This article suffers from the assumption that all viewpoints are symmetrical. Supporting discrimination in the workplace and opposing it are not equally acceptable political perspectives.
Equating the two from a management perspective as equally problematic is simply absurd. Excluding racists from the workplace is not the same as excluding people based on their race. The first excludes a section of the workforce and the second opposes that exclusion.
Maintaining an unequal status quo is not a value-free position.
A big part of the problem is that terms like 'racist' are often used as synonyms for 'people who don't share my viewpoint'. As long as that level of hyperbole is present, you can't have meaningful conversations on this stuff.
racism = judging people / taking actions based on race.
Reality in many workplaces is that the racists making decisions based on race are on the left these days - not the right.
When you say exclude folks who practice racism you need to be very careful. I've no problem with affirmative action, but running around saying folks making judgements based on race should be excluded from the workplace will do a LOT of harm to diversity efforts which generally explicitly recognize race and take actions around race.
> racism = judging people / taking actions based on race, but only if you are white
It goes even further than that - anything that supports the dominant class - technology, science, logic, math and even common sense concepts in language - are considered racist.
The latest manifestation of this absurdity is that things like "rational thinking" and "following schedules" are now considered "white culture" and thus it's racist to expect black people to think rationally or show up on time:
There is no evidence that article implies the workplace, or even society at large, is divided between those who 'support negative discrimination' and those who don't.
The very presumption of this is a kind of a problematic radicalism.
Almost everyone wants people to be treated fairly and with dignity, it's just the 'equity' types think that is still a problem, and that other things should be done.
Paradoxically, it is the '13%' who want us to use race, gender and other artifacts as primary elements of professional identity for hiring, promotion, delegation etc..
Edit: I should add, I don't have a problem with the 13% view that they think they should 'do more'. I'm 'part' of the 13% in that sense. What I'm (very) against is the intolerance and absolution that anyone who doesn't share their agenda is problematic, immoral etc..
Equating the two from a management perspective as equally problematic is simply absurd. Excluding racists from the workplace is not the same as excluding people based on their race. The first excludes a section of the workforce and the second opposes that exclusion.
Maintaining an unequal status quo is not a value-free position.