Google fires diversity critic

[Torto]

The materials used in tin foil hats are sold at your local supermarket. I thought perhaps you needed that bit of information, given the content of your post is nothing more than right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theories, that quite honestly should make you ashamed.

But by all means, it is certainly amusing to see all this right-wing whining about a PRIVATE company doing as they like, after YEARS of hearing how "PRIVATE companies should be less regulated and allowed to do as they like!" from right-wingers.

Google fires a male employee for having an opinion you say 'meh'.

If Google fired a woman for writing a manifesto that is full of PC SJW bullshit you would be out marching in the streets.

[Darsithis]

That is not carte blanche, you cannot just fire people over opinions. My boss cannot fire me just because I support a different football team to him. Well he can fire me, but I'd just sue him for unfair dismissal and I'd get reinstated and he would be fired.

James Damore got unfairly fired for his opinion. Google's grounds for termination are very weak and there are consequences for that decision as well.

Supporting a different football team is not the same as maligning a gender using company property. Supporting a football team is a private thing. If he had told his friends "I think women are [insert thing here]", no, of course Google can't fire him for that. He has a right in the privacy of his own home or with his friends to say as he will (though, accepting consequences of public actions).

He didn't do that. He used company property to make remarks that went against Google's culture, and he faced the consequences for it.

Should freedom of speech apply here? If you argue that it is up to the company, then should it be up to the company whether any civil rights apply in the workplace?

I don't think people are having a legalistic argument, they are arguing fundamental ethics. The legalistic issues here are far more complex, and involve other information like the fact that Damore filed an NLRB complaint against Google prior to the firing.

A company should not have the right to determine if civil rights apply to them. That's a federal/state thing, and it is already is. Freedom of speech is specifically the right to criticize the government without fear of being persecuted for it. It doesn't give you carte blanche to say and do as you will.

I think you're discussing 2 different things. Of course a private company can do whatever they want. The criticism is Google says they are all about diversity and freethinkers, but acted out this way. They are totally in their rights to, and I don't think anyone should be penalized for pointing out the hypocrisy.

Support diversity and thought doesn't mean accepting every opinion. As said earlier, he used company property to make his rant.

To all 3: the end result is that his rant was disruptive to the workplace and the culture of his company.

[Celista]

Totally justified. It is unacceptable to write a memo stating "women are terrible leaders cuz genetics" then play the conservative white male victim card. Grow up.

[Torto]

Random employees writing ten page sexist manifestos claiming biological differences make women unsuitable for certain tech fields points to... hmm a person contributing to a disruptive work place. Would you even want to put women to work along side with him when he holds those types of views?

I'm frankly sick of the right victim complex. They're like a kid sticking their hands in fire and getting mad at the fire... well stop doing stupid shit and maybe there wouldn't be an issue.

We have just had 60+ pages with hundreds of people arguing over whether the manifesto was sexist or not (it wasn't). Damore will take this to court and will probably win because anyone taking offence from the memo's content is just looking for an excuse to be offended.

- - - Updated - - -

Totally justified. It is unacceptable to write a memo stating "women are terrible leaders cuz genetics" then play the conservative white male victim card. Grow up.

Ugh....seriously

[Celista]

The question is actually pretty simple. Per American standards, California is essentially a fire-at-will state and moreover Google does not have an union.

Therefore, people can be fired from Google for no reason whatsoever. And the guy provided them a reason.

I'm kindof amazed at how stupid the guy is.

For one, he equates organizational culture with political culture, and the two are not the same. *Even* if you employ a company with 100% registered Democrats, or Republicans, organizational culture does not reflect political values. He is absolutely ignorant about basic organizational behavior/theory, he should pick up a textbook or leadership book on the topic.

Two, he makes a lot of claims regarding female behavior and attributes it to genetics. For one, most of what he said is highly contentious, and there are reasons for this. Almost no human behavior is 100% biological or social. For most behaviors (outside of behaviors attributable to brain trauma, certain heritable disorders, and mental illnesses like schizophrenia), behavior is a roughly 50/50 mix of biology and environment. People assume gendered behavior is biological because gender socialization begins early. Children tend to act out and reinforce "acceptable" gendered behavior at the age of 4 or 5.

Three...no one makes comments like these and expects to keep their job. Getting into Harvard is easier than becoming employed at Google. Business culture is almost overwhelmingly conservative. I have worked at companies in Chicago where if you were a political liberal, you kept your mouth shut because you risked pissing off your coworkers or your bosses. He can go work at one of many companies that place little more than token value on diversity, because I assure you that there are a lot of them--probably the majority of them.

This guy can go try to find work at almost any other company, be open about his political beliefs and would likely find employment.

[Torto]

Supporting a different football team is not the same as maligning a gender using company property. Supporting a football team is a private thing. If he had told his friends "I think women are [insert thing here]", no, of course Google can't fire him for that. He has a right in the privacy of his own home or with his friends to say as he will (though, accepting consequences of public actions).

He didn't do that. He used company property to make remarks that went against Google's culture, and he faced the consequences for it..

I don't agree that he maligned a gender but putting that to one side and say that's true, due process hasn't been followed. In most business I've worked if there has been an issue of bullying, discrimination, sexism etc the offender is dragged before the HR department and disciplined. Typically they are sent of for EEO training and given another chance. Continued transgressions sees them getting fired.

