| > only a certain stance on controversial issues is acceptable, and implying (or stating outright) that divergence from this orthodoxy amounts to an affront to human dignity There are a variety of controversial issues where one position is a literal affront to human dignity (i.e., a deliberate act of disrespect). > This kind of rhetoric creates a hostile and toxic work environment This is a privileged view of the situation. As a simple example, imagine you have three coworkers: Alex, Blake, and Taylor. Alex believes that Taylor should not have been allowed to have married their current spouse, and posts on their personal Twitter account advocating that the decisions which allowed that to be possible be repealed. Alex hasn't shared their beliefs in a work setting, but did tweet something about the company and as a result Taylor saw the other tweets and learned how Alex felt. Taylor believes that Alex's position is a deliberate act of disrespect. Taylor fears a decision that would result in no longer being married to their spouse, which would lead to problems with medical insurance, child custody, finances, etc. Taylor doesn't feel safe working with someone who actively wishes to destroy a meaningful part of their life. Taylor asks the company to make a statement supporting their right to have married their partner. Blake says that Taylor is creating a hostile and toxic work environment. Is Blake right? Or is Taylor acting in self defensive, in response to an already-hostile and already-toxic work environment? Is the discomfort felt by Blake acceptable "collateral damage"? Do your answers change if the hypothetical scenario is not about a same-sex couple in 2020 following Obergefell, but an interracial couple in California in 1950 following the ruling of anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional? |
A substantial segment of people have realized that they can shut down any conflicting opinions on controversial issues by proclaiming that divergence from their orthodoxy amounts to an affront to human dignity. Over the course of my employment I've seen people claim:
* All positions must pursue at least 50% female representation, and anything less than that amounts to misogyny.
* Voting for the current president of the United States amounts to an act of overt racism.
* Opposing affirmative action amounts to overt racism.
* Supporting affirmative action amounts to overt racism.
These positions are not affronts to human dignity. Maybe some people genuinely do believe that it does, but their views are disconnected enough that it's no excuse:
* Say an anti-abortion activist genuinely does believe that terminating a pregnancy amounts to murder. I'm sure such a person would be deeply offended by someone who supports a woman's right to do so, and would see it as an affront to human dignity. Say they posted on Facebook to this effect, that abortion is murder and should be banned. A co-worker who has had an abortion complains to HR saying a co-worker accused them of murder because of their contraceptive decisions. No HR person worth their salt would take action in this case, since it's effectively firing ~30% of the population because of their political or religious beliefs. If you don't want to be exposed to your co-workers political views, don't friend them on Facebook and don't follow them on Twitter.
* Say Bob makes a tweet supporting affirmative action in hiring and promotion, and Lin (who is Asian and opposes affirmative action) sees this. She finds it an affront to her dignity and amounts to asking organizations to deprive her right to equal opportunity. Does Lin have grounds to ask the company to sanction Bob for openly espousing discrimination against her? If these statement were made in the workplace, maybe, but otherwise Lin should just not view Bob's out-of-work communications. The company's policy is to give equal opportunity to all races, and Lin has no proof that Bob brought his views into the workplace.
Crucially, though, these two examples occurred outside of the workplace. Had they occurred inside the workplace ,then they now have much stronger cases. Your co-workers are captive audiences, in the context of interactions in the office. If Bob says this to Lin in the office, Lin can't just block him.
As far as your example goes, If Taylor doesn't want to see Alex's political views Taylor should block Alex on Twitter. They're not a captive audience in this situation: there's zero reason why these two people need to see each other's tweets to do their job. But if Alex said this inside the office, then there'd be better grounds for taking action against Alex. That's why offices are increasingly telling co-workers to keep their politics out of the office.