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

241–250 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#241

Post by manfredo »

bduerst wrote: post #230
manfredo wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The memo did not claim that women were less intelligent. It claimed that women _prefer_ to work in fields other than tech. This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. It also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.

>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability. Wrong. The memo is poorly worded, but it does make the leap from just preferences to abilities in this sentence, despite not having evidence for the latter: >>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representati…

This is exactly in line with what I wrote. This quote talks about distribution. Not averages, which was the parent comment's claim.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#242

Post by ThomPete »

brian-armstrong wrote: post #227
ThomPete wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some of the bits in his memo were pseudoscientific bunk, no better than phrenology. Making a lot of noise about 'facts' doesn't help here, in fact it does the opposite. So it seems your stand here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Can you give an example?

Whether you find my stand irrelevant or not just because you don't agree with it, is telling and symptomatic for this discussion.

Why isn't my stand relevant, what is it you know for a fact that is pseudoscientific and even if it was the case, are you going to fire people for believing in God and being against gay marriage because it's anti-scientific.

Sounds like an anti-ellectual position to me.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#243

Post by ewjordan »

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.

Damore has basically 3 points in his memo, in increasing order of disputability:

1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions

2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is a problem for working conditions

3) The reason women are underrepresented in the tech job market is biology

Notice that 3) has nothing to do with working conditions, it's just an elaboration on why 2) upsets Damore so much; it could have been left out and he would have been covered under the exemption, while still making his point about working conditions and hiring policies.

People within Google are totally free to disagree about whether a 50/50 gender ratio is an appropriate goal, and they are protected under this law as far as protesting those goals as they relate to working conditions. But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. Especially when they could be construed as hurting a company's ability to abide by laws regarding hostile work environments.

There's probably room for disagreement about the correct interpretation of the law, but I don't see it as a matter of removing the right to discuss freely, it's merely a tight technical interpretation of where the at-will exemption ends.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#244

Post by xiphias »

anonytrary wrote: post #71
ng12 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was _not_ public. It was internal for Google employees. It was made public by someone who disagreed and resorted to publicly sharing the memo. The fact that Google has not addressed this is a more damning condemnation of their culture than anything else.

Oh wow. Yeah, the person who leaked the internal email should have been fired. That's crazy. I feel for Damore.

The leaker should definately be fired, that's not a question. I don't know whether firing Damore was legal or not, and whether there was harassment or not, but leaking was a clear copyright violation and Google always had a policy of firing leakers, this was the only exception where they didn't talk about it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#245

Post by 111_1_111 »

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 memo was very explicitly not "anti-diversity." Stop lying.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#246

Post by xiphias »

jdavis703 wrote: post #162
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…

How open of discussion should be allowed? Certainly in an open environment the CEO's actions should be criticizable. But what about issuing a death threat to the CEO? Should that also be allowed because they're attempting to foster an open discussion environment?

A death threat to the CEO has nothing to do with open discussion, as it's illegal in it's own right, like harassment.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#247

Post by tptacek »

leereeves wrote: post #237
tptacek wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? Most of the challenges on this thread seem to be premised on the idea that Google needs ironclad justification to terminate an employee. The opposite is true. We have, as conservatives vigorously argued for, at-will employment in pretty much the whole country. The NLRA will protect your right to improve workplace conditions. The NLRB will not enforce that right if what you're doing isn't really about workplace…

My challenge to the NLRB's opinion is premised on the idea that Google employees have a right to discuss Google's diversity policy. The NLRB seems to agree, repeatedly saying that Damore's memo contained protected speech. But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.

The issue isn't that the science is unpleasant. It's that state and federal law compel companies like Google to maintain anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to the company on how they're enforced.

If you want to complain about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that's a different discussion; it's not really fair to take the NLRB to task for that.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#248

Post by leereeves »

ewjordan wrote: post #243
leereeves wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Damore has basically 3 points in his memo, in increasing order of disputability: 1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions 2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is…

Why do you separate 2 and 3? Point 3 is Damore's detailed criticism of point 2. He's arguing (clumsily) that the goals of the policies in point 2 conflict with certain scientific research.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#249

Post by tptacek »

leereeves wrote: post #248
ewjordan wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore has basically 3 points in his memo, in increasing order of disputability: 1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions 2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is…

Why do you separate 2 and 3? Point 3 is Damore's detailed criticism of point 2. He's arguing (clumsily) that the goals of the policies in point 2 conflict with certain scientific research.

Because in the course of making point 3, he violated Google's anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to companies as to the reasonableness of their anti-harassment policies, because a different federal law that NLRB does not manage requires companies to have anti-harassment policies.

If he'd been arguing for better office furniture and Google claimed to fire him over violations of an anti-harassment policy, the NLRB would almost certainly not defer to Google. But he wasn't arguing for better office furniture; he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#250

Post by Udik »

ionforce wrote: post #30
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…

> So firing him for stating his opinion Do you think it's possible for his stating of his opinion to have side effects like creating a toxic work environment, which would be the antithesis of doing his job well?

An environment in which you can be fired for having expressed scientific views which- while debatable- are certainly not fringe seems pretty toxic. Maybe only for those who don't fit in, but still..
Post reply on HN