I'm very conflicted on this.
On the one hand, I see Beckman's behavior as awful and clearly fireable. On the other hand, I am not so naive not to know that his actions were just a difference of degree, rather than kind, from what goes on at every other program in America. I do believe Beckman was worse than most, but I know that if he had won more he would have gotten away with it for a long time, possibly forever. It's also probably true that he wouldn't have done some of those things if not for the extreme pressure of being on the hot seat.
And also, honestly, I thought the report against him was kind of a trumped-up hit piece that only ever pointed toward one predetermined conclusion. The footnote throw-ins about Bill Cubit (the only assistant referenced by name IIRC) being a guy who "gets it" were a smoking gun, IMO. This was MT's way out of the mess he made, and he was not subtle about it, even though he had just cause.
So is Beckman so toxic that he should never be a part of another program again? That's a hard question. Never is a long time.
I guess what bugs me about that Fedora story is the way his references to "Beckman's side of the story" and "he just didn't win enough" shows that there is a lack of contrition from Beckman about what he did. If he owned up to his behavior being unacceptable, even in Beckmanian English, I think that would make me feel a lot differently.