence that you are bigoted or that you opposed it for those reason (ie any example of a negative comment from him to a gay person) then I think I owe it to you to interpret your opposition as benignly as I can.

As an aside, I do believe that people in the US occasionally lose their jobs over creationism/evolution and on where they stand in the culture wars surrounding abortion. How does that fit into your take on this situation?

Yeah I think it's a disgrace there too. I can see it if you're running a religious charity. But hounding restaurants because one of their suppliers is a Mormon farmer? Or a company telling their customers they should switch to another browser because their CEO donated against gay marriage?

[Eddie Teach]

he throws temper tantrums, I coldly pound someone's head in.

So you're both prone to violent impulses, but he vents them out to keep better control.

[garbon]

Well I don't think marriage is a human right. But I also don't think you are necessarily bigoted or homophobic because you oppose it. If I don't have any evidence that you are bigoted or that you opposed it for those reason (ie any example of a negative comment from him to a gay person) then I think I owe it to you to interpret your opposition as benignly as I can.

Well he didn't just oppose gay marriage. He funded a group whose sole aim was to get rid of California's existing policy of allowing gay marriages.

[garbon]

Problem is that he wasn't a CEO back when he made the donation, so in effect we now expand the list
That's the problem with Internet witch hunts.  You're not evaluated on your entire portfolio, you are evaluated on one action that catches the attention.  At that point the amount of trouble stirred up for the employer is such that it dwarves the net value of your overall "skill portfolio".

Well, he - and Mozilla - could have gotten some PR people to help him with this. It's not like it's impossible to manage, nor is this particular guy without resources.

The problem is the notion that he should've had a problem to deal with in the first place.

Is it a problem that his employees took issue with the fact that he had funded a cause that hurt them? It isn't like his action had no impact.

[Admiral Yi]

2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here.

One could, if one wanted, couch virtually any existing public policy issue in terms so that people on the other side from you are anathema.

[DGuller]

1) I still contend that he could have dodged the issue by evolving in the issue, much like Obama. If he'd busted out some "it made sense to me at the time, but now I realize I was wrong, how hurtful it was and I'm sorry" statement he'd likely have been fine. The issue is not that he donated to a hateful cause back when it was considered okay and normal (by many) to hold that hate; it's that he did that and then refused to walk it back or otherwise engage in any kind of damage control once it became an issue after social mores changed.

On further reflection, this point I find even more unpalatable.  So, basically, your problem with him is that he didn't publicly renounce his previously-held views as incorrect, and thus he deserves what he got.

[garbon]

2) We are talking about denying someone else's basic human rights here.

One could, if one wanted, couch virtually any existing public policy issue in terms so that people on the other side from you are anathema.

Well the decision that overturned Prop 8 did say:

unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry

[Razgovory]

he throws temper tantrums, I coldly pound someone's head in.

So you're both prone to violent impulses, but he vents them out to keep better control.

Everyone gets mad once in a while the differences are how we display it.