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.
That seems harsh. Does this prove the part of his post about being scared to disagree?
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom." --Justice Edward Terry Sanford
I'll bet anything the guy got a solid severance package though.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Obey the party line or be fired and banned from the industry.
For such an "inclusive" and "tolerant" company, they sure are quite Soviet in their treatment of dissent.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I don't agree with the pamphlet but I take it diversity is fine as long as you follow the arbitrary rules (aka code of coduct) that are set and don't argue anything that might actually lead to a real discussion.
I feel so sig.
"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)."
And to prove that their fears are well founded, Google will simply fire one of them. Got a minority conservative viewpoint? Don't you dare to express your view or suffer the consequences.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
Google specifically flagged the fact that the fired employee had said women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance" (and criticized women for being "agreeable" rather than "assertive").
An interesting question for discussion might be whether we agree or disagree with what the fired employee said. That is, do you think women are "neurotic" and show "a lower stress tolerance" (and that their careers suffer because women are "agreeable" rather than "assertive").
They just proved Damore's point about conformity at the company. What good is gender diversity if everybody is forced into goodthink?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right? I would LOVE to see that happen. So tired of the like that says everyone is genetically the same. It's literally shouting at proof to try and scare it into falsehood.
Heres's a guess:
- Journalists would NOT label his writing an "anti-business manifesto/screed"
- Journalists would, in fact, be sympathetic to him, write human-interest articles about his "journey", and work on long-form investigative stories about the oppressive anti-free-speech monoculture that has been developing on Wall Street.
- Neither those journalists nor their audience would bring up how "it isn't the government doing it so it's not a free speech issue"
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
By kicking Damore out of G, they have bolstered his hypothesis that other ideas are absolutely not welcome. Sundar Pichai should have clarified on what points is the author wrong, and how. Given that the author's post had got out of company and is circulating in WWW, people of the world should know and get clear on what G's ideologies are, rather than just writing "He violated the code of conduct". IMO, if these people feel women are purposefully kept out, the idea is to break the social norm by having reforms where such discouraging (towards women) behaviour should be reduced. Also, the example of women (anonymous, but names available on request) in this field should be provided. But when it comes to rewards and jobs, there should be only meritocracy. Those who bring value to the table should be allowed to join rather than focussing on genders and sexes. It was exactly the issue with Damore's essay too. He was trying to focus on sexes and their characteristics while he should have enforced meritocracy and secularism in his group. That would have been a better example. Also, I don't believe in the fact that X% of population MUST be female to prove that they are as good. They may be as good, but less interested, yes? Or could it be that they are actually bullied? or could it be that the field looks too complicated to them to scare them?
Killing the messenger of a politically correct and quite honestly really moronic memo was not the right move.
:p
He did not make the memo public -- so even if he wrote it -- it was not him that "damaged" Google... Google obviously has it's own issues and feels that firing the employee rather than dealing with issues directly would be the best PR move... He should not be fired over his memo -- I would however not put him up for promotion since he would have a high bar to prove that he would be able to work with all others without bias. If he was able to do his current job, and do it well (meritocracy)... they should have just used the memo as a discussion point and say although they thoroughly disavowed the comments in regards to gender equality.
Then just assign him to always work for a woman... who was proven to be better than him
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.
They ask for open internal discussion and when they get it they fire people. He expressed his views after being invited to do so privately within the company. TLDR: men and women are different. And that Google company should not be extreme right or left on any issue.
The correct thing to do would have been to rationally disagree. All he did was express his thoughts.There was no proof he took any action of discrimination. He was in fact pointing out discrimination he sees his company doing and they turn around and prove him right.
Google is all about image. The communists in China should hire Google to run their country for them. I have a feeling they fired him and gave him a big paycheck to leave quietly; not to sue them or talk publicly.
By kicking Damore out of G, they have bolstered his hypothesis that other ideas are absolutely not welcome.
I'm certain that we haven't heard the last of this dude's persecution complex.
Sundar Pichai should have clarified on what points is the author wrong, and how. Given that the author's post had got out of company and is circulating in WWW, people of the world should know and get clear on what G's ideologies are, rather than just writing "He violated the code of conduct".
