I must admit that when I first saw the clip of Matt Hancock defending the proposed appointment of Tony Abbott to assist in our Government’s post-Brexit trade talks, I laughed. It was an awkward laugh, in response to Hancock’s bluntness. It was probably a momentary slip on his part as he forgot his politician training. Most Ministers are gifted with an ability to waffle any answer to such an extent that their actual argument or opinion is quite difficult to follow. Their answers cannot be snipped into 30 second clips, nor can someone half watching actually follow their point.
Instead of starting from the top on a big long ramble, Hancock completed presenter Kay Burley’s sentence…
“Tony Abbott is a homophobe and a misogynist..”
“He’s also an expert on trade”
While he probably wanted to cast doubt on the fact that Abbott is a homophobe or misogynist, the impression Hancock gave was that Abbott remains a good hire due to his expertise in trade, despite, yep, that history of homophobic and misogynistic remarks.
I will say that I do think Tony Abbott’s social and political views matter here. Trade policy can have a direct impact on the lives of minority groups and Abbott’s views of women, the LGBT community and other minorities could help shape that policy. His appointment is explicitly political and policy-related.
However, this furore has got me wondering about a wider issue that I believe society has not quite figured out.
I remember at school we had an assembly seemingly inspired by a teacher’s love of Radio 4's Moral Maze. I rarely listened in assemblies because in a hall of hundreds it was easy to get away with idle daydreaming without being noticed. However, this assembly gripped me. The primary discussion was based on whether we should judge an individual based on their skill, craft or their legacy ‘within their domain’, or judge them on their personal character and beliefs. I was stumped.
My teacher, clearly staring into their crystal ball, asked us to consider whether we should judge someone like John Terry on his sporting prowess and achievements, or on his character and personal views. This was not long after Terry’s affair with a teammates’ ex-wife and we were asked whether we felt it was right that he was stripped of the England captaincy. After all, his personal life had little if nothing to do with his ability on the pitch.
I’d argue that it was probably right for Terry to lose the England captaincy due to the wider significance of that role off the football pitch, and the loss of confidence in him the episode might have instigated across the team. However, I do not think he should’ve lost his job at Chelsea Football Club, nor have lost the opportunity to play for England again. Likewise, even after he was found guilty by an FA Commission of using a racist slur against Anton Ferdinand, I do not think he should have lost his job as a professional footballer. Though I believe it unfortunate that Chelsea did not sack him as their captain.
All in all, I would argue that individuals and their legacies are complex. I think it is possible to view John Terry as both an exceptional footballer and one of most gifted defenders England has ever produced – AND – believe him to likely be an unpleasant individual due to having an extramarital affair and being found guilty of likely using a racist slur.
History is littered with figures of great importance in arts, sports, culture and politics, who held shitty views (particularly by modern standards). I’ve written at length about this before. However, this debate doesn’t just relate to past figures or celebrities who keep being given a platform; it is something that affects all of us.
If a delivery driver or a school teacher holds the same social or political views as Tony Abbott, should they not be hired?Should someone not be able to work in their trade again, even after doing their time?
I don’t have a definitive answer. As these cases show, the context of a particular job is important. Yet for every capital P political appointee, there are many more jobs that could be deemed small p political due to your platform and influence, where your personal views could most easily be held against you. We see this in areas such as academia, journalism or indeed professional football. It is here where I feel a slippery slope may begin, as all of us are handed a platform by social media and increasingly society seems to be saying, your personal views do matter.
What do we do with a delivery driver who personally believes that ideally, children should not be brought up by same-sex parents, yet fulfils their job role without identifiably discriminating against others? Equally, what about a teacher who agrees with Abbott and expresses these views publically but continues to professionally follow new regulations and teach children in their class about the reality of same-sex families.
An employee with ‘dodgy’ opinions can make a brand look bad or make fellow employees feel unsafe. The Pentecostal churchgoer and staunch religious-conservative who works on reception, the Terf in accounts, the intern who supports Turning Point UK, that manager who engaged in leud and sexist banter on his personal Facebook account, the IT technician who is part of the 5% of the UK public who regularly consume illegal drugs… what do we do with them?
Misdemeanours outside of work are now more likely to be commented on, recorded and shared online than ever before. Your mistakes or your bad opinions are now less transitory. One's baggage sticks a bit longer, because of those screenshots.
Employment law offers some protection for workers. However, employers are unlikely to defend an employee who has been cancelled. After all, what’s in for them?
I predict that the way in which we judge people personally and professionally, and the bar we set for whether someone is worthy enough of continued employment in X field, will only become more salient.
Do your actions bring this company into disrepute?
