Institutional discrimination programs aimed at countering the effects of institutionalized discrimination.
* institutionalized discrimination: Policies that explicitly favor one group over another based on phenotype differences. For example, Jim Crow laws or "diversity" hiring policies. * "institutionalized discrimination": The hypothesis that society is skewed by the vast conspiracy of "bias". For example, for the past 10 years, computer science graduation rates skew under 20% / 80% for female / male graduates [0]. Presu…
We're talking "institutionalized discrimination" in the sense of the past few millennia.
This is an excellent discussion. I especially love this comment: > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Because arguably that's where gender differences highlighted in Damore's memo…
> I'm reminded of Richard Morgan's Black Man aka 13. He argues that men basically don't play well in groups ;) Damore would be a perfect example of that. There is a time and a place for your beliefs, but the workplace isn't that. ;)
With 13s, it would have been much more dramatic :)
Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an al…
The timing of going to NLRB made it look like emergency maneuvers to me. If I were him, I would also have copied e-mails and forum posts like crazy, but I am wondering what the level of security at Google is.
He's a master chess player. My mentor Program Manager once told me, to work as if I am playing chess--understand the objective and plan a few moves ahead. It helped me tremendously. I am sure he has plans for "Google starts internal discussion" and "Google fires him" scenario.
Please consider donating to help get James Damore back on his feet and gainfully employed again: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james-damore-official-fun... This could have been any of us.
>This could have been any of us.
Not me! I know I'm not biologically ill-suited to geek out.
looking at the men:women (8:2) ratio in software science at my university in NL, I can perfectly understand where the inbalance in ratio in the workforce comes from. Maybe we should focus on that first? Trying to get a different ratio at the workforce in all companies will effectively mean you will have less qualified women. Assuming a CS university degree is an important qualification.
> This is not how "affirmative action" works. "Affirmative action" states that if you have two "equally" qualified candidates If you can quantify candidates' capabilities, please start your money printing press.
Then then why would affirmative action lead to less capable employees?
The OP used the term "qualified" and not "capable". I also find the OP's writing effective as they demonstrate their own conflict and lack of clarity on the topic.
Previously in the thread my response is in protest of the reduction both of the OPs related writing and the topic.
I'll repeat this again here: it's very likely he wasn't fired for trying to have a discussion. It is more likely he was fired because he did so by propagating gender stereotypes and doubling-down on those stereotypes (his suggestions for how to improve diversity essentially were just context-specific extensions of these stereotypes), which both almost certainly reduced his credibility as a coworker to the point that he could not be effectively managed or productive when assigned to work with others. The author glides right past the point in her article when she notes his improper application of findings about averages.
It's possible to have a discussion about these issues today. It's not rational to give special preference and excessive leeway to discussion that isn't actually fact based (and is in many ways based on nothing related to facts).
This article also has a few problems > I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women. Hence, aiming at a 50-50 representation gives men an unfair advantage. I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Claim bearers are burdened with proof. Otherwise I can say 'I claim it is not so and if you believe other…
> Claim bearers are burdened with proof. I think that was her point...
It used to be common knowledge that men and women were different, and that they generally were inclined towards different kinds of pursuits and had different interests, in general. Then the radical left showed up with a bunch of unintelligible post modern theories that as far anyone can tell never proved much of anything, whose basis in scientific truth was non existent and whom nevertheless had the temerity to make wild, socially revolutionary claims. And here we are now, in Bizarro world, where the burden of proof has been shifted onto the status quo to justify itself without the usurping ideology ever having met even a minimum proof of viability, let alone the higher standard of superiority over the status quo required of a proposed replacement way of life. A large part of the population seems not to see any problem with this. They are ready to toss the whole thing out on the authority of some academics, whose work they could barely remember from freshman sociology class.
> I'm reminded of Richard Morgan's Black Man aka 13. He argues that men basically don't play well in groups ;) Damore would be a perfect example of that. There is a time and a place for your beliefs, but the workplace isn't that. ;)
Not even when the employer has asked? I understand this was written in response to a request from someone else, probably HR.
The only time I was ever asked about politics by a potential employer I noped out of that situation.
Workplace = Professional, Personal Shit Stays Home.
Rest of Life = Do whatever the fuck you want as long as its legal and you don't mention your day job.
I'm not sure why this separation isn't standard practice for everyone.
Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co. While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an al…
While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different. If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.
Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend.