Google May Be In Trouble For Firing James Damore (inc.com) 1021
Google fired engineer James Damore after he wrote a 10-page document about "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." taustin writes from a report via Inc. about the potential legal trouble the company may face from firing the "anti-diversity" engineer: Whether Demore is right or wrong, whether one agrees with him or not, Google may have legal trouble for firing him. Employees are protected by federal law when they discuss working conditions with other employees (and this was an internal memo). His memo could be considered whistleblowing, which is also protected (and it is very clear that he was fired as retribution). And, in California, political opinions are protected in the work place as well. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right.
They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already gone from:
Horrible sexist mess
(He has a Ph D from Harvard)
So, it's a hate filled screed!
(Did you read it?)
Okay, it's a Terrible Anti-Diversity Rant!
(Did you have someone tell you the points using single-syllable words?)
Damn, well, it is critism of his employer and they can fire him if they want!
(You can't fire someone for pointing out discrimination, even if you like that kind of discrimination)
Hey! Did you hear about how Trump did x?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't it turn out that he really doesn't have a PhD, or did I imagine that?
We have met the Enemey... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the enemy is us (Google ...Remember Don't Be Evil?).
In their effort to encourage inclusiveness and tolerance, they have become intolerant and exclusive. No doubt others have similar misgivings, but are keeping their mouth shut now that Googles intolerance of dissenting views has been exposed. Google has become the very thing the claim to stand against.
Seems to be a common theme in the SJW Universe.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Informative)
Harvard confirmed that he does NOT have a PhD. He has a Masters and he CLAIMS he has a PhD.
Nope. He claimed to have been a PhD student for three years, which is right. Then he took a masters.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It is perfectly valid to list PhD studies without a PhD at the end. There is nothing misleading here. There may be a lot of idiots that do not know how a PhD process works, though.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
He does not claim to have a PhD. Please stay on the facts, however much you are frothing at the mouth.
Re:No, he lied about having a PhD. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, he lied about having a PhD. (Score:5, Informative)
It is not. "PhD studies" does not in any way imply having a PhD. There is an exam at the end, you know and you can fail that. Or never get there.
You statement is just one more attempt to discredit him on a non-factual basis. Dishonest and repulsive. Because the actual facts pretty much support what he said (which is not very close to what gets reported that he allegedly said).
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Funny)
Way to represent the liberals comrade! Here's a puppy and a coloring book.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Funny)
What is a mental and why does he have one?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
That's like saying it's ironic that a pro-tax politician doesn't pay more than he needs to.
You use the tools available to you, even if you wish they weren't there.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
And yet, here you are. You are a white male yourself, and you seem not only able to "understand" the difficulties of being a minority, you also act in what you perceive to be their best interest. Yet at the same time you claim that others are incapable of doing this specifically because they are white males. How can you hold these to opposing views at the same time?
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century.
I will assume you mean politically correct, and not politically incorrect.
Second, what? Perhaps trumpists are on Damore's side, but to partition everyone that does not hold your views as trumpists says nothing about others and all about you. Liberals would strongly oppose firing Damore, part because he's well-sourced and supported by the evidence, and part because liberals do not like the authoritarian McCarthyism on display. The fact you think science is sexist also speaks volumes about your preference for fanaticism over fact. The fact you think science belongs in the 19th century is humourous, but it also makes me sad.
However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
You think he proposed to install company rules that would supersede the constitution and laws of the land to where women get killed for being raped? Wow, that's some perspective. Perhaps read at least TFS before posting next time.
Warrior on, dear internet warrior, and warrior proudly.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century.
I will assume you mean politically correct, and not politically incorrect.
Second, what? Perhaps trumpists are on Damore's side, but to partition everyone that does not hold your views as trumpists says nothing about others and all about you.
But that's not what the GP said at all. Being "the hero of Trumpists" doesn't mean that everyone who supports him is Trumpist.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
because he proposed a series of sexist [...] stereotypes which belong in the 19th century
I prefer to point out that people draw the wrong conclusions from facts rather than to ignore facts.
It's become fashionable in an extreme minority voice to claim that women and men are identical or markedly different in various capacities, whether those are particular capabilities (strength, intellect) or behaviors (interests, emotional expression). For whatever reason, these people ignore facts in one direction or another.
