Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#211

Post by gowld » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:31 AM UTC

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

    This page isn’t working
    fortune.com redirected you too many times.
    Try clearing your cookies.

http://fortune.com/best-companies/list/filtered?searchByName...

"No results found"

This year is 2018, and Salesforce is #1. I don't see Google.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#212

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:31 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #180

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…

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, a…

A more accurate analogy might be a memo claiming that southerners are poorer than northerners because they lost the Civil War. Would you consider such a memo harassment?

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#213

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:32 AM UTC

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…

> > 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 find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him. So basically, any employee commentary on an employer's policies with regards to the EEO's goals can be held to be "discriminatory" and "harassment" because it "sounds bad" and "sounds like" it's against EEO's goals, even if that can't be demonstrated on a factual basis.

You will fall in line, and you don't even dare sound like you're secretly against us. How is that not "thought-crime?"

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#214

Post by gowld » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:32 AM UTC

debt wrote: post #199

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…

“But Google cultivated an environment were open discussion were encouraged.” “People should get fired for not doing their jobs” When you’re hired to write code all day and instead are writing a long sexist rambling memo at work during work hours and posting it to a work forum, you’re not doing your job.

The memo was written as part of a company training event. Damore attended a training and then wrote a response when asked for feedback. Very much doing his job.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#215

Post by tptacek » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:32 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #204

tptacek wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't have a legal right to engage in science-based discussion of anything at your workplace!

Damore's claim is subtly different. He relies on the fact that you do, under the NLRA, have the right to organize to change workplace conditions. But your right to do that is enforceable only through the NLRB, is an exception to at-will employment, and is trumped by federal and state EEO laws. When employee organizing conflicts with employer legal compliance, the employer's low burden to justify a termination is even lower.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#216

Post by gowld » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:34 AM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #171

defertoreptar wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The memo had a section dedicated to changing Google to make it more welcoming to women. It mentioned "pair programming" as one female-friendly culture change.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#217

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:35 AM UTC

tntn wrote: post #128

seba_dos1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#218

Post by knorker » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:36 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

It's one thing to assume the null hypothesis. Quite another to discard ANY experience or data because it violates the null hypothesis.

Damore certainly cited many studies, and while there's valid criticism of their validity, "they disagree with the null hypothesis, ergo they are false" is not right.

Nor is "I have not read them, therefore the null hypothesis is right".

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#219

Post by awesomepantsm » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:36 AM UTC

dejawu wrote: post #210

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 s…

I got the feeling there was more stuff he said that never leaked but who knows

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#220

Post by tptacek » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 12:37 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #213

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…

> > 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 find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, f…

You can call it that if you want; then, in the US, you can be fired for "thought crime". The only thing at issue here is that you can't be fired in retaliation for workplace organizing --- but that protection doesn't apply if what you're organizing about pertains to an area where the NLRB gives deference to employers.

There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.