Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo On Gender Differences (bloomberg.com) 1416
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Alphabet Inc.'s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company's diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley. James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo "violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." But he didn't say if the company was taking action against the employee. A Google representative, asked about the dismissal, referred to Pichai's memo. Damore's 10-page memorandum accused Google of silencing conservative political opinions and argued that biological differences play a role in the shortage of women in tech and leadership positions. It circulated widely inside the company and became public over the weekend, causing a furor that amplified the pressure on Google executives to take a more definitive stand. After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google's new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore's views and reaffirmed the company's stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.
And then Google says... (Score:5, Informative)
This has been a very difficult few days. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree — while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.
I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group — including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.
So please join me, along with members of the leadership team at a town hall on Thursday. Check your calendar soon for details.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group — including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.
And now we know why he was fired: due to his rant the CEO had to cut short his holidays. This is definitely a firing offense.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like Google has made it clear that their work environment is definitively hostile towards anyone who dares question feminist dogma.
Of course, the only way they'll learn that lesson is if they're taken to court over this, for unlawful firing.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like Google has made it clear that their work environment is definitively hostile towards anyone who dares question feminist dogma.
Of course, the only way they'll learn that lesson is if they're taken to court over this, for unlawful firing.
bwahahaha! "Unlawful firing"?
California is an "at will" employment state. Short of discrimination against a protected class, you can be fired for anything or nothing at all. Anti-feminists are not a protected class.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Informative)
All he has to do is identify as a trans-trans-gender :)
I suppose, at the end, it'll be for the courts to decide:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/... [cnbc.com]
Here's a lesson for you (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you really so naive to think that - are you on your Dad's account or something or did we just get you before the first coffee of the day?
It's not about any *ism. It's about being critical of the company wide employment policy and ultimately the CEO himself. Any correspondence with feminist or any other dogma is co-incidental.
Pick a very public fight with management on an emotive issue, get it into the press and shit happens. Of course he got fired. He was demonstrating a lack of loyalty in a very public way and the issue itself doesn't matter.
How relevant is feminism in the millenial "bro" locker room environment of Google anyway? It's just a bullet point in the hiring policy to stop the place looking like a juvenile sausagefest to the outside world.
Re:Here's a lesson for you (Score:5, Informative)
But he never actually said either thing. He said many women were not as drawn to the current work environment that tends to exist around software engineering. He even suggested changing that environment to better suit women so more would be more interested in working there.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decided that certain groups of people should be a "protected class",
Uh, the democratically elected leaders, right?
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad people can agree that genetics can guide physical traits, but somehow mental predispositions are completely exempt and everyone is born with absolutely identical brain and is equally good at every mental task as anyone else.
The fact that the original "bell curve" research contained errors doesn't prove the thesis was false. It only meant the results weren't conclusive and that the research methods should have been improved. Unfortunately, any research that fails to flawlessly prove an unpopular thesis is immediately marked as taboo and any further improvements and corrections of the errors to obtain conclusive results are met with so much opposition no scientist dares to touch it again.
Currently, the state of science *suggests* the bell curve theory is at least partially correct. But since nobody dares to conduct conclusive research (lest it proves the theory some more but they make another mistake, and are ostracized forever) all that's done is finding some more flaws in the original research in attempt to reduce its credibility a little bit more.
Normal scientific process:
Thesis -> plan of experiment -> gathering experimental data -> analyzing data -> conclusions -> discussion of error -> adjustment of thesis and plan of experiment -> back to gathering experimental data; endless loop until no more flaws can be found.
Scientific process on controversial issues:
Thesis -> plan of experiment -> gathering experimental data -> analyzing data -> conclusions -> shitstorm about errors -> shaming and punishment of scientists -> mothballing the research forever.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:4, Insightful)
And, for argument's sake, lets assume that you are right. That women have a genetic propensity to be . That means precisely dick in the real world too. Every human alive has a genetic propensity to avoid self harm, but I watched a friend of mine burn his tattoo off of his arm with an iron. If a company thinks it can benefit from the perspective of a certain number of female engineers and wants to hire them, you shouldn't assume they are just looking for housewives with glasses. There are plenty of ladies I have worked with that can handle the stress as well or better than men.
Just because you don't know any says more about your dating life than it does about the genetic propensities of women.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
The backlash is coming, just look at the election of Trump which is the result of over-stressing the "minority" dogmas.
Some men are assholes, it doesn't mean all men are, but every man is equally punished for what a few assholes do.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
The backlash is coming, just look at the election of Trump which is the result of over-stressing the "minority" dogmas.
