Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#261

Post by bjourne » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #206

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.

Indeed, the laws are different. But in this case it doesn't matter much because the example is extreme.

Even if the employer could show that the manifesto caused a toxic work environment (hard), and that that was also Demore's intent (even harder), the employer would also need to show that they had tried to resolve the situation with other means. For example, by asking Demore not to publish similar manifestos in the future. Had he then refused to comply, their case would have been stronger.

Not even the examples I gave -- a cock not able to boil eggs, a train conductor always oversleeping or an active member of a Nazi party -- are completely clear cut in all countries. And Damore's manifesto is very, very far from it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#262

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #31

cabaalis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and who believes strongly in the absolute innate equivalence in aptitude for our profession between men and women I believe in it also, but shouldn't this idea be quantifiable in order to be a legit basis of a firing? I.E. where is the line between "promoting stereotypes" and "promoting science?"

I think? the answer is that it probably doesn't much matter. The Advice Memo states explicitly that the NLRB gives deference to employers on this matter, because they're required by state and federal EEO laws to suppress discrimination of protected classes. So where this might become a material question is if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for superior male aptitude, and you had…

So, what if you were an employer who was receptive to the "scientific" arguments for completely equivalent aptitude between males and females, and you had employees that shared that view, and your employees organized to promote that view organically. Then someone dissented from that view and a large number of those employees demanded the head of the dissenter? In that case, the NLRB has your back!

But in general it sounds like if the workplace issue you're organizing around is "does our employer go too far in trying to comply with EEO laws", the NLRB is not going to have your back.

Well, for one thing, I think the issue James Damore was organizing around is, "does our employer effectively make it thoughtcrime to question how they comply with EEO laws on the basis of differing average preferences." The NLRB's answer is that, yes the employer can make it a thoughtcrime, the NLRB has your back on that, and furthermore, that a lower level NLRB functionary can adjudicate on matters of truth in science.

Basically, what the NLRB has done here is to "instantiate into law" through the back-door of regulations and regulatory bodies, ideologically driven junk science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#263

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #253

leereeves wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The NLRB referred to some things employees do have a legal right to discuss without termination:

> expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs, which were likely protected

Damore's memo was critical feedback about Google's diversity policy. The inclusion of certain controversial scientific findings is perfectly reasonable in this context.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#264

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:12 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #249

leereeves wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, th…

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#265

Post by bduerst » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:14 AM UTC

ditonal wrote: post #72

oceanghost wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a toxic work environment. He was fired for pointing that out.

Downvoted but true, look at direct physical threats to Damore in the lawsuit by people Google still employs. Yet he got fired for violating code of conduct...are threats not violations? It's a double standard, if you threaten people deemed conservative there are no repercussions, even though I consider that far more hostile than a doc.

It says that the employee who made the threat was reprimanded:

>... email read, in relevant part: “You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[*] you.” The employee was issued a final warning for sending this email.

http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 (pdf)

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#266

Post by happyguy43 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:18 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #259

happyguy43 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It did give me pause, then it gave me concern, then it fizzled into lack of surprise.

Damore lost the PR battle long ago. PR justice, while disheartening, isn’t anything new. Challengers to popular ideology are never right at first, but he’ll be right eventually. One day it’ll be more faux pas to assume there are zero average personality differences between the sexes.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#267

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:19 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#268

Post by moduspol » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:21 AM UTC

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…

Abilities follow from preferences at the level being discussed (potential hiring pool at Google).

I am not good at being a nurse because I chose to become a software developer. I chose to become a software developer because I prefer working with computers over people. My preference in adolescence resulted in my being more capable as a software developer for a company like Google.

That this one statement keeps getting taken out of context and misinterpreted shows how flimsy the claims against the memo are.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#269

Post by bduerst » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:21 AM UTC

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.

Except he said women also lacked the abilities to be in tech and higher level management positions. This isn't just about children picking toys.

>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 representation of women in tech and leadership.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#270

Post by ankushnarula » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:23 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #215

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.

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…

The Advice Memo clearly implies skepticism at Damore's intent and the sources own which he relied. It sets the precedent for successful EEO claims against any venue where the content contravenes similar social justice based codes of conduct and employment agreements.

Damore's top line argument was that these diversity programs are causing reverse discrimination, workplace hostility, and monoculture. The rest of what he wrote was descriptive and prescriptive. And bear in mind, EEOC also has a mandate to protect employees who file their concerns over discrimination. I believe the active class action discrimination lawsuit against Google could be a stepping stone to break up this kind of EEOC precedent.