1) You (for instance) don't support affirmative action 2) You are a dick to other genders/races in your team
(2) does not always follow (1). Only (2) should be a matter for disciplinary action.
If you believe that your company should hire the best and most qualified people for the job, you probably hold "anti-diversity" views.
If you do not believe me, below are some examples of "rascist" and "sexist" statements, per the University of Minnesota:
http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/hewg/microaggressions.pdf
Examples:
“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
“America is a melting pot.”
“Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
“Where were you born?”
“You speak good English.”
The complaint alleges multiple instances of Google managers declaring that they would exert significant effort to avoid adding white heterosexual men to their teams, and subsequently threatening retaliation against anyone who questioned this effort. The alleged behavior goes far, far beyond avoiding people who have contributed to a hostile workplace -- unless one defines all straight white men as inherently hostile to the workplace.
Where's the line? Is being pro-life a political or a religious beliefs?
Team Edward will argue that there are people for whom their political mindset finds disagreement with certain political precepts to be tautologically hostile, no matter how they are expressed.
Team Jacob will point to the news for an instance of egregious public political expression and say that it's obviously the category of hostility they're defending against.
Around and around we go again...
But are you adding other people making other statements which make the workplace hostile to other individuals? Also, what happens if the misrepresentation of something causes the hostility while the original message does not? Often it life, it isn't what you say, but how you say it or who says it.
It is in some states in USA
I encourage anyone interested in the situation to read the filed suit. The first 20 or so pages are specifically about Damore and it is a very approachable and an interesting read. It also specifies the alleged violated laws / section.