No, the election of Trump WAS the backlash: that was frustrated people lashing out against an establishment, that they feel is stacking the deck against them. What is coming - and is already underway - is the realisation that Trump is just as much part of the establishment, and that trying to cure America's ailments by electing him is like overdosing on laxatives to cure diarrhea. And I don't think the people who keep ranting against PC and equal rights for minorities actually are against treating everbody fairly; they just want to feel that they themselves are being given a fair chance too, but their attention is being directed towards things that sound stupid, so they don't realise that it is the rich and powerful who are the real problem.
Re: And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
You still don't understand. Trump is a warning shot, not a consequence.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like all demagogues, Trump's message was basically "it's not your fault you lost your job or can't pay the bills, it's these other people's fault and you are victims." Blame immigrants, blame feminists, blame environmental protections, blame LGBT rights.
The blame has to be simple too. These problems are often complex, but the demagogues message has to be a slogan, a simple "get rid of X and everything will be fine again".
Re:And then Google says... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see that while people didn't love Trump's policy, they definitely preferred his open "in your face" approach to politics. Yes, he's a part of the establishment and he's quite open about that.
Meanwhile, Clinton was just slimy. She hid behind the face of "defender of minorities", all the while playing for the establishment behind the scenes. People hate being lied to like that. They prefer an open, frank asshole than a smooth slimeball.
It wasn't so much of a problem that she was pro-PC. It's how she used it to hide her little swamp. And the crowds of raging or crying idiots who panicked that "Trump will rape us all, and Hillary DESERVED to win!" - people so blinded by her little pro-PC lies that they completely missed the amounts of dirt she was hiding behind them - that was a pitiful sight.
Trump is pretty transparent. You may hate what he's doing. He's doing a lot of stuff people (including me) think shortsighted and unfair and puzzling, and I don't really see where he's going with what he's doing, because I don't think it's all going anywhere towards "MAGA". But at least we *see* what he's doing. We can be puzzled, disappointed, worried, but at least for now, we're not feeling *cheated*. He's actually less bad than I thought he would be.
Meanwhile, Democrats are slimier than ever.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hiring someone because of their gender is not treating everyone equally. Hiring someone because of their sexuality isn't equality. Hiring someone based on their race isn't equality. But apparently in the land of political correctness and soc-jus, these are all forms of equality.
That in truth, isn't equality. None of those people being treated as such are being treated as an equal, they're all being given special handicaps in order to get that position.
Re:100% Correct (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: And then Google says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah yeah aggressive asshole male bosses are hugely popular with everyone.
Re: And then Google says... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what I was responding to. I have worked with many bullying dickheads and I never considered them bold or dominant, I considered them to be dickheads. I didn't say anything about sexual harassment which is the worst kind of assholery.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I did read it. Did you?
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/... [medium.com]
"I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."
There is nothing in there that is offensive, full stop. Misrepresenting the respectful and dispassionate analysis this man did as bigoted or hateful can only happen through malice or ignorance.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Brendan Eich called. He wants his browser back...
This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:5, Insightful)
And to prove that their fears are well founded, Google will simply fire one of them. Got a minority conservative viewpoint? Don't you dare to express your view or suffer the consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as your minority point of view is not racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory... by all means express away!
Come on, paradox of intolerance is not _that_ complicated to understand, is it?
http://bfy.tw/DFwQ
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as your minority point of view is not racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory... by all means express away!
Come on, paradox of intolerance is not _that_ complicated to understand, is it?
The man is a biologist are you honestly asserting there are no biological differences between men and women ? That there are no mental differences ?
If that's the case what's with all the genders lately and transgenderism. Rather irreconcilable propositions there.
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:5, Insightful)
So your argument here is that women and men can work just as productively, with the exception that women cannot work with groups of strange men as that is 'threatening' to them by default? What?
When I started working full-time fresh from school as a project lead, I felt uncomfortable going into meetings where the other participants were much older, much better paid, and many of them having the power to get me fired if I screw up (and many of these people were women). Do you think when I felt anxious and nervous because of this I just grabbed my dick and suddenly everything was perfect and the stress was gone? No, over time I learned to deal with these people and I learned that they're indeed nowhere near as hostile or threatening as I assumed, and that screwing up is not the end of the world if you have the guts to admit your mistakes. Even the bosses have once been rookies.
You can't have it both ways and first proudly proclaim at first that men and women are all equal in their abilities, and then in the very next moment turn to 'but groups of men are scary to women so they need to be handled with extra-care'.That's not gender-equality in any sense of the word. As I wrote here yesterday on another story, it might still be feminism, but not all feminism is egalitarian. [slashdot.org].
