Anti-Gay Marriage Mozilla CEO Resigns After Backlash

[Stonecold]

Brendan Eich, the newly named CEO of the software firm Mozilla Corporation, resigned from the post after angering gay rights activists and some in the tech industry for his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Eich's views on gay marriage came to light in the days following his appointment last week to run Mozilla, best-known for its Firefox browser. News re-emerged of a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 supporting California's Proposition 8, an anti-gay marriage referendum.

Since then two former Mozilla developers and the dating site OKCupid, among others, have publicly condemned the software development firm for appointing a known supporter of the anti-gay law -- voters passed Prop 8, but it was later shot down by the Supreme Court. Critics urged that web users try a different browser.

Mozilla initially tried to bat away concerns about Eich's ideology .

The company explained in a blog post on Thursday:

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.

We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.

While there is no clear replacement in line for CEO, Mozilla executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker insisted that the company is not without options, saying in an interview this morning that "[t]here are certainly very talented people we have talked to, so we are not at ground zero by any means."

 

[tonka]

This has caused a lot of consternation. Not that Eich doesn't support gay marriage, but that he was driven from his job for his views.
There was no indication he was pushing his politics at the company. It wasn't even known until this 2008 donation came to light. Was he the only person who didn't support gay marriage in 2008? Not by a long shot.
If the internet has as a core value the free expression of ideas, this is unfortunate.
Especially on this issue. Especially now. We've won. We don't need to be vindictive.

 

[gb2000ie]

This has caused a lot of consternation. Not that Eich doesn't support gay marriage, but that he was driven from his job for his views.
There was no indication he was pushing his politics at the company. It wasn't even known until this 2008 donation came to light. Was he the only person who didn't support gay marriage in 2008? Not by a long shot.
If the internet has as a core value the free expression of ideas, this is unfortunate.
Especially on this issue. Especially now. We've won. We don't need to be vindictive.

"views" and actively fighting to enshrine discrimination into law are not the same thing.

Also, Eich was given many opportunities to evolve on the issue, but he did not. He still believes in discriminating against gay people.

This did not start as a witch hunt, this started as complaints by Mozilla employees who did not feel a man who is actively anti-gay could be an effective advocate for them, and with the resignation of 3 out of 6 board members in protest at his appointment.

Put yourself in the place of a gay Mozilla employee - could you work for a man who is actively trying to destroy your marriage? I couldn't.

Can a man who's personal views are diametrically opposed to the official policy of a company really be expected to put 100% of his effort into upholding those policies he utterly disagrees with?

For a leader to be truly effective he needs to really believe in what he is doing.

CEO is not like accountant, CEO is a public leadership role. A leader should match the organisation they are leading. If someone is a bad fit they are a bad fit.

Finally, lets try a little thought experiment. If a man donated to a campaign to outlaw interracial marriage, would there be any doubt that he was an un-fit leader? I don't think so. So, why are people assigning less importance the rights of gay people than those of blacks, latinos, Asians etc.?

This is not about mere opinions, this is about a man who actively fought to oppress gay people. I think we all have a moral duty to oppose oppressors.

B.

 

[bigsal]

I honestly do not see any revenge, but is the result derived from a personal choice, which led to discriminate against people.

If Mozilla has made ​​this decision, I think it is due to safeguarding the interests of the Company and not to please activists who have raised allegations against Eich.

 

[cban]

This has caused a lot of consternation. Not that Eich doesn't support gay marriage, but that he was driven from his job for his views ... We don't need to be vindictive.

He can hold whatever views he likes, but in paying the $1000 to the anti-gay marriage campaign he overstepped the mark for a non-profit, equal opportunity organisation like Mozilla. No doubt had he been the CEO of Texaco this would have passed without comment.

If you support a campaign with your own funds you are making a public statement.

 

[Stonecold]

cban I couldn't agree more.

 

[tonka]

cban I couldn't agree more.

And yet you support Hillary?

The Clintons have been "evolving" on gay rights for decades. They put their finger to the wind and gauge public opinion before every public statement.

Hillary came out for gay marriage one year ago. Cynical as usual.

Obama "evolved" as well. But when we needed him, he was there.

