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

251–260 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#251

Post by bduerst »

manfredo wrote: post #241
bduerst wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The quote talks about abilities, which you said the memo did not say anything about. Damore was positing that both women's preferences and abilities is why you see less women in tech and leadership positions.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#252

Post by randyrand »

gowld wrote: post #198
skissane wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class. In California, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their political beliefs [1], so to that extent particular political ideologies (including conservatism) can be viewed as protected classes. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_dis…

In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.

The line between those seems quite thin. Showing support for a candidate is quite literally showing support for a certain set of platforms or political idea.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#253

Post by tptacek »

leereeves wrote: post #222
tptacek wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

If we have a legal right to discuss something at work, we should also have a legal right to a science-based discussion of that topic. The Advice Memo seems to agree that discussion of Google's diversity program was protected speech, until it strayed into scientific findings that some people found offensive.

I think you're still not getting it. You don't have the legal right to discuss things at work without termination. Blanket federal employment law says that there is a powerful presumption in favor of the employer when terminating employees. They can fire you for what you say. They can fire you for dying your hair the wrong hair color. They don't need a good reason. You need a good reason if you're going to contest a termination.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#254

Post by tptacek »

T2_t2 wrote: post #240
tptacek wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you reread my comment, I spend a couple paragraphs explaining the procedural background to this. If the NLRB had found Damore's complaint valid, they would have intervened on his behalf. They did not, so they will not. Apparently, there's no private right to action under the NLRA. Enforcement is public, and goes through the NLRB. If the NLRB decides against pursuing a case, that's probably the end for you (maybe s…

Just to clarify: 1. You believe that Damore's lawyers withdrew the claim because the NLRB said they wouldn't pursue it. Is that a correct assessment? That's the timeline AFAICT anyway. Does that make the memo a public statement of what they informed Damore of? Is that common, for the NLRB - or similar institutions - to release a memo about a withdrawn action? I'm not American so this all seems very odd to me. I just…

1. Yes.

2. No.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#255

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

ggm wrote: post #100

What I think of his views (I disagree) is not germaine to the question: was it sensible to write and publish? It was not. That I disagree with his premise and polemic makes it easier for me to align desire and reality, but the reality of the situation doesn't change because of my desires: he was stupid to publish and Google were within their rights to fire him. All the other observed comments about liberal/conservati…

> he was stupid to publish

Only in the way that union organizers and whistle blowers are stupid.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#256

Post by manfredo »

bduerst wrote: post #251
manfredo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The quote talks about abilities, which you said the memo did not say anything about. Damore was positing that both women's preferences and abilities is why you see less women in tech and leadership positions.

From my original comment in this chain:

> ...also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme.

This is in reference to what the memo says about abilities. The memo does claim higher or lower overall averages, too, but those are in terms of preferences.

Let me lay this out point by point if I phrased this poorly before:

* The memo claims that women and men have different averages in preferences.

* That men and women have different distributions of abilities.

* The memo does not claim that there are different average of abilities.

Point #3 is what the parent comment claimed, among other things, and that is wrong.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#257

Post by bduerst »

manfredo wrote: post #256
bduerst wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote talks about abilities, which you said the memo did not say anything about. Damore was positing that both women's preferences and abilities is why you see less women in tech and leadership positions.

From my original comment in this chain: > ...also claimed higher variance, but not overall differences. In other words that there are more men on both sides of the extreme. This is in reference to what the memo says about abilities. The memo does claim higher or lower overall averages, too, but those are in terms of preferences. Let me lay this out point by point if I phrased this poorly before: * The memo claims tha…

Also from your original comment:

>This is a statement of women's choices, not their ability.

Edit: Rather than reply, you now edited your comment to split hairs on distribution vs averages. That doesn't change the facts about Damore's argument about biological ability to be in tech is unfounded.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#258

Post by moduspol »

conanbatt wrote: post #226
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…

The great fear around this topic. What would be the consequence if it were scientifically proven that men had a slight biological advantage over women in software engineering? I sense the mob puts a noise layer because the mob has an opinion of what to do in that case that it doesnt want to accept.

> What would be the consequence if it were scientifically proven that men had a slight biological advantage over women in software engineering?

They're already hedged against that. They would claim that only means that the software engineering process / profession was designed to cater to masculine traits, and as a result, is sexist. It's yet another tool of the patriarchy.

That software engineering has worked out as it has so far isn't indicative of success because we don't have the alternative profession to compare it to. One that puts more value in diversity, empathy, avoiding conflict, and working cooperatively. If only we valued those things more, men wouldn't have such a leg up.

That's the fun part of these views: they can't ever be proven wrong. There's always another level of underlying oppression for any perceivable sleight.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#259

Post by joshuamorton »

happyguy43 wrote: post #239
joshuamorton wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I do disagree. This is on multiple thorough readings of his memo and a sound mind. He never advocates for Google to discriminate against anyone in his memo, nor does he advocate for Google to not prioritize diversity. There is no quote in his original memo to prove otherwise, legal opinion notwithstanding.

And that's your right, my point is that the experts seem to disagree, and that should, at a minimum give you pause.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#260

Post by Udik »

d1zzy wrote: post #55
didgeoridoo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). Can you pull out a specific line from the memo that "actively advocates for discrimination"? I've read it a few times, and I just see him presenting an alternate explanation for the gender gap in tech beyond "sexism". He then goes on to argue that, in light of this alternate explanation, current approaches to narrow the gap may be ineffecti…

You can have the thought, you just can't discuss it with your coworkers in your workplace, for obvious reasons I would say.

I find it funny that you can't discuss factual things that relate to your company's decisions and plans with your coworkers in your workplace.
Post reply on HN