There's three names in that title, and none of them are explained in the tiny slice of an article that's free. Am I expected to just know who these random people are?
>Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire over racist, anti-Muslim remarks posted on social media.
> In a tweet about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Maguire said Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” Maguire later doubled down on his remarks and responded to public criticism with vague threats, writing to one individual critical of his remarks, “You may not know this… but I’ve been watching you.”
https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-calls-for-firing-of-s...
Replace "X" with "marketing" and you're back in the mainstream. Religions are all the same ultimately, no matter the idol they worship.
This article has some details: https://www.businessinsider.com/shaun-maguire-sequoia-vc-gop...
> Following Trump's felony conviction last year, Maguire announced he'd back Trump in the 2024 election and would write his campaign a $300,000 check. In total, he donated about $800,000 to Republican causes last year, according to data from Open Secrets. Once Trump was elected, Maguire aided in the transition by interviewing candidates for positions in the defense department, The New York Times reported.
There’s a big fuss over a potential mayor of New York that has the right losing their minds. To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions. Truly bizarro world stuff.
Two of the three principals in this story are based in California and employed by a Californian firm.
It’s foul on both sides. One for a partner to use that platform as a soap box for hate.
The other, having to deal with the fallout and just quitting. Ruining their flow and possibly upending their lives.
Standing up for what’s right sometimes costs you everything.
Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
The tragedy of modern work life (and the current job market!) is that the vast majority of people do not have that luxury, and hence are stuck in the jobs they hate. But I expect the COO of a large VC probably has several lifetimes' worth of that luxury stashed away.
I consider that to be immature and highly unprofessional.
It used to be that professionalism considered the realm of private opinion to have no bearing on whether you could work with someone. It also used to be that we might abhor your opinion but defend your right to say it. Now we cannot even work with someone who has impure opinions. Nor do we have any barrier between our private lives and work now, apparently.
Maybe the best option is, as you indicate, to use discretion when breaking the barrier between your private and work lives. However, airing your opinions on a public forum with your public identity largely precludes having such barriers.
I do not see why "has the right to say something" and "everybody has to refuse to change their behavior towards this person in any way" are supposed to be the same thing.
Like seven or eight years ago I was at lunch at work with a sister team of ours. They had an intern who decided at lunch to announce that he was a fascist and that gay people were degenerates who were ruining society. Should the team have just said "huh that's quirky" and moved on? What of the gay people on the team who'd now be needing to work with somebody who openly thought that they were filth and expressed this at work?
Now instead of an intern, imagine that this was somebody's boss. Or the CEO. Is it really unprofessional to leave rather than choosing to work for and enrich somebody like that?
Yeah, I'd prefer not to work with somebody with these bigoted beliefs.