Now obviously it's better for everyone if no-one feels stressed, but my point here is that the stressful/'threatening' factors in a work environment arise from a multitude of factors, the most common of which is the tension between management and employees that often exists totally independent of the reproductive organs on either side of the table,
Ah yes finance. That good old industry in which people feel totally at ease with each other and are not under pressure to out-perform their fellow men and women or feel threatened at all. I've heard wild stories about bouncy castles and finger painting going on in the high-level trader meetings. :P
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between being a "junior member of the group" and not "one of the group".
The human brain has a tendency to cast to boolean. Once our brain has decided the pattern for what is an X on the basis of a bias in numbers, there's a strong tendency for it to try and toss out anything not part of the larger group. It's part of our brain make-up and requires no misogyny, racism, or anything else.
Not everyone succumbs, but enough do so that you can be certain in any of a certain size group where you stand-out for some reason that people's brains have clicked on, there are going to be some who are listening to that inner voice telling then you aren't really an X, and whose confirmation bias will ignore successes as coincidence and note failures as proof.
All because they are human - the shortcuts the brain uses to allow us to survive do not lead to fairness.
So, no, if you are the one person in the room that people's brains have decided stands out, there's a reason to feel threatened. (Or if their brains have decided you are already competent, the other way around - I've constantly noted that because I code "senior geek", my advice on technical aspects is taken far more seriously by a few people than the identical advice by someone who doesn't trigger the same stereotype).
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does a room full of strange men feel threatening to women?
Are you saying the men are doing something wrong? That they are by their biology prone to pose a risk to women? And since you stated it that way, do you think that the reverse is not true? A man entering a room full of women he doesn't know feels no apprehension at all?
In this case you are either agreeing with the fact that men and women function differently or you are being sexist yourself by focusing on one gender above the other.
Or is it the perception of men that make the woman worried for no reason? In this case, aren't these hypothetical women being sexist by painting the other gender with a very broad and unflattering brush?
I just don't get why we need to make such a big deal out of this. You will always find scenarios where women, on average, do better or worse or equal to men. It just depends on the scenario and what the rules are by which you judge. This is a never ending discussion because there will not and cannot be an equilibrium where nobody ever feels underappreciated, overpressured or what have you.
I will go as far as stating this: The stress this political correctness puts on our daily interactions far exceeds the stress people feel due to society's inherent sexism.
Getting pinched in the butt or being pegged as an unfeeling beast from time to time cannot compare to having to watch every word, every look, every movement, hell every damn thought all the time.
Sure, getting fired because you wouldn't spread your legs for the boss or because you dare ask for working part-time because you want to be a better dad is going too far. There is shit nobody should ever have to take but come on, what's happening right now is 1984ish, just not in a way we would have ever expected.
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does a room full of strange men feel threatening to women?
Are you saying the men are doing something wrong? That they are by their biology prone to pose a risk to women?
I think the missing step here is that strange men who aren't used to speaking to women are threatening to women.
I recall reading about a piece of research done in the late 20th century. Women's rights had progressed and women were getting further in industry and enterprise, but there was a perception that men were acting aggressively towards women, and the men pushed back saying that they were treating the women equally and they were just being oversensitive. Psychologists went in and studied this, and true enough, the men behaved equally aggressively in disagreements with male co-workers and female co-workers -- the difference was the women's reaction.
So men are typically more aggressive than women, and women are typically more sensitive than men, but slagging matches of "bully" vs "oversensitive" didn't get them anywhere. What the researchers found was that once the culture of accusation was gone, both sides were happy to accommodate (because if accommodating means internalising the idea that you're somehow in the wrong, you're not going to do it). The researchers started training the staff in accommodation techniques, so they could modify their behaviour to suit the situation.... and *everyone* was happier.
Unfortunately, we've forgotten the real lesson from that research: that progress comes when you train people to work together, not when you force them to work together.
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:4, Interesting)
There are no biological differences that matter in that workplace.
According to numerous studies, the IQ for men and women have different distributions, with women having less deviation than men, meaning women are more concentrated around the center of the graph, and men having greater numbers toward the extremes. These are measurable facts. Here is how it matters in this workplace:
For IQs between about 90 and 118, there are more women than men, and for IQs below 90 and above 118, there are more men, with the difference increasing the further from center you go. The variability is such that the ratio of men to women with IQs above 130 is about 2:1, meaning on average for every woman with an IQ above 130 there are two men. The average IQ for a US computer science major today is about 125, with harder colleges claiming even higher average IQs, and a corresponding male to female ratio. For example, in 2014 at Stanford, the ratio was 69.7% male to 30.3% female, which is reasonably consistent with the IQ distribution graphs.