 

[topdog]

I realize that supporting a political group that restricted marriage to opposite sex couples can feel like a personal attack. For a gay person it weaves in to a whole history of taking away jobs and families, as well as frightening physical abuse and intimidation.

However when I read about Eich and Mozilla, it reminds me of the anti-communist blacklists in the US back in the 1950s. Back then people made the assumption that belonging to, contributing to, or associating with socialist or communist groups was equivalent to being a traitor. The "witch hunts" began and many people not only lost their jobs and reputations, but essentially became unemployable because no company dared to hire them.

Eich's actions come down to one thing: politics. He wrote a check, signed a petition, whatever. The group he supported lobbied for political action. Their actions are no different from LAMDA, the HRC, or the NRA. Put yourself in Eich's shoes - should you be fired because other people in the company disagree with your politics?

In short, I don't want to demonize people for having a different political view than I do. Because when that happens it makes it easy for me to think I am moral and righteous, but those other guys are immoral and evil. Ironically, that is exactly the way most of society has seen gay people for most of the last 100 years. Listen to the rhetoric in Africa and Russia - the underlying message is that gays are sub-human. It hurts to see my GLBT family embrace tactics that have been used to harm us for so long, instead of standing up for diversity of opinion.

The Prop 8 campaign was purely political. It was not a terrorist organization (like the KKK, for example). None of Eich's contribution went towards lynching gay people, or putting burning crosses on lawns.

As I said at the beginning, I understand how it can feel like we are being attacked. But we need to have some perspective. Prop 8 was a difference of political opinion on which moral, intelligent people disagreed. We cannot stand for diversity and at the same time demand that those who disagree with us forfeit their jobs.

 

[ihno]

If this reminds you of McCarthy, don't forget that those people were sent to or threatened with prison back in the 50s. You have to have this much accuracy with comparisons.

This is not about a position in civil service or something like that. This is not about a doctor in public service or a teacher or something.

And as for "Freedom of speech": That does not mean that everybody is always allowed to say everything he wants whereever he is and whenever he wants. That is a common misconception.
Freedom of speech is a constituional defensive mechanism against arbitrary behaviour of the state (konstituionelles Schutzrecht gegen die Willkür des Staates) and not against other people.

So this is not about the state. Comparison to McCarthy doesn't work.

This is about a dismissal from a more or less high ranking economical position (don't know too much about Mozilla's importance though but let's pretend you get a nice sum of money for being CEO of Mozilla, lol).

There are some rules you have to follow if you are in a high position of a business. Most of those positions come along with a lot of money. You are a person of public interest and therefore have to step back in certain areas. It comes along with the job. If a CEO of Peta would own a slaughterhouse they would kick him out too. If a CEO of McDonalds owns restaurants of BurgerKing he might lose his position etc. pp.

Firefox/Mozialla is an economocial enterprise, who made a decision to dismiss that guy from the position of CEO [most likely, even it's said he resigned freely], most likely because they were afraid that gltb customers would not use their product any more. This is most of all an economical decision in my eyes.

Again: As a CEO you have to behave and to be able to represent your firm in the public eyes and if you don't you have to go. I'm totally fine with that. As said above: Texaco might not have cared, Mozilla does. Bad luck for Mr. Eich.

So let's leave the church in the village as we jirmens say.

 

[topdog]

Ihno - I see that I wasn't specific enough in my reference to the communist witch hunts. I did not mean to compare Eich to the people who testified before Congress. I am trying to make a comparison with the Blacklist. The Blacklist was an informal (yet very specific) list of people who were named by others as being associated with the Communist party (whether this accusation was true or not), or refused to cooperate and be "cleared" by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

These people were fired. They could not get jobs. Their (supposed) political views became a litmus test for employment. There was no law broken and prison wasn't involved. They weren't asked to testify before congress. They were merely named by someone, and then refused to participate in the HUAC process.

Hollywood studios were afraid of coming under fire from anti-communist public opinion. Or, to paraphrase your words " ...because they were afraid that ...customers would not use their product any more."

So, to be clear - my problem is not as much with Mozilla, as it is with us. The fact that we would demand that someone be fired simply because he or she has an opposing political opinion is no different than pressuring corporations to fire people for being Republican, Democrat, Socialist, a member of GLAAD or the NRA.

