But is it okay to campaign towards the goal of firing someone for expressing an opinion they feel outraged about?
Following this logic, any who express such ideas to others should be sanctioned as if they committed physical violence.
It depends what the opinion is, and what job the person holds, and the relationship between those two things. The idea that the coercive power of government should not be deployed against expression doesn't mean all ideas or equal or that there are never conditions where expression should have negative consequences.
(In fact, any answer to your question implies that there are ideas that are unacceptable to express.)
Especially when it's so rare that it's a big kerfuffle every single time it happens in this industry.
>Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Is this what you're referring to?
he also didn't outright claim women/minorities are "inferior" but that biological differences mean they are good at different things and maybe driving them into tech isn't necessarily a good thing. he also further claims we should be looking at each candidate and evaluate their skills as an individual and not because of one of their attributes (i.e. race, gender, religion)
I'd urge you to reread the manifesto and not get too focused on the part with bad science. the author makes some other interesting points.
He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Better to discuss and address real issues and not perpetually pretend that everyone is a closet racist and sexist.