This is a pretty elaborate straw man.
The fact is, an employee got fired for creating a 10 page document presenting a contrarian viewpoint. Regardless of whether or not you disagree with the author’s conclusion - if a company actually values diversity rather than just pretending to, than they should be welcoming alternative ideas rather than silencing them. If the author made an error in his/her argument, then that error should be addressed rather than the author being personally lambasted.
> You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs
Where in the document does he say this? (link to document)
I’m going to guess you’re extrapolating this implication from his comments on affirmative action.
Affirmative action is discrimination against men, whites, and Asians in order to boost representation of underrepresented minorities. It is a zero sum game. If Google is not engaging in this form of affirmative action as the document claims, then why not respond and provide evidence as a former Google employee?
> “Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.”
What you’re basically saying is along the lines of: “Because you presented an opinion that others disagree with, you’re at fault. Women are like children and must be coddled from scary men with differing opinions.“ You’re also legitimizing punching this guy in the face — again, for simply presenting an opinion you disagree with.
Tell me, who is the real sexist here?
This culture of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism (ie. political correctness) around topics like diversity and gender issues needs to end. Even if this document was factually incorrect and logically inconsistent (which you have not made the case for), a company that claims to value diversity should be countering opposing viewpoints with facts, not firing and censorship.
