And so embattled Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich has finally thrown in the towel, resigning from the job he only took up last month. His decision to quit followed an uproar over his controversial backing of legislation that would have outlawed same-sex marriage in California, something that detractors felt was unforgivable.

Mozilla’s executive chairwoman Mitchell Baker announced the news in a blog post on Thursday, saying that Eich stepped down “voluntarily”, although the wording seems to suggest he had little choice in the end:

“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” wrote Baker.

“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves… 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.”

Eich’s resignation marks a victory for the vocal faction that insists someone who’s supposedly as ‘intolerant’ as he is was the wrong man to lead a company like Mozilla, which claims to be so devoted to its stated principles of tolerance and openness. Unfortunately for Eich, in this day and age the job of a CEO of a major international company is more akin to that of a politician than business exec, such is the glare of media public scrutiny.

Forced out

What’s happened is a shame, because Eich is an extremely talented programmer who was clearly 100 percent committed to Mozilla and its belief in an open internet. Yet he was bullied and hounded out of his job by a rabid lynch mob, the latest in a long line of victims of political correctness gone totally mad.

Some have argued that Eich should have been “more open” about his beliefs and explained why he made that donation in 2008, and what his views on gay marriage are now. The implication is that CEOs need to be more transparent about themselves and their beliefs, but this episode is likely to result in less transparency, not more. The lesson learned here, yet again, is that the only way to survive in the so-called age of transparency is to keep all of your personal opinions to yourself.

Lesson learned: keep your mouth shut if you want a decent job

photo credit: brianjmatis via photopin cc

I couldn’t disagree more with the idea a private enterprise leader has to disclose his personal beliefs and, at the same time, justify them. It’s not as if Eich was implementing policies against same-sex partners or otherwise inflicting beliefs on the company or staff, and he wasn’t funneling corporate money into a cause – it was his own money, which he’s entitled to use however he wants.

I personally support same-sex marriage nationally, as a civil right. But I recognize people are entitled to feel differently, so long as they don’t hurt anyone else. For that reason, racial supremacists are welcome to be CEOs, factory workers, or whatever job they choose, in my book. So long as they aren’t implementing policies or otherwise affecting the workplace. After all, who hasn’t worked for a boss they’ve disagreed with at one time or another?

This is why Mozilla’s apparent ‘beliefs’ can now be called into question. With Eich being forced out, it’s clear that Mozilla as an organization is now intolerant of intolerance, and non-inclusive of people who are perceived as exclusive. Mozilla has every right to do this of course, but if so, it should not claim to be inclusive or tolerant, as it does in its Community Participation Guidelines:

“The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. It doesn’t matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited to people of varied age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such diversity.

Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla. When this is the case:

“(a) support for exclusionary practices must not be carried into Mozilla activities.
“(b) support for exclusionary practices in non-Mozilla activities should not be expressed in Mozilla spaces.
“(c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.”

Of course, people can argue that Mozilla’s hand was forced by outside interests, and that it was therefore forced to disregard item (c) in its own guidelines. But it can also be argued that a principle so easily bent is not principle at all, and certainly not one it can claim to hold up.

If, as it looks, Mozilla really did cave into the demands of the ‘liberal left’ to protect its businesses, then it needs to take a long, hard look at its so-called principles, ‘fess up to what it really believes in, and stop lying to those who work for it and use the products it builds.

Brendan Eich image via Wikimedia Commons