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

121–130 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#121

Post by fra »

darawk wrote: post #98
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…

> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not. Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such a…

"... absolute innate equivalence ..."

As was already stated in this thread, this is the null hypothesis. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16397321

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#122

Post by arkades »

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.

At a tangent to the Damore issue, on to the more general issue of conservatives claiming a feeling of being discriminated against;

There was this expression that got a bit popular during the early days of OWS: if someone tells you they’re thirsty, don’t tell them they’re not. Give them a glass of water.

I’ve heard concerns about self-censorship from enough actual real-life people, as opposed to Fox News blowhards, that I have to assume there’s at least a seed of truth to that. Something something lived experiences.

We can disagree as to why these people feel that way, and whether that’s a good thing (I’m perfrxtly happy with Nazis feeling like they’re a hated group, for instance), but maybe we should be respectful enough of people not to tell them they’re not living what they’re telling us they’re living.

That said, so much of conservative social policy has become thinly veiled discrimination of one sort or another - or is so closely associated with it that one can’t hear one without thinking the other - that it’s difficult to separate out views that need to be protected and views that need to be censored, without vilifying “conservative” in general.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#123

Post by iamdave »

myf01d wrote: post #29

Imagine if he was black btw I am not even white, but this politically correct tyranny in the west is getting ridiculous

I am not white either.

What I am is tired of the phenomenon of using black people and the experience of being black as a stand in, du jur, for when people want to illustrate the objectionable nature of certain arguments.

If a point is objectionable, argue it on the merits of its inherent validity or lack there of.

Black whataboutism doesn't serve this purpose, it unfairly weaponizes the color of my skin.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#124

Post by tntn »

majormajor wrote: post #116
tntn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prot…

Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theo…

> Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways?

If you subscribe to the view that same-sex marriage is a sin against a higher power, then your involvement in the marriage makes you actively involved in the sin.

If sinners get married, the marriage itself is not a sin. This is very straightforward in my mind.

Additionally, some churches have interviews with the bride and groom before marriages and if the pastor feels that they are unworthy of getting married will not marry them.

FYI I personally am not opposed to the legality same-sex marriage.

> tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)

It's called "social conservatism."

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#125

Post by georgemcbay »

darawk wrote: post #98
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…

> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not. Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such a…

> Curious, why do you believe in that? Have you evaluated the evidence and come to that conclusion, or is it a priori for you?

Curious why you question his belief?

All of the half-way reputable studies I've ever heard of have either concluded that there is no difference in male/female intelligence or that there are small differences in certain silos, with men scoring slightly higher on average in visuospatial while women score slightly higher on average in verbal.

Even if you accept the latter as fact (which there is no clear cut evidence-based reason for doing so, if you look at the studies in aggregate) it says basically nothing about suitability to "our profession" as both of those skills are important.

Given the choice between someone with higher than average overall IQ and outstanding visuospatial skills and someone with higher than average overall IQ and outstanding verbal skills, I'd generally prefer the latter as a colleague.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#126

Post by harlanji »

jrcii wrote: post #47

Only liberals are allowed to work at Google, and only liberals are allowed to express their political opinions on HN. The liberal-tech crowd groupthink enforcement is real.

Upvoted gray. I’ve observed at least one of my comments removed from HN. I was a liberal when I came to SF, but people shut me down constantly since coming here... I determined I am being bullied for the first time; as a 30+ yo man it is an interesting thing to learn to combat. Talking to homeless guys, I’ve no doubt what happened to some of them. Today I put out a substantial demo to address this in the way I know how, tweeted on same twitter handle.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#127

Post by Veelox »

majormajor wrote: post #116
tntn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prot…

Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theo…

> Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways?

It isn't worse. I know pastors who would refuse to marry a couple that included someone how was divorced or a couple that was having pre-marital sex. They cannot get in legal trouble for refusing that but they might get in legal trouble for refusing to marry two women.

> that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality

Part of the Christian push back is that same-sex marriage was a none issue until around 2000. It was still unpopular enough in 2008 that Proposition 8 passed, in California! We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#128

Post by tntn »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #101
tntn wrote: post #79

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. 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 peo…

> not universally accepted moral code on others isn't exactly the nicest thing to do after all.

There is no such thing as a "universally accepted moral code."

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#129

Post by leereeves »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #109
oceanghost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> How can they be both?

Best place to work if you fit the culture. Toxic environment if you don't.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#130

Post by tptacek »

darawk wrote: post #98
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…

> But to the extent that it attempted to organize around changes to Google management that might (might) themselves violate EEO laws (for instance, any kind of official recognition that men are better suited to software development at Google than women), they were not. Was he trying to do that, though? As I understand it, he was protesting policies that sought to actively promote diversity. EEO laws require no such a…

He was terminated at Google's discretion under at-will employment, the same standard that might allow you to be fired for coming to work with blue hair. He sought relief under an exception to at-will, the NLRA, which protects concerted action to improve working conditions. The NLRB determined that because the substance of his action involved requests that Google might reasonably determine would be problematic under EEO law, that whether or not Damore's actions were unlawful, Google was within its rights as a US employer to terminate him.

It might help to pivot away from EEO law and to some other regulatory regime we work under. For instance, you could attempt to organize around reworking the way your company complies with the HITECH laws. What you'd be doing would certainly not be unlawful! Nevertheless, despite that fact and the fact that the NLRA generally protects employee organization, the fact that your employer has a legal obligation to comply with HITECH would mean that the NLRB gives them substantial extra deference in whether or not they can fire you for doing that.

On the other hand, if you were to organize around, I don't know, closed-door offices instead of open-offices, no such extra deference would apply.

(Re: my beliefs: I provided them as a cards-on-the-table disclaimer, not an invitation to litigate them; they're the least interesting part of this story).

Post reply on HN