Google May Be In Trouble For Firing James Damore (inc.com)

Google fired engineer James Damore after he wrote a 10-page document about "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." taustin writes from a report via Inc. about the potential legal trouble the company may face from firing the "anti-diversity" engineer: Whether Demore is right or wrong, whether one agrees with him or not, Google may have legal trouble for firing him. Employees are protected by federal law when they discuss working conditions with other employees (and this was an internal memo). His memo could be considered whistleblowing, which is also protected (and it is very clear that he was fired as retribution). And, in California, political opinions are protected in the work place as well. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right.

Comments

They wont get in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't get in trouble because he is a white male. Second they will simply offer a settlement, and then silence him. This will go away.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already gone from:

Horrible sexist mess
(He has a Ph D from Harvard)
So, it's a hate filled screed!
(Did you read it?)
Okay, it's a Terrible Anti-Diversity Rant!
(Did you have someone tell you the points using single-syllable words?)
Damn, well, it is critism of his employer and they can fire him if they want!
(You can't fire someone for pointing out discrimination, even if you like that kind of discrimination)
Hey! Did you hear about how Trump did x?

Re: They wont get in trouble

[Roodvlees]

The media and regressive companies like Google love to pander to people of another color or gender.
This guys document was well-written and scientifically based.
But the regressiveleft hates any facts that contradict their delusions, very similar to religion.

"We're this any other color or sex of person calling out actual harmful company policies they would be condemned, have little attention paid to their plight and would be fighting for years for some kind of recognition."
Please provide some examples of this.

BTW: you'll have to actually provide evidence for this, can't just mention a bad outcome and assert bigotry.
You might be thinking about the case of Colin Kaepernick, but he was just a bad player.
He problably saw a bad future coming and decided to ahead of it by becoming a political activist, so he could play the victim card.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

Re: They wont get in trouble

[Rockoon]

I think that's being exceedingly generous. It may sound 'sciencey', but certainly he does not have study data to back him up.

He gave citations for all of it.

Do you work for Google? Are you lying for Google right now? Why are you lying?

Re: They wont get in trouble

[e_pluribus_funk]

>Actually because he is a White make people actually care about this.

People care about this because he was right. Not necessarily about the sex differences (although what he said was supported by scientific citations), but about the punitive political correct echo chamber that Google had built up that suppressed and punished deviations from the SJW/PC dogma.

And sure enough, right after he wrote that blog post, the calls to burn the witch started, and Google dutifully genuflected at the SJW altar and gave up Damone as the proper sacrifice.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[phayes]

What Damore wrote is easily available online and anyone discussing "what he wrote" should already have read it.

Why are you asking if the citations were any good and if they support his points? Must others spoon feed you all "your" opinions?

Re: They wont get in trouble

[TimothyHollins]

I'm a white male myself and I cannot fathom how some people with my same complexion cannot notice the skin colour and genital makeup of Congress, company boards and most positions of power.

And yet, here you are. You are a white male yourself, and you seem not only able to "understand" the difficulties of being a minority, you also act in what you perceive to be their best interest. Yet at the same time you claim that others are incapable of doing this specifically because they are white males. How can you hold these to opposing views at the same time?

This man now has become the hero of Trumpists and self-styled enemies of the politically incorrect because he proposed a series of sexist (and I use this word with great parsimony in my daily life) stereotypes which belong in the 19th century.

I will assume you mean politically correct, and not politically incorrect.

Second, what? Perhaps trumpists are on Damore's side, but to partition everyone that does not hold your views as trumpists says nothing about others and all about you. Liberals would strongly oppose firing Damore, part because he's well-sourced and supported by the evidence, and part because liberals do not like the authoritarian McCarthyism on display. The fact you think science is sexist also speaks volumes about your preference for fanaticism over fact. The fact you think science belongs in the 19th century is humourous, but it also makes me sad.

However, it would have been interesting the reaction of the same people if he had been a muslim and proposed to install sharia in Google—which is pretty much what he was suggesting.

And oh, the irony of an alt-rightist resorting to government regulations in order to keep his job in an at-will state!

You think he proposed to install company rules that would supersede the constitution and laws of the land to where women get killed for being raped? Wow, that's some perspective. Perhaps read at least TFS before posting next time.

Warrior on, dear internet warrior, and warrior proudly.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[bluefoxlucid]

because he proposed a series of sexist [...] stereotypes which belong in the 19th century

I prefer to point out that people draw the wrong conclusions from facts rather than to ignore facts.

It's become fashionable in an extreme minority voice to claim that women and men are identical or markedly different in various capacities, whether those are particular capabilities (strength, intellect) or behaviors (interests, emotional expression). For whatever reason, these people ignore facts in one direction or another.

For example: men and women both possess the same intellectual faculties, and can employ them to the same effectiveness. People in general aren't of greater or lesser intelligence; they have greater or lesser intellect--they have applied their facilities to different degrees, and may thus have made more of their intelligence. Women are just as capable as men in intellectual pursuits.

It is also a fact that the neurological and hormonal systems in men and women differ, leading to differences in thinking. This is an accurate assessment, and begins the problem of people drawing inaccurate conclusions to suit their biases.

That women think differently can be suppressed: our executive functions allow us to suppress our emotional responses, our biases, even our responses to pain. That's why women can function in high-pressure, high-intellect jobs just as well as men--that is to say: a man or a woman without the properly developed defense mechanisms will simply whine a lot when the pressure comes on, and otherwise will handle the situation quite well.

That leaves the advantages of different thinking: a boost of group creativity. A group with a single mind--one culture, one gender, one set of life experiences--will always approach a problem in one way. Mix in cultural changes, varied life experiences, and even the biological pressures that cause women and men to think differently and you have increased the strength of that team's problem-solving ability.

