The Exclusionary Tactics of Progressive "Inclusion" Programs | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's note: This post, by Brooke Medina, was originally published in Civitas's online edition.

    Whether you think he is a hero or a villain, you've probably read or heard strong responses to Google's decision to fire engineer James Damore.

    Being ostracized by Silicon Valley elites and leftists everywhere, this man has been painted as a knuckle dragger of mammoth proportions. Despite the toll his intellectually lucid memo has placed upon him as a private citizen, employed by a private company, one would think that no punishment is too severe for this Neanderthal if you listened to the response from the outrage mob.

    Google's Vice President of Diversity, Danielle Brown, issued a response to Damore's memo by emphasizing the importance of having employees that are open about, "fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."

    Brown's response is fascinating, in part, because Google just made it clear that those who go against the grain, even if their arguments are, at the very least, worthy of discussion, will have no job security.

    A bit of intellectual honesty is in order. If Google only wants biological diversity, but a uniformity of political and cultural thought, then they ought to say so. Nevertheless, a quick perusal of their Diversity page confirms that to be the case. Aside from the Google Veterans Network, the company's diversity efforts concentrate on inclusion that is centered around race, gender, age, disability and sexual orientation. This focus is textbook left-wing identity politics, but there are nothing but crickets when it comes to political or intellectual diversity.

    If you'd like more insight and commentary on James Damore's memo and subsequent firing, click here.