Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#101

Post by seba_dos1 »

tntn wrote: post #79
guyzero wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 polici…

Thinking gay marriage shouldn't be legal is not "conservative", it's plain discriminating. Denying abortions to others is a bit muddier, but somewhat similar - forcing your own, not universally accepted moral code on others isn't exactly the nicest thing to do after all.

I don't know much about ACA, so can't say anything about it.

With those three out of sight, I'm really interested in what kind of discrimination people in SFBA tech that are religious or dislike welfare face.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#102

Post by guyzero »

tntn wrote: post #79
guyzero wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 polici…

So you're saying people have been discriminated against in SFBA tech companies for believing in strict immigration policies?

This seems like a pretty strong claim and I'm curious what examples you have other than it being something most people don't agree with.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#104

Post by Veelox »

majormajor wrote: post #97
tntn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same w…

I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa.

Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#106

Post by devinhelton »

tptacek wrote: post #87
notconservative wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the Advice Memo go into detail on exactly which parts of Damore's memo are discriminatory and which parts aren't?

Yes. Despite "limiting language" like "studies show" or "on average", the NLRB found that the Damore memo's claims that women are susceptible to "neuroticism" and that they have lower variance in IQ constituted valid cause for Google to terminate. It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo. They're not even saying that Damore's IQ and psychology claims…

"It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo."

Well, they did call what Damore wrote "sexual harassment" and "discriminatory", and sexual harassment is illegal and violates EEO, so that is basically saying that what he wrote is unlawful:

"The Charging Party’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. [His] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers."

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#107

Post by tntn »

majormajor wrote: post #97
tntn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."

Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same w…

You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage.

Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#108

Post by notconservative »

I looked up the Advice Memo [0] written by the NRLB (thanks tptacek for mentioning that document) so that I could try to see what exactly they found discriminatory about Damore's paper. This is the relevant section:

> The Charging Party’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 sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.

The "these cases" reference is talking about a KKK member and someone who "made debasing and sexually abusive remarks to a female employee who had crossed a picket line months earlier". I don't see how Damore's memo is at all relatable to these.

And more importantly, the content they found to be discriminatory were the studies on differences in IQ and psycological traits by gender? How can presenting science be discriminatory?

If you disagree with some study, you explain why the methodology it used is bad or find other studies that try to explain it. You don't just claim that it's findings are discriminatory. That makes it impossible to discover why it's wrong (if it is).

[0] (PDF) http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#109

Post by jacksmith21006 »

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.

Yet been the top place to work six years in a row. Nobody else done it even two years in a row. How can they be both?

http://fortune.com/best-companies/google/ Google: #1 on 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2017 | Fortune

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#110

Post by Aunche »

notconservative wrote: post #21

> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law. Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

People really did exaggerate how bad the memo really was. That said, it definitely has portions that brought up stereotypes without citing direct evidence, like how men have a higher drive to achieve status. Google considered these statements "discriminatory," which sounded reasonable enough to the NLRB. It doesn't matter whether these statements were actually discriminatory because they clearly fall outside the bounds of protected speech.

Post reply on HN