For example: men and women both possess the same intellectual faculties, and can employ them to the same effectiveness. People in general aren't of greater or lesser intelligence; they have greater or lesser intellect--they have applied their facilities to different degrees, and may thus have made more of their intelligence. Women are just as capable as men in intellectual pursuits.
It is also a fact that the neurological and hormonal systems in men and women differ, leading to differences in thinking. This is an accurate assessment, and begins the problem of people drawing inaccurate conclusions to suit their biases.
That women think differently can be suppressed: our executive functions allow us to suppress our emotional responses, our biases, even our responses to pain. That's why women can function in high-pressure, high-intellect jobs just as well as men--that is to say: a man or a woman without the properly developed defense mechanisms will simply whine a lot when the pressure comes on, and otherwise will handle the situation quite well.
That leaves the advantages of different thinking: a boost of group creativity. A group with a single mind--one culture, one gender, one set of life experiences--will always approach a problem in one way. Mix in cultural changes, varied life experiences, and even the biological pressures that cause women and men to think differently and you have increased the strength of that team's problem-solving ability.
If you want to put women back into the kitchen, you point out that they're not men, thus inferior. If you want to get some work done, you point out that they're not men, thus represent a potential opportunity. This is unfortunately impolitic, and so we only hear from people who are unafraid to attack others for their particular differences, whether that be race, gender, or culture.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Informative)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
Cramming feathers up your ass does not make you a duck.
I read it, and it is basically gibberish. His "citations" are a joke.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true when discussing being stopped by police.
I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.
This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century. However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.
And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!
You deduced from the guy's memo that he's an "alt-rightist" and a "Trumpist"? How the hell did you do that? Did you even read the thing? You can't always choose whose "hero" you become, nor should you. I literally am as anti-Trump as you can get (and I'm white and male too), but I value science (that's one of many reasons to be anti-Trump), and all the guy said was that there are biological differences between the sexes (and that's statistical differences, not differences between all individuals, a fact that he pointed out explicitly and elaborately), and that those differences probably explain why we don't have 50% women in all tech jobs, even in the absence of any real obstacles. And he concluded that it might make little sense to try to artificially raise that number above such a "natural" limit. You may debate the conclusions (which are essentially policy proposals), but you can't reasonably debate his facts; the whole memo cites numerous scientific papers on the subject and largely reads more like a paper itself rather than just an opinion piece. Four of the scientists he quoted have responded by now,
The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond [quillette.com]
that should tell you something. I'm pretty sure Trump has never read a scientific paper in his whole life, nor does he want to and care about it.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
This guys document was well-written and scientifically based.
But the regressiveleft hates any facts that contradict their delusions, very similar to religion.
"We're this any other color or sex of person calling out actual harmful company policies they would be condemned, have little attention paid to their plight and would be fighting for years for some kind of recognition."
Please provide some examples of this.
BTW: you'll have to actually provide evidence for this, can't just mention a bad outcome and assert bigotry.
You might be thinking about the case of Colin Kaepernick, but he was just a bad player.
He problably saw a bad future coming and decided to ahead of it by becoming a political activist, so he could play the victim card.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/... [dailywire.com]
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's being exceedingly generous. It may sound 'sciencey', but certainly he does not have study data to back him up.
He gave citations for all of it.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
The scientific correctness of his arguments is irrelevant to the moral or ethical issues here.
A lot of people seem to think that scientific racism is only wrong if the science is wrong. Not so, it's equally wrong whether the science is rock-solid or nonsensical pseudoscience.
Using science to try to justify racism is an ethical problem first and foremost, any incidental scientific problems are a footnote.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberalism says the opposite: "because there are scientifically observed differences between groups X and Y, you expect there to be different outcomes; we should accept those different outcomes and not treat those two groups differently". Liberalism demands equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
When science observes differences between two groups, we can debate what policies we should adopt as a result. Progressives prefer intervention, while classical liberals prefer non-intervention. But trying to suppress stating scientific facts, as you seem to try to do, is not acceptable.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
> Using science to try to justify racism is an ethical problem first and foremost, any incidental scientific problems are a footnote.
