At the very least, it leads to even more divisiveness, instead of rational discussion.
As a thought experiment: have you ever seen someone change their mind or worldview as a result of being insulted & fired?
Too many, all across the spectrum, have his mindset that people that do or think things they don't like should be destroyed and locked away from "civilized society." A common rebuttal I see from these sorts, after being questioned why they don't take it upon themselves to sit down and understand one another (I will concede there is a very very very small minority that this shouldn't be done with, but you're unlikely to ever interact with them), is that it's not their duty to help these people.
Unfortunately, this makes the issue worse when you start exiling certain groups and radicalized with hate.
Here's an interesting article (isolated incident) where those with extreme views were shown compassion and understanding, and ultimately disavowed their ideas:
Black Man Gets KKK Members To Disavow By Befriending Them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-man-daryl-davis-be...
I have see people limited in their ability to cause further harm by being fired; not all consequences are directed at reformation if he offender.
...but that's not why someone in this position would be fired. It would be because their publicly stated opinions about what people are and are not capable of makes their co-workers deeply uncomfortable.
We can debate endlessly (we already have, I'm sure we will again) whether firing is the right or wrong choice, but let's argue about it for the right reasons.
It's fundamentally not about them; it's about their co-workers. Making it about them is the wrong approach.
For instance, I'm outraged that anything related to Affirmative Action exists period -- as I believe codified, race-based laws are disgusting and an anathema to the construct of equality and equal-treatment under the law.
Following this logic, any who express such ideas to others should be sanctioned as if they committed physical violence.
It depends what the opinion is, and what job the person holds, and the relationship between those two things. The idea that the coercive power of government should not be deployed against expression doesn't mean all ideas or equal or that there are never conditions where expression should have negative consequences.
(In fact, any answer to your question implies that there are ideas that are unacceptable to express.)
Especially when it's so rare that it's a big kerfuffle every single time it happens in this industry.
>Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Is this what you're referring to?
He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Better to discuss and address real issues and not perpetually pretend that everyone is a closet racist and sexist.
Can I give you another that I've experienced? "You rejected this interviewee? Can you give them another look? We need more diversity."
What is the proper way to proceed in this situation?
And, also, to look at why diverse candidates are not applying to work at your company is decent numbers.
[1]One such article: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...
he also didn't outright claim women/minorities are "inferior" but that biological differences mean they are good at different things and maybe driving them into tech isn't necessarily a good thing. he also further claims we should be looking at each candidate and evaluate their skills as an individual and not because of one of their attributes (i.e. race, gender, religion)
I'd urge you to reread the manifesto and not get too focused on the part with bad science. the author makes some other interesting points.