Actually progress is being made discussing the "ideological echo chamber". Those inside the echo chamber have a vested emotional interest to not want to discuss it because it challenges core beliefs.
Ditto to this. I come here for the delightfully well informed discussions by some of the world's most capable technologists, scientists, and engineers. The content I usually find here genuinely enriches my life and motivates me with success stories of what smart, hardworking people are capable of producing.
Wasn't that his plan from the start? He probably played it well, apart from the fact that maybe he shouldn't have circulated his concerns using the company's internal tools, he could have written a blog post.
Well, he is an excellent Chess player @ 2300 ELO. He might have had a complex plan. Which might just have been to put up the memo while Google was being investigated, not necessarily to benefit from getting fired.
Edit: I would guess this passage is roughly the area he's claiming:
"Threaten employees with adverse consequences if they engage in protected, concerted activity...It includes circumstances where a single employee seeks to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action, as well as where an employee brings a group complaint to the attention of management. Activity is "protected" if it concerns employees' interests as employees"
The theory was that he filed a complain alleging discrimination (positive), and that this firing is arguably retaliatory for that whistle-blowing, so it makes sense that he's seeking protection under that. I don't think he would have a leg to stand on otherwise, and presumably if he succeeds in this matter it will be a technical victory.
The engineer is likely to lose because of the demonstrable harm to Google's brand in combination with his at-will employment contract.
However, that may not matter if the guy doesn't care about winning the case. By pushing himself back into the spotlight he asserts himself as an alt-right hero fighting against the "politically correct" culture. By martyring himself in this way he stands to gain a lot, even if his complaint has no merit.
I'm really surprised at this guys surprise at being fired.
No matter whether you think he's a monster or a martyr, posting anything that even suggests a different capability of your female colleagues at your place of work is begging to be fired. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was sharing his thoughts at a bar and was overheard, or if he posted this on his own non-work blog, but seriously, shouldn't the outcome have been pretty obvious to him?
He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals. So there's no way you could draw the conclusion that he meant to suggest that his female colleagues were any less capable than their male counterparts.
It was pretty clear what he was dogwhistling though. Just because he didn't come out and point blank say "The girls can't code" doesn't mean that wasn't his meaning.
Patterns are useless until they demonstrate they have predictive power.
> A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "template",[a] is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner
So using a lot of text to depict such pattern while on the other hand indicating such pattern cannot generalize feels like wrestling with yourself. Did he try to prove himself that this 'on average' model is a bad model?
> He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals.
So, would "Jews tend to be greedy" or "Italians tend to be lazy" be an acceptable statement in the workplace because they target (supposed) patterns rather than individuals?
Would someone espousing those statements be reasonably assumed to give Jewish or Italian candidates a fair hearing?
After all, the memo claimed a tendency amongst women towards neuroticism.
I'm also surprised. In Europe many know that if you work in the US the way sensible topics are handled require a very, very careful approach. I would personally never even try to raise anything like this, better it be handled by the group who is positively discriminated. If there is positive discrimination they suffer from it just as well if it goes too far. No need to correct for it as an outsider.
Did you actually read the memo he wrote? It's not mainly about the differences between men and women, it's mainly about how you can't talk about the differences between men and women. In firing him, Google ironically proved that he was right.
How can he not understand the amount of damage he has caused not just inside of Google, but also within the tech community as a whole? He should have been fired the moment he pressed the share button on the document.
I see the damage he is doing, but he's bringing to light the speed at which some people (e.g. google and you) will try to censor any discussion on this topic, so it isn't obvious to me that he has done more harm than good.
It's damage if it drives good engineers out of the company. By firing him the company is attempting to reduce the damage by indicating that this memo does not represent Google nor is it even under discussion.
What exactly you mean by damage? I know this sounds like a troll question but I would like to understand what kind of effect you perceive the release of this person's memo has had and why you feel that effect was negative. I don't ask to debate, or even respond to your answer, but I would feel privileged to understand what you mean when you use that word.
I don't know, actually. I originally held the same opinion, but over the last few days I've gone down the rabbit-hole of neuroscience and social-psychological research and his points appear to have merit. The tech community is devoting a lot of time and effort to fight something that is possibly explained by lack of interest and not entrenched discrimination.
That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist, because I've seen it a lot - Angels and VC's assuming a pitch meeting is a date and acting that way, unacceptable behavior in the workplace and women being harassed and shut out of opportunities for advancement in tech. All these must be dealt with.
It's just the methods we're all using to end perceived discrimination might not actually be directed at the real parts of the problem. That was the whole point of his essay in the first place, I think.
Did he cause the damage or just shine a light on it?
If what he claims is true, that women/minorities are being hired because of essentially affirmative action more than merit, wouldn't that be kind of a shock to people hired there that are in those categories?
Wouldn't they start to wonder if they were hired because of skills or because Google is trying to get percentages right for EEO purposes? Would they also start to wonder if they are underpaid and treated differently because they might be a "quota" job?
Yeah he probably went about it the wrong way. Probably would have got more positive traction to open a dialogue with senior management about the general topic and then bring his points up in a conversation instead of a written manifesto. Maybe he tried that already though, who knows.
Would anyone be kind enough to chime in with their professional two cents as to which side may have the upper hand in terms of the law?
To me, while I believe Google acted wrong by firing him and proved the validity of the arguments the author (of the memo) laid out, it seems that Google has every right to fire him if the terms of employment they laid out for him, which probably includes a reference to their internal guide about espousing ideologies, were broken by submitting that memo, but I'd love to hear from a more knowledgeable person.