Justifying racism isn't the same as explaining outcomes. "Studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y, hence we prefer employing from group X" would be using science to justify [X's domain]ism and yes is ethically terrible. "We employ based on merit, studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y and that is why we have more X employees than their general population ratio would indicate" is using science to explain an outcome - it is not ethically bad, it is just a fact (assuming we believe the claim of course).
That wet nurses are always* women is not sexist, for example. There is no ethical problem with pointing out the scientific reason why that is the case.
* I guess there could be a genetic abnomality that might make it possible that isn't 100% true, it will round up to 100% anyway though.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
What Damore wrote is easily available online and anyone discussing "what he wrote" should already have read it.
Why are you asking if the citations were any good and if they support his points? Must others spoon feed you all "your" opinions?
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Then that should be the subject of the criticism.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
His essay was filled with caveats and cautionary words about not confusing statistical distributions with generalities. Yet the offense-takers did exactly that.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Informative)
but going so far as to assert the hypothesis that women were biologically not suited for the work crossed a line.
You really need to read it again. He never brings of the topic of suitability. His section about biological differences only discusses why genders tend to choose certain professions.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course one could complain that there's no way in hell that a proper scientific study to examine those hypothesis will get funded/published because it's just such a taboo subject. However lacking such a study, it's not appropriate to lean into a convenient hypothesis supporting your personal world view.
There absolutely is. You just have to reword it. You need to look at 2D:4D (Index to Ring Finger Ratio). The ratio is a physical attribute that has been linked to testosterone exposure in the womb.
Take this study: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/21479/ [slashdot.org]
Three studies (N = 73,75,65) identified a consistent negative correlation between 2D:4D digit ratio and attainment (r 0.2). A fourth study (N = 119) found that 2D:4D digit ratio positively correlated with two indices of computer-related anxieties, as well as anxiety sensitivity (r = 0.32/0.51). These results suggest that males and females who have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone within the womb perform better upon academic assessments of Java-related programming ability within computer science education, and have lower levels of computer-related anxieties outside computer science education. Thus, the 2D:4D index of prenatal testosterone exposure correlated with the two factors that directly impact upon ICT engagement, which is increasingly essential to effectively participate within educational and occupational environments.
Wiki has a whole host of other studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Specifically in the area of Cognition and personality low digit ratio has been linked to:
And high digit ratio:
None of those studies explicitly call out the results as based on gender, however the driving biological cause is testosterone exposure during development.
It has been suggested by some scientists that the ratio of two digits in particular, the 2nd (index finger) and 4th (ring finger), is affected by exposure to androgens, e.g., testosterone while in the uterus and that this 2D:4D ratio can be consider
Re: (Score:3)
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Informative)
going so far as to assert the hypothesis that women were biologically not suited for the work crossed a line.
No, he neither asserted nor hypothesized that claim. I've seen that claim incorrectly repeated as people have tried to shove those words in his mouth, but what he actually said was that, speaking in generalities, different genders are biologically predisposed to different traits. He never said that those differences make a given gender unsuitable for a job, nor that they make any particular person unsuitable. Far from it, in fact, as he made it clear that he believes there's a great deal of overlap between the genders when it comes to those traits, and as such he called for assessing people as the individuals they are, regardless of gender.
He did however say that those predispositions are at least in part responsible for why we see gender imbalances in various industries. He also put forward several other causes that are partially responsible for the gender imbalances within any given industry, including cultural pressure to conform to stereotypes, discrimination (which he admits is a problem), and (the topic he spent a lot of time addressing) a lowering of standards as a sort of affirmative action/reverse discrimination.
As best I can figure, the people incorrectly parroting what you said are failing to understand the distinction between:
A) Saying some people are unsuited because of their biology
B) Saying some people who were unqualified for other reasons were allowed in because of their biology
He never said (A), whether explicitly or implicitly, but he strongly implied (B) when he said that he had personally seen Google engage in illegal hiring practices by lowering the bar for people from various minorities, and he called for Google to end that practice while embracing a common bar against which to judge all job candidates.
