At last Friday’s staff meeting, Mr. Zuckerberg defended Mr. Kaplan’s appearance as a personal decision that did not violate company rules. Mr. Zuckerberg also said he trusted Mr. Kaplan’s judgment, even though he himself would most likely not have chosen to attend the hearing, said two people who were at the meeting.
The messaging backfired. Some employees — particularly women — said it came across as if Mr. Zuckerberg was shrugging off Dr. Blasey’s comments about sexual assault, saying that the chief executive’s remarks had caused “stress and trauma” and were “painful to hear.”
If you have a policy that people can have their own beliefs and opinions, you need to hold to it regardless of whether you like how it's used. It's like free speech (is is free speech), and I suspect all these same people would also be very upset if someone faced repercussions from management for supporting or appearing with a person or cause very strongly associated with liberalism. And they would be right to be upset in that case. But you can't have it both ways.
Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights, and if you find yourself at odds with it, you should really examine if your feelings are just. They might be, but in my opinion, the cases where that's true are fairly rare.
What infringement of freedom of speech is there here? Kaplan is free to go to this event, and Facebook employees are using their free speech to complain about him.
Besides, it matters how this turns out. Supporting an innocent man wrongly accused and supporting someone who turns out to be a rapist are two different things.
> Facebook employees are using their free speech to complain about him.
But they aren't, they are also complaining about the CEO standing up for Kaplan's right to espouse his views, or in this case stand by a friend. Just standing by the principle of free speech, which is very clearly what's being asserted by Zuckerberg here, is what's causing problems in the specific portion I quoted.
> Supporting an innocent man wrongly accused and supporting someone who turns out to be a rapist are two different things.
If you know the person who ends up being found out as a rapist, and beforehand you believe them, then no, there's no difference. I will not condemn anyone that stands by their beliefs if they are founded on evidence (even if it's personal knowledge of someone's character over a couple decades) and based on just principles.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying anyone's first amendment right was infringed, I'm saying that a company espousing similar rights for its employees with regard to employment is usually a laudable thing, and coming out against that should make one think carefully.
> But they aren't, they are also complaining about the CEO standing up for Kaplan's right to espouse his views, or in this case stand by a friend. Just standing by the principle of free speech, which is very clearly what's being asserted by Zuckerberg here, is what's causing problems in the specific portion I quoted.
IMO, this hoo-haa has nothing to do with free speech. The employees of facebook aren't saying that the Kaplan should have his speech be restricted by the government (what the 1st amendment actually protects), they are saying that they aren't comfortable working for a company where someone in his position holds these views and they are exerting their collective power to carry out their will. People like Zuckerberg and Kaplan have orders of magnitude more political power in clubby Washington connections and cold hard cash than any individual facebook employee. Facebook employees pooling their power should be something we encourage, not something we chill through evasive complaints about "restricting free speech".
> IMO, this hoo-haa has nothing to do with free speech.
It has to do with the concept of freedom of speech, not the first amendment right itself. They are often used interchangeably, and the right is often confused as applying to non-governmental entities doing the infringement. I am doing neither of those, as clarified previously.
> they are saying that they aren't comfortable working for a company where someone in his position holds these views and they are exerting their collective power to carry out their will.
Those views being believe in someone's denial based on their personal experience with that person over decades, in the absence of any other concrete evidence? To be clear, by their own descriptions they are unhappy with him sitting next to someone accused as they presented their side.
> Facebook employees pooling their power should be something we encourage, not something we chill through evasive complaints about "restricting free speech".
We should encourage people pooling their power against those in power when that pooled power is used responsibly. If they wanted to pool their power to enforce a racist or sexist agenda, that would be problematic. But since it's just to punish someone for standing by their friend as they defend themselves, that's okay?
Kaplan's actions should be judged based on his beliefs and whether they are justifiable and just given the evidence present to him (as best we can understand it) and whether his actions are in line with those beliefs.
> If they wanted to pool their power to enforce a racist or sexist agenda, that would be problematic. But since it's just to punish someone for standing by their friend as they defend themselves, that's okay?
The personal is political, especially when the person is going to recieve a lifetime appointment to a position of huge political power. Especially when there is a widespread suspicion that he will overturn Roe v Wade.
There's also the consideration as a senior manager in Amazon: by standing behind the person accused of harassment, he's saying to his staff "if you accuse someone of harassment, I will have their back rather than yours".
> The personal is political, especially when the person is going to recieve a lifetime appointment to a position of huge political power. Especially when there is a widespread suspicion that he will overturn Roe v Wade.
Only if you make it so. I mean, we're talking about employees putting the blame on their CEO because he supports another employees right to sit next to someone they know who is accused of a crime.
I think if when people are going after someone two steps removed who is standing up for one of the major ideals of freedom, then perhaps those people reexamine their own actions and motivations closely.
> by standing behind the person accused of harassment, he's saying to his staff "if you accuse someone of harassment, I will have their back rather than yours".
No, that's definitely not being said, as clearly outlined by him through his statement that he is doing this in support of someone that is his good friend, that he believes.
That some employees cannot seem to separate someone's actions in their private life from their professional life is unfortunate. People seem too willing to condemn behavior that they would support given a few different details. Being upset does not justify a position. In fact, I would say people being upset and using that to justify their actions and beliefs is likely what put us on this path two years ago, and that both sides are willing to do it doesn't make it better, not at all.
We are on the verge of a complete authoritarian takeover of government. At this point, pooled power is the only power many of us have left to fight against this.
At last Friday’s staff meeting, Mr. Zuckerberg defended Mr. Kaplan’s appearance as a personal decision that did not violate company rules. Mr. Zuckerberg also said he trusted Mr. Kaplan’s judgment, even though he himself would most likely not have chosen to attend the hearing, said two people who were at the meeting.
The messaging backfired. Some employees — particularly women — said it came across as if Mr. Zuckerberg was shrugging off Dr. Blasey’s comments about sexual assault, saying that the chief executive’s remarks had caused “stress and trauma” and were “painful to hear.”
If you have a policy that people can have their own beliefs and opinions, you need to hold to it regardless of whether you like how it's used. It's like free speech (is is free speech), and I suspect all these same people would also be very upset if someone faced repercussions from management for supporting or appearing with a person or cause very strongly associated with liberalism. And they would be right to be upset in that case. But you can't have it both ways.
Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights, and if you find yourself at odds with it, you should really examine if your feelings are just. They might be, but in my opinion, the cases where that's true are fairly rare.