Linda Sandvik Resigns As Director Of Code Club

I probably don&#x27;t agree with Sandvik about Google&#x27;s complicity, but that doesn&#x27;t matter. Silencing her to accommodate a company sponsor is both unethical and counterproductive.<p>There are forms of criticism that are intrinsically not compatible with being a director. If Sandvik was criticizing Google&#x27;s participation with &quot;Code Club&quot; or making claims directly relevant to the project, that would be germane to the board. But that&#x27;s not what happened here.<p>Silencing project members also doesn&#x27;t help Google. Instead, it contributes to a perception that any support Google has comes from the barrel of a financial gun.<p>If Sandvik was given an ultimatum to stop criticizing Google to avoid annoying a sponsor, that was a terrible mistake on the part of the project. They should do what they can to correct it.

I&#x27;m conflicted. I respect someone for standing up for what they believe in (freedom to express their views) but this also seems like one of those &quot;pick your battles&quot; situations. Google like it or not are a key sponsor of Code Club. They do some good and some evil, but they&#x27;re a key sponsor, and as the director you need to put the organisation ahead of your personal issues&#x2F;complaints.<p>The complaints might be entirely valid (and they likely are), but when you&#x27;re in that kind of position you might not have the luxury of expressing valid complains about the people who literally pay the bills.<p>So I guess my thought is: Maybe this is best for all parties. Code Club gets to continue, Linda Sandvik will be able to express herself openly, and Google will be able to continue to be a Code Club sponsor without conflict.<p>It is just unfortunate that these personal complaints couldn&#x27;t be put to the side for the betterment of the organisation as a whole.

The Code Club board just taught their students a very important life lesson about what happens when you stand up for whats right.

What is actually bad about Google&#x27;s &quot;corporate mass surveillance&quot;?<p>It sure sounds scary, but when I actually try to think about what it is actually bad about it, I can&#x27;t really think of any.<p>Every single user Google got, they signed up voluntarily. Google never forced anyone to sign up for their services.<p>Google attempts to learn about its users just like every other companies. It&#x27;s just that Google does it so much better than others. Do you get the label &quot;corporate mass surveillance&quot;, when the company becomes so good learning about its users?

&gt; &quot;I do not want to get into the specifics of any particular corporation. Nonetheless, it’s worth restating that the Code Club board believe X are a tremendous partner. As a member of the board I am completely aligned with that view.&quot;<p>&gt; I&#x27;m not comfortable with lying and so it is in my best interest to resign.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what part of that statement would be a lie?

If I had a sponsor and an employee was criticizing the decision to say something to that employee would be based on how the criticism was done. If the person mentioned that they just didn&#x27;t like Google&#x27;s surveillance program then I would let it go. But if they ran around yelling about Google is evil because of said programs then we would have to have a talk.<p>If I am running a small company and your personal opinions are costing me money it would be crazy for me to keep you on. Not saying that is what happened here but that is more of a response from some of the comments I have read.

Good job Linda! These type of decisions are hard to make and too many people are too selfish, scared, ... to make them.

There used to be a proverb about this sort of thing. Something about being careful when eating finger foods.

Not adding much to the conversation, but good on you, Linda. Money isn&#x27;t the only thing that matters.

Here&#x27;s a thought. If you think google is evil because of surveillance should you not only refuse to use gmail (and other google products) but also refuse to send email to gmail addresses, because you don&#x27;t want to support them?

Never forget: the mass media you read every day also has sponsors. NPR has sponsors.

When Google tracking its [voluntary] users&#x27;s activities on the internet becomes human rights violations, the internet&#x27;s social justice outrage machine has jumped the shark.<p>Bad-mouthing your sponsors is pretty universally considered a business faux pas. I don&#x27;t see how it&#x27;s either unusual or unethical to keep your opinions to yourself when the funding for your organization is on the line. That said, there&#x27;s nothing wrong with caring about free speech more than teaching children to code. People are entitled to their priorities, after all.

Linda Sandvik sounds like a fundamentally good person, and the other members of the Code Club board bad ones. Good on her. They will be harmed by her absence, and they deserve that.<p>The belief that sponsorship can buy silence is disgusting and immoral. Sponsorship should convey absolutely nothing aside from receiving credit for assisting with the sponsored organizations goals.

Are there a lot of companies&#x2F;organizations out there that would be comfortable with employees (or directors) publicly criticizing the organization or its partners? Outside of journalists (who should expect&#x2F;demand this sort of freedom of expression), I suspect the answer is no. It&#x27;s not clear to me that Code Club&#x27;s request was unreasonable.

&gt; either I have to stop saying negative things about Code Club sponsors, or resign as a director.<p>sponsor is basically indirect employer. Don&#x27;t bite the hand feeding you, it is just unethical. Publicly saying bad things about your employer is a bad thing. Resign and, only after that, say whatever you want as long as you don&#x27;t violate the non-disclosures you may had signed.