Now, I certainly don't agree with everything he said, nor do I agree with the way he said some of the things that I happen to agree with, nor do I think he did a great job of citing all of his claims (e.g. what the hell was up with his footnote about Marxists?), but if you're going to disagree with him, don't use straw men arguments. Attack the things that he actually said, rather than whatever you read via a secondhand source, which it's quite clear is where you got your information, given that he actually did cite research to back up most of his scientific claims. The whole thing [vice.com] only takes a few minutes to read, even with the tables, footnotes, and citations that were left out of the incomplete copies that a lot of the early knee-jerk reactions were in response to.
Re:Pandering? (Score:5, Interesting)
It was not a scientific paper nor was it based on scientific papers and it certainly did not use any scientific methods.
He provided citation after citation to peer reviewed science all the way through his well written (as you admit) document.
Furthermore, scientist after scientist are coming forward saying he is right about the science.
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
Re:Pandering? (Score:5, Informative)
Nowhere in the paper is he stating that.
(he spends way to many pages on pointing out the difference between males and females, stating the obvious)
his complaint is about google ignoring reality and giving minorities better treatment because google thinks forced diversity is best.
it's like out of 10 job applicants picking the 1 woman because you need a woman for diversity reasons.
thats the discussion
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
People care about this because he was right. Not necessarily about the sex differences (although what he said was supported by scientific citations), but about the punitive political correct echo chamber that Google had built up that suppressed and punished deviations from the SJW/PC dogma.
And sure enough, right after he wrote that blog post, the calls to burn the witch started, and Google dutifully genuflected at the SJW altar and gave up Damone as the proper sacrifice.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
Even worse, when considered as part of total global population numbers, white people are truly a minority and deserving of protection. So it was a member of a minority commenting on treatment by the majority.
Re: They wont get in trouble (Score:3, Informative)
> You don't send manifestos to the whole company
He didn't. He wrote it on an internal Google+ page. People had to seek it out to read it.
Re:They wont get in trouble (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not wrong, just pointless Borg-like diversity (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't get in trouble because he is a white male.
They won't get in trouble because they technically have done nothing wrong. They fired a guy for not having the right political view point which, as I understand it, is not protected in the US like it is elsewhere.
The ironic thing is that they are missing the entire point of diversity which is that a disparate collection of world views leads to finding better ideas and solutions to problems. To put it in terms familiar to Slashdot it's like the Federation and the Borg and Google just showed they are the Borg.
It's illegal in California.
Further, they fired him after he complained about hiring practices, gender bias, etc. within the company. That's retaliatory, and that's illegal everywhere.
The cherry on top is that his claims count as whistleblowing because it's illegal to have hiring, assignment, and overall treatment favor race, gender, age, etc.
Checkmate.
he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a code of conduct that forbids creating a hostile work environment for women is not illegal
Only hostility around this case is towards the fired engineer. The memo is very mild and tame material in comparison.
Can you quote some toxic sludge from the memo? I can give you a dozen quotes from the other side that are actually anti-freedom of thought.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Funny)
he's still using the old marxist cover sheet for his TPS reports.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:4, Informative)
... all of the mainstream media reports are summarizing his argument as "not biologically fit" for tech roles.
So the mainstream media are liars, especially in the US. Also water is wet.
If this is a new understanding to you (or to anyone), let me be the first to welcome you into the realm of light -- where we see what's around us and think for ourselves rather than closing our eyes and listening to propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nowhere did he say they were "less suited". That's just you putting words in the authors mouth. He's talking about distributions of populations, not individuals. He's also talking about how men and women have natural inclinations, i.e. they value some fields more than others because of the different ways in which men and women think ON AVERAGE.
Try actually reading the damn thing before spouting off talking points.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:4, Insightful)
It became a man's job because the entire nature of the job changed. When working first with punch cards and later with mainframes coding was much more social. It was once personal terminals became the norm and the idea of the code monkey was born that women started to move away from the field.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:4, Insightful)
False equivalence much?
> women are less suited to have tech jobs
[[Citation]]
> because of inherent differences between men and women.
You DO realize there are biological and social differences, right?
Hell, even the brain is wired [scientificamerican.com] differently. [sciencemag.org]
Lastly, I don't hear anyone complaining about the low number of male nurses because everyone else is too busy just trying to get their job done instead of making drama over reverse discrimination issues of bullshit "diversity" issues.
