Luettavissa myös suomeksi.
Sofia Virta announced on Tuesday that she would be leaving the board of TPS (coverage unfortunately only in Finnish). Her reason is apparently a values conflict with the fact that the organization allowed Veli-Matti Savinainen to refuse to wear a Pride-themed shirt in a recent match.
This decision is correct, but is also raises another issue that is deeper than a single MP's place on the board of an organization: why MPs and other public figures are invited to take on such roles in the first place.
An MP's job is (among other things) to represent a particular set of values. If they are offered a place on the board of an organization, and they choose to accept it, that sends a message that the organization's activities are consistent with (or at least permitted according to) the MP's values. If, on the other hand, the MP decides later to resign, it is a direct message that the organization's activities are no longer acceptable under those values.
This is in many ways comparable to the role of peacekeepers in preventing war: peacekeepers are sent to a region with the intent that, if one party launches an attack on that region, the attack will also be an attack on the party that sent the peacekeepers, who may then also react to the attack. The presence of an MP or other celebrity or person publicly advancing particular values on the board of an important organization works the same way: it creates a metaphorical tripwire for the organization, which will be triggered if the organinzation acts against its professed values.
This may sound totally obvious, but I know that many people sometimes ask why e.g. MPs accumulate so many positions of this sort. While an MP definitely brings experience and expertise to the board of an NGO or other organization, they also be something much more valuable: the assurance that the organization will abide by its professed values.
Unfortunately, that is not always the case.