Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge • Hacker News Board

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#301

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:49 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #228

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…

And I may be reading a bit too much into the "ruling", but I expect that their decision would have held even if employees did have a right to engage in "science based discussion" as GP posits. That's why they cite the Honda ruