Rich:
Certainly opinions can be racist, misogynistic, or otherwise very bad. And it’s never intolerant to call anyone out on any opinion — good or bad. A dialogue on ideas is the whole point of free speech because this fosters competition of ideas, which leads, in time, we trust, to the widespread adoption of the best ideas.
I agree that diversity is good, but not just of race and gender, but of experience and most of all ideas! And that is why I view Google’s firing this person as an act of bigotry — it’s simple intolerance of an opinion, one not based in hate, but science and one that is subscribed to by many serious intellectuals, hence my link to the Harvard debate.
And if it were proven science that women are more neurotic than men — could he speak that truth in the workplace in the interest of creating policies that better serve diversity and women — even if it violated political correctness? Or does the empathy of hurting someone’s feelings with the truth override reason? Because that was one of his points. Notably, that view, that women are more neurotic, does seem to have scientific support. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-anxious-sex/
And he definitely did not say that women were inferior, though that is how the media is characterizing his thesis. Rather he simply said, in part, that it’s not gender discrimination but rather naturally occurring differing interests between men and women that’s responsible for the over-representation of men in computer programming. This is a widely held opinion by respected intellectuals, as my link shows. Maybe it’s wrong, but it’s not a hate based belief, as it is being widely treated and referenced as.
His recommendation was to eliminate policies that utilize gender discrimination to get more women into the field and instead develop programs based on science (studies of gender differences) which would organically bring more women into the field by making it more attractive to people more interested in working with people than things. Hence his suggestion that programmers pair up — so there is more human interaction in the endeavor — rather than solo work.
And please ponder on what exactly is a “socially acceptable opinion” that separates what you believe should be tolerated and what should be punished? That the earth was round was once outside that scope. It was also the crime for which Socrates was executed. I trust you aren’t advocating for reviving heresy laws so we relive life in the 13th century. So who draws the lines of what speech is acceptable? Who is to say what science will say 100 years from now about the truth of gender.
IMO the most cherished American ideal is that here we trust debate will sort the good ideas from the bad, not because the masses are brilliant or wise, but because the only alternative is to permit an authoritarian, and history shows us that’s always a bad idea, even if it were you or I! It’s also why the first order of business of every fascist in history was to stifle free speech — or that is speech they don’t like. This is why freedom is our most cherished value. Freedom is simply the wide spread practice of tolerance. Tolerance of ideas, both good and bad, and people and lifestyle. Everything short of violence.
I belive we need to see the world as it is, warts and all, rather than as a cartoon of how we would have it be.
That in sum is the world view from which my opinion on this subject springs. Thank you for considering my thoughts.