--
SJW, noun, Stupid Juvenile Whiner.
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, and I think more importantly, the notion that you (and many other people) have of "toxic" ideas is very disturbing. To declare an ideological, political, or sociological position as "toxic" justifies (for many people) a multitude of disproportionate responses, including violence and large-scale social castigation. I certainly think certain ideas are wrong or even morally repugnant, but we need, as a society, to b
Re: (Score:3)
the whole premise is toxic. the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women. which is a bullshit lie, but unfortunately self-fulfilling.
What's really toxic is the misrepresentation of any idea that challenges the social justice mantra. He never claimed that women as such are less suited than men for tech jobs, instead he stated that women tend to prefer non-tech jobs and so there is a natural (in contrast to the evil white male syndicate theory) scarcity of them in tech companies. Simply that.
Women used to be in the field and performing near-parity with men, then tech became a men's job.
Anecdotal evidence, but still: my mother took a computer science PhD course in the early '70s, that was basically the last time she programmed somethi
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
. the whole premise of the memo is that women are less suited to have tech jobs because of inherent differences between men and women
No, the premise (there were many) was that 1) political bias makes it hard to discuss political topics and google has a left leaning political bias 2) because men and women are different that could explain why there aren't more women in tech despite the diversity programs. 3) the diversity programs are fundamentally unfair and bad for business and it is difficult to highlight those issues with the diversity programs because it is a political left idea. See 1. 4) We should treat people as individuals not as groups. 5) the disproportion of men and women in tech could be explained by the differences between the sexes rather than sexism.
If you were a woman and had to be treated as automatically less qualified because you're a woman and thought to be inherently not good at a job and saw less-qualified men
See, you are treating individual women as a group. Differences != inferior. Stop that. The only people implying that women are inferiror or less capable at technology is you and others that strawman the memo.
Just curious, If he had said "men are aggressive, stupid and icky", do you think there would be this kind of backlash?
Re: (Score:3)
The disclosure would be about Google's alleged unjustified discrimination in favour of women. Not sure whether it's true or perceived, nor whether it would be illegal, but still.
The code of conduct is irrelevant since it cannot override the law: if the memo is protected under the law such protection would trump whatever the code of conduct states. Note that it's a pretty big "if".
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Interesting)
Whistleblowing implies that he was disclosing potentially illegal activity that google was engaging in.
The internal policy isnt that teams should be "diverse." The internal policy is that teams must be "diverse."
The more I learn about all of this, the more I think I was wrong the other day when I suggested that Google was in the clear legally. Its looking more like they are trying to cover up illegal acts.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
google is majority white and majority male, so there is no discrimination here.
You gotta love these fallacies...
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
That a certain group forms the majority does not mean it cannot be discriminated against. In fact, it's quite common to discriminate against the most common group, since that is thought to increase diversity. Doesn't make it any less wrong, though.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Informative)
That a certain group forms the majority does not mean it cannot be discriminated against.
The most recent well-known example of this situation is South Africa when it was under Apartheid rule. I'm sure there are plenty of other instances.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:4, Insightful)
Qing dynasty China
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
e.g. Blacks on average commit more crimes per capita than other races. That's factual. But if you use that to assume an individual black you've just met is a criminal, that's discrimination.
Likewise, white males on average have historically discriminated against other races. But if you use that to assume an individual white male is a bigot, that in itself is discrimination. You're guilty of the very offense you're accusing the white male of - you are a bigot [merriam-webster.com].
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if the only ones that can ever get promoted out of entry-level positions are minorities.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
No where does it say you have to be a minority to be discriminated against.
Re: (Score:3)
but granting a (different) advantage (to the opposite group) is.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:4, Informative)
Discrimination against individuals is also illegal. The discriminated trait being a majority or not is irrelevant.
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:he's not a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science. http://quillette.com/2017/08/0... [quillette.com]
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.
-- excerpt from James Damore's memo.
This is a political idea and the theme of the memo. It's saying, we need to look to reality to understand what's going on. If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
Not a scientific paper (Score:5, Insightful)
His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science
Even if we concede that to be true (and I do not), that doesn't mean that his conclusions from that evidence are correct and his conclusions are anything but scientific.
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
This was not a dispassionate empirical argument. I've read the memo in its entirety. This was a rant against what he perceived as ideology that he did not agree with. He's entitle to that opinion but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it was some masterpiece of empiricism.
If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
This wasn't a scientific paper. It was a political opinion piece which casually referenced some cherry picked "evidence" in an effort to seem more credible.
Re: (Score:3)
Your doctor holds a sexist view, too, and it's a good thing. There ARE differences between the sexes.
Feminism is definitely political. Discussion of rights is definitely political. Firing someone for challenging specific political assumptions is political.
The only hostile environment in action was the one that fired him for daring to challenge doctrine.
Enlightenment values (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Enlightenment values (Score:5, Informative)
It is illegal to prevent workers from discussing work conditions.
It is illegal to discriminate based on political opinions.
it is illegal to implement affirmative action.
Welcome to California, Google. Did you have a look at the States laws before you gave your diversity monster power?
Re: (Score:3)
So you think people saying I feel bad about what people are pretending was written in this memo should be a governing factor in whether he gets fired?
Thanks for clearly siding against facts and justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?
No, I don't work for Google. I don't even know if they are wrong or right, I am simply putting forth a legitmate consideration, one that you seem to want to dismiss. If you don't think having employees passing their manifestos around the business network should be of any concern, please say so rather than choosing to make ridiculous accusations as your rationale for dismissal of the point.
Please state the 'lie' you are accusing me of, with specific proof of it being a lie, or don't bother responding.
True, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
True, right up to the point your opinion conflicts with the majority. Then you'll be shut down, marginalized, and removed.
I find myself split on this (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand this memo is not the best thing ever to be written... it contains the same moral and intellectual certainty that afflicts programmers generally (and many on this site), and I just generally reject that sort of certainty, especially from someone young and sheltered. Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.) A policy towards trying to break the human urge to hire copies of yourself should be assumed to be a good idea, in my opinion. You don't know what other sections of society will bring so it's probably a good idea to have representation from them. At the same time diversity of opinion should be encouraged, but a lecture to the entire company about how some groups are generally going to be less good at the job is more than just opinion, it's actively causing other people problems.
On the other had, firing him doesn't feel like the right thing to do at all, atleast not until he's proven that he's such a dick that nobody will work with him anymore (if that was to be the case). He's young and certain, and I think wrong. But that's not enough of a reason, if he's doing the job and open to rational debate then I can't see why he should be pushed out so quickly.
Then we can assume you support mass firings (Score:3)
... of his critics at Google...
I have news for you, and you probably don't want to hear it. If we put every one of his critics there who supported his firing into a big room, you could swing a dead cat in any direction and not hit someone who is less than 200% more certain that they are absolutely following the righteous path in burning this little heretic. In fact, the actual Spanish Inquisition was kinder and more com
Re:Then we can assume you support mass firings (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I find myself split on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, yes I absolutely agree that many people on all sides of debate jump to conclusions, and put people in boxes.
...which is what you *just did yourself* by using that bullshit three-letter-acronym, which is only ever used to belittle and contain. Way to prove you are exactly the same as the people you're railing against.
Re: (Score:3)
...which is what you *just did yourself* by using that bullshit three-letter-acronym
Its the acronym that the SJW's chose. The SJW's invented the term and are now mad that it has a negative connotation. It has a negative connotation because the SJW's gave themselves a bad name all by themselves. They dont believe that its their beliefs that are negative, of course... but hey.... sure... its just the term they chose thats negative... it was an accident to choose a negative one I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
Pay particular attention to the section with the bell curve chart, where he says:
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."
Good mind (Score:5, Interesting)
I've just read his document. I must say, that was a very rational appeal to Google to bring more harmony and freedom into its culture.
I must also say I see no hostility to anyone whatsoever. All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
And he was fired for it. And THAT is exactly where the hate for SJWs comes from.
For a long time I was kinda miffed that I don't have the background to have a chance to work for Google. Now I'm kinda glad... I don't think I would have liked that environment very much.
Re: (Score:3)
All he said was "Let's get away from this cult and be as productive (through enabling each and every Google employee to reach his full potential) as we can be".
