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.
"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.
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.
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...
Actually now that we have a clear definition of "neuroticism" and "warmth," we can actually make progress towards answering the question of differences in gender. Wikipedia has some answer fwiw.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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".
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
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
There's nothing to discuss. It's scientifically accepted fact.
I'm sorry if that shatters your worldview, but in this case reality has a distinctly anti-liberal bias.
As for agreeableness, I can't say if it helps or hurt their careers, but I don't think he ever claimed that. IIRC, he simply said one of the reasons their salaries were lower was because they were more agreeable, and more likely to accept an initial salary offer rather than negotiate for a higher salary.
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.
Okay, so he called women "emotionally unstable" or "insecure". I'm not certain how reading the Wikipedia definition makes that sound any better.
No, he claimed there are scientific studies proving women on average show that personality trait more than men. This sounding "bad" is irrelevant, either is correct or is not and it actually seems to be correct.
Unless you claim when trying to analyze a problem we should avoid bringing up explanations who "sound bad" so that we can keep our minds at ease... ridiculous.
Do you really think Google's VP of Diversity gives two figs about scientific studies? Pointing out an inconvenient fact will get you fired. That's the reality.
This is political correctness taken to it's (il)logical extreme. He called women names and made them feel bad about themselves. Therefore, he deserves execution, but unfortunately, there seem to be laws against that. The worst they can do is fire him, as it turns out.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
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
Do you really think Google's VP of Diversity gives two figs about scientific studies? Pointing out an inconvenient fact will get you fired. That's the reality.
Of course that's the reality, which is exactly the point. The point is that Google is not interested in an open debate about the issue as they claim, nor in actual, factual explanations and possible solutions based on them.
Some naives might have believed their narrative and tought Google to be different: now they demonstrated to everyone they are not.
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.
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 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...
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.
"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
Every single white male got that, eh? But other people, not you, are the bigots. I see.