I do not believe in this kind of a double standard; that is judging other people by a standard we would never want applied to ourselves. If you want a CEO to resign for giving money to a political campaign, then you better be OK with your own politics being used as a firing offense.

Any time someone tells me that others should be held to a higher standard than they themselves, I get suspicious.

 

[ihno]

So, to be clear - my problem is not as much with Mozilla, as it is with us. The fact that we would demand that someone be fired simply because he or she has an opposing political opinion is no different than pressuring corporations to fire people for being Republican, Democrat, Socialist, a member of GLAAD or the NRA.

Being gay or lesbian is not a "political statement". That's simply wrong and there is nothing more to say about that. And therefore all comparisons to "being republican" etc. fail.

(Just like the russian law of propaganda is not an ordinary "political law" but a severe breach of human rights if not a crime against humanity, certain "political movements/views" cannot qualify as normal political expressions).

I do not believe in this kind of a double standard; that is judging other people by a standard we would never want applied to ourselves.
If you want a CEO to resign for giving money to a political campaign, then you better be OK with your own politics being used as a firing offense.
Any time someone tells me that others should be held to a higher standard than they themselves, I get suspicious.

Again: being gay is not a "political statement".
And secondly: What you write is pure nihilism.

And I repeat from my post above. I think I answered that before: "You are a person of public interest and therefore have to step back in certain areas. It comes along with the job. (...) As a CEO you have to behave and to be able to represent your firm in the public eyes and if you don't you have to go. I'm totally fine with that."

I find it a little absurd, that I as a gay man should fight for the "rights" of those, who want to harm me or people like me.

I know that it's chic today to be "above" such things like the gay political movements because everything's so great. You're talking as a man that has no real worries in life, a filled fridge and all the freedoms he needs.

As a proud political gay man I demand consequences for those, who support anti-gay movements (I also demand consequences for other not so desirable things like racisim or other behaviour).

The gay civil-rights-movements has enabled me to live a life without fear for my life, without having to pretend to be a heterosexual or marry a woman etc - some things that gays and lesbians in Russia and some other countries have to fight for, sometimes with their health and life.

And sorry but your moralisms show a lack in knowledge of democracy and how it works. If you're biting the hand that feeds you because of a misunderstanding of "freedom of speech" that's your prerogative but that has hardly anything to do with democracy.

Again: "Freedom of speech" does indeed allow Person A to have the opinion A but it does not make that opinion sacrosanct! "Freedom of speech" also entitles everybody else, not to share that opinion A but to have another one, like B, C or D and to draw the consequences. And that is necessary for democracy to work!

In a democracy there are different opinions, different views of things and those different views struggle with each other to become the major, leading one. This not only happens in the parliaments and political parties, this happens in the public space also. And there are also not just individuals in a democracy, there are different groups. Opinions have to collide or democracy would not work.

If you defend gay-haters and stand up for their "rights" you throw your own civil rights out of the window, you're trying to annihilate the gay political movement as a whole and that's nothing but pure nihilism.

(And I enjoy a good discussion )

 

[gb2000ie]

I realize that supporting a political group that restricted marriage to opposite sex couples can feel like a personal attack. For a gay person it weaves in to a whole history of taking away jobs and families, as well as frightening physical abuse and intimidation.

However when I read about Eich and Mozilla, it reminds me of the anti-communist blacklists in the US back in the 1950s. Back then people made the assumption that belonging to, contributing to, or associating with socialist or communist groups was equivalent to being a traitor. The "witch hunts" began and many people not only lost their jobs and reputations, but essentially became unemployable because no company dared to hire them.

Eich's actions come down to one thing: politics. He wrote a check, signed a petition, whatever. The group he supported lobbied for political action. Their actions are no different from LAMDA, the HRC, or the NRA. Put yourself in Eich's shoes - should you be fired because other people in the company disagree with your politics?

