Slashdot Mirror
James Damore Explains Why He Was Fired By Google (wsj.com)
In an exclusive Wall Street Journal post, the engineer responsible for the anti-diversity "Google manifesto," James Damore, explains why he was fired by the company: I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company's code of conduct and "cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company's "ideological echo chamber." My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? [...]
In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed -- that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same -- could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google's human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement. Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn't really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed -- that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same -- could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google's human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement. Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn't really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.
The long and short of it was that he hinted women and other diversity candidates biologically inferior. He didn't say it out right, he wink-winked it and put some favorable references give it a veneer of scientific soundness.
It wasn't a scientific paper. It was an opinion piece about his gender and racial (diversity) stereotype biases and his belief that is was based on genetics.
Experts have come out and said there isn't definitive proof that those biological differences would account for the differences. The cultural differences plays such a big huge part in all of this.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Have you actually read what he wrote? Because the way you are ranting about it, it sounds like you're going off of what others have said.
He didn't say that his male brain gives him a statistical edge over women. He said that, possibly, biological and societal causes may explain why more women aren't going into technology. He didn't say anything about biology changing how they perform in technology.
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
Maybe they are being harmed by it and maybe they aren't. If you are trying to reach a 50/50 split between male and female employees and there aren't enough qualified female applicants, how do you get to that split? You sometimes have to hire somebody who's not as qualified to get there.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
You do realize he has a Master's Degree in Biology and was working on his PhD. I believe he's more qualified to discuss biological/cognitive differences than you or I.
I the end, he tried to create a discussion and SJWs within Google proved his point about it being a monoculture that punishes opposing views. They leaked it to the press where it went viral.
If you want more proof, look at how the press is still picking him apart. Go out and Google his name... there are new articles every day about him, his background, things he did in the past. So he's been fired, and now they are going to work on him to make sure he stays unemployed.
Gotta love the tolerant left.
In a company, statements made by employees must be also judged against a company's mission, against the effect on coworkers and perceptions of the company in the wider society. Clearly, whatever Mr. Damore's gifts may be, an ability to assess what writing the memo he did would do to his career prospects at Google wasn't among them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
His research was composed of statistics that prove those "stupid opinions." The only reason people who have read the full memo are angry at this is that neo-Catholic social justice disingenuously demands that we treat statements about "women, on average" as equivalent to statements about "women, individually."
by posting someone's lucrative writing gigs, attacking their thesis, without posting it, or having a scientific discussion.
You've committed a classic ad hominem. You came out against her solely because she argued scientifically, to support the claims Mr. Damore made. Since you are fumbling, why not attack on University of York next?
The height of unscientific hypocrisy, and pedantic mediocrity!
I've seen this written more than a dozen times now and it's just strange. Of course everyone's read the thing, it's only about ten pages. Was it so hard to read ten pages? Do you want a gold star sticker?
The thing pretty well tapdanced through a social minefield jumping on every mine. Even conservative Christians were held up for ridicule just for the sake of an analogy. He also got things backwards since he was trying to show (by misdirection) that women are less suitable for high stress environments but what's so stressful about coding at Google. Who dies when you fuckup? Better get all those women out of nursing and safe and snug at Google if this guys bro-screed is fact and not a whining fantasy.
There's no more science in his screed than in a snakeoil medicine show. One of his citations goes to something about autism - they are distractions that do not support his conclusions. Read what he's cited and then make your demands about a "scientific rebuttal" if you like, but I don't think you'll need to, you'll have your own.