Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Labor Board Says Google Could Fire James Damore For Anti-Diversity Memo (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the end-of-the-road dept.

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."

5 of 605 comments (clear)

  1. Racist facts by DavenH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When facts are deemed discriminatory, you know that ideological rot has set in.

    1. Re:Racist facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just read the article. There were a few quotes from scientists that really weren't all that cogent in "debunking" anything Damore wrote. On top of that, most of article was a big giant pile of projection. The central thesis to that article was that James Damore started at a conclusion and cherry picked findings to assert to support his pre-supposed conclusion. What is actually going on is the opposite. What is actually going on from what I read in that article was the converse. In fact, it seems like the author of the wired article is far more guilty of that logical sin than Damore is.

      In any case, the scientists that Damore cites actually say that women tend to do better than men in math related subjects. How do I know this? Months ago out of sheer curiosity I read the damn studies. Damore didn't falsely represent the findings.
      So, if women are generally sharper at math than men, why then do women shy away from STEM fields? The science has shown over and over that women typically favor working in social environments, and men the opposite. This is why you see a a massive disparity of gender ratio in fields like veterinary medicine and nursing. Why don't you see new agencies blasting the medical field for such gender disparities?

      Simply put, people gravitate towards what interests them. That is the essence of what Damore was saying, and i'm sorry but psychological science by and large has settled the matter that men and women in general are interested in different things. What is more sad about the rage against Damore is that he in fact suggested ways in the memo in which the tech industry might go about attracting more women. His whole point was that arbitrary affirmative action and quotas were not going to solve the problem. You had to solve the interest problem first. Being blind to facts and truth will hinder you from ever making the progress you actually want to achieve. He wasn't trying to explain reasons why women should stay out of tech, rather he was explaining why they aren't getting into tech, and what could be done to actually resolve it instead of trying to push the fantasy narrative of SJWs claiming that men and women are pretty much the same biologically and psychologically in all aspects. That's bullshit and sane people know it. If you want real progress, you have to start with truth.

  2. Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless, of course, the author just said that to avoid being driven out of academia for heresy.

  3. Re:Translation: by nonBORG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Good. Telling the truth about differences... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.