Now move this into industry (yes, this is making the assumption that IQ correlates to performance as a computer scientist). If two-thirds of the CS majors from better colleges are male, and the differences in the IQ graphs become even more pronounced for the above average of those, what do you think the ratio will be for companies that try to hire the best of the best, like Google? Could that translate into 80% of the available best of the best being male?
Are these research results sexist, or is the attempt to discuss the differences from a scientific viewpoint sexist? Google seems to think the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy didn't even identify himself as a conservative. He only mentions them to make a point about the echo chamber. He identified himself as a liberal, and explicitly said he was PRO-diversity. His criticism was the WAY in which diversity is pursued at Google. Read the essay, he said it is right to encourage women into STEM, and to dismantle barriers, but he says that a 50/50 expectation is unrealistic based on the research he cites (which Gizmodo left out).
Starting a political shitfight in a workplace (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not matter.
If you are not the boss starting a high profile political shitfight in your workplace that gets the attention of the press is a bad move no matter what your politics are.
That word "research" gets a serious workout on this site despite it being almost always misapplied - how is looking up wikipedia "research"? So he cited something, maybe the journalist at Gizmodo thought it wasn't authoritative? Maybe they didn't dig down to where it came from etc before deadline. I've been told it's better to leave a quote out instead of finding you've accidentally quoted something originally from the Onion. Besides - the real story (as far as the journalist would see it IMHO) is that someone started a political shitfight at google. The details and justifications are not that difficult for those interested to find out this time since it's all online.
A briefer reply (Score:5, Insightful)
He's even had a dig at evangelicals just as an analogy - so much for "stop alienating conservatives".
Of course he was going to get fired as soon as this angry "I'm the victim" bro-screed came to the CEO's attention.
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:4)
Why do you keep posting this? Can you link to a post you think has received sock-puppet mods and explain why you think those mods are not genuine?
It is not even a minority conservative viewpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is hilarious in a very sad way (Score:4, Funny)
Why? Do you make a point of hiring developers with staggeringly poor judgement?
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
> The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender.
This is particularly disturbing. EVERYONE is judged based on everything, down to subconscious eye movement.
Words do not equate to violence and being offended is not something to avoid at the cost of others.
What shockingly ignorant, backward thinking set of concepts.
Thanks for trying to regress the culture. No less, from a company founded on the monetizing the populist search for knowledge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Telling 1/3 of your colleagues that they are not as biologically suited to working at your workplace as you are isn't violent, but it is hostile. I don't know what the law is in the United States, but hostile work environments are serious shit in all sensible jurisdictions.
It's also contrary to the evidence, irrational, and stupid, any of which could by itself be a firing offense at Google.
TL;DR Precious little broflake's feelings are hurt, film at 11.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Telling 1/3 of your colleagues that they are not as biologically suited to working at your workplace as you are isn't violent, but it is hostile.
That's not what was said. It was proposed that biological factors (which give rise to psychological and social factors) would contribute or even explain a gender ratio imbalance. Please look into Finland, where the equality of opportunity has been achieved in a surprisingly progressive manner. The gender ratios in labor have grown farther apart, rather than lessened, in many industries that the opportunities were meant to correct.
> It's also contrary to the evidence
Please cite this evidence so I can tease out the nature of the hypothesis. I cannot fathom what you think you read. This fragment...which you go on to call irrational and stupid, is amusingly redundant. If the evidence existed, wouldn't it be rational to act on it? Even if the appropriate action was simply to articulate a descriptive narrative in a memo as possible causal factor to some perceived cultural problem?
Color me interested. Open dialog about sensitive topics is a tool that I'm grateful we have here, unlike those within Google.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Informative)
That's obviously not what he means. Let's dispense with the straw man arguments, okay?
Except that's a fundamental talking point among the pro-diversity crowd. Disagreement = violence. [nytimes.com] Disagreement = hate speech. [bernardgoldberg.com] And so on. There's a thing among the social justice groupies that likes to redefine words, actions, and so on. Here's one I ran across the other day in reference to a male rape victim. They were told and to paraphrase: "You aren't a rape victim, you're a victim of forced sexual intercourse. Since rape can only be committed by people in positions of power. So only white men can rape." Enjoying that logic? It's not any different then the social justice advocates stating that it's impossible for a black to be racist, because racism requires privilege+power.
The memo claims that women are more neurotic. It claims that this is biological. ... What shockingly ignorant, backward thinking set of concepts.