This makes no sense to me.
First off, Sundar Pichai was on holiday. Nobody should be expected to write a press release while on holiday. And nor did he; he wrote an internal memo which leaked. The "people of the world" as a whole were clearly not the intended audience, merely that subset who are already supposed to be aware of what the Code of Conduct says.
But when it comes to rewards and jobs, there should be only meritocracy.
Of course. Many younger programmers don't really understand what constitutes "merit" in this field, though. Engineering is the craft of solving human problems through the intelligent and appropriate application of science and technology. If you can't deal with the "human" part, this isn't the business for you.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I mean, firing people over an _opinion_, formulated without aggression and without attacking anyone - that's harsh. I'd be scared shitless in such an environment that I might accidentally say something that bothers the SJWs and be fired for my troubles. And it's a great demo how, once again, "diversity" means "you'll agree with me or I'll silence you."
An employer who acts like this is not worth working for.
I am not conservative , right winged. I am left winged (a look at my post history for the last 10 years should show that) and for TRUE equality of opportunity, something we did not have until recently with women and skin color minorities being suppressed consciously or unconsciously by the work environment, HR, and the various team leaders. But i am for a good discourse because women and men are different on how they handle situation, how they view social activities, and how they will have bias. This naturally impact on how they will for example chose a job, and while part of it is socially learned, part of it is inherent to sex (I avoid gender due to the pitfall of TG). And that is where I break peace with many of my friends on the left side. I am against equality of outcome. Because you then inherently 1) spit of all sex science and spit on the difference between women and men 2) add inefficiencies by having less good candidate over take better candidate to match an outcome "more women , more minorities". Naturally the converse is that since society move slowly, minorities and women would have been screwed for longer had we not have the equality of outcome. That may be true too. But that still does not make it right or better than equality of opportunity. But where it goes to the "wrong terribly wrong" deep end, is when you get fired for having this opinion like this seem to be in this case. Granted I did not read the full memo, but what I overflew seem to be quite clear : google bent over and fired him to avoid looking "sexist". And thus died any discourse right or left at google.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
everything at the right of SJW/communist madness will be considered "anti-diversity".
It does not matter.
If you are not the boss starting a high profile political shitfight in your workplace that gets the attention of the press is a bad move no matter what your politics are.
That word "research" gets a serious workout on this site despite it being almost always misapplied - how is looking up wikipedia "research"? So he cited something, maybe the journalist at Gizmodo thought it wasn't authoritative? Maybe they didn't dig down to where it came from etc before deadline. I've been told it's better to leave a quote out instead of finding you've accidentally quoted something originally from the Onion. Besides - the real story (as far as the journalist would see it IMHO) is that someone started a political shitfight at google. The details and justifications are not that difficult for those interested to find out this time since it's all online.
"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.”
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
In this case, a biologist called upon his employer to take actual, real life, distribution differences between the sexes seriously.
So...biologist calls on his employer to take evolution seriously, and then gets fired because the employer believes in young-Earth creationism.
FTFY
Dumping humans who spend their time causing problems rather than solving them is one way to fix things. We've all had colleagues like that.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Kind of disappointing to see them fold so quickly over something so minor, but then, as a soon to no longer be Youtube Red subscriber (just for the commercials, not any of their bland original nonsense), I'm not surprised by any of this.
I subscribe to a lot of different channels from gaming to science to entertainment and politics and almost every single content producer has complained about the new algorithms that have forced most of them to either greatly cut back (it becomes just a hobby for them) or they have to ramp up to lower quality daily videos (which I can't and don't really desire to keep up with). And many of the people I'm watching are apologizing and explaining why they've been force to do it. I feel bad for them. But it's also destroyed what I once loved.
And now they're talking about censoring anything controversial. Ok, well not censoring, but making it so you can't like, share, monetize and it won't show up in recommendations, meaning yeah, censor. Like most normal people, I like controversial. It's fun. Google execs are not (God that place has to suck to work).
Youtube has been so much more valuable to me than Netflix ever was, but it's gone off a cliff in the past year due to poor management decisions. It's such a shame, there really isn't a viable alternative.
