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.
The checks must have cashed.
There is so much disinformation surrounding Damore.
His memo was not against diversity. He specifically included very well-researched and reasoned suggestions on how to encourage more women to get involved and make tech more attractive to them as a career choice.
Read the damn thing yourself, people.
Here's the relevant part of the decision: (https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 page 5)
The Charging Partyâ(TM)s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sexâ"such as womenâ(TM)s heightened neuroticism and menâ(TM)s prevalence at the top of the IQ distributionâ"were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, not withstanding effort to cloak comments with âoescientificâ references and analysis, and notwithstanding âoenot all womenâ disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace. Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the Charging Party exacerbated by deliberately expanding its audience. Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive, and made them feel unsafe at work. Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace. Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Partyâ(TM)s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.
So basically:
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.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
5. While a lot of what he said was protected, the statements on biological differences between the sexes (which were deemed bogus and pseudo-scientific, conclusions that the authors of the cited studies agreed with) do not enjoy any legal protection and Google was okay to fire him on over them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"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."
I saw this happen in Venezuela: first the ideologues pump their ideology for years, get people to fall in love with their romantic left-wing utopia where human nature dosn't really exist and is a product of society and can and changed at will with enough enthusiasm and—if that doesn't work—good old-fashioned repression. As long as government is not on board the "harmelss" ideas spread and do not cause that much damage. Eventually authorities are elected that are ideologically compromised and we end up with an authoritarian left-wing dictatorship.
To deny human nature and the findings of science is to deny ourselves understanding that can lead to improvement of our collective quality of life. But if we prefer to be sedated into ideology and expect science to always reinforce our already-established value systems we will just deepen our miseries and do a disservice to ourselves and future generations.
I read Damore's memo. There is nothing there that disagrees with modern psychology. The findings he refers to have been discovered by psychologists and sociologists from prestigious institutions using sound methodologies. We better accept the information that science gives us and decide how we'll organise incorporating rather than denying the uncomfortable bits. Science doesn't tell us how to be moral, it just tells us what is. It is up to us to find meaning and fairness within the context of what is, and not fall into the trap of thinking that what ought to be is what is. The Universe doesn't need to follow our moral convictions du-jour.
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.
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.
This may not be a freedom of speech issue but it is still a dick move by Google. One that I hope comes back and bites them in the ass.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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 see a lot of commentary in these Damore threads suggesting that everyone who leans left politically must believe that the irrational, authoritarian form of progressivism is the way forward. Similarly, others are accusing defenders of Damore's memo as being regressive neckbeards.
It's not that simple nor is the argument along the line of political leanings. It's about speed and collateral damage.
Nearly a decade ago, the Tea Party Movement began its own irrational and loud stranglehold on conservative politics. There were loyalty oaths and identity politics. The Republican party is still trying to re-discover itself and its integrity having sold itself to the more ignorant side of populism.
Today, following almost the same exact playbook, there is a very vocal minority of the liberal-leaning part of America who is choosing activism over advocacy, punishment over education, and change now without consideration for collateral damage. Again, the face of irrational populism peaks over the the horizon.
These are the same beasts with different goals. Both are repulsed by the long-game of social change. They refuse to accept that society changes at the speed of generations. They don't want to accept that engineers are grown from a young age, not simply given jobs. They don't care that reducing deficit first comes with a better-educated populace and thus a better workforce. They want what they want NOW. They want to show short term gains because all will be damned if they didn't make their mark on this world before they shuffle this mortal coil.
But then there are the mature conservatives and the mature liberals who know that it simply takes time to coexist and progress together. It takes time to convince people to compromise and it takes time for those who refuse to compromise to die off. And when you force try to force people to change under threat of loss of loss of livelihood or try to shoe-horn in a solution that benefits the very few without consideration for the many, you will get widespread resentment, rebellion, and reaction. And the cycle will continue.
Or we can simply teach our young parents that they should foster the spark of nerd they see in their daughters as they would an ember in tinder instead of immediately reaching for the Barbies and pom-poms. They should step in to prevent the mockery of nerds, gamers, and computer users so that there is less social resentment harbored by those who choose to be so engrossed in the loving blue glow of a monitor. And then allow those better-adjusted, better-educated, and more equitably educated children grow up and show their actual demand in their chosen fields of work.
Or we can just keep trying to force it and fighting about it.
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.
1. They don't buy the bogus scientific argument, which has been debunked by the authors of the studies he cited.
Personally, I think that the Myers-Briggs studies he brought up were awful, but I don't think that was his fault. Have you actually read them? If he made mistakes, or if his information was outdated, you correct him. That's how we resolve differences. Some people can't be corrected, that's true enough, but honestly, I don't think that was the case for him
2. The use of softening language / disclaimers like "not all women" and "on average" don't help him.
No, those were quantifiers, not disclaimers.
And unlike President Trump for instance, Damos used quantifiers pretty well actually. Many feminists could learn a thing or two from him instead of using absolute quantifiers, or instead of using no quantifier at all.
