Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#71

Post by anonytrary » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:48 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #58

tj-teej wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should not be put in prison for writing what you think - I think any company should be able to fire people for publicly making statements which are antithetical to the company's values.

This was _not_ public. It was internal for Google employees. It was made public by someone who disagreed and resorted to publicly sharing the memo. The fact that Google has not addressed this is a more damning condemnation of their culture than anything else.

Oh wow. Yeah, the person who leaked the internal email should have been fired. That's crazy. I feel for Damore.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#72

Post by ditonal » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:48 PM UTC

oceanghost wrote: post #54

ionforce wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So firing him for stating his opinion Do you think it's possible for his stating of his opinion to have side effects like creating a toxic work environment, which would be the antithesis of doing his job well?

Google is a toxic work environment. He was fired for pointing that out.

Downvoted but true, look at direct physical threats to Damore in the lawsuit by people Google still employs. Yet he got fired for violating code of conduct...are threats not violations? It's a double standard, if you threaten people deemed conservative there are no repercussions, even though I consider that far more hostile than a doc.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#73

Post by CiPHPerCoder » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:50 PM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #60

pavlov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. This is what tptacek actually wrote: "To the extent that Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech! --- it was protected." You removed the first four and last three words of a sentence to twist it into something completely else. That's just malicious editing. His point was that the protection didn't extend to t…

My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist. I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. Also his comment is right there so I'm hardly revising history here, I'm just being specific about the part that I'm responding to.

> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for.

I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies.

What viewpoints, indeed?

Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphrasing heavily):

  1. "I'm afraid the government will take away my right to own
      guns, which is enshrined in the second amendment to allow
      citizens to overthrow an unjust government."
  
  2. "I'm worried that the current political correct climate will
      infringe upon my right to free speech, enshrined in the
      first amendment."

  3. "I don't want my church, which is against homosexuality, to
      be forced to marry gay couples."

  4. "I don't want 'confused men' to be in the same restroom as
      my underage daughters."

These are just the most recent examples I can think of.

Generally, I find that most of what I hear these days falls into two categories: Fear, and thinly-veiled contempt for people who are different.

If there are other conservative viewpoints that I'm not hearing, I'm happy to correct my ignorance.

That being said, I find the very idea that the entire spectrum of human imagination can be compressed to 1 bit of information (left or right wing) is deeply insulting and, if true, one hell of an indictment of our species.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#74

Post by sidlls » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #56

sidlls wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.

People organizing with other employees who share conservative views to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class, though, because people organizing with other employees to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class no matter what other descriptors you add.

"their" means employees', not just a subset of them. Suppose some people thought it'd improve their working conditions by freedom to share KKK rally times and places or organize porn watching parties at the workplace. The law isn't some robotic computer of legal rules. Context often matters.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#75

Post by dominotw » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

Melk wrote: post #59

tptacek wrote: post #2

The first thing everyone needs to know about this is what the case was about, because it implicates one of the most powerful and least known rights tech company employees have. According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying r…

My God this discussion reminds me of high school. I'm so happy I never got involved with this part of the industry.

Yet you couldn't help yourself from making this smug comment. So much for not getting involved.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#76

Post by orblivion » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

d1zzy wrote: post #52

orblivion wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose he could have ignored the question of the distribution of men and the distribution of women, and just focused on his suggestions on how to make a more productive and enjoyable situation for more "agreeable" (that's a technical term) personality types. But this is all in context of Google's focus on trying to improve the gender disparity, and his memo is directly in reference to that, if one would only accep…

Context matters. The workplace is a place where certain discussions are simply not allowed. For example discussing an ongoing lawsuit against the employer. It's not about intention, your intention may be in the right place, it's about potential outcome, when things are taken out of context or simply interpreted by others in ways that result in creating a hostile work environment (or in the lawsuit case, taken out of…

That seems perfectly reasonable by itself. But there are a couple issues here.

Firstly Google as I understand it has pretty open discussion internally. But it turns out the company has a certain progressive standard for what's acceptable to say. Or maybe the law is relevant. Fine. But then they should be honest about it and not claim that people are free to express minority viewpoints (see Pichai's press release). Or assuming they are honest and just naive, snap out of the bubble for a second and realize just how common this supposedly unacceptable viewpoint is, and admit their bias and (again) clearly draw the line.

Secondly, as I understand it, the lawsuit or at least part of it was based on a California law specifically prohibiting firing for political view. But apparently certain political views, such as agreeing with mainstream psychologists, don't really count as reasonable political views. To me this is opinion encoded into law and it's disturbing.

(For the record I don't support the lawsuit on libertarian grounds. And part of that is that this whole thing is inherently messy)

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#77

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #51

avs733 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simplified: He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). There was no way the NLRB was going to find that to be protected action. The ramifications if they had would be that if someone creates a discriminatory workplace a company could be sued by both the victim and the violator. Under such a rule, both people's rights would be 'violated'. The point of rights is to protect you, its not…

Please let me clarify. Women are not a protected class. Sex is a protected class.

For a "clarification", that's a pretty stunning error.

Sex is not a class in the first place. Sex is a protected attribute or classification. Women are a protected class, and so, notionally, are men.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#78

Post by anonytrary » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

oceanghost wrote: post #54

ionforce wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So firing him for stating his opinion Do you think it's possible for his stating of his opinion to have side effects like creating a toxic work environment, which would be the antithesis of doing his job well?

Google is a toxic work environment. He was fired for pointing that out.

This is not unique to Google. If you don't "vibe" with your company's culture, you are more likely to become a scapegoat. The outsiders leave or get fired, keeping the culture pure (people get fired for lack of culture fit). This mentality is indeed toxic, but the bottom line of any company benefits from harmony between all of the employees.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#79

Post by tntn » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:52 PM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #60

pavlov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. This is what tptacek actually wrote: "To the extent that Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech! --- it was protected." You removed the first four and last three words of a sentence to twist it into something completely else. That's just malicious editing. His point was that the protection didn't extend to t…

My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist. I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. Also his comment is right there so I'm hardly revising history here, I'm just being specific about the part that I'm responding to.

> My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist.

Or don't think gay marriage should be legal, or are religious, or dislike welfare, or oppose the ACA, or think abortion should be illegal.

EDIT:

Or thinks having separate male and female bathrooms makes a lot of sense, or supports strict immigration policies, or oppose affirmative action, or thinks "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone" should be a real thing, or ...

But yeah, just racist & sexist.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#80

Post by Veelox » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 10:52 PM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #60

pavlov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. This is what tptacek actually wrote: "To the extent that Damore's memo was about organizing against discrimination of conservative viewpoints --- a phenomenon that is almost certainly real in SFBA tech! --- it was protected." You removed the first four and last three words of a sentence to twist it into something completely else. That's just malicious editing. His point was that the protection didn't extend to t…

My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist. I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. Also his comment is right there so I'm hardly revising history here, I'm just being specific about the part that I'm responding to.

>I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for.

Advocating for enforcement of immigration laws has gotten me accused of being a racist/bigot.