While the logical proof is interesting - of x-ist statements being acceptable or not based on who says them, and therefore potentially true and worth evaluating - it naively presumes that the general interest values truthseeking over ideological conformity. I think a lot of collective activists will freely admit that to them, capital-T Truth is less important than unity, and by this avoid the apparent contradiction.
As to the charge of undue weight being given to certain statements: Is there no statement that should result in the firing of an otherwise excellent employee? None? What about praising Hitler or advocating sacking the Capitol? If there is one, is there more than one?
Lastly, I hate to bring this up, but I was silently shadow-banned (had all my posts publicly censored) on this board by Mr. Graham himself for the heresy of criticizing some of his business approaches.
Sure, it was his right to do that, as the moderator. Isn't it an employer's right to fire someone for a statement that will harm the company - true or otherwise?
There have always been consequences for unpopular speech, some of which strike us as unjust. The line has shifted radically away from valuing free expression in recent years, unfortunately. But to say that "heresy" in this sense ever went away is a false statement. The only question that's ever been in play is where the line is drawn, and that's what should be addressed, by anyone claiming to seek justice; case by case, individual by individual, and not by countering one hyperbole - "you're an x-ist" - with its opposite, e.g. "you're the Spanish Inquisition".