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

171–180 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#171

Post by s73v3r_ »

defertoreptar wrote: post #144
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.

His cardinal sin was saying that men and women are biologically different. He could've said a lot, but as soon as he tried to give a biological explanation for why girls prefer Barbies and boys prefer toy cars, he entered taboo territory. It's a thought crime because it implies that cultural influences aren't 100% responsible for why more men are interested in STEM than women.

No, he tried to use unrelated data on the biological differences between men and women to justify why Google shouldn't try to reach out more to women to diversify their workforce.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#172

Post by TulliusCicero »

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…

If his memo had been exclusively about discrimination against conservatives, he wouldn't have been fired in the first place. The obvious reason Google fired him is that he was now poison in terms of working with others, especially women, because he was saying that women as a whole were either less suited or less inclined to be engineers.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#173

Post by leereeves »

tptacek wrote: post #130
darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 E…

IMHO, the Advice Memo's conclusion is summarized by this sentence:

> Damore's 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 his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.

I find this disturbing.

I don't know whether Damore's assertions are scientifically accurate, but the NLRB appears to be saying that it doesn't matter. Stating an unpleasant truth would constitute discrimination "notwithstanding scientific references and analysis".

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#174

Post by justAnotherNET »

scaryclam wrote: post #88
bjourne wrote: post #27

I don't agree with Damore's message. But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged. So firing him for stating his opinion is truly, hypocritical bullshit. People should get fired for not doing their jobs -- not for writing what they think. And I also want to say that before you blame "the Left" for Google's behavior... Had he been fired in "Socialist Europe," the firing would have been dec…

No, here in "socialist Europe" he'd have been fired as well. He broke clear company rules and made the working environment hostile for others. That's not acceptable over here the same was as it's not in the US. However, had he written this out on a personal blog, or just has an adult conversation with HR I believe he'd had been safe on both sides of the pond. People don't just get fired for not doing their jobs. If I…

If you actually read the lawsuit, you’ll see Google cultivated an openly hostile workplace towards a significant portion of their employees and insulated the attackers from HR reprimands.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#175

Post by Veelox »

majormajor wrote: post #141
tntn wrote: post #124

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? 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.…

> If you subscribe to the view that same-sex marriage is a sin against a higher power, This is a newer one to me, off the top of my head I'm not aware of from where the marriage act would be considered the sin vs the homosexuality itself. What's the doctrinal reasoning here? Just curious, here, since I'm A-OK with churches being able to individually choose who to marry. Businesses, on the other hand, are subject to a…

> This is a newer one to me, off the top of my head I'm not aware of from where the marriage act would be considered the sin vs the homosexuality itself.

Sin is normally considered at its core an offence to God because He is the only perfect one thus He is the only one with legal/moral standing to take offence. This is often highlighted as the reason that Joseph, when his master's wife wanted to sleep with him responded "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#176

Post by neveroffensive »

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.

Both the left and the right have a similar problem of manipulating facts/truth/law to conform to their agenda and "ideal" world. Liberals are in the hot seat right now because they are the primary group in tech, but you can find the same behavior on the right, sometimes to an even greater extent.

It's sad the extent to which we are willing to damage peoples lives for expressing their opinions. Freedom of speech is a sticky thing when you start to talk about employment and privately controlled contexts, especially if you are a libertarian. It would be nice if society in general was more willing to live and let live. Problems like these would occur a lot less, and society/debate would progress a lot more easily. I'm a firm believer it's a lot easier to prove someone wrong and educate them on their errors if they feel free to voice their true arguments.

I hope in the coming years the libertarian party continues to gain strength, the left/right are almost lost causes at this point...

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#177

Post by jeffmould »

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…

The NLRB has a vast reach that many employees are completely unaware of. Several years ago I was the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against an employer. About 6 months after I filed the lawsuit my employer fired me for fabricated "disciplinary" reasons (not unexpectedly on my behalf, it did take them longer to react than I had thought). Of course, my attorneys immediately sunk their teeth in this termination.

Almost immediately my attorneys launched a two-pronged approach. They filed additional complaints to the lawsuit and they had me file a complaint with the NLRB. Prior to this, I had never even heard of the NLRB and when I read their website I still thought it was a protection for unionized employees. This is far from the truth. My NLRB complaint consisted of two complaints, one for wrongful termination and the second was centered around the employer trying to stop my organizing the class action by terminating my employment (I was the only member of the class that was terminated at this point). At this point, I was also separated as a plaintiff from the "class" and had my own lawsuit against the employer that encompassed the wrongful termination complaint.

The NLRB almost immediately assigned an investigator (a staff attorney) to explore my complaint. This lasted a couple months with several meetings between myself, my attorneys, and the NLRB interviewing the employer and other current employees.

One thing I learned is that there is nothing an employer hates more than a federal agency digging around their business. In the end, the NLRB found both my complaints valid. They offered a settlement to the employer that involved monitoring and random complaince checks for a period of time.

At the same time, my lawsuit continued through the courts. What did help my case was the NLRB findings. It was hard for the employer to deny complaints when they had already settled complaints with the NLRB. In the end, we ended up settling the entire case.

After the case was settled the employer ended up terminating most, if not all, of the employees that were involved for various reasons (mostly false allegations).

Overall, the NLRB does provide a level of protection for the common employee and working conditions not just for unionized employees that I, and I am sure many others, are completely unaware of.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#179

Post by leereeves »

awesomepantsm wrote: post #164
leereeves wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you implying the lawyers in the case didn't read the citations? Please.

No, I'm responding to the claim in the comment above that Damore made statements "without citing direct evidence".

Though it is probably true that the lawyers in the case didn't read the citations. It wasn't their job to determine whether Damore's statements were scientifically accurate, and they stated that his statements were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, regardless of the scientific references and analysis.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#180

Post by ubernostrum »

leereeves wrote: post #173
tptacek wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 E…

IMHO, the Advice Memo's conclusion is summarized by this sentence: > Damore's 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 his comments with “scientific” references and analysis and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. I…

Why is this chilling?

There are many much-less-disputed things which are obviously factually true but which, nonetheless, could put you on the hook for harassment depending on how, why, and how often you say them.

For example, suppose I have a co-worker who is an ardent believer in the cause of the southern states during the US Civil War. It is factually and indisputably true that the southern states lost that war, and were subjected to a humiliating period of military occupation afterward. If I were to, say, constantly bring it up and rub it in my co-worker's face, my co-worker could certainly go to HR and claim I was committing harassment.

Post reply on HN