Slashdot Mirror
Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Anti-Diversity Memo (theverge.com)
According to a recently disclosed letter from the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, Google didn't violate labor laws by firing engineer James Damore for a memo criticizing the company's diversity program. "The lightly redacted statement is written by Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB's division of advice; it dates to January, but was released yesterday, according to Law.com," reports The Verge. "Sophir concludes that while some parts of Damore's memo was legally protected by workplace regulations, 'the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.'" From the report: Damore filed an NLRB complaint in August of 2017, after being fired for internally circulating a memo opposing Google's diversity efforts. Sophir recommends dismissing the case; Bloomberg reports that Damore withdrew it in January, and that his lawyer says he's focusing on a separate lawsuit alleging discrimination against conservative white men at Google. NLRB records state that its case was closed on January 19th. In her analysis, Sophir writes that employers should be given "particular deference" in trying to enforce anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, since these are tied to legal requirements. And employers have "a strong interest in promoting diversity" and cooperation across different groups of people. Because of this, "employers must be permitted to 'nip in the bud' the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a 'hostile workplace,'" she writes. "Where an employee's conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions."
between men and women is illegal in this country.
When facts are deemed discriminatory, you know that ideological rot has set in.
Not illegal, just not speech that's granted special legal protection from a company disagreeing with you so vehemently that they feel that you damaged them so badly that they need to fire you.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
To be fair a lot of guys drop out because "math is too difficult" too. There are a ton of people who realize that engineering is not for them. As an engineer myself, I agree. There are better career paths out there right now.
"1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited."
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more. All further discussion is prohibited to anyone who wants a job.
It's like the Catholic church saying the sun rotates around the earth and anyone who tries to say otherwise is subject to excommunication (or worse).
Damore may be wrong, but this is not progress.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This particular topic aside: stop saying that. Freedom of any kind absolutely is freedom from at least specific kinds of consequences. You're "free" (inasmuch as nothing is physically stopping you) to not give a mugger your wallet, if you're willing to accept the consequences of being shot; that doesn't mean you really gave it to him freely in the relevant sociopolitical sense. You're "free" to break the law, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences of the punishment. But absence of such consequences are exactly what we mean by "free" in a sociopolitical sense. If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it, there are a trove of idiots that just don't get it. Freedom of speech allows you to express yourself without criminal prosecution, but that's about it.
Unless, of course, the author just said that to avoid being driven out of academia for heresy.
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
It absolutely amazes me people are still trying to make everyone believe men and women are the same physically and mentally. That they think and care about the same things and all differences can be explained away by environmental pressures. This is plainly false to everyone and everyone knows it. No study or research required. It is a plainly obvious fact. Girls like girl shit and boys like boy shit. It's just the way shit is.
Damore was fucking trying to get more girls interested in boy shit by making boy shit more like girl shit and you people throw a conniption fit... HE WAS TRYING TO HELP...
Where is all the outrage over segregated men only and women only events at the Olympics? WTF is with that if everyone is equal? Yea obvious men and women are not equal nobody really believes that. They are different.
What underwrites all of this are cults of crazy leftists yearning for a post human world disconnected from any and all evolutionary pressure... a world in which there is no S.E.X. and everyone is made to be the same. That's really what you lunatics want admit it... you will stop at nothing to bend perceptions of reality to fit into your pre-warped ideology that only makes EVERYONE miserable.
This particular topic aside: stop saying that.
No.
Not just no, but fuck no.
Seriously with friends like you, free speech does not need enemies.
If speech is inconsequential then it's barely worth defending. It's only as important as it is because it has not just consequences but massive, important consequences. With a gun you can kill a few people. With speech, you can topple an empire. You know, liberty or death and all that shit.
Freedom of any kind absolutely is freedom from at least specific kinds of consequences.
Yes, and that consequence is literally only not going to prison.
That consequence is not people saying "you're a dick, piss off I don't want to talk to you any more", whether or not you agree with their assessment.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Federal labor law doesn't make political speech a protected class in employment.
California law, however, does.
His lawsuit is going to be a lot more complicated than the news media (and most people who read it) can comprehend.
There is no way to make a contrary argument any more.
You don't get some sort of right of first dibs simply by speaking first. If your argument is not sound, people don't have to come up with a rigorus rebuttal to the central premise of your thesis, they merely have to point out where your argument is unsound.
Otherwise, the burden is always massively on the second person. You're basically absolving the first person of the need to make a coherent argument.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do we need a scientific argument to explain neuroticism in females? It is a self evident truth that is backed by research. So where is the "debunked"?
Except that is what our best research says.
