Only a minority were calling for his resignation, and some of them later acknowledged that they would've been content with a public apology.
That's pretty much why I signed the petition. I don't agree with Eich's stance. But I don't think he should have to recant it. As long as he's prepared to respect and obey the law as it stands where it affects the corporation, he shouldn't have to agree with it, nor should he have to say he does.
The whole image of the erstwhile heretic publicly apologizing and being forgiven and accepted by the orthodox can be magnanimous, and it's a powerful tool for enforcing norms. But it's the opposite of liberal and it's explicitly, intentionally not tolerant.
(Surely the whole point of the procedure is to establish what won't be tolerated.)
As a matter of basic ground rules, I don't want it to be an issue whether anyone from CEO to the gardener is pro-life or pro-choice, Zionist or anti-Zionist. (Assuming they're not CEO of Planned Parenthood or the Jewish National Fund, anyway.) Any more than it should be an issue whether they're gay or straight, or Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or Mormon. If it impinges on their duties, go after them for that, otherwise, no.
Of course, once that principle is breached, it's self-sustaining. If it's legitimate to give a damn what the CEO voted for, then what the CEO voted for will affect customer numbers and alliances and stock prices. So we can-- have to!-- act against him for entirely pragmatic reasons, for the good of the company. Just as Dalton Trumbo couldn't get work from people who had nothing personal against him, for the good of the studio. Just as the mom of a kid out of wedlock couldn't expect to keep her job-- the customers wouldn't stand for being in the same room with her.
And to that extent, it's true. But it's only true because no one would say "What they do outside work isn't work's business" and make it stick.
no subject
That's pretty much why I signed the petition. I don't agree with Eich's stance. But I don't think he should have to recant it. As long as he's prepared to respect and obey the law as it stands where it affects the corporation, he shouldn't have to agree with it, nor should he have to say he does.
The whole image of the erstwhile heretic publicly apologizing and being forgiven and accepted by the orthodox can be magnanimous, and it's a powerful tool for enforcing norms. But it's the opposite of liberal and it's explicitly, intentionally not tolerant.
(Surely the whole point of the procedure is to establish what won't be tolerated.)
As a matter of basic ground rules, I don't want it to be an issue whether anyone from CEO to the gardener is pro-life or pro-choice, Zionist or anti-Zionist. (Assuming they're not CEO of Planned Parenthood or the Jewish National Fund, anyway.) Any more than it should be an issue whether they're gay or straight, or Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or Mormon. If it impinges on their duties, go after them for that, otherwise, no.
Of course, once that principle is breached, it's self-sustaining. If it's legitimate to give a damn what the CEO voted for, then what the CEO voted for will affect customer numbers and alliances and stock prices. So we can-- have to!-- act against him for entirely pragmatic reasons, for the good of the company. Just as Dalton Trumbo couldn't get work from people who had nothing personal against him, for the good of the studio. Just as the mom of a kid out of wedlock couldn't expect to keep her job-- the customers wouldn't stand for being in the same room with her.
And to that extent, it's true. But it's only true because no one would say "What they do outside work isn't work's business" and make it stick.