Reports this morning say that Google has fired the engineer who anonymously published a screed against the company’s diversity and inclusion dogma.

I find the furor over the article rather informative. Most telling of all has been the response from those invested in the status quo, evidenced primarily by the official Google response to all the hullabaloo from their new VP and Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Danielle Brown, but also by responses from across the tech and broader business world.

Both the original manifesto and the Google response are here.

I’m flummoxed by the vitriolic reaction to the original article. It is written respectfully and from a position I see as, “hey, here’s what I think, I may be wrong.” It includes some undeniable truths. I think it’s a sober and worthwhile cataloging of very serious problems with current thinking and actions regarding diversity, and that an honest discussion of and debate over those issues is beyond overdue.

One topic in particular I find simply galling. Many commentators have excoriated the author for daring to suggest that men, on average, have innate superiority over women in particular skills required for coding. Their essential argument is that it is unspeakably immoral and simply beyond the pale to suggest that any such gender-based differences in abilities might exist. (“Sexist diatribe” is now the pejorative of choice among the left-leaning chattering classes on this one.) Yet these same people have endlessly extolled the superiority of women in skills required for leadership and management. Hypocrisy, thy name is progressivism…

This excerpt from Ms. Brown, though, says it all:

And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages… Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

This is a prettified way of saying that all opinions are welcome, so long as they’re exactly what she and the company officially espouse. It’s clear that to Ms. Brown, there’s only one allowable point of view – hers and her ideological fellow-travelers’ – and she will actively silence, and threaten the livelihood of, anyone who has the temerity to publicly state any other perspective.

The author of the anonymous article is remarkably courageous. He has brought up very serious issues that deserve a proper open discussion and debate, rather than the usual threats and silencing Ms. Brown and her cohort have become all too accustomed to imposing. You’d think someone with the word “inclusion” in her title might realize a great many of those under her charge feel just the same as the screed’s author – demonized, discriminated against, threatened, marginalized and silenced – and take action to fix things. You’d be horribly wrong.

Ms. Brown, Orwell did not pen how-to manuals.