In short, I don't want to demonize people for having a different political view than I do. Because when that happens it makes it easy for me to think I am moral and righteous, but those other guys are immoral and evil. Ironically, that is exactly the way most of society has seen gay people for most of the last 100 years. Listen to the rhetoric in Africa and Russia - the underlying message is that gays are sub-human. It hurts to see my GLBT family embrace tactics that have been used to harm us for so long, instead of standing up for diversity of opinion.

The Prop 8 campaign was purely political. It was not a terrorist organization (like the KKK, for example). None of Eich's contribution went towards lynching gay people, or putting burning crosses on lawns.

As I said at the beginning, I understand how it can feel like we are being attacked. But we need to have some perspective. Prop 8 was a difference of political opinion on which moral, intelligent people disagreed. We cannot stand for diversity and at the same time demand that those who disagree with us forfeit their jobs.

I think we disagree on some things, but I also get the impression you are missing some nuance to this story.

Firstly - he did not donate to some group that happened to be against marriage, he donated to the campaign for prop 8 - there is no ambiguity here, he fought, actively, to oppress.

My motto is "live and let live", and Eich made an active choice to fight against living and letting live, he made an active choice fight to enshrine discrimination into the constitution of California.

I can think of only one actually apt analogy, someone who contributed to Jim Crow.

It would not be OK for a CEO to donate to a campaign to ban interracial marriage, so why is it OK to oppress gays?

Now, the nuance.

It is very important to remember this campaign started within Mozilla - which is a charitable foundation that is utterly reliant on a community of volunteers. Those volunteers did not feel a man who fought against the rights of their fellow works could be an effective leader for them. Also - half of the board resigned in protest at his appointment.

A leader needs to be a good fit for an organisation. It's crystal clear that the Mozilla community did not think he was a good fit. CEOs have to leave because they are a bad fit all the time, and no one bats an eyelid. Why is it wrong for people to express their discomfort at being led by a man who utterly disagrees with the principles of the organisation he was appointed to lead just because their discomfort comes from the fact that he's a homophobe?

The real problem here is that the Mozilla board tried to force a leader on a community that the community did not want (for good reason IMO). The board fucked up.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

Also - comparing people fighting against discrimination to McCarty is preposterous.

 

[tonka]

This guy was not an antigay activist. Eight years ago he wrote a check for prop 8.

Remember eight years ago? That was a pretty mainstream position. It passed in California. Home of Hollywood and Raging Stallion and in many ways the center of gay culture for the last half century.

A position consistent with the stance of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, and many others.

I was very disappointed that it passed. It surprised me. But it also surprised me that we've come very far, very fast.

We've won! Maybe not everywhere, but in California? We've won.

Can't we be generous now? Are the employees of Mozilla going to be oppressed by this guy? Of course not.

This is about something else. A scalp. A pound of flesh. A bit of revenge.

Who's next on the list? Who's ideas offend you? Offend you so much that you can't engage them, but must shut them down.

 

[tonka]

Hey boys.
I have your next victim. His name is Sam Yagan. He founded Ok Cupid. OK Cupid fanned the flames against Eich, and made this a major story.

But Yagan also wrote a check (for $500) to US Congressman Chris Cannon. Cannon is REALLY antigay. There's little subtlety with Cannon. He does not like gay people AT ALL.

I don't know if Sam hates gay people. But does it matter? He wrote a check! He must be punished!

 

[ihno]

This is about something else. A scalp. A pound of flesh. A bit of revenge.

Who's next on the list? Who's ideas offend you? Offend you so much that you can't engage them, but must shut them down.

This is really getting ridicolous now.

I have never heard of that guy before yesterday or the day before so I never demanded that he steps down. And I don't know if I would have, that's pure speculation. The whole thread has started AFTER the guy stepped back. Nobody here in this forum demanded anything from Mozilla. I and some others just don't share your "compassion" for gay haters here. So who are you talking to?

I'm sure Mozilla has some online boards where you can share your anger that this guy lost his job after 11 days. You have noticed that the stepped down because of pressure from inside of Mozilla, right? Or is that too much detail?

So either stick with the topic or canalize your passive aggression against somebody or somewhere else. Write those those two developers who started to complain about him. Don't know their names, they worked for Mozialla. I'm sure you'll find their names somewhere.

But a tip: don't argue like you're talking about a 55year old janitor or something.

