To some, the mere expression of an outrageous opinion is a form of violence in and of itself.

Following this logic, any who express such ideas to others should be sanctioned as if they committed physical violence.

Ohhhh, I see.. nobody ever showed me this linear line.. (I am a minority, immigrant.woman...) The social justice warrior reasoning were.never very clear today.

> But is it okay to campaign towards the goal of firing someone for expressing an opinion they feel outraged about?

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.)

Sure!

Especially when it's so rare that it's a big kerfuffle every single time it happens in this industry.

Let's be frank, here. This is not someone merely "expressing an opinion." This is someone rallying against diversity, using pseudoscience to back up claims that women and minorities are inferior, and thus shouldn't have been hired. On top of that, they ranted about how Google had not done enough to make conservatives feel they have a safe space, when the only thing Google has done on the subject is to make others feel safe at Google.

I looked for claims in the manifesto that women and/or minorities are inferior, and I failed to find them. Would you mind providing an example of what I seem to have missed?

Believing that diversity requires "lowing the bar" means believing "diverse" candidates are inferior.

Again, I failed to find this claim. The one instance I found of this phrase arises explicitly within a claim about a specific hiring practice being discriminatory:

>Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

Is this what you're referring to?

No, it just means that ones that meet the current requirements are not available in sufficient quantity.

He didn't rail against diversity, he railed against what are effectively affirmative action policies. Several times he went to pains to point out he wasn't against diversity of people, just the initiatives at Google.

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.

In that scenario, I don't know anyone who would defend the prejudiced team member.

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?

To re-examine why you rejected them, and see if other candidates were rejected for similar reasons or not. There are several studies that show that women and minorities are simply judged harsher than their peers despite having similar levels of talent and ability[1]. Examine if perhaps you fell into that trap. Obviously if someone couldn't do fizzbuzz, they shouldn't be hired. But I would wager that in many cases, there are those candidates that are very close, and they end up getting picked or rejected based on these unconscious factors.

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...

Like my husband? "I ask every person this question, she had no idea after so much hinting. People who can't answer these questions cannot operate our code base without significant help from others. The last few times I let this slide they all turned into huge disasters. So, absolutely no. " .... HR makes someone interview this girl again to that person. This girl truly is too inexperienced to fly, but no, lets reject all these c.s degree guys with projects on their github and let's make a third person interview them again. .....God, I am a doctor, I am a minority female immigrant doctor, I don't exactly get this kind of benefit of the doubt when I look for a job, okay?

actually, I think the author was pro-diversity but anti-diversity programs. in other words, he's rallying against diversity programs, not diversity.

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.

Did you miss the part where he was promoting diversity and proposing strategies to improve it? Weirdest rally "against" diversity I've ever heard of.