3. He distributed the memo himself initially, expanding its audience, and should have known that such an inflammatory document would be more widely distributed once circulated.
He distributed the memo inside an official working group of ~8 people. He didn't expand the memo behind that. Others did it for him.
4. People complained and actually withdraw from job opportunities as a result. Snowflakes or otherwise, there was measurable damage done to Google's workplace.
Not to mention men.
I guarantee you that far many more men stopped applying to Google than women after their reaction to Damos.
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});
1. That should not matter, the science was published, and the conclusions he took from it are a valid conclusion, so to the best of his ability he was stating fact, normally THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH. The fact that some of the publishers (not all not, some actually said his interpretation was correct) since backpedaled on their own research is hardly Damores fault. You are not required to be CORRECT in all interpretations, just to have not presented things you know to be false - this is LONG established - otherwise everyone would be required to be THE leading expert in everything they said - which is obviously impossible.
2 - Why not? Because you want to change what he was saying? He made it clear he was speaking of averages and trends, not absolutes - and then is getting punished as though he stated absolutes.
3 - He (amongst others) was asked by his employer to write their thoughts on the subject and publish them to a specific internal location - he did exactly as requested by his employer. He is no was distributed it further than that - where is the punishment for those who did? Why is he being punished for following instructions of his employer?
4 - Why is that his responsibility? Google asked people for their thoughts, he did exactly as asked. The fact that they did not like the response was not his fault - perhaps they should have had a process in place to vet submissions if they didnt want such opinions.
5 - Why not? They are very well known science, and the fact that they may be unpopular amongst some at present does not change than, neither does a backpedal on published research by some of the people involved (but, importantly, not all, and not the leaders in the field) does not change that. He published information that was at that time publicly published in respectable scientific journals - why should he be punished for repeating such content?
The situation we are creating here is one where someone can get punished for repeating publicly accepted (by peer reviewed journal publishing) information in a way their employer asked them to, because the employer felt embarrassed about it after the fact. Think about the ramifications of that for a while.
Also note that NO action was taken against him at the time he followed the instructions of Google - in fact it was only taken after a 3rd party made this information public. THAT, above all else, should indicate that Googles actions are blindingly wrong.
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.
No, this is the Hundred Flowers Campaign in a corporate setting. Google sought feedback from participants of its interpretation of what diversity training should be, but didn't like the critical feedback they got, and so retaliated. The Hundred Flowers Campaign , also termed the Hundred Flowers Movement, was a period in 1956 in the People's Republic of China during which the Communist Party of China encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. Differing views and solutions to national policy were encouraged based on the famous expression by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong: "The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science." ...
After this brief period of liberalization, Mao used this to oppress those who challenged the communist regime by using force. The crackdown continued through 1957 as an Anti-Rightist Campaign against those who were critical of the regime and its ideology. Those targeted were publicly criticized and condemned to prison labor camps.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Another point in his favour is that he was saying that there are better ways to make the gender balance more equal than 'illegal discrimination'
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
The harm of Google's biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
* Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
* A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
* Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
* Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
* Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google. ...
Suggestions
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
* As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."
Stop alienating conservatives.
* Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
* In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
* Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google's biases.
* I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
* I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
* These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
If you say that you agree with what your employer is trying to do but they way they are doing it 'incentivising illegal discrimination' and suggest legal alternatives that makes you a whistleblower. CA has a whistleblower protection law -
https://www.workplacefairness....
Could Damore claim under it? I'm not sure. If I were him I'd try though.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well shit it looks like people at the NLRB didn't read the actual memo either. Damore had written specifically against forming stereotypes based on differences in population distributions because of their overlaps.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
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.
I think that if you lay traits out on spectra, you'll find two bell curves with a great deal of overlap, one representing women, another representing men. Much of that may be a matter of socialization, but that doesn't make it not exist.
None of that is a value judgement and none of it grants an overall superiority to either gender.
Damore made too much of that and made a few poor word choices, but then many people read a LOT more into it than he actually wrote.
But perhaps more to the point here, what he wrote wasn't hostile, nor was it anti-diversity. Right or wrong, he seemed to genuinely want to foster more diversity. He did not release it outside of Google and shows no sign of intent that it ever be read outside of Google. Interestingly, as far as we know, the jackass that published his essay for the world seems not to have been penalized at all.
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
Are you white and male? Then your opinions and feelings are invalid.
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.
It's not a hypothesis, does your wife have a penis?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
In the UK girls overtook boys in maths at school over a decade ago.
Exactly when they stopped testing accrued competence in 2000. When they returned to an objective competency test in 2017:
A-level results 2017: Boys overtake girls in top grades for first time in years
Some 43 per cent of male maths candidates scored an A or higher, compared with 41.1 per cent of girls.
"The court" didn't rule on anything. A single person, Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB’s division of advice, decided in an analysis that “the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.”
Basically, without actually providing any counter-evidence to dispute any claims made by Davore, she dismisses his claims as discriminatory and of a sexually harassing nature.
The letter proper is the following link.
http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/docu...