But didn't he also argue that an entire group of his coworkers had inherently less potential than other groups simply based on their gender?
Re:Good mind (Score:4, Insightful)
I must agree with the AC. A quote would help. I have read a version posted on a news site and I would not bet on it not having been redacted.
What I read, though, did not contain any such thing. All he said was that on average, women and men show different traits and needs and instead of acting like that wasn't true Google's culture should try to play into the strengths of women and then accept the ratio of women working there as a probable equilibrium.
He also said to not only focus on competition as that is a primarily male trait. He more or less proposed that some men who are really focused on status might go elsewhere and make room so to speak.
IMO he never, ever said anyone (especially not the whole group. He emphasised judging each individual according to their strengths and weaknesses) was unable to do X. He just said that the current culture acted contrary to science and oppressed anyone who disagreed with that notion.
And I really have no idea why my first post was labelled flamebait :D.
Re:Good mind (Score:5, Informative)
But didn't he also argue that an entire group of his coworkers had inherently less potential than other groups simply based on their gender?
No.
Any other questions? Maybe instead of asking whats in it, you should read it. Maybe instead of pretending to be an expert on whats in it, you should read it first.
May Be In Trouble For NOT Firing James Damore (Score:3, Interesting)
Google may have found itself in trouble for not firing James Damore. He contributes into the peer performance review system there, and he had openly expressed an opinion that women, as a category, aren't on a par with men with respect to coding. That presents a liability to Google from a different direction.
See, he is smarter than we thought (Score:5, Funny)
Fascists! (Score:3)
It will just get settled (Score:3)
Every big company just makes these things go away. Google is going to reach into the couch cushions, pull out a few million bucks, and give it to the guy. It's all about risk management; I'm sure they want this whole thing to disappear so that they're not dragged in front of the media every single time a court date comes up.
In my opinion. they were right to get rid of him. Regardless of the content of what was published, you don't start a highly politically-charged fight, drag your employer into it, and expect to keep your job. Especially when the CEO has to cut his vacation short -- I'm sure that was the last straw. I've been nothing but professional in my career, and there have been _plenty_ of times I could have unloaded on this or that in a public forum but chose not to.
And besides, aren't we beyond this "women are inherently different" thing? Being in IT, you do work with a lot of guys and there is a definite gender gap. But, part of me thinks women are just being rational and avoiding what can be a stressful, thankless job if you're in the wrong environment. It's not all, or even the majority of men I've worked with, but I have worked with some very vocal men who border on the MRA level. But when you get down to the root of the problem, most of them are unmarried/unmarryable, or worse, on their second or third wife and paying large amounts of child support. From what I've seen, that's where a lot of the bitter complaining comes from, and if I was getting 50+% of my salary siphoned off each pay period I'd probably be bitter too.
James Damore's only crime (Score:4, Funny)
He made Sundar Pichai cancel his family vacation. Having the CEO cancel a vacation does tend to lead to firings.
So much wrong!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
While California says you can't be fired for HAVING a political opinion, you can be fired for expressing it.
In the rest of the US, your boss can walk in and fire you just for posting a Pro-Trump picture on your personal facebook page. Alternatively, he could just ask every Republican to raise their hand and then tell everyone who didn't raise their hand, "You're fired".
California banned this practice.
However, your boss can still fire you for wearing a Trump hat to work or sending an internal email that advocates for Hillary Clinton.
Whistleblower Protection
You are a pretty weird whistleblower if you complain internally about a public practice. I cannot imagine anyone EVER considering this a case of whistleblowing.
That would be like an Apple engineer sending around an internal memo about the small battery in their new phones, and then people calling that "whistleblowing". You can't blow the whistle on something that everyone knows about!
Right to Discuss Working Conditions
May be viable. Unfortunately, the memo didn't really discuss working conditions. It discussed business practices. Working conditions addresses how the business practices have an impact on the employee. He was discussing how he felt they were wrong-headed and misguided. Those might be fair assessments, but they are not addressing HIS working conditions.
Did he work more hours because of the hiring practices?
Did he get less time off?
Did it impact him in any demonstrable way?
Re:Right to be fired (Score:5, Informative)
California is a Right to Work state, so they don't really need a reason to fire him.