P.S.: 14 - 8 = 6

P.P.S: Their names are Hampton and Michael Catlin. Write them.
You might also want to go to OkCupid (.com), where a boycott against Mozilla was suggested.

 

[gb2000ie]

This guy was not an antigay activist. Eight years ago he wrote a check for prop 8.

I'd call giving a grand pretty darn active myself.

Remember eight years ago? That was a pretty mainstream position. It passed in California. Home of Hollywood and Raging Stallion and in many ways the center of gay culture for the last half century.

Does main-stream make something OK?

More importantly though, this chap has REFUSED to evolve on this issue like others have. He sticks by his guns, and remains anti-gay, now, today, in 2014, in CA.

If he's said "I was wrong, sorry about that, of course gay people deserve equal rights" I'd have no issue with the chap.

A position consistent with the stance of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, and many others.

Possibly not their real position at the time, but definitely their publicly stated position. And, critically, they have been able to grow, and to admit that equal rights for all includes gays.

I was very disappointed that it passed. It surprised me. But it also surprised me that we've come very far, very fast.

It passed because of people like Eich pouring in money.

We've won! Maybe not everywhere, but in California? We've won.

Can't we be generous now? Are the employees of Mozilla going to be oppressed by this guy? Of course not.

Hang on a second - you have utterly forgotten who it is who wanted him out - THE EMPLOYEES and VOLUNTEERS in Mozilla!

It is the Mozilla community and board members who were upset at the appointment of a man diametrically opposed to the stated policy of the organisation.

If someone cannot get the confidence of the employees and volunteers, they are unfit to be CEO. You can't lead if no one has confidence in you. All you can do it step down.

The fact that people don't have confidence in a homophobe is not a bad thing, or something to berate them for, or to call them Nazis for.

This is about something else. A scalp. A pound of flesh. A bit of revenge.

That's your opinion, and frankly, the facts don't support it.

Who's next on the list? Who's ideas offend you? Offend you so much that you can't engage them, but must shut them down.

What matters is that THE EMPLOYEES and the VOLUNTEERS were not comfortable with this man as their leader. He was a bad fit.

This is not about a witch hunt, this is about employees having rights, and about a CHARITABLE FOUNDATION needing a leader that the COMMUNITY have faith in.

You seem to utterly forget that this campaign CAME FROM WITHIN MOZILLA, it is not an outside group telling Mozilla their CEO does not pass a purity test, which is what you are trying to make out it was.

Sorry - there is not McCarthy here, just people who don't want to be lead by an un-repentant oppressor.

B.

 

[bigsal]

Personally, I not have asked for the dismissal of Eich, and I would have refrained from doing so.

The fact remains that having to choose a product from those of Mozilla and its competitors, remained neutral on the question regarding Prop 8, I choose to buy the products of the competition. It seems like a logical choice.

At a time when the CEO Mozilla has sided with Prop 8, has taken a clear position of wanting to restrict the freedom of a part of individuals from civil society and democratic. This is not politics, it is discrimination.

Is just for people like this, that people who have a different sexual orientation, have suffered each type of discrimination, and things also worse, things that still continue today.

The gist of the matter is that, with this ugly page of discriminatory policy, Mozilla has suffered a loss of image, and I think the leaders of the company have acted for it.

 

[bigsal]

This communication of "Mozilla" seems to contradict many of the things that have been said in this thread (myself included)

http://refhide.com/?http://https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

 

[gb2000ie]

This communication of "Mozilla" seems to contradict many of the things that have been said in this thread (myself included)

http://refhide.com/?http://https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

Interesting.

Assuming all the info in this FAQ is correct, it would seem a lot of media organisations have a lot to apologise for. Especially the reporting of the three resignations, and the views of Mozilla employees. The headlines (and the articles they headed up) were unequivocal in stating that the resignations were over the appointment.

I read a lot about this from news sources that have, until now, proven reliable, and yet, it seems I was lied to

I'm still not convinced that it was wise to appoint Eich as CEO - I firmly believe leaders need to believe in the aims of the organisations they lead, and that goes double for organisations that rely heavily on volunteers. But, the fact that Mozilla have now completely lost a technically smart guy is a real shame.

B.