>But the problem that I have with the piece is really the rest of it - I think it's a little patronizing, I think using 23andme data to justify your positions is problematic, and I think paragraph after paragraph you see someone expounding at length on their ideas about very complex subjects, subjects that are near and dear to people's identities and politics. It's not a dialogue, it's not a jumping off point for a discussion, it's just a polemic.
The author is deeply involved in this complex subject and discussion. They have more than a good reason to have an opinion on it, and express it. I don't want to get into his tone/wording. I'm going to give him a wide pass just because its probably not his first language, and also because those types of things are highly culture-specific.
> That's not great leadership, that's not listening to the team, that's not navigating a complex situation with grace. He didn't have to just fall on his sword and apoloogize, but as a VP you have to at least be thoughtful about how you handle these situations.
Sure, a more street-smart/savvy person would probably do things differently. But fundamentally, I think that people don't have a right to not be offended. For e.g. I don't like the idea of people calling something offensive - like say the drawing of a certain prophet - and forcing others to accept their view. Its strictly a case-by-case thing. I'd want to know exactly what was so offensive. Maybe from a purely business perspective, Google did the right thing, but from a social discourse / wide-tent-philosophy standpoint I think it is disappointing.
Anyway, I appreciate you writing out your reply, and I don't really want to argue with you or change your opinion or anything, but just like how we can respectfully co-exist on HN, it should be possible to do so within a company too. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in a random person who I had not even heard of before this article ! :) I guess I just believe that people can still have integrity even when we disagree with them.