Google went straight for the kill only because the document leaked and they have an incident to control. Unfair dismissal.

[Celista]

We have just had 60+ pages with hundreds of people arguing over whether the manifesto was sexist or not (it wasn't). Damore will take this to court and will probably win because anyone taking offence from the memo's content is just looking for an excuse to be offended.

- - - Updated - - -



Ugh....seriously

He's not going to take it to court because CA is an at-will employment state and if he had an employment contract that would have superseded state employment law then I'm sure there was some legal language in there that would have covered Google in this case (such as some clause about embarrassing the company publicly). I am sure his termination was ran by Google's legal department before it occurred.

[Trassk]

Totally justified. It is unacceptable to write a memo stating "women are terrible leaders cuz genetics" then play the conservative white male victim card. Grow up.

You really missed the point of what he said entirely and misinterpreting it to suit your narrative.

[Stasso]

He's not going to take it to court because CA is an at-will employment state and if he had an employment contract that would have superseded state employment law then I'm sure there was some legal language in there that would have covered Google in this case (such as some clause about embarrassing the company publicly). I am sure his termination was ran by Google's legal department before it occurred.

Maybe take your head out your ass and stop proving him right.

[Celista]

Maybe take your head out your ass and stop proving him right.

Okay, take out "he won't take it to court" and replace it with "he will most certainly lose in court" for aforementioned reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

You really missed the point of what he said entirely and misinterpreting it to suit your narrative.

I read the whole thing. He said verbatim that women are not good leaders and based that on high levels of neuroticism which btw is not a gendered trait. It is also not related to leadership ability.

I "misinterpreted" nothing.

[Mormolyce]

ITT: a lot of people who've never had a job in a professional environment.

There is a good chance most of those companies will get ousted by the competition who don't toe the line to self-destructive diversity policies anyhow.

Innovation always wins in every industry.

Ahahahahahahahaha!

You realise you're talking about Google here?

Also, guess which policies are considered progressive.

You have a serious case of disconnection from reality buddy.

[Anastacy]

I read the whole thing. He said verbatim that women are not good leaders and based that on high levels of neuroticism which btw is not a gendered trait. It is also not related to leadership ability.

I "misinterpreted" nothing.

Methinks you don't know what "verbatim" means.

(Psst: it's "word for word", or "exactly").

[Kraenen]

Okay, take out "he won't take it to court" and replace it with "he will most certainly lose in court" for aforementioned reasons.

- - - Updated - - -


I read the whole thing. He said verbatim that women are not good leaders and based that on high levels of neuroticism which btw is not a gendered trait. It is also not related to leadership ability.

I "misinterpreted" nothing.

Women are terrible leaders cuz genetics

This doesn't sound like an accurate interpretation of this:

Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
Neuroticism (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.

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.

What a brilliant, accurate, and insightful interpretation of what he said!

[Torto]

He's not going to take it to court because CA is an at-will employment state and if he had an employment contract that would have superseded state employment law then I'm sure there was some legal language in there that would have covered Google in this case (such as some clause about embarrassing the company publicly). I am sure his termination was ran by Google's legal department before it occurred.

I have zero knowledge of CA workplace relations laws but he got a lawyer pretty quick so someone must think he has a case.

[Aeula]

And immediately the writer of the memo is slammed by 90% of news sites out there, painting him as an evil, wicked, sexist white man.

If ever there was a sign that social justice culture has gone too far, this is it.

[anon5123]

You talk shit about your company in public and let yourself get caught, you get fired. That's the way it has always been.

It wasn't in public though. It was an internal Google forum, IIRC.

[Anastacy]

This doesn't sound like an accurate interpretation of this:

Oh my god!!! Brilliant interpretation.

Raybourne said verbatim that the sky is naturally pink, due to genetics.

I read the whoooooole thing!

[Trassk]

And immediately the writer of the memo is slammed by 90% of news sites out there, painting him as an evil, wicked, sexist white man.

If ever there was a sign that social justice culture has gone too far, this is it.

We kinda got an idea of that already with how much sjw's fucked up marvel comics. Seriously don't look into it to deeply unless you want to spend the day with your face in your palms.

[Celista]

This doesn't sound like an accurate interpretation of this:



What a brilliant, accurate, and insightful interpretation of what he said!

...did you continue to read the rest of what he said? This passage is an attempt to mediate/temper the rest of what he said, which he knew on a level was blatantly inflammatory. Akin to Trump's "Mexico sends us their murderers and rapists. But some I'm sure are good people".

- - - Updated - - -

I have zero knowledge of CA workplace relations laws but he got a lawyer pretty quick so someone must think he has a case.

Yeah well we will see. It's not difficult to get a lawyer even if you have zero case.

[fengosa]

I have zero knowledge of CA workplace relations laws but he got a lawyer pretty quick so someone must think he has a case.

This is pretty baffling logic. Anyone can hire a lawyer regardless of whether they'll win or lose. More over Google fired him pretty quickly so it's likely they believe they have a strong case as well.

To me this whole case is pretty simple. People don't like to be classified by traits associated to their gender, race, etc. Google has a code of conduct which reflects that and the employee violated it by stating woman are more likely to have anxiety issues. Google had no choice in the matter, they had to fire him or risk upsetting a portion of their employees and users.