Why should he regret his actions? It's his personal opinion and he backed it with his own money, and at his own leisure time. He has a right to believer whatever he likes in his personal life, and push politically for whetever outcome he prefers -- as long as he is not abusing the law.
Apologising for how you vote, or what you believe, or what policies you root for is not democracy. And, yes, in a democracy you can also vote to restrict what other people can do. In fact, almost all laws are created for this very reason: to restrict certain actions.
He didn't do anything in his professional capacity that he should be apologising for.
Democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a system of government.
This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people? Is that the kind of person I want heading an organization I'm affiliated with? No. Will it affect the Mozilla organization because others feel the way I do? It appears so. Given that, is Eich a good choice for CEO? Probably not.
>Democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a system of government.
It's a system of government that says you are entitled to your opinion and your vote. It's not just about how you put politicians in office.
>This is about decency. What kind of person goes out of his way to oppress other people?
The same kind of person who thinks that people who are against X or pro Y, should lose job opportunities because of opinions unrelated to their work behavior.
Opinions? This guy actively worked to deny rights from people. Would you feel the same if he had actively worked to deny rights to other minorities?
Nobody's denying Mozilla's right to hire him as CEO, just as nobody denied other companies' right to prop up apartheid South Africa. The fact is that actions have consequences, and those companies must weigh the benefits of their actions against the possibility (very real as we've seen in this case) that others will justifiably not want to associate with the business as a result.
Apologies are very easy (if you actually are sorry). You just say specifically what you did wrong and apologise for that. (Ideally you then also say how you will avoid making the same mistake in the future.)
What an apology basically says is that if you had a time machine you would travel back in time and do something differently. What you would do differently, however, is crucially important for whether an apology is meaningful or not.
Are you sorry that you were found out? Or are you actually sorry for doing what you are criticised for?
That issue is never tackled head-on in this post and that is a very valid (and not poisonous) reason to be unsatisfied with this non-apology apology.
He is of course completely free to continue holding his bigoted views (and I certainly would never want him to lie about being sorry, that would be much worse than this apology), but as long as he only apologises for caused sorrow and not actually holding those views he should not expect to be excused from criticism.
It's offensive to "apologize" when you do not actually regret your behavior. It rings false because it is false. It's a cynical attempt to manipulate the audience.
Sometimes it is better to say nothing. This post should have remained focused on Eich's workplace policies and promises to staff.
The standard business-ese non-apology follows a different pattern, it's "I'm sorry you felt offended", laying the blame on the victim (for feeling offended when no other person did). This one recognizes that the victim felt pain.
I sometimes feel sorry that some of my actions inevitably cause pain to somebody. Firing an employee causes pain to the employee. I'm sorry for the pain, but not for the action.
This is a classic non-apology apology. He's not sorry for the original action which offended people, just that his action caused offense. It's the kind of corporate double-speak you hear from someone who is not sorry for their actions.
Except he apologised for causing hurt, he didn't apologise that people felt hurt. There's a difference in the level of responsibility taken for the action.
Because that one is about his personal opinion, which nobody should give two fucks about? It's what he does as CEO that matters. And from what I can see, he's pretty much made it clear he's willing to put his personal opinion aside for that.
A sequence of words does not have a single meaning and does not always mean the exact same thing. This sequence of words is not necessarily a non-apology apology. That interpretation denies the possibility that someone can be genuinely sorry that his opinion and words caused grief, even though he still stands by that opinion and those words.
There is a difference between apologizing for your behavior and apologizing for the way people react to it. One implies accountability, the other does not.
The different between "I'm sorry I hurt you" and "I'm sorry you got hurt" is who is at fault and who is responsible.
Saying you're sorry you hurt someone, is you taking responsibility for something you did. Saying you're sorry someone got hurt, sounds like the victim was wrong for getting hurt, and it's the victim's responsibility.
I think you mis-read it. Please re-read it again and again and again.
I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
I will rewrite this for him.
"I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime I want to show you my sadness, regret for causing you feeling distress and uncomfortable."
I replace express and sorrow with definition coming straight out of a dictionary.
The typical CEO response would've been to lie about a change in position and then state the same policies as he already outlined. I don't agree with the man's personal stance on same-sex marriage but he never brought it to the work place - others did.
Integrity is higher on my values list than many of the tech and community connections he can bring to the table. I would also disagree with his personal beliefs in being a snake-handler (if he was one) but would find no issue with his leadership ability as long as he didn't bring those beliefs to the organization.
Why? Why does his opinion on that private political matter, over which he has almost no control matter to you? Would you ask him who he voted for? If he thought the war in Iraq was justified? If he believes in abortion rights? If he thinks there is a god?
And you ask this question because it relates to your use of Firefox how? Because that's the only relation you have to Brendan Eich: you use a product that his company produces. That doesn't make you two best buddies and you now get to ask his opinion on gay marriage or whether he likes a big butt on his womenz.
You want the answer yes, someone else wants the answer "no". What's the point. If you believe in gay marriage, ask your congressmen to make it legal nation wide. Law is law, belief and laws don't always get along. As a citizen of a country you accept the law and keep your own belief. That's how people live.
"Because my moral code says so" could be an answer.
Or: "Well, if you say yes, why? Is there some scientific explanation of why an arbitrary human custom should be offered to everybody as opposed to only some, based on the moral code one has?".
Apologising for how you vote, or what you believe, or what policies you root for is not democracy. And, yes, in a democracy you can also vote to restrict what other people can do. In fact, almost all laws are created for this very reason: to restrict certain actions.
He didn't do anything in his professional capacity that he should be apologising for.