Blithely enough, I am going to go ahead and assume that most everyone reading this recognizes that calls for boycotts are a form of free speech, and that individuals choosing to join in such boycotts (or refrain from doing so) are exercising their right to free association, and that both freedom of speech and freedom of association are worthy of constitutional protection here in the United States. This is not a post about whether boycotts should be allowed or disallowed under existing jurisprudence, but rather whether they are morally effective in certain circumstances, to achieve certain end goals in accord with certain values.
Some of my Skeptic Ink compatriots support the boycott of Mozilla that lead to the resignation of Brenden Eich, many others are on record claiming it was objectionable. I’d like to say upfront that I believe this is a matter upon which reasonable people can disagree: It is as yet unclear whether these sorts of boycotts are likely to create more good than harm.
The most common argument that I have seen against this particular boycott is that people should not fear for their livelihood when they make political statements. I think this is wrong on two counts: Firstly, someone as wealthy as Eich might well fear for his career, but not his livelihood. Most of us have jobs because we cannot live off our existing stock options, but this is not generally true for the sort of people who become CEO’s of major companies. While it may well be wrong to boycott the local coffee shop, because that puts struggling people out of business for reasons wholly unrelated to their business itself, that logic does not necessarily extend to boycotting a major corporation for choosing the wrong CEO. The individual in question is not doing an ordinary job, and they are not held to ordinary standards.
Secondly, even us ordinary folk are often held accountable for our public political statements, and rightly so. I have a political right to openly march with the Klan or the Illinois Nazis (assuming they didn’t bother to do their homework on my racial bona fides) but that does not mean that I should necessarily expect my job to be there waiting for me when I get back, especially if the rally was well publicized. Race is a legally protected class, for good reason, but as it turns out, racist is not, and also for good reason. Why would any company that claims to value diversity want to hire (or retain) racists or sexists or heterosexists, when there are less bigoted but similarly qualified people available for the job? Is not the ability to inspire trust in one’s co-workers an important job qualification? Is it not true that declaring them to be second class citizens woefully undermines that trust?
I believe the resignation of Eich was probably a good thing, on balance, because the employees of Mozilla boldly and publicly asked for someone they can trust to treat themselves and their comrades impartially, and because it is unreasonable to expect anyone who supports legal inequality to create a corporate environment that favors genuine equality. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is not exactly a realistic formula for interpersonal harmony, after all.
Your thoughts?
