Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#201

Post by iamdave » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:25 AM UTC

marnett wrote: post #151

iamdave wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the thought exercise from GP is to imagine what would have happened if he was in an ethnic minority as opposed to being caucasian.

That's precisely the thought exercise I am tired of seeing.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#202

Post by ThomPete » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:25 AM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #172

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.

Less inclined (which was what he said) can be tested factually are you saying that it's ok to be fired to state something factually correct?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#203

Post by gowld » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

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…

Citation for rules and hostility?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#204

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #188

leereeves wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't matter not because the NLRB is settling the science for itself, but because the NLRB doesn't want to intervene in cases where employers enforce anti-harassment policies. There's a case history about this, cited in the memo. Remember, the presumption at law is that Google has the right to fire employees for virtually no reason (conservatives should find this congenial). Damore was attempting to avail himsel…

You're right, the NLRB isn't settling the science. It's saying that discussion of the science renders otherwise protected speech unprotected ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), and effectively removing workers' legal right to engage in science-based discussion of whether a 50/50 gender ratio is the appropriate goal.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#205

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

fra wrote: post #121

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…

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

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#206

Post by mseebach » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

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…

It's worth keeping in mind that Europe certainly isn't one place when it comes to labour regulations. Some places you barely fire people at all (prevalent in the South, apparently getting reformed in France) and in some places it is significantly easier (several countries in the North), if not quite at will. The "easiness" generally has to do with the burden attached to showing insufficient performance.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#207

Post by b4lancesh33t » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:27 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #6

ghaff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The NLRB turned down Damore's complaint. I think he could theoretically still sue in civil court? I don't think that's commonly done? Either way, his complaint was denied. There's still a civil lawsuit going ahead as the article notes.

Right, but it's on a different set of claims, isn't it? I thought it was not a case brought under the NLRA.

One does wonder how much damage this memo does to that case. It will be interesting to see.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#208

Post by on_and_off » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:28 AM UTC

rendall wrote: post #103

Did the NLRB memo specify exactly which statements in Damore's memo were discriminatory and hostile? Is there a copy available?

yes : https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351

you can also find the full damore memo online.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#209

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:28 AM UTC

happyguy43 wrote: post #190

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 well argued but some of the assumptions are false. 1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women. 2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite. It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the…

> Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.

While this may not have been his intent, this ruling appears to imply that the EEOC thinks that the content of his words do amount to that.

You can disagree, but my expectation is, being that they are EEOC lawyers and you are not, their understanding of what does or does not violate EEO law is better than yours.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#210

Post by dejawu » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:28 AM UTC

The way this whole thing played out makes me sad, because the guy did bring up a good point - current-day social justice leaves little avenue for well-meaning but unaware (perhaps through privilege) people to start conversations and learn about the reasons and motivations for certain efforts such as affirmative action and changes in vocabulary. Damore was indeed punished for speaking out, just as he feared.

Then he started retweeting Breitbart articles and selling "Goolag" t-shirts and threw his credibility out the window, and solving the problem of "how do we bring people on-board with the diversity thing without scaring them off" is again put off to another day.