It's factually accurate too, and it is biological -- hit a search engine you can find it across nearly every society to boot. So you're arguing against science now, and something that's been been backed up by decades of studies. To flip it around, I wouldn't have had a problem with him stating that men are more aggressive when it comes to negotiations either. Because that's factually correct too.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
Did he actually suggest that women are less biologically suited to be programmers? My reading was he was trying to explain why women don't want to become programmers, not that they are less good at it when they choose to do so. I didn't read anywhere in the thing where it said women are worse programmers.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, POPULATION AVERAGES ARE NOT THE SAME AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!! For example, it's clear that ON AVERAGE more men appear to commit violent crimes. Does this mean that ALL men are more violent than all women? NO! You can have a super peaceful man who wouldn't hurt a fly and a woman who is a murderer. Google mischaracterized the memo very badly. The author did NOT suggest that this applies to ALL women. It's a very stupid way to miss the point and I will certainly avoid buying anything from Google while they are so fascist in their approach to RESPECTFUL DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. The guy was VERY NUANCED in what he said. Google's just being pathetic here.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why stifling dissent and discussion is so dangerous. Obviously you never even read his "rant". Instead you've concocted a straw man based on what you think he was saying instead of what he actually said, and have judged him based on the straw man rather than what he actually said.
He is a self-identified liberal who completely supports women in programming and STEM. He was explaining why gender equality in programming may never be possible (at least not without giving women the unfair advantage of lowered standards). He never said they weren't good at programming. He said they weren't as interested in doing it as men were, and listed various biological reasons why this might be, backed up by references to scientific research supporting his assertions.
If we can silence and fire someone presenting scientific evidence just because it contradicts popular norms, then our society is in serious, serious trouble. I seem to recall something similar happening to Galileo when he claimed the Earth went around the Sun.
Re:And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously you never even read his "rant". Instead you've concocted a straw man based on what you think he was saying instead of what he actually said, and have judged him based on the straw man rather than what he actually said.
No, it's worse then that. They've concocted a straw man based on what they've been told by people who are pushing the agenda that he's anti-woman. This is exactly the same bullshit that was used against gamergate, when they pushed the narrative that the people who spoke up against shitty game journo's were "white males, who live in their parents basements and are misogynists."
When presented with the exact opposite, like the women defending this guy's view? They ignore it, pretend they don't exist. Just like how the progressives ignored the minorities and women in gamergate, or simply called them house n*iggers, uncle toms, have internalized misogyny, and so on.
You watch, and in the next 2 days you'll start seeing hit pieces against the people who spoke in favor or defended his views will be smeared, attacked, and dragged through the mud. And it won't surprise me if the "progressive 'we believe in free speech -- really' social justice" supporters, also try going after their jobs to boot.
Re: (Score:3)
Hm, he's concerned that "co-workers ... are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace ", but they track down and fire the guy who was expressing his views.
Re: (Score:3)
By kicking Damore out of G, they have bolstered his hypothesis that other ideas are absolutely not welcome.
I'm certain that we haven't heard the last of this dude's persecution complex.
Sundar Pichai should have clarified on what points is the author wrong, and how. Given that the author's post had got out of company and is circulating in WWW, people of the world should know and get clear on what G's ideologies are, rather than just writing "He violated the code of conduct".
This makes no sense to me.
First off, Sundar Pichai was on holiday. Nobody should be expected to write a press release while on holiday. And nor did he; he wrote an internal memo which leaked. The "people of the world" as a whole were clearly not the intended audience, merely that subset who are already supposed to be aware of what the Code of Conduct [abc.xyz] says.
But when it comes to rewards and jobs, there should be only meritocracy.
Of course. Many younger programmers don't really understand what constitutes
Re: And then Google says... (Score:5, Insightful)
All Google did was confirm that James was right about the intolerance of the SJW bullies who run the show.
Fuck Google. I'm glad I don't use any of their products or services. Hopefully Microsoft will bury them.
Re: And then Google says... (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone knows that there are absolutely no differences between men and women. The only reason men have penises and women have breasts and vulvas is because society forces them into that mold. Biologically there is no difference, and anyone who claims otherwise is a male chauvinist pig.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: And then Google says... (Score:4, Interesting)
So then why aren't they firing the bullies that think other employees have no right to speak up?
Re: And then Google says... (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
Find the line where he harassed anyone.
Find the line where he called others inferior.
Give us the quotes to back up your assertion.
Re: And then Google says... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: And then Google says... (Score:5, Informative)
In the Iceland and New Zealand girls overtook boys in mathematics at school several years ago:
http://webarchive.nationalarch... [nationalarchives.gov.uk]
Page 85. The gap varies by country, thus cannot be entirely biological, maybe not even at all biological. Other research suggests that biology plays almost no part.