There's a big difference between firing someone without a good reason, vs. firing someone for an illegal reason. There are plenty of examples for the latter: you can't fire someone because they got pregnant, or reached a certain age, etc. Not saying that's the case here, but if someone can show that the reason for their termination was illegal (e.g. an internal management memo or meeting notes discussing "we need to get rid of all these old people!") then yes, they most certainly can sue for wrongful termination.
Re: (Score:3)
Right to Work means an employee can be terminated without cause. It does not mean an employee can be terminated for a cause that is illegal. Wrongful termination lawsuits are not prohibited in Right To Work states.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:seig (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually sucker this is the pinnacle of capitalism. This guy made trouble in the workplace and they sacked him for not having the right attitude. If you build a multi-billion dollar corporation you too can exterminate lowlife employees for having their own ideas. Instead of which you are lowlife who supports right wing propaganda about freedom - which is the freedom of big dogs to eat little dogs, just like happened to this guy.
Re:Fat chance (Score:4, Informative)
California has also clear laws regarding unlawful employment discrimination. Writing a memo pushing forward the agenda that diversity policies in the workplace is a bad idea will not fly well in courts.
Since 1996 the State supreme court has repeatedly upheld that affirmative action in the State is illegal in any institution that works for or with the State on any matter.
Re:Political opinion? (Score:4, Informative)
The whole screed...
Scientist after scientist are coming forward saying that his paper is well thought out, well researched, well written, and in line with current scientific understanding.
...read like a child who was upset that things weren't the way he thought they were all along
No, thats you guys, who keep lying about whats in the paper, and keep slandering the person that wrote it.
I wonder if Slashdot's poster logs can be subpoenaed to show that all you anonymous people are working for Google on Googles behalf slandering the person you wrongfully terminated. Pretty sure that "I was just following orders" is not a defense against slander.
Re:Unlikely... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another one that failed basic reading comprehension. Nowhere in the memo he states "...that women were inherently not cut out for those jobs...". The ignorance is strong with this one.
In fact, he states the opposite.
From the memo itself:
I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
And reinforcing:
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).
Don't spread lies. Read the whole thing before spreading lies:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Re:Unlikely... (Score:4, Insightful)
In general, if you write a '10 page manifesto' about anything, you are probably going to come off as a nutjob and probably won't go well for you professionally.
Solved. It's now called an "essay". So there's no problem.
You should try to come up with something better than things described with negative-sounding words are bad. It's really a poor argument and a poor thought process.
Re:Unlikely... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes he did:
"We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done)."
That is exactly what he did. The people (including a lot of journalists, sadly) saying he claimed women weren't capable of tech work simply haven't read what he wrote. They've been writing their responses based on what others said he wrote - others who also didn't read what he wrote. You know, the echo chamber he complained about?
On the contrary, this was one of the best written commentaries on the topic that I've read, and covered a lot of the logical flaws which have bothered me about political correctness over the years. It's missing a few others I've seen (assumption of a zero base state, assumption that the null hypothesis is true by ignoring contrary evidence, ad hominem through villainization, etc), which the mass media is now shoveling out in droves.
It was amusing/sad how much butt-covering he had to do to ward off ad hominems by people who will assume if you don't support their ideology, you must oppose it. e.g.
"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."
Without having to repeat things like that, it probably would've been a 7-8 page manifesto. But it was for naught - the PC crowd accused him of it anyway.
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Or can you tolerate someone against diversity and hostile towards women
Nobody should tolerate that.
These arent things Damore did or believe, however, so what are you talking about?
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
can you tolerate someone against diversity and hostile towards women
You, like so many others appear to have based your options on what others have said about what Damore wrote and not by what he actually wrote.
Damore's memo was not anti diversity. Nor was he hostile in it against women.
He _did_ call into question the means being used within Google to promote diversify as being potentially illegal (affirmative action _is_ illegal in the state of California), and that all sexual diversity in the workplace is not automatically because of repression and that the means being used to combat sexism were counter-productive and/or scientifically inconclusive.
Should you disagree, give quotations of the sections of his memo that say explicitly that he is against diversity and hostile to women.
Re: I like fried fish (Score:3)