> expelled, fired, or censored
I get the censoring , but firing or expulsion would be illegal right?
I get the censoring , but firing or expulsion would be illegal right?
[0] http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinn...
It's also hard to be an effective leader of a company when it is known that you desire many of your employees not to have civil rights, and there's no reason for Mozilla to spend its money on an incompetent CEO. (Note that I'm not saying that Eich is incompetent on technical matters, or even incompetent as a manager in the abstract, just an incompetent CEO for the company he was CEO of.)
He "voluntarily" resigned in response to coercive threats against the company he founded and spent 15 years building.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
Since he left ten days after being promoted to CEO, and since the donations were known about in advance, I would argue that he should have known he would have been a compromised leader of Mozilla and if he valued his job, could have stayed CTO as he had been for 15 years. (And if he didn't expect his own employees to write public blog posts calling for his dismissal, then that alone makes him an incompetent and out-of-touch CEO. Whether or not his dismissal was voluntary, if that's the case, he was not qualified for the job.)
As far as whether or not he was capable of running an inclusive company, he once founded what is known to be an inclusive company and was an executive there for 15 years without, to my knowledge, any complaints about how he performed his duties outside of contributing his personal money to a political campaign.
Particularly telling is this part of the FAQ:
> Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure?
A: No.
That less than 10 employees got him removed is outrageous. The people that worked with him knew best whether or not he treated people fairly and the fact that so few of them wanted him to leave tells me the whole thing was a disgrace.
It looks like a loyalty oath, to be sure, but, while one might argue those are undesirable, comparisons with the Holy Inquisition (whether by that one intends the Spanish Inquisition or the Roman Inquisition)...well, to borrow from Pulp Fiction, it ain't the same f-in ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same damn sport.
> either "think this way" or get fired.
I think you are confusing "thinking this way" with "commit to act this way". Two different things.
> I thought it took all sorts to make a world.
Presuming that's perceived as important to the mission of a firm, why would it be unacceptable for a firm to expect employees to commit to act based on that as a condition of employment?
It's not unacceptable, just weird. Many people may not agree that diversity should supercede meritocracy in a company.
If the diversity is viewed by the decision-makers of the company as part of the mission, than actions consistent with it are part of merit in the context of employment with the company. "Merit" isn't a freestanding thing unrelated to the context of employment, it is meaningful only in regard to what the company is hoping to achieve by paying you.