It's more the CEO (and other execs) who need to be fired, not this poor sap.
And because of his conservative teachings - he had what I and others would consider moronically backwards viewpoints with respect to women's place in society. Despite these viewpoints, he was a diligent worker and did not allow his personal feelings to interfere with working with women to get the job done. His personal viewpoints are known because he is not shy about telling people his personal opinions...
Because of his viewpoints, others would refuse to work with him... should he be fired because others let their personal feelings get in the way of their duty to the company to get past personal disagreements -- and get the work done? I would say -- no. His personal viewpoints, no matter how moronic I consider them are not a reason to fire him. If others have a problem working with him because they don't like his personal viewpoints -- they should be fired for letting their personal feelings get in the way of their duty to the company and to get things done.
I have worked with and for people I personally despise, but I have never let it get in the way of actually getting the work done.
A perfect example of why the current generation is weak -- they cannot tolerate anything with respect to differing opinions (as long as that is all it is opinions). The newer generation (left and right) are made up of too many snowflakes.
Are you really so naive to think that - are you on your Dad's account or something or did we just get you before the first coffee of the day?
It's not about any *ism. It's about being critical of the company wide employment policy and ultimately the CEO himself. Any correspondence with feminist or any other dogma is co-incidental.
Pick a very public fight with management on an emotive issue, get it into the press and shit happens. Of course he got fired. He was demonstrating a lack of loyalty in a very public way and the issue itself doesn't matter.
How relevant is feminism in the millenial "bro" locker room environment of Google anyway? It's just a bullet point in the hiring policy to stop the place looking like a juvenile sausagefest to the outside world.
It is harmfull at Google to express views that are different from what some people think. So there are illegal opinions. (don't confuse opinions with actions, BTW, those can be illegal)
This is a very dangerous situation, as freedom of speech is most important for those who think differently. (Again, speech, not action)
We also see one of the big problem about the current pseudo left scene. They don't seem to oppose the opinion, some haven't even read that document, or Googles response to it, but they only seem to want to shit storm that person.
We need to tolerate differing opinions, ideally even temporarily suspending our believe in our own opinions to be able to find out if the other opinion is any good. If it's bad, you can use logic to argue against it, if it has some good aspects, you can take those for your own, then more refined, opinion.
With respect (I'm sure you are good at something) the title of it alone is asking for a fight with the CEO, let alone what follows (eg. accusations about management being blind to things etc). In addition, the undergraduate fumbling with psychology included is frankly embarassing even to someone who didn't study the topic formally like myself. Take a look again considering it from the point of view of Google's management and I'm sure you'll work that out.
Free speech in the workplace, especially an American corporate workplace, shouldn't be expected unless you are prepared to work for free (or get kicked out the door).
While it would be nice if such a thing would be tolerated and other workplaces would tolerate it, the "we own you" attitude is very strong in corporate America. A CEO can talk like that, but down the ladder it's seen as far too much biting of the hand that feeds you.
Even if he's 100% correct (not my opinion, it looks like a pile of emotive overly political whiny shit, but let's say it is 100% correct under that) it is a bit confronting and a one-way ticket out of the building unless done outside and preferably anonymously.
A good way to sum up the essay is that the author set up a social minefield and played hopscotch making sure he hit every one of the mines.
He's even had a dig at evangelicals just as an analogy - so much for "stop alienating conservatives".
Of course he was going to get fired as soon as this angry "I'm the victim" bro-screed came to the CEO's attention.
Someone at Gizmodo should be shot or sued for editing the memo, "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber," by removing the references—"hyperlinks," as they call them. The hyperlinks are to many scholarly journal pieces and otherwise respectable publications. Without the references to back up the author's claims, he just looks like a boob to most folks.
Here is a link to a PDF that contains all the hyperlinks to references and also two missing figures left out from the Gizmodo version.
https://assets.documentcloud.o...
I don't know the answer to your question, but by concentrating on the USAF you have ignored the two other US military branches and ten other countries that the JOINT Strike Fighter is supposed to be designed for.
