Thanks for that article. It always helps to discuss real cases. What follows is just my perspective--someone else may have a different opinion.

As I mentioned before, anyone who is judging someone for a controversial statement from the past should look at when the statement was made and whether or not it reflects the present values of the person who made it.

In this case, Golightly's view on whether or not women should be allowed in combat positions isn't as important (or offensive) as his reasons for that belief: "male intangibles" and "feminine" (not "female") images.

But that was 1987, and many people held sexist views about women in combat, and more importantly, Golightly says he has changed his mind and that "the principles of fairness, inclusion, respect and diversity that have guided my professional life since.”

If I were his boss at Boeing and I came across this article, I wouldn't fire him on the basis of that article (assuming that he had not expressed these views while at Boeing or discriminated against women in the office).

But Golightly wasn't fired. According to the New York Post article (and I don't see any reason to question the article itself) he stepped down after an employee complained about the article which he called “embarrassingly wrong and offensive.”

Now this is purely speculative on my part, but something seems amiss here. Golightly's article was published 23 years ago in a Naval Institute magazine. Who in the heck reads through back issues of an obscure government publication? It looks as if the employee who complained was out to get Golightly. Now if that's the case, then the complainant may have been motivated by sexist speech / behavior by Golightly while at Boeing (he'd only been there six months), or may have been engaged in office politics, or maybe he just wanted Golightly's parking space.

At any rate, that should have been something Golightly's supervisor / boss looked into. If an inquiry revealed malicious motives, then the complainant should have been fired. If an inquiry revealed other problematic behavior by Golightly, the supervisor may have used the sexist article as a graceful way to let Golightly step down.

If the supervisor and President of Boeing are scapegoating Golightly to avoid embarassment, then the problem is with the administration of the company, not some all-powerful Cancel Culture. If Golightly is truly an advocate for diversity, then the company should have stood their ground and explained the situation fully to the public.

Is the all-powerful Cancel Culture going to start a boycott of Boeing? "Don't buy Boeing planes--they support sexist views on women in the military!"

Re: the pass for Obama: nobody's attacking Obama for a decades-old statement / position on gay marriage but I don't think anyone is attacking conservative Republicans for a similar statement from the same time. The question is "How do Obama / Republicans feel now?"

Overall, I think the Cancel Culture bit is a Trojan horse for a blanket attack on liberals who speak out on an issue. Political action against injustice goes back as far as the Boston tea party. The Birmingham bus boycott was not a movement designed to repress the rights of white people.

I'm sure there are instances of protests gone overboard. That's going to happen, but it doesn't mean we should cancel the so-called Cancel Culture.

Keep in mind that from the British point of view, the Boston tea party was a malicious act of vandalism and wanton destruction of property.