Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#131

Post by ankushnarula » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #115

notconservative wrote: post #108

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 c…

You've lost the context of the Advice Memo. The NLRB isn't saying Damore himself violated EEO laws by writing the memo. The NLRB didn't fire Damore; Google did. The NLRB is saying that although the NLRA protects concerted action to improve working conditions, those protections do not extend to action that might discriminate against protected classes, and, crucially, that because employers are required by state and fe…

That would be a narrow and incomplete reading of Damore's memo based on prejudice. Damore's description that on average men and women are different is not itself discriminatory or harmful since it's backed up by quite a lot of biological and psychometric science.

The question should have been "What is Damore advocating?".

And if they read the entire document then it would be clear that Damore was suggesting methods to bring Google's gender balance to 50/50 by making Google (and tech in general) more attractive to women by altering the software engineering culture to leverage inherent strengths that women (on average) possess.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#132

Post by goatlover » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:29 PM UTC

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…

> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women

Do you also believe in the absolute innate equivalence in motivation for our profession between men and women, so that in a perfectly fair society, we would end up with a 50/50 ratio?

Would this also be the case with other professions, such as nursing, psychologists, or social workers?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#133

Post by ar-jan » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:29 PM UTC

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…

This is a reasonable assessment, but you still misrepresent Damore's memo - as virtually all who disagree with him have done since the controversy started.

> [...] that men are better suited to software development at Google than women

When you use generic "men" and "women", you imply he talked about a categorical difference. Damore explicitly talked about population distributions, even illustrated with a Bell curve. He said for example "Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

More importantly, he never said men are "better suited" to software development. You mention aptitude, when Damore focussed on preference and interest, based on a well-established literature of personality differences between men and women.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#134

Post by leereeves » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:30 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #110

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…

He did cite evidence for his claims, but the most widely circulated copies of the memo removed his citations.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#135

Post by manfredo » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:30 PM UTC

avs733 wrote: post #15

tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is the opposite of what the NLRB found. It's not quite as simple as political affiliation being protected (although in California it might be), but rather that under the NLRA, you can't be fired for the act of organizing to improve workplace conditions. The Advice Memo explicitly states in several places that had the Damore memo not advocated in favor of stereotypes against women --- something that is itself…

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…

No, in fact he argued the opposite: that Google should cease its policies that discriminate based on sex.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#136

Post by Veelox » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

guyzero wrote: post #102

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…

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.

Being accused of being a racist on an internal company form happen to me.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#137

Post by caseysoftware » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

ditonal wrote: post #72

oceanghost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In reading the original article, I think this quote is the opening:

> Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote.

If that is the case, the employees who create and talk about these blacklists - which appear to be well-documented according to HR - may be creating an ongoing hostile work environment long before this memo existed, which demonstrates Damore's point.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#138

Post by tptacek » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

ankushnarula wrote: post #131

tptacek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've lost the context of the Advice Memo. The NLRB isn't saying Damore himself violated EEO laws by writing the memo. The NLRB didn't fire Damore; Google did. The NLRB is saying that although the NLRA protects concerted action to improve working conditions, those protections do not extend to action that might discriminate against protected classes, and, crucially, that because employers are required by state and fe…

That would be a narrow and incomplete reading of Damore's memo based on prejudice. Damore's description that on average men and women are different is not itself discriminatory or harmful since it's backed up by quite a lot of biological and psychometric science. The question should have been "What is Damore advocating?". And if they read the entire document then it would be clear that Damore was suggesting methods t…

No, the Advice Memo repeatedly notes that much of the memo is not objectionable. The problem Damore faced with the NLRB is that Google was careful to terminate him specifically and exclusively for the parts of the memo that would advocate policies problematic under EEO laws.

They read the whole memo (and indeed summarize a lot of it, not just the prejudicial bits).

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#139

Post by majormajor » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:33 PM UTC

Veelox wrote: post #127

majormajor wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tw…

> We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way.

But that doesn't seem like a reliable guiding principle on its own, e.g. mixed race marriage.

This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides, so from a least-harm perspective, it seems better to, as far as the state goes, pick the people who probably don't have a choice in the matter (I'm inclined to believe that homosexuality is primarily an innate thing, because I never chose to be straight, and can't imagine choosing to be homosexual) versus the beliefs of certain religious groups.

And the history of racial discrimination in the US points the way towards the reasoning behind equal-service type requirements for businesses. Any problems caused seem much smaller than the (proven!) potential for abuse if the laws weren't there.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#140

Post by tptacek » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:33 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #99

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…

The beliefs aren't “beyond the pale”; using workplace resources to communicate them within the workplace in contravention to a workplace anti-harassment policy, which if inconsistently enforced poses substantial legal danger for the employer, is, however, not a prohibited grounds for dismissal from at-will employment.

"Workplace anti-harassment policy". That's the term I was looking for. Thanks.

A good simple summary of what happened:

Your employer can have an EEO-motivated anti-harassment policy. You can organize with coworkers to improve working conditions. If your organization conflicts with the anti-harassment policy, the NLRB is likely to find that the anti-harassment policy trumps your right to organize.