edit: Additionally, because I think this isn't obvious here, Stallman opened up the knowledge about software to the whole world and put energy in keeping it that way. Anyone was able to profit from this.
That doesn't mean people "have to conform", but that our treatment of people should not be diverse: it should be the same for everybody, and accomodating of their diversity within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
RMS has been treated in the same way anybody else would be. He hasn't been given special treatment. We are therefore being consistent as a society in our treatment of him.
Right now, I can hear people already screaming about diversity of opinion, but they're missing the point: equality and diversity is not about a right for anybody to behave however they want, but for the treatment of those behaviours to be fair and equitable.
RMS has been treated fairly and equitably: he has not been arrested or imprisoned. MIT have behaved in a way consistent with any other employee, and FSF have been consistent with any other organisation trying to protect a public perception for a wider cause.
In this respect, he is not a brave contrarian warrior tackling an unjust society. He's a man who treats other people rudely and says things 95% of the population find unjustifably crude and offensive who has found himself at odds with clear and explicit employment law and codes of conduct.
The flip side of diversity is inclusion and those actions ran counter to MIT's own policies on an inclusive workplace (if you want a legalistic justification for him needing to leave).
At the same time, though, diversity can't be a cover for actions that are harmful to the larger community. Many places in the world still have strict social pressures against other sexual orientations. Saying you want diversity and inclusion, but excluding gay people—that would be conformity. However, being around queer folks does not actively harm the workplace environment or social culture. However, asking new female students if they want to go out with you, or being grossly insensitive to the plight of sexual assault victims is harmful to a non-trivial portion of the lab.
I would argue that, while RMS is a rightfully accomplished activist and computer scientist, his removal at this point in time makes CSAIL a more inclusive place. Those who might stay away because they're worried about his reputation or hurtful insensitivity—say, young female students, often underrepresented in science—may be more willing to work there.
Inasmuch as any organization must have a set of goals and principles that everyone within that organization must adhere to: Yes!
No one has taken away Stallman’s freedom of speech.
I am not affiliated with either MIT or the FSF, so my social norms have little to do with it.
Anyway, you're playing the dumb little game that people like to play with this topic: "If you're so 'tolerant' why won't you tolerate people saying offensive shit?"
And you've heard the answer a million times, I bet, you just won't accept it: Because it silences higher-quality diverse voices and "asshole who says repellent things" is already a wildly overrepresented class of person in the tech industry.
This seems to be a pretty common paradox.
The people who promote "diversity" (and sometimes even diversity of thought!), never accept anyone who wants to debate the nuances of that concept, nor how that may best be implemented.
Basically they demand conformity to the one "diverse" view and their definition of diversity. You're either with them or you're "part of the problem".
You'd think at some point they would notice how they come off ass utterly hypocritical.
In my experience people who say what you’ve said above actually don’t want debate: They’re frustrated that other people have made their choices and wish to either belabor the topic endlessly or filibuster and waste everyone’s time. You may have freedom of speech, but you do not have an enshrined right to be debated against. There are only so many hours in the day and people must get on with their lives.