If you want to put women back into the kitchen, you point out that they're not men, thus inferior. If you want to get some work done, you point out that they're not men, thus represent a potential opportunity. This is unfortunately impolitic, and so we only hear from people who are unafraid to attack others for their particular differences, whether that be race, gender, or culture.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[gweihir]

He does not claim to have a PhD. Please stay on the facts, however much you are frothing at the mouth.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[gweihir]

No. It is perfectly valid to list PhD studies without a PhD at the end. There is nothing misleading here. There may be a lot of idiots that do not know how a PhD process works, though.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[doctorvo]

"Scientific racism" is when people say "we need to treat group X differently from group Y because of scientifically observed differences between those groups". That is what Democrats and progressives are doing: they were doing it with eugenics a century ago, and they are doing it with affirmative action and equality of outcome today.

Liberalism says the opposite: "because there are scientifically observed differences between groups X and Y, you expect there to be different outcomes; we should accept those different outcomes and not treat those two groups differently". Liberalism demands equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

When science observes differences between two groups, we can debate what policies we should adopt as a result. Progressives prefer intervention, while classical liberals prefer non-intervention. But trying to suppress stating scientific facts, as you seem to try to do, is not acceptable.

Re: They wont get in trouble

[nedlohs]

> Using science to try to justify racism is an ethical problem first and foremost, any incidental scientific problems are a footnote.

Justifying racism isn't the same as explaining outcomes. "Studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y, hence we prefer employing from group X" would be using science to justify [X's domain]ism and yes is ethically terrible. "We employ based on merit, studies have shown that people in group X are better at doing Y and that is why we have more X employees than their general population ratio would indicate" is using science to explain an outcome - it is not ethically bad, it is just a fact (assuming we believe the claim of course).

That wet nurses are always* women is not sexist, for example. There is no ethical problem with pointing out the scientific reason why that is the case.

* I guess there could be a genetic abnomality that might make it possible that isn't 100% true, it will round up to 100% anyway though.

he's not a whistleblower

[norweeg]

Whistleblowing implies that he was disclosing potentially illegal activity that google was engaging in. Having a code of conduct that forbids creating a hostile work environment for women is not illegal, therefore he is not whistleblowing.

Re:he's not a whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a code of conduct that forbids creating a hostile work environment for women is not illegal

Only hostility around this case is towards the fired engineer. The memo is very mild and tame material in comparison.

Can you quote some toxic sludge from the memo? I can give you a dozen quotes from the other side that are actually anti-freedom of thought.

Re:he's not a whistleblower

[K. S. Kyosuke]

google is majority white and majority male, so there is no discrimination here.

You gotta love these fallacies...

Re:he's not a whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

That a certain group forms the majority does not mean it cannot be discriminated against. In fact, it's quite common to discriminate against the most common group, since that is thought to increase diversity. Doesn't make it any less wrong, though.

Re:he's not a whistleblower

[naubol]

His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science. http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.

When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.

-- excerpt from James Damore's memo.

This is a political idea and the theme of the memo. It's saying, we need to look to reality to understand what's going on. If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.

Re:he's not a whistleblower

[naubol]

He never argued for treating women as less capable at technology. Did you even read the memo?

Enlightenment values

[naubol]

We've gotten to the point where Google thinks that asking tough questions and seeking answers is less valuable than ideological conformity. Even without legal repercussions, this is not a good look for Google. It undermines the idea that tech is a bastion of the enlightenment.

I find myself split on this

[jareth-0205]

On the one hand this memo is not the best thing ever to be written... it contains the same moral and intellectual certainty that afflicts programmers generally (and many on this site), and I just generally reject that sort of certainty, especially from someone young and sheltered. Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail, and it's also going to harm individuals who are assigned to that group who don't fit the traits assumed. (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.) A policy towards trying to break the human urge to hire copies of yourself should be assumed to be a good idea, in my opinion. You don't know what other sections of society will bring so it's probably a good idea to have representation from them. At the same time diversity of opinion should be encouraged, but a lecture to the entire company about how some groups are generally going to be less good at the job is more than just opinion, it's actively causing other people problems.

On the other had, firing him doesn't feel like the right thing to do at all, atleast not until he's proven that he's such a dick that nobody will work with him anymore (if that was to be the case). He's young and certain, and I think wrong. But that's not enough of a reason, if he's doing the job and open to rational debate then I can't see why he should be pushed out so quickly.

So much wrong!!!

[PuckSR]

While California says you can't be fired for HAVING a political opinion, you can be fired for expressing it.
In the rest of the US, your boss can walk in and fire you just for posting a Pro-Trump picture on your personal facebook page. Alternatively, he could just ask every Republican to raise their hand and then tell everyone who didn't raise their hand, "You're fired".
California banned this practice.
However, your boss can still fire you for wearing a Trump hat to work or sending an internal email that advocates for Hillary Clinton.

Whistleblower Protection
You are a pretty weird whistleblower if you complain internally about a public practice. I cannot imagine anyone EVER considering this a case of whistleblowing.
That would be like an Apple engineer sending around an internal memo about the small battery in their new phones, and then people calling that "whistleblowing". You can't blow the whistle on something that everyone knows about!

Right to Discuss Working Conditions
May be viable. Unfortunately, the memo didn't really discuss working conditions. It discussed business practices. Working conditions addresses how the business practices have an impact on the employee. He was discussing how he felt they were wrong-headed and misguided. Those might be fair assessments, but they are not addressing HIS working conditions.
Did he work more hours because of the hiring practices?
Did he get less time off?
Did it impact him in any demonstrable way?