That's harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems harsh. Does this prove the part of his post about being scared to disagree?
Re:That's harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
but thanks for briefly showing your true face
Employee says ${thing} that causes outrage on the world and puts Google on the front page.
Everyone's true face would be to punish said employee. Google isn't required to coddle the employee like a special little child.
Re:That's harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Not only did they fire him, they also encouraged others to virtue signal their retaliation against him.
Re:That's harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
No, virtue signalling is a kindergarten-level activity of stumbling over each other to be the first to lick the boots of whoever is considered 'right and true', as evidenced by the way an internal message board had people promising never to work with him again - AKA, "I don't wanna play with you EVER AGAIN because you were a meanie to my bestiest friend's sister's boyfriend's cousin's puppy!"
Re:That's harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
Well done, Google. You turned him from a disagreeable twit into a sympathetic victim in one fell swoop.
Do you not have a PR department to advise you on this sort of stuff?
Re:That's harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
In any case, it gives him quite a bit of credibility with regards to his statements about Google culture.
I read the thing and I did not find any "gender stereotypes" in it either. I found him pointing out that there are mechanisms that make men and women different in some regards and that these seem to have an impact on the statistics of the professions men and women select. Which is a pretty hard fact, come to think of it, you just need to count. But apparently Google is now a cult and facts do not matter anymore.
He also stated several times that he is pro-equality. His main argument was that if there are significantly less women in IT, then a hiring policy that hires 50/50 is highly problematic. This also is a rather obvious fact.
Now, he may have worded some things badly, but the massive attacks on his statements are not justified by what he wrote. It seems more that he touched a taboo subject and now all those that do not want it discussed are attacking with a high level of aggression (and a low of level of factual arguments, if there are any at all) to shut up any further discussion. Not good and pretty much confirms there is a real problem here and that a lot of people want it swept under the carpet.
Freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." --Justice Edward Terry Sanford
I'll bet anything the guy got a solid severance package though.
Re:Freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
To those supporting Google's termination, any deviation from the approved narrative is an emergency.
Re:They did explain where he was wrong (Score:5, Informative)
An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said
Good idea. To address your two questions:
do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance"
Neurotic is a lousy word because it's poorly defined, but he clarified it as "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance." Do women have higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance than men? Scientific American says they have higher anxiety [scientificamerican.com]: "experts believe this difference arises from a combination of hormonal fluctuations, brain chemistry and upbringing." I don't know, but that is what Google's search engine dragged up.
their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive"
At least one study says that women are "warmer," but no less "assertive" than men [plos.org]. That matches my narrow realm of experience.
I think it's important that we stick to actual research, instead of postulating wildly.
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:5, Informative)
"Neurotic" as used in the memo is the opposite of poorly defined. It's one of the Big Five (see Wikipedia), a clearly defined axis in psychological personality analysis.
But you're not the only person to misunderstand this. In fact it seems to be one of the main reasons for all the shitstorm. Seems like everyone takes offence to a word they didn't understand the meaning of - now isn't that ironic for said engineer, getting fired because his audience is too uneducated...
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:4, Informative)
"A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed."
Emphasis added. From the parent's link.
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so he called women "emotionally unstable" or "insecure". I'm not certain how reading the Wikipedia definition makes that sound any better.
No, he claimed there are scientific studies proving women on average show that personality trait more than men. This sounding "bad" is irrelevant, either is correct or is not and it actually seems to be correct.
Unless you claim when trying to analyze a problem we should avoid bringing up explanations who "sound bad" so that we can keep our minds at ease... ridiculous.
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think Google's VP of Diversity gives two figs about scientific studies? Pointing out an inconvenient fact will get you fired. That's the reality.
This is political correctness taken to it's (il)logical extreme. He called women names and made them feel bad about themselves. Therefore, he deserves execution, but unfortunately, there seem to be laws against that. The worst they can do is fire him, as it turns out.
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think Google's VP of Diversity gives two figs about scientific studies? Pointing out an inconvenient fact will get you fired. That's the reality.
Of course that's the reality, which is exactly the point. The point is that Google is not interested in an open debate about the issue as they claim, nor in actual, factual explanations and possible solutions based on them.
Some naives might have believed their narrative and tought Google to be different: now they demonstrated to everyone they are not.
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:4, Informative)
He wasn't just reporting statistical trivia. He was saying that a relatively small difference (check the numbers, it's somewhere between zero and very small depending on the country) is the reason why women do worse in their programming careers.
