"Hitler did nothign wrong, let's kill the Jews" should be judged differently from "Maybe Hitler was right on some points, here's why:".
I'm all for keeping politics out of the workplace, except for verbal conversations between colleagues. But that's just not the case right now.
Both are obviously incredibly unprofessional, but only one would probably face life-changing punishment in reality. Ideally you set the tone that both are unacceptable, that the only political discussion acceptable beyond interpersonal conversation is the politics of the company's self-interest. Both starting an internal political battle, as as well tweeting externally about an already-started one, should get you fired. But that's only fair if you set that tone and expectation.
That's ludicrous. You don't do things that make potentially thousands of your coworkers uncomfortable internally just because you want to make a point. Human Resources is a thing for a reason.
Put it on medium and be done with it.
He suggests that Google has a culture of sharing pretty openly and of offering criticism and even commentary on important issues. It would be good to have additional evidence of this to evaluate whether his statement was indeed matched to the appropriate environment.
(I am not and have not been a Google employee, so IDK for sure. I know that at my company, there are indeed particular fora in which this sort of thing could be raised. I can imagine at some companies this would not be possible, so you raise a great question. Thanks!)
Maybe you are unfamiliar with Google's culture. Employees are encouraged to engage in conversations about the culture and values of the company, using mediums like this. Google is not rigid about "work time", preferring that you are productive.
Also, 10 page manifestos to your company are never good ideas.
has everyone forgotten Jerry McGuire?
He literally said the exact opposite of this.
Why are you purposefully misrepresenting his views? And if not purposefully, why are you then commenting on a story whose main source (the document) you haven't read?
Because they're outraged by what they've heard about it and demand that someone (almost without question) facilitate that outrage, correct or not.
He was offering a different explanation, based on group averages, of why the industry is unable to reach a 50/50 ratio of male/female engineers. And most of his arguments were based on interests, not abilities.
That's very different from the way it's been mischaracterized as an argument that women are inferior.
1) He never insinuated that anyone was biologically inferior just that there is marginal statistical proof that -on average- women prefer to work less hours, and more flexible hours; his "idea" was to promote a culture that adopted this, rather than using hiring quotas, in order to achieve the diversity goal which he also claims to wish for.
That you claim he was calling people "inferior" only shows your own bias.
2) It's not a "Manifesto" that's what gizmodo called it but it was, at best, a memo, at worst, the first post on an internal forum thread hoping to discuss this matter.
Priming your audience with terms like "Anti-diversity screed" and "manifesto" all but guarantee a sizable portion of people will read the document with major prejudice and bias. And that's the kind of thing those of us who value diversity ought to loathe.
We certainly need a whole lot more charity in our conversations on sensitive issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
[[Citation Needed]]
To me, totally missing the point. Not just "for the right". To many who would consider themselves mostly aligned with left wing politics, myself included, this is just the latest in a long line of media (social and news) driven forced punishment for people guilty of expressing a viewpoint or just generally doing something a bit poor taste in public. It doesn't really matter if they've done wrong. It's not a considered or proportional type of response.
Sure, there are far bigger injustices in the world than someone losing their job, but this sort of thing is wrong because it's for the wrong reason. It's headlines driven HR.