"Facts are inflammatory"
Why? If women are the same as men, women withdrawing and being replaced by men shouldn't be a problem should it?
Except this is bullshit. Would you like me to explain the birds and bees to you before we get started on sexual dimorphism and evolution? Damore was arguing for more female engagement in the workplace and you are a shill!
Unless, of course, the author just said that to avoid being driven out of academia for heresy.
Your argument is edging awfully close to:
If they agree with me, they're right.
If they disagree with me it's only because they're too afraid to agree.
Literally nothing anyone could say would change your opinion. That is not a rational position to take.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The PC (Politically Correct) police can fire you, it is official.
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
Define "nasty things", please.
And while we're at it, please define "hostile" as well.
Right now, as I see things (and please correct me if I'm wrong, with arguments if possible), both those terms are very loosely defined, boiling down to "anything that fits one's agenda".
I really want those defined and clarified, it would help a long way making workplaces a better environment.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I didn't express a personal opinion. I just observed that when expressing an opinion (any opinion) that goes against orthodoxy becomes a firing offense it becomes hard to know what anyone actually believes.
But you see that is the problem; those things are never defined, and the people in charge of the definitions tend to use them more politically and socially, While pretending it's all in the name of compassion
Define "nasty things", please.
And while we're at it, please define "hostile" as well.
See, here's the problem with this: Harassment is inherently subjective. The same thing can be enjoyable to one person, and ruin another person's life.
That's why (to pick one example) all sane legal frameworks say that, unless it is over some clearly objective threshold to begin with, it's not illegal/fireable unless it continues after you've been asked to stop.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This is how freedom dies, by redefining what it is.
Freedom of speech is not just a government law, it's also a cultural value. When people or organizations don't support or tolerated dissenting opinions, then they are unambiguously against free speech. If the culture doesn't support a particular freedom, the legislation won't be far behind.
Arguing otherwise reminds me of the old Polish joke: In Poland we have freedom of speech. In America you have freedom after speech.
That should go down in history as one of the famous quotes.
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
The phrase "freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences," deliberately and pointedly oversimplifies a problem that is much more difficult than a few words. If you can expect your life to be ruined extrajudicially for exercising your freedom of speech, then by default, it does not exist in a practical sense for the vast majority. Only those who are independently wealthy will be able to exercise the right, and for everyone else it will be a cruel mockery of a right. The rest will be able to speak when they express the "correct" ideas.
This is worse than not having freedom of speech at all, because it provides the illusion of it while at the same time destroying it for the common people. And that is what we effectively have in this case, and in a lot of other cases.
Punishment does not need to be issued from a judge's bench or a firing squad to ruin a life, and your practical contempt for free speech and desire to make it effectively an imaginary construct lends little credence to your judgment of who is or is not the enemy of free speech.
Social justice's long march through the institutions: reeducate the young and impressionable, stack all the committees, and take over all the positions that administer the rules. There really aren't that many people who are hard-cord social justice nutcases... but a few determined people can wreak havoc, and it doesn't take much institutional pressure to shut people up, which was always the point. It's all for your own good people!
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What is a "fact"? That's not a scientific term, so how are you using it? It's very close to a "measurement", which is the basis for all science. Sure, there's some judgement involved as to what personality traits make one better at software development, and it undoubtedly varies by field, but the measured differences between the statistical distributions in men and women are certainly facts. The fact that in the Scandi countries, where great pains have been taken to remove social pressure and allow people to choose the career of their choice, engineering is 95% male and nursing is 95% female is, well, a fact.
So, it's a fact there are differences in preference. It's a fact there are differences in ability - though how to weigh those differences is a matter of judgement.
It's also a fast that Google interviews for dev positions in the way least likely to produce gender equality, by focusing narrowly on the most technical aspects of the job and ignoring measuring the social aspects of the jobs entirely from what I saw. FFS Google, if you want more women, then interview as if software development was the team effort it actually is!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
He didn't make original claims, he cited peer reviewed journal articles! If citing scientific journals (even ones later found to be wrong) is disruptive then we need to be disrupted. I'm not worried about damore, he is set for life on the speaking circuit, but all those people stuck in these companies who are afraid to speak their mind make me sad. My workplace is the opposite. If it was found you voted Democratic you would be ostracized. It is a megacorp, but in a sector with conservative selection bias. I have friends who are liberal and they feel they can't mention opinions at work and I hate that for them.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The rules are simple:
1. Fuck you, plebs
2. You have no rights
3. You lose
4. Bow before the nomenklatura
5. Fuck you, plebs
I guess that's why the current regime needs a repressive police state to maintain its grip on power.