Yeah... nothing to debate, no points of contention, nothing to see here... it's how I see it, and if you don't agree, I'll shut you down. Sounds open to new ideas and diverse opinions to me.
I keep seeing this kind of thing get said, but I'm not sure what the point is - are people really expecting people who espouse diversity to literally accept any opinion?
Am I meant to work alongside a person who has literally said he wants me to die, completely seriously?
So at some point, there is a line - I feel the more interesting discussion is why you feel this isn't beyond the line - presumably it comes down to a matter you not believing there was harm caused?
For me, I think the obvious justification for the firing here is that this guy had hiring as a part of his responsibility, and this document is a statement he isn't going to be able to fulfil that.
If I'm a developer and I write a manifesto about how we should be writing code to optimise for the worst maintainability to keep job security, am I fair game to fire? If I'm literally coming out with a manifesto that says I'm not going to do the job I was hired to do (of part thereof), is it unreasonable to fire me?
The issue is that time and time again the reaction to dissenting opinion isn't to discuss the merit of such opinion but to shut down the conversation and drown it out. Also, I haven't seen the original memo, my understanding is that it wasn't intended as a manifesto. Beyond this, I don't know that it called for anyone to die.
Maybe you can point out some things in the memo that you feel warrants someone's ability to make a living be taken away.
---
Edit: I would expect for people who preach in the name of diversity to be more open to criticism and opinions that don't match their own. I've said of myself repeatedly that I'd much rather have more politicians I can respect than those that I agree with. It's somewhat hypocritical of someone to espouse diversity, while simultaneously shutting out differing opinions.
Either:
* You're hypothesizing and I don't quite get it,
* haven't read the text and are basing on some misinterpretation you have seen somewhere on the internet
* or you're purposefully lying (which I assume you're not).
Of course no one expects you to tolerate every point of view.
But we should tolerate moderate views across the political spectrum. The document was wrong in some points, but overall largely fit in with mainstream conservative politics. Many centrists also agree with parts of the document.
I think it's ok to fire someone for being a Nazi or (as in your example) issuing a death threat. I don't think it's ok for someone to be fired for being a progressive or a conservative.
I wonder if there would be the same controversy if the memo had gone viral but being about any other issue, say, about what the guy thinks Google is doing wrong with Google+. I assume that the guy would be fired also, but I'm not sure.
In other words, I'm not sure whether the firing is to supress opinions or to punish putting the company in a bad spot.
Am I meant to work alongside a person who has literally said he wants me to die, completely seriously?
So at some point, there is a line - I feel the more interesting discussion is why you feel this isn't beyond the line - presumably it comes down to a matter you not believing there was harm caused?
For me, I think the obvious justification for the firing here is that this guy had hiring as a part of his responsibility, and this document is a statement he isn't going to be able to fulfil that.
If I'm a developer and I write a manifesto about how we should be writing code to optimise for the worst maintainability to keep job security, am I fair game to fire? If I'm literally coming out with a manifesto that says I'm not going to do the job I was hired to do (of part thereof), is it unreasonable to fire me?