I'm OK with firing a developer evangelist for acting like that at a developer conference. Her job is to endear SendGrid to devs; clearly the opposite happened.
As a result of a tweet, two people are now without a job. Incredible how technology is changing everything. The bad tweet is now the equivalent of saying "fuck" on the air in your local news broadcast, except a bad tweet can happen at any time.
Well, that escalated quickly. This could have been a situation that everyone could have forgotten about in 10 minutes if people only spoke, listened and tried to understand each other.
(n.b. I don't condone anyone's firing in this situation)
Reading through some of the comments over on the facebook it appears there is a polarized view about this (as echoed generally over this episode).
It is so hard to draw the line as to what is right vs wrong, but I guess the take away is, there has to be a better way to deal with reporting such instances.
I am sure the horror stories that come out of def con, are mostly true, but a process for appropriate reporting is needed and should be mandatory for every conference to have in place.
Let's look at this with level heads. A PR manager went to a conference and decided she didn't like the content of a joke she overheard, indirectly, in a seminar room. Instead of addressing the "offenders", she decided to snap photos of them, without their knowledge, and shame them preemptively on Twitter.
Her Twitter account is the platform from which she "evangelizes" for developers; that is, performs her PR duties for her employer. She consciously made the decision to (ab)use her professional platform and status to more effectively carry out a personal crusade. Then when called out on it, she explicitly stated that her employer condoned her actions. Meaning, the PR manager stated that she was speaking on behalf of her employer. About dongles, and forking repos, and public shaming.
This leaves the employer vulnerable, because they are now complicit in her actions. In the extreme case, they could be sued. In the least extreme case, they've got a renegade PR manager projecting an image that doesn't actually represent the company.
I don't see a possible scenario where the employer could have kept the PR manager on. She showed a complete lack of judgement and forethought, not to mention a total disregard for the best interests of the brand.
And this is all _completely_exclusive_ from any of the sexism, misogyny, whatever allegations. Irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the firing. It's a chain-of-thought, judgment, and competency thing. The PR manager showed she did not have the right temperament or skillset for the job. The employer took action.
"Effective immediately, SendGrid has terminated the employment of Adria Richards. While we generally are sensitive and confidential with respect to employee matters, the situation has taken on a public nature. We have taken action that we believe is in the overall best interests of SendGrid, its employees, and our customers. As we continue to process the vast amount of information, we will post something more comprehensive."
It's ridiculous that anyone was fired for this in the first place, but I think it's not surprising that Richards would eventually be at odds with SendGrid once men and women alike started coming forward to question her reasoning.
Some of her defenders have claimed she had nothing to do with the firing of one of the men. Richards stated that she wasn't trying to convince anyone and was just presenting her experience. However, it needs to be understood that posting someone's picture on the internet with the intent of making an example out of them through public shaming, and without the accused having equal footing to present their side, has consequences, especially for an accusation as politically charged as sexism. Obviously, such an accusation can get someone fired.
On a final note, I have to question whether or not Richards understands what sexism is. There's a difference between sexual and sexism, and I think what grabbed the attention of so many people of either gender is that it was the sort of off-color humor that they share with their friends all the time. Richards had made the same type of joke on Twitter during the conference, which makes it so difficult to relate to where she's coming from and why she had the reaction that she did.
Some people have lamented the negative effect this could have on gender equality in tech, but I think that the nearly universal reaction from men and women on this issue might be a good sign that the sexes don't want to feel uptight around each other, and that if one is made uncomfortable, the other would prefer to have it handled in a politely assertive manner rather than with this sort of self-righteous drama that makes people lose their jobs. Think of how much of a non-story this would have been if Richards had politely asked the two men to keep it clean because she could hear them.
11 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadI assume this one is next, but why? Is the information false? (perhaps the social accounts are compromised?)
(n.b. I don't condone anyone's firing in this situation)
It is so hard to draw the line as to what is right vs wrong, but I guess the take away is, there has to be a better way to deal with reporting such instances.
I am sure the horror stories that come out of def con, are mostly true, but a process for appropriate reporting is needed and should be mandatory for every conference to have in place.
Her Twitter account is the platform from which she "evangelizes" for developers; that is, performs her PR duties for her employer. She consciously made the decision to (ab)use her professional platform and status to more effectively carry out a personal crusade. Then when called out on it, she explicitly stated that her employer condoned her actions. Meaning, the PR manager stated that she was speaking on behalf of her employer. About dongles, and forking repos, and public shaming.
This leaves the employer vulnerable, because they are now complicit in her actions. In the extreme case, they could be sued. In the least extreme case, they've got a renegade PR manager projecting an image that doesn't actually represent the company.
I don't see a possible scenario where the employer could have kept the PR manager on. She showed a complete lack of judgement and forethought, not to mention a total disregard for the best interests of the brand.
And this is all _completely_exclusive_ from any of the sexism, misogyny, whatever allegations. Irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the firing. It's a chain-of-thought, judgment, and competency thing. The PR manager showed she did not have the right temperament or skillset for the job. The employer took action.
It's ridiculous that anyone was fired for this in the first place, but I think it's not surprising that Richards would eventually be at odds with SendGrid once men and women alike started coming forward to question her reasoning.
Some of her defenders have claimed she had nothing to do with the firing of one of the men. Richards stated that she wasn't trying to convince anyone and was just presenting her experience. However, it needs to be understood that posting someone's picture on the internet with the intent of making an example out of them through public shaming, and without the accused having equal footing to present their side, has consequences, especially for an accusation as politically charged as sexism. Obviously, such an accusation can get someone fired.
On a final note, I have to question whether or not Richards understands what sexism is. There's a difference between sexual and sexism, and I think what grabbed the attention of so many people of either gender is that it was the sort of off-color humor that they share with their friends all the time. Richards had made the same type of joke on Twitter during the conference, which makes it so difficult to relate to where she's coming from and why she had the reaction that she did.
Some people have lamented the negative effect this could have on gender equality in tech, but I think that the nearly universal reaction from men and women on this issue might be a good sign that the sexes don't want to feel uptight around each other, and that if one is made uncomfortable, the other would prefer to have it handled in a politely assertive manner rather than with this sort of self-righteous drama that makes people lose their jobs. Think of how much of a non-story this would have been if Richards had politely asked the two men to keep it clean because she could hear them.