This generalizes further than just antifeminism. Christians and atheists are usually in positions to hire people. I guess we should just fire everybody who ever believed in anything, and then we'd have a perfect world, right?
Where did you get the idea that "believing in anything" is the reason he got fired?
It's quite simple (and already explained by rit). He posted numerous messages disparaging various groups - blacks, women, gays. He is responsible for hiring within the company. This places Business Insider in an utterly compromised position and in danger of lawsuits.
Been chewing on this since you made the comment, and I don't think I buy it. The "legal issues" angle is a dirty cop-out, and it ignores the issue at hand: he's being suppressed for holding an opinion.
Right now I'm looking at the Twitter search results and being reminded why I hate people in general. Should expressing this opinion get me fired? Should I be prohibited from occupying a position of hiring people because I am prejudiced to assume they are capable of what I'm seeing in those search results?
Somehow it's not fair. A Christian or Atheist or (pre-1960s) homosexual sympathizer would present the same risks to a business as Dickinson did here. His views aren't considered progressive by any means, but 50 or 100 years ago neither would the views of an Atheist or a homosexual. I'm trying to find the difference here between firing Dickinson and, say 60 years ago, firing a homosexual sympathizer.
And I can't find that line. I can't say, without making an absolute judgement using a perfect computer and a perfect observation of the global state of the universe, whether the sympathizer was correct at the time, or whether Dickinson is somehow wrong now. All I know is that nobody appears to have been harmed except Dickinson, and I won't be hearing his opinions any time soon, and that's a crying shame.
I'm trying to find the difference here between firing Dickinson and, say 60 years ago, firing a homosexual sympathizer.
Well, a homosexual sympathizer in a hiring position 60 years ago would have been more inclusive in their choices for candidate. A bigot in the 21st Century would be be more exclusive.
He is not being suppressed for holding an opinion. He is perfectly entitled to hold that opinion. And Business Insider is perfectly entitled to fire him to avoid being associated with an opinion that does not match their company values.
Been chewing on this since you made the comment, and I don't think I buy it. The "legal issues" angle is a dirty cop-out, and it ignores the issue at hand: he's being suppressed for holding an opinion.
He's not being suppressed (and now fired) for holding an opinion. He was fired for publicly expressing views that were incompatible with his job as CTO.
He said in a public medium (Twitter), tagged with his professional title, that he believed superb female developers were as rare as unicorns. Any woman who had ever interviewed and been turned down for a dev position at Business Insider might have a legal case for unfair discrimination in hiring.
The other stuff (racism, sexism, etc) is one thing, but the example I mentioned above exposed his company to legal liability. That's not a responsible thing for a person in a decision-making and hiring position to do.
Exactly. And it potentially opens up legal grounds, with evidence. Every member of the protected classes he has venomously disparaged, who applied for and didn't get a job (or was fired) to claim discrimination by him.
Yeah, But he is not announcing anything on behalf of BI right? There is an implicit disclaimer that all views are his not his employers (I am sure atleast he thinks that way). Yes BI is entitled to fire him as it portrays them in bad-light in public but that wouldn't attract lawsuits (may be american law is fucked-up). I don't know.
> Yeah, But he is not announcing anything on behalf of BI right
So? Even aside from the PR (and potential advertising sales) aspects -- which are probably the main factor -- anything he says in public on behalf of himself is, even if not made on behalf of the company, evidence that can be used to establish his motive in any decision he makes on behalf of the company (e.g., hiring/firing) in the event of a lawsuit.
His views aren't the issue, his outspokenness is. How could a woman ever feel comfortable interviewing with this guy, let alone, working for him. What if said woman was a great fit for the company and had a lot to contribute? His ability to hire and fire effectively is compromised. Not because of his views, but because he couldn't keep his mouth shut about them.
Sometimes knowing when to shut the hell up is a far greater asset than being outspoken and opinionated. Especially about things related to your job...