Do you work for Lockheed Martin? You seem qualified.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I've mostly moved away from Google products because of their privacy eroding stance but this crosses a line that is going to be very difficult to uncross. I refuse to support a company that promotes sexism in the name of "equality".
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Where I live it is sometimes the opposite of this. During our last military confronation, people were fired for writing facebook statuses against the war. There are companies whose policy is not to hire people who skipped conscription, and in general "leftist" is mostly equated with tratior. Sure, there are few companies that are more left leaning and act the opposite, but to me it feels the same. Everybody knows that without a workplace you will starve, thus they decide to threaten you with hunger in order to make you comply.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
When that message got leaked it directly affected the company's image, and action had to be taken.
It'd be far worse for Google not to do anything about it because that would be interpreted as Google sharing the message, which had too many assumptions, some very few valid criticisms, and sugarcoating of quite frankly some very nasty prejudice and sexism.
"Doing something about it" does not mean publicly firing the guy.
I think a more appropriate response would be a statement affirming that this memo that is contrary to Google's views and that the problem is being dealt with internally. Then refuse to comment any further. In fact, Google shouldn't even have acknowledged the origin of this memo.
These are internal matters, and how Google deal with it is none of our business.
Every single white male got that, eh? But other people, not you, are the bigots. I see.
The word "neurotic" doesn't appear in the message, and the word "neuroticism" (which does appear) is in no way meant as an insult, but only as an explanation why women tend to not do as well as men in corporate environments. Indeed, the entire paragraph is about reasons why women don't tend to do well, and if you read an insult there, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. That's fine - slashdot is full of people who don't read anything, but since you step forward as a manager working at the company, and being in support of firing the guy, I would VERY MUCH expect you to have read his message properly. I find it unbelievable that you are, by your own admission, in a position where you could very well have been involved with his being fired, yet you haven't even bothered to properly read the text that would necessitate such a drastic step.
I find it similarly unbelievable that you are openly admitting, as a self-proclaimed Google manager, that Google is perfectly willing to prosecute people over their political opinion. Newsflash: we are no longer in the 19th century, where the boss told you what to go vote. That kind of behaviour from a company is COMPLETELY unacceptable. And making such a confident statement seems like a legally dangerous thing to do, if anyone ever gets fired over it.
There's also this: gender equality is a hot topic in a great many places, and subject of much debate. You cannot base significant company policies around such a topic, and then go and declare it "incredibly toxic and divisive" when someone disagrees with you. Disagreement is also not by itself in any kind of way or shape "incredibly toxic or divisive". And the act of disagreement should _never_ lead to such consequences, or you'll stifle all forms of debate (whether constructive or not). I can tell you this because I don't work at Google and don't have to fear your reaction or that of your peers. Unfortunately, you won't hear it from any of your colleagues, who at this point are too scared to voice any opinion away from the party line. Now there's a situation I'd call "incredibly toxic"...
The catch is any criticism has to be made in a way that does not make a large swath of employees feel unwelcome.
Bullshit. He couldn't have been less aggressive, and more polite and factual, had he tried.
Freaking hilarious.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status...
It is actually very well thought out and well stated. I disagree with his choice of the word neurotic though, it is going to hit hard in the same way calling someone ignorant does.
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
Also, in order to justify something as deplorable as firing someone for political reasons, a lot of people are attributing to him sentences that he never wrote, a character assassination that is typical of authoritarian regimes.
Not only this is obviously wrong, but it is even counterproductive to the cause of a progressive society, because it will foster the persecution complexes of certain voters, urging them to elect even more far-right extremists in order to fix society. Well done, really.
It probably wouldn't have helped. I had my wife read it to make sure I wasn't somehow missing something. She didn't see how it could possibly lead to such a shitstorm.
I really don't understand how you got the impression you did from the memo, unless you did not actually read it, and just read what other people told you it said. He talk about how to encourage more women to get into programming, not how to keep them out. He talks about the programs to help people with mentoring and other things, but they are only for minorities and women, sorry men not allowed in. Or how if a man is discriminated against, it is just tossed out because men can't be discriminated against. It is based on real scientific findings, not a bunch of assumptions and made up facts.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.