From the start this article was fraught with inaccuracy and obvious virtue signaling. Not to mention The Verge has attempted to connect Damore to the alt-right on 4chan. This publication cannot be trusted.
Google can easily prove that they don't discriminate against white men by demonstrating that their workforce is mainly white men. There obviously isn't any discrimination on that part. There is a question of whether or not Google could discriminate against conservatives, but in the case of Damore they obviously didn't because they employed him. He could claim he was fired for political action in the workplace, but that isn't protected speech so Google were not in the wrong about that.
Your easy proof is completely wrong. There's discrimination against white men if the hiring bar is higher for them. To check this using workforce statistics you'd need to compare the fraction of white men in the workforce to what it would be with the same hiring bar for everyone. Comparing the fraction to the magic number 50% is irrelevant.
> To check this using workforce statistics you'd need to compare the fraction of white men in the workforce to what it would be with the same hiring bar for everyone.
If there was the same hiring bar for everyone, then wouldn't the a company (such as Google) who has the ability to hire only the best, end up with a distribution which matches the population as a whole?
Reality is that African Americans are not doing well as a segment of the population, for whatever reason.
Reality is that compared to men, women aren’t as interested in STEM, for whatever reason.
Reality is that Asian Americans are doing very well in STEM and other fields, for whatever reason.
Removing reasons from the equation, you have to realize that reality will dictate the distribution of the best candidates for these jobs.
these are all generalizations. A woman can be more interested and better in STEM than a man, but the left forces us to generalize by gender and race, which ultimately lead to statistics that make people uncomfortable.
* I provided no citations for these generalizations for the sake of time, but if anyone disagrees I can provide them.
> you have to realize that reality will dictate the distribution of the best candidates for these jobs
That seems backwards—a company would be better off hiring from demographics that are underperforming versus expected, and then finding a way to get them to perform as well as their innate talent would allow.
Why would a company be better off? You never explained that.
A company hires individuals.
If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?
If a black, transgender (was a man, now a post-op woman), lesbian (she likes women), who is a cross dresser (she likes to dress like a man) applies for a job, do you just hire her on the spot because she ticks so many boxes of supposedly marginalized people?
That seems like a bad way to run a business and I would suggest you hire based on qualifications.
> If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?
Because you found a way to identify groups of people who are probably a lot more skilled than your ability to measure qualifications indicates. So you can trust in your measurements, or you can accept that our ability to measure nebulous concepts is weak. Think of it like arbitrage.
His case is not based on discrimination based solely on race and gender.
> He could claim he was fired for political action in the workplace, but that isn't protected speech so Google were not in the wrong about that.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that his essay was posted in a forum that was explicitly set up to discuss labor practices. From my lay perspective, it certainly looks like it's covered under labor laws. It's not like he was posting Klan flyers on the breakroom bulletin board; he was participating in a discussion sanctioned by the company.
Important context: “Harmeet Dhillon,” the attorney at the top-left of page one, is the “chairwoman of the Republican Party in San Francisco” [1]. Damore has managed to pawn himself off as a one-act political ploy and fundraising billing for the 2018 midterms. In exchange, he gets an unwinnable case and play a human heatsink for this issue for the rest of his life.
TL; DR If an attorney with political ambitions offers to fight your case for free, you may be paying with something other than currency.
16 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 47.3 ms ] threadIt didn’t say that, but let’s not let truth get in the way.
How he can have a case?
[1] See misconception 2 here https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Hey-Take-It-Outside-Polit...
If there was the same hiring bar for everyone, then wouldn't the a company (such as Google) who has the ability to hire only the best, end up with a distribution which matches the population as a whole?
Reality is that African Americans are not doing well as a segment of the population, for whatever reason.
Reality is that compared to men, women aren’t as interested in STEM, for whatever reason.
Reality is that Asian Americans are doing very well in STEM and other fields, for whatever reason.
Removing reasons from the equation, you have to realize that reality will dictate the distribution of the best candidates for these jobs.
these are all generalizations. A woman can be more interested and better in STEM than a man, but the left forces us to generalize by gender and race, which ultimately lead to statistics that make people uncomfortable.
* I provided no citations for these generalizations for the sake of time, but if anyone disagrees I can provide them.
That seems backwards—a company would be better off hiring from demographics that are underperforming versus expected, and then finding a way to get them to perform as well as their innate talent would allow.
A company hires individuals.
If you want someone who is underperforming, why does that underperforming person need to identify as an underperforming intersectional group?
If a black, transgender (was a man, now a post-op woman), lesbian (she likes women), who is a cross dresser (she likes to dress like a man) applies for a job, do you just hire her on the spot because she ticks so many boxes of supposedly marginalized people?
That seems like a bad way to run a business and I would suggest you hire based on qualifications.
Because you found a way to identify groups of people who are probably a lot more skilled than your ability to measure qualifications indicates. So you can trust in your measurements, or you can accept that our ability to measure nebulous concepts is weak. Think of it like arbitrage.
> He could claim he was fired for political action in the workplace, but that isn't protected speech so Google were not in the wrong about that.
Are you sure about that? My understanding is that his essay was posted in a forum that was explicitly set up to discuss labor practices. From my lay perspective, it certainly looks like it's covered under labor laws. It's not like he was posting Klan flyers on the breakroom bulletin board; he was participating in a discussion sanctioned by the company.
White people are ~78% of the US population (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State... ) and 72% of the California population (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California ) but only 60% of the Google workforce (source: http://mashable.com/2014/05/28/google-employee-demographics ). Thus looking at the numbers it seems like there's room to argue "white" is an underrepresented category at Google.
TL; DR If an attorney with political ambitions offers to fight your case for free, you may be paying with something other than currency.
[1] http://m.sfgate.com/politics/article/Harmeet-Dhillon-Republi...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16098676