The problem I observe with firing James Damore is that it demonstrates that he was right about Google. He got fired for publishing a criticism of Google and for specifically voicing his own questions of hiring that prefers women in order to increase women’s representation in the Google departments.
Is there something wrong with questioning affirmative action when it’s 2017 and not 1988?
You can call the guy sexist because he talked about men and women, and his meandering thoughts on why men target high stress senior level jobs that can’t offer work/life balance and hours less than a 44 hour work week.
James Damore is shown, despite his opinions, that when any employee dares to actually analyse and question Google, then Google will fire that employee.
So, Google’s PR will state that Google values and upholds freedom of expression, speech, etc. However, Google will only allow “difficult political views” to be voiced and discussed within a scope of “principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws“.
Step out of that box and question the ideology of that scope, you get fired.
Anyway, I observe that an ideology or a culture is viewed as inclusive only when the policies and laws grant you protected status, and you benefit from being targeted by diversity hiring practices.
When you’re without a protected status because you’re member of a group that’s perceived as historically being favoured (which means privileged), you will face policies that don’t have preference for your gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on. So, you can experience disadvantage.
Inclusion can become a funny pendulum swing. The efforts to increase representation of a gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., within a company or school does minus the representation of the gender, race, sexual orientation of a group who are assumed as being traditionally privileged.