Hiring a CEO with vile political views
May. 19th, 2014 12:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackA little while back, there was a fuss, "should a corporation hire the obvious candidate for CEO if they donated money to a campaign against allowing equal marriage".
What I think should happen
But lots of posts about it framed it as "should everyone refuse to hire people with different political views" and concluded "no, even if the views are really awful, it's usually better if everyone hires ignoring political views and sorts out political issues by voting and activism". Which I agree with.
But I think this framing is mistaken. I don't think we should refuse to employ anyone with vile political views, but I do think we shouldn't put them in charge of doing things which their politics tells them not to, unless they make a clear and convincing statement that "I may not agree with it, but I admit my job responsibilities say I should ignore that and I will abide by them."
Something similar applies to people in being-a-public-face roles. And a CEO is both in charge and a public face.
If he had an objectionable political view completely unrelated to the company he's running, and he was discrete about it, I would reluctantly live with it. But anti-gay-marriage isn't that, there's all sorts of ways it can come up. Would you prefer corporate charity donations which are anti-gay-marriage, or refuse ones which are sympathetic to it? Would you discriminate against gay employees? If you have the option, would you deny employment benefits to gay spouses but not straight spouses? Did he clearly state none of that was a problem?
I basically think "a giant internet storm which forced him out" was a good result (even if a shame for him personally, and I think internet storms are dangerously misusable).
Aside: Firing people for not being progressive enough
A point several people made is that it's exhilarating to have reached a point in society where it's even conceivable to talk about firing someone for being anti-gay, instead of firing someone for being gay. It would be easy for people to get overexcited and call for anyone with non-progressive views to be fired.
I agree it's better to have a truce where people aren't fired just for their politics, with the 51% on any issue always deploying a scorched-earth policy against the 49%, since that just makes it worse for everyone. And that it's risky to fire someone because of internet outrage, because that can happen. But I don't see that it happened in this case (eg. no-one called for mozilla to be purged of ALL people with some political view, just the CEO!).
What I think should happen
But lots of posts about it framed it as "should everyone refuse to hire people with different political views" and concluded "no, even if the views are really awful, it's usually better if everyone hires ignoring political views and sorts out political issues by voting and activism". Which I agree with.
But I think this framing is mistaken. I don't think we should refuse to employ anyone with vile political views, but I do think we shouldn't put them in charge of doing things which their politics tells them not to, unless they make a clear and convincing statement that "I may not agree with it, but I admit my job responsibilities say I should ignore that and I will abide by them."
Something similar applies to people in being-a-public-face roles. And a CEO is both in charge and a public face.
If he had an objectionable political view completely unrelated to the company he's running, and he was discrete about it, I would reluctantly live with it. But anti-gay-marriage isn't that, there's all sorts of ways it can come up. Would you prefer corporate charity donations which are anti-gay-marriage, or refuse ones which are sympathetic to it? Would you discriminate against gay employees? If you have the option, would you deny employment benefits to gay spouses but not straight spouses? Did he clearly state none of that was a problem?
I basically think "a giant internet storm which forced him out" was a good result (even if a shame for him personally, and I think internet storms are dangerously misusable).
Aside: Firing people for not being progressive enough
A point several people made is that it's exhilarating to have reached a point in society where it's even conceivable to talk about firing someone for being anti-gay, instead of firing someone for being gay. It would be easy for people to get overexcited and call for anyone with non-progressive views to be fired.
I agree it's better to have a truce where people aren't fired just for their politics, with the 51% on any issue always deploying a scorched-earth policy against the 49%, since that just makes it worse for everyone. And that it's risky to fire someone because of internet outrage, because that can happen. But I don't see that it happened in this case (eg. no-one called for mozilla to be purged of ALL people with some political view, just the CEO!).
no subject
Date: 2014-05-19 03:10 pm (UTC)If the CEO of some faceless megacorp expressed the same views, I think the outrage would be less focused on the company and more focused on the individual.
no subject
Date: 2014-05-20 07:30 am (UTC)So the actions of all those companies who started blocking the mozilla browser are rather more - and rather less - than suppressing free speech.
What else would a dating site do, if one in eight of their users are squarely in the sights of a poweful man who will use his money to remove their rights under law?
And what would it say to *any* company considering promoting a manager with those views into a position where his or her prejudices can be exercised with real power over other people's lives?
We are all free to have views, repellent ones included; we are not free of the consequences. And, for our own safety and well-being, this must be especially and publicly true of the powerful.