Consider similar arguments that are made about race. "Black people have smaller skulls, that's why they are less intelligent and poorer on average". Ignoring how valid or otherwise that statement is, what is the point of making it? It's usually to excuse or dismiss all the other reasons. That's the issue here.
Re: They did explain where he was wrong (Score:4, Informative)
He wasn't just reporting statistical trivia. He was saying that a relatively small difference (check the numbers, it's somewhere between zero and very small depending on the country) is the reason why women do worse in their programming careers.
An open debate on the merit of his claims would have been very interesting, but this is not what Google did. Google basically stated that such arguments are not to be brought up and doing so is ground for immediate termination.
Consider similar arguments that are made about race. "Black people have smaller skulls, that's why they are less intelligent and poorer on average". Ignoring how valid or otherwise that statement is, what is the point of making it? It's usually to excuse or dismiss all the other reasons. That's the issue here.
Basically you are stating that since similar arguments are usually made in bad faith, this argument should be automatically considered in bad faith too? That's a nice example of generalization, ironically.
On top of that you are ignoring the wrong aspect. You want to ignore whether the argument is valid or not since it might have been made in bad faith, but even arguments made in bad faith might be valid and the reason they are made doesn't matter. You can do right for the wrong reasons still.
Re:They did explain where he was wrong (Score:5, Informative)
But hey, I get it, it's "hate facts".
Re:They did explain where he was wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The word "neurotic" does not exist in the essay. He wrote this:
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more: [wikipedia.org]
-Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things [wiley.com], relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing [wikipedia.org] ).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
-Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
-Neuroticism [wikipedia.org] (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
-This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs
Taken from: https://motherboard.vice.com/e... [vice.com]
He was the epitome of diplomatic civility in making his point. People read nefarious intent through their own biases and paranoia.
Re:They did explain where he was wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing to discuss. It's scientifically [nih.gov] accepted [nih.gov] fact [wikipedia.org].
I'm sorry if that shatters your worldview, but in this case reality has a distinctly anti-liberal bias.
As for agreeableness, I can't say if it helps or hurt their careers, but I don't think he ever claimed that. IIRC, he simply said one of the reasons their salaries were lower was because they were more agreeable, and more likely to accept an initial salary offer rather than negotiate for a higher salary.
Re:Freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
Da Tovarisch Zampolit (Score:5, Informative)
After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google's new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore's views and reaffirmed the company's stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.
Looks like Google decided to help Damore make his case [documentcloud.org] by reinforcing their bias against differing opinion. Science also supports [quillette.com] (mirror [archive.is]) his conclusions.
Re:Da Tovarisch Zampolit (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for the cites - this part from quillette stands out:
"Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:
* The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;
* The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink."
Never heard that paradox laid out so bare before.
Actions speak louder than words. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obey the party line or be fired and banned from the industry.
Diversity officer == SV's Political Officers (Score:5, Insightful)
For such an "inclusive" and "tolerant" company, they sure are quite Soviet in their treatment of dissent.
Re:Diversity officer == SV's Political Officers (Score:5, Informative)
Sure do. They've even got their ideological blacklists going on to boot. Sure is pretty authoritarian over there... [archive.is] Especially when people are saying well, that PhD biologist seems to have gotten it right. [quillette.com]
Re: (Score:3)
For such an "inclusive" and "tolerant" company, they sure are quite Soviet in their treatment of dissent.
Google seems to believe in free speech in the same way that China believes in free speech, i.e., freedom to express all the speech that is approved.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing about obeying the party line and everything about using the correct channels to vent your grievances. Given this made international news it is somewhat obvious that the correct channel wasn't used.
Interesting (Score:3)
I don't agree with the pamphlet but I take it diversity is fine as long as you follow the arbitrary rules (aka code of coduct) that are set and don't argue anything that might actually lead to a real discussion.
Can Google be this daft? (Score:5, Insightful)
They just proved Damore's point about conformity at the company. What good is gender diversity if everybody is forced into goodthink?
Wrongful termination (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It will never get to court. Google's lawyers will tell them to give the guy Youtube as a settlement rather than have to face discovery.
Of course, Wikileaks has been hinting that they may have some "discovery" of their own coming soon...
Re: (Score:3)
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right?
California is an at-will state, which means he can be fired for almost any reason. Speech being factual will not protect you here (unlike slander cases).
Unfortunately for Google, it seems that criticizing company policy is explicitly protected by the law [lexology.com], so you can't fire someone for criticizing company policy. Google claims they fired him for creating a hostile environment, not for his criticism of company policy.
