The resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla in 2014 remains a deeply consequential moment in the intersection of technology, corporate leadership, and social activism. Eich, a pivotal figure in the development of the JavaScript programming language and a co-founder of Mozilla, stepped down following public outcry over his 2008 donation to California’s Proposition 8 campaign, which sought to ban same-sex marriage. The controversy resurfaced when internal tensions at Mozilla and external pressure from advocacy groups and tech industry leaders brought renewed scrutiny to his personal political contributions, ultimately making his position untenable. The episode raises enduring questions about the boundaries between private beliefs and public leadership, the role of corporate accountability in social justice, and the challenges of fostering inclusive cultures within tech organizations. Eich’s resignation was not an isolated event but rather the culmination of escalating tensions. When his promotion to CEO was announced in March 2014, employees and allies within Mozilla’s open-source community voiced discomfort, given the company’s longstanding commitment to inclusivity. Critics argued that his financial support for Proposition 8—a measure widely condemned as discriminatory—was incompatible with leading an organization that championed an open web for *all* users. The backlash intensified as activists and Mozilla employees circulated petitions, and dating site OkCupid famously blocked Firefox users with a message urging them to reject browsers backed by an opponent of marriage equality. The message was clear: in an industry increasingly vocal about progressive values, Eich’s past actions were seen as irreconcilable with Mozilla’s ethos. What makes this moment particularly revealing is the broader cultural shift it reflected. The tech industry, once perceived as a neutral playground for innovation, was now being held to higher standards on social issues. Companies like Mozilla, which positioned themselves as mission-driven and user-centric, faced pressure to ensure their leadership embodied those ideals. Eich’s defenders framed the backlash as a violation of his right to personal political expression, arguing that his professional competence should outweigh his private views. However, opponents countered that corporate leaders—especially in influential roles—inevitably shape organizational culture and that tacit endorsement of discrimination, even indirectly, was unacceptable. The debate underscored a growing expectation that executives bear not just operational responsibility but moral accountability as well. Mozilla’s handling of the crisis also exposed the difficulties of navigating such controversies. Initially, the organization attempted to separate Eich’s personal beliefs from his professional role, emphasizing his technical expertise and vision for the company. But as internal dissent mounted and external partners distanced themselves, Mozilla’s stance became unsustainable. Eich’s eventual resignation, framed as a voluntary decision to protect Mozilla’s mission, highlighted the precarious balance between individual rights and collective values. In his departure statement, Eich acknowledged the challenges of leading amid division but maintained that his commitment to inclusivity within Mozilla had been mischaracterized. The aftermath of Eich’s resignation continues to resonate. For some, it serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of ideological purity tests in hiring and leadership. Others view it as a necessary precedent, demonstrating that advocacy can hold even powerful figures accountable for supporting regressive policies. The incident also prompted deeper reflection within Mozilla, which subsequently reinforced its diversity and inclusion policies. Meanwhile, Eich went on to co-found the Brave browser, whose privacy-focused model distanced itself from the cultural firestorms of his past. Ultimately, the Brendan Eich controversy transcends the fate of one executive. It encapsulates a pivotal moment when the tech industry’s social responsibilities came into sharp relief, forcing a reckoning with how personal actions of leaders reflect on their organizations. The episode remains a touchstone for discussions about tolerance, accountability, and whether neutrality is ever truly possible in spaces where technology and human rights intersect.