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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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