A lawsuit might revolve around whether his criticism of women is separate from his critic
Re: Wrongful termination (Score:5, Insightful)
Not surprising you are an AC, you seem awfully confused about who is discriminating against who - he pointed out in his letter some very discriminatory practices Google has going on, then proposed way to help improve working conditions for women, which even if you disagree with why he proposed them why would you punish him for trying to help?
For the act of discussing unlawful hiring practices and trying to improve working conditions, he was immediately terminated in a way so as to make him as unhireable as possible...
Could he get a record award from a jury? I think he's looking at north of a billion dollars in settlement money for the egregious actions taken against him.
Intolerance to Politically Incorrect (Score:3)
He did not make the memo public -- so even if he wrote it -- it was not him that "damaged" Google... Google obviously has it's own issues and feels that firing the employee rather than dealing with issues directly would be the best PR move... He should not be fired over his memo -- I would however not put him up for promotion since he would have a high bar to prove that he would be able to work with all others without bias. If he was able to do his current job, and do it well (meritocracy)... they should have just used the memo as a discussion point and say although they thoroughly disavowed the comments in regards to gender equality.
Then just assign him to always work for a woman... who was proven to be better than him
Just shows where googles values are... (Score:3)
They ask for open internal discussion and when they get it they fire people. He expressed his views after being invited to do so privately within the company. TLDR: men and women are different. And that Google company should not be extreme right or left on any issue.
The correct thing to do would have been to rationally disagree. All he did was express his thoughts.There was no proof he took any action of discrimination. He was in fact pointing out discrimination he sees his company doing and they turn around and prove him right.
Google is all about image. The communists in China should hire Google to run their country for them. I have a feeling they fired him and gave him a big paycheck to leave quietly; not to sue them or talk publicly.
Glad I'm not working there then (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, firing people over an _opinion_, formulated without aggression and without attacking anyone - that's harsh. I'd be scared shitless in such an environment that I might accidentally say something that bothers the SJWs and be fired for my troubles. And it's a great demo how, once again, "diversity" means "you'll agree with me or I'll silence you."
An employer who acts like this is not worth working for.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Glad I'm not working there then (Score:5, Insightful)
How is disagreeing, in a polite way, using a memo not intended for public consumption, "fucking up at work"? How do you think companies will survive if anyone who states disagreement immediately gets fired? No discussion, no debate about the validity of the point, just "you spoke against me so there's the door."
There was no aggression, no violence, no threats, just disagreement on a political point. Firing people for that may be in accordance with law, but it is a VERY fary cry from "don't be evil.", and it reeks very badly of political persecution - something a company most definitely shouldn't be doing.
What's next, is Google going to ban everybody who disagrees with them from their search engine or their email service or whatever?
Gizmodo version left out the scholarly references (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone at Gizmodo should be shot or sued for editing the memo, "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber," by removing the references—"hyperlinks," as they call them. The hyperlinks are to many scholarly journal pieces and otherwise respectable publications. Without the references to back up the author's claims, he just looks like a boob to most folks.
Here is a link to a PDF that contains all the hyperlinks to references and also two missing figures left out from the Gizmodo version.
https://assets.documentcloud.o... [documentcloud.org]
It's not only SJWs (Score:4, Insightful)
Where I live it is sometimes the opposite of this. During our last military confronation, people were fired for writing facebook statuses against the war. There are companies whose policy is not to hire people who skipped conscription, and in general "leftist" is mostly equated with tratior. Sure, there are few companies that are more left leaning and act the opposite, but to me it feels the same. Everybody knows that without a workplace you will starve, thus they decide to threaten you with hunger in order to make you comply.
Re: (Score:3)
Heres's a guess:
- Journalists would NOT label his writing an "anti-business manifesto/screed"
- Journalists would, in fact, be sympathetic to him, write human-interest articles about his "journey", and work on long-form investigative stories about the oppressive anti-free-speech monoculture that has been developing on Wall Street.
- Neither those journalists nor their audience would bring up how "it isn't the government doing it so it's not a free speech issue"
Re:Well deserved. (Score:4, Insightful)
When that message got leaked it directly affected the company's image, and action had to be taken.
It'd be far worse for Google not to do anything about it because that would be interpreted as Google sharing the message, which had too many assumptions, some very few valid criticisms, and sugarcoating of quite frankly some very nasty prejudice and sexism.
"Doing something about it" does not mean publicly firing the guy.
I think a more appropriate response would be a statement affirming that this memo that is contrary to Google's views and that the problem is being dealt with internally. Then refuse to comment any further. In fact, Google shouldn't even have acknowledged the origin of this memo.
These are internal matters, and how Google deal with it is none of our business.