Slashdot Mirror
Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo On Gender Differences (bloomberg.com)
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.
Here's what Google said internally, according to TechCrunch:
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.
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 by reinforcing their bias against differing opinion. Science also supports (mirror) his conclusions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Sure do. They've even got their ideological blacklists going on to boot. Sure is pretty authoritarian over there... Especially when people are saying well, that PhD biologist seems to have gotten it right.
Om, nomnomnom...
Does it make it any better that Google said this in their internal statement:
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.
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: "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. That matches my narrow realm of experience.
I think it's important that we stick to actual research, instead of postulating wildly.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"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...
And ? There is actual research showing that neuroticism affect women more than men, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But hey, I get it, it's "hate facts".
The word "neurotic" does not exist in the essay. He wrote this:
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
-Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).
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 (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...
He was the epitome of diplomatic civility in making his point. People read nefarious intent through their own biases and paranoia.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
No it isn't. That you don't happen to like the truth doesn't change it.
... and I forgot, I'm also into S&M D/s stuff... and I ain't being the submissive one.
The problem seems to have been specifically the stuff about some people being less biologically suited to the job, or having more undesirable traits like being "neurotic".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
"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.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
It's about saying that some employees are biologically unsuited to be engineers. It's about planting suspicion that any complaint from them might just be because they are neurotic or unable to hack it.
The rest of what he said would probably have been fine.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.