I profoundly disagree with the argument that Brendan Eich was a victim of some kind of unfairness. This is a man who actively sought to maintain a brutal form of discrimination by investing a large sum of his own money, a form of political expression, in an effort to maintain a class of citizens in a separate and unequal status. And what resulted from Eich expressing his 1st Amendment rights? The result was *consequences*--specifically: when he became the symbolic face of his brand, Eichs political actions emerged at odds with the brand identity of the corporation. When Eichs customer base began dropping the brand, his corporate board faced a choice: change the brand to meet the identity of the new CEO or change the CEO to maintain the brand identity. And so, the board dropped Eich in favor of leadership that fit better with their brand. This course of events exemplifies 1st Amendment freedoms, exemplifies good corporate practice, exemplifies the value of an informed consumer base. And yet, somehow, it has been twisted into another version of supposed reverse racism--a myth about the voices of hate being the real victims of their actions. This idea that one must never suffer consequence when one voices hateful political views is a twisted, backwards product of decades of right-wing attempts to confuse the public on the issue of civil rights. We should not let it confuse us, here.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:16:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015