| Forewarning, the following isn't an opinion that I hold: To play devil's advocate, what makes it right for certain groups to be able to be preferred over others? How come perceived racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are pushed out and the subjects of their hate allowed to stay? What if we flipped your statement around. "As a misogynist, I could not work with a woman. As a homophobe, I could not work with an out homosexual. As a an outspoken anti-semite, I could not work with a reverent jew." Let's say for the sake of this example both parties are the same in efficiency. But, come due time one party starts to openly resent the other and demand they be fired from the company because they cannot work with [insert group here]. Now, I didn't say this was the anti-semite or the jew. It could be either, so let's not shut down here. Group A says they cannot work with Group B, because Group B holds X idea. Group B can work with Group A, even though Group A holds Y idea. Is management really right in, in this isolated fairy tale example, in firing Group B because Group A cannot work with them? Let's reverse the roles in the Google fiasco. Let's say it was the detractors who were fired instead of Damore. Do you think this would have been unfair? If so, why do you believe it's okay for the original situation to happen? I'm aware there are other variables, but this is what it boils down to. |