CEO of Mozilla Brendan Eich recently stepped down amid news that he donated money to oppose same-sex marriage in California in 2008. The backlash he received from his employees and customers was insurmountable, yet he did absolutely nothing wrong. He made the decision to resign because he felt he "cannot be an effective leader." The boycott could eventually lead to the demise or failure of Mozilla as a whole. With the conscience of a saint, it was a big sacrifice he took to ensure the health of the company remained strong.
For the record, I am in support of same-sex marriage and equal rights. I hope that one day all people of any sexual orientation can be allowed to unite as a pair and express their love. But the actions taken to remove Eich from his position is completely wrong, unfair, and intolerant and his political view, however backwards some may call it, does not correlate to his ability to run a business. Now, if he was the head of Trojan condoms and opposed contraception and decided to lead the company into a different direction, perhaps producing Trojan viruses to attack cell phones of sinners, then yes, he is not qualified. But this is far from a Christian agenda. It's an Internet browsing company, which is virtually, no pun intended, the complete opposite.
Eich's non-hateful views on same-sex marriage fall under the socially acceptable political spectrum and he should be allowed to voice his moral opinions through the ballot. His vote and financial support is a part of the democratic process and a testament to the freedom of speech allowed in America. His ideals are clearly rooted in a conservative or religious background and do not break any laws, so to be chastised and chased away from a job he held for merely two weeks is unfair. Millions of voters made the same choice as Eich and maybe executives at other well-known companies too, but nobody is asking for their resignation. Because Eich's financial support was released to the public, he has been unfairly attacked. To be able to work harmoniously side-by-side with those whose opinion we oppose is a natural and mature occurrence.
To boycott a brand and raise awareness about an issue, that is acceptable. However, to directly request or petition the removal of an individual because of their personal, reasonable beliefs is not. To not accept another human being's views on a specific issue is intolerant. There is an irony at play that seems to have been lost due to tunnel vision. The progress earned by the LGBT community is a positive direction for humankind, but the momentum may be moving beyond their control. Extreme supporters will lose sight of others views in favour of their own beliefs and this is when turmoil within the community becomes divisive and momentum halts. An individual's rational, political opinion rooted in ethics, morals, or personal choice should have no direct bearing on his employment or personal life. It is possible that a man's financial success and dreams have been quashed here because of his fair political thoughts. This is not the culture we want our top business leaders to exist in. This is not the culture I want to be a part of.
Author, editor, and openly gay Andrew Sullivan appeared on Stephen Colbert's late night supporting Eich. "I actually think we've come a long way on gay rights because we've been open, tolerant, persuaded people by reason and haven't jumped down everybody's throat who's disagreed with us and get them fired. I just don't like that kind of tenor and that impulse to punish people for things they may sincerely believe."
Of the 70,000 estimated that signed the petition or joined the Facebook group or whatever means they used, how many of them jumped on the LGBT bandwagon? How many took the time to understand the position of Eich and his opinions in 2008? How is it that a gay man who opposes Eich's views support him? The outcome that led to Eich's resignation creates a scary thought that a man or woman at any employment rank could be replaced because of their political views.
It is fair to assume that activists are not suitable to determine what candidate is best suited to lead a business, therefore, it is unjustified for them to believe that Eich was the wrong choice considering they provided no recommendations. They should be ashamed of the pressure and stigma that will forever be attached to Eich. The man is a millionaire, so he will still sleep well at night, but what company, knowing the background of the backlash, is willing to gamble on someone that will continuously and forever be asked to step down from every job he acquires? And how great and humourous would it be if Eich made a new browser company and took control of the Internet world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)