This sort of situation is why open forums for employees can be a bad idea. If you encourage open speech and emotionally knee-jerk against it, you will have a problem.
The smart move here would have been to cool down, wait for the news cycle to move on to Trump's next gaffe and fire the guy later for misreporting PTO, poor performance or some other objective act if his behavior was truly disruptive. Now they have created a martyr and attracted a lot of attention... so the wackjob right-winger types will be on this like white on rice.
" Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. 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). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs."
....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).....
If that's true, then he could bolster the case with Department of Labor - which directly has to do with the claims that Google is paying women engineers much less than their male counterparts.
This is going to get ugly, and fast. (err, wait, it already has)
> Legal experts say the case has legs, with one lawyer telling Wired that “Damore's lawyer might argue that his memo was protected under California law, because it related to allegedly unequal treatment of employees.”
Unequal treatment of employees? How ironic.
This "memo" was probably one of the more unprofessional moves I've heard about in a while.
My own feelings are that it was cretinous and stupid. The same argument has been made for hundreds of years and women keep blowing it to smithereens. It has no legs to stand on.
I hope Google wins. It seems like it could be a blow if he wins on such a specious argument.
62 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadNo, his "plan" was to have a discussion.
>He probably played it well
So, not only assuming ulterior motives, but taking them for certain too...
Well, he is an excellent Chess player @ 2300 ELO. He might have had a complex plan. Which might just have been to put up the memo while Google was being investigated, not necessarily to benefit from getting fired.
Besides that, is suing google a sure thing? I bet they have the best lawyers.
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/i...
Edit: I would guess this passage is roughly the area he's claiming:
"Threaten employees with adverse consequences if they engage in protected, concerted activity...It includes circumstances where a single employee seeks to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action, as well as where an employee brings a group complaint to the attention of management. Activity is "protected" if it concerns employees' interests as employees"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fired-engineer-likely-to-face-o...
Though as a layman I have to say that passage makes it sound like he should be protected.
However, that may not matter if the guy doesn't care about winning the case. By pushing himself back into the spotlight he asserts himself as an alt-right hero fighting against the "politically correct" culture. By martyring himself in this way he stands to gain a lot, even if his complaint has no merit.
No matter whether you think he's a monster or a martyr, posting anything that even suggests a different capability of your female colleagues at your place of work is begging to be fired. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was sharing his thoughts at a bar and was overheard, or if he posted this on his own non-work blog, but seriously, shouldn't the outcome have been pretty obvious to him?
edit: grammar
he was basically playing roulette politics in the wrong setting.
> A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "template",[a] is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern
So using a lot of text to depict such pattern while on the other hand indicating such pattern cannot generalize feels like wrestling with yourself. Did he try to prove himself that this 'on average' model is a bad model?
So, would "Jews tend to be greedy" or "Italians tend to be lazy" be an acceptable statement in the workplace because they target (supposed) patterns rather than individuals?
Would someone espousing those statements be reasonably assumed to give Jewish or Italian candidates a fair hearing?
After all, the memo claimed a tendency amongst women towards neuroticism.
Maybe I should believe that too, and be completely ignorant about the contents of the actual document....
<insert rage, anger, mad flailing of arms>
ObOntopic: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist, because I've seen it a lot - Angels and VC's assuming a pitch meeting is a date and acting that way, unacceptable behavior in the workplace and women being harassed and shut out of opportunities for advancement in tech. All these must be dealt with.
It's just the methods we're all using to end perceived discrimination might not actually be directed at the real parts of the problem. That was the whole point of his essay in the first place, I think.
If what he claims is true, that women/minorities are being hired because of essentially affirmative action more than merit, wouldn't that be kind of a shock to people hired there that are in those categories?
Wouldn't they start to wonder if they were hired because of skills or because Google is trying to get percentages right for EEO purposes? Would they also start to wonder if they are underpaid and treated differently because they might be a "quota" job?
Yeah he probably went about it the wrong way. Probably would have got more positive traction to open a dialogue with senior management about the general topic and then bring his points up in a conversation instead of a written manifesto. Maybe he tried that already though, who knows.
To me, while I believe Google acted wrong by firing him and proved the validity of the arguments the author (of the memo) laid out, it seems that Google has every right to fire him if the terms of employment they laid out for him, which probably includes a reference to their internal guide about espousing ideologies, were broken by submitting that memo, but I'd love to hear from a more knowledgeable person.
The smart move here would have been to cool down, wait for the news cycle to move on to Trump's next gaffe and fire the guy later for misreporting PTO, poor performance or some other objective act if his behavior was truly disruptive. Now they have created a martyr and attracted a lot of attention... so the wackjob right-winger types will be on this like white on rice.
Even The Guardian labelled it as "anti-diversity".
" Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. 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). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs."
....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).....
If that's true, then he could bolster the case with Department of Labor - which directly has to do with the claims that Google is paying women engineers much less than their male counterparts.
This is going to get ugly, and fast. (err, wait, it already has)
If your adversary has unlimited resources, find a bigger fish to engage them.
Unequal treatment of employees? How ironic.
This "memo" was probably one of the more unprofessional moves I've heard about in a while.
My own feelings are that it was cretinous and stupid. The same argument has been made for hundreds of years and women keep blowing it to smithereens. It has no legs to stand on.
I hope Google wins. It seems like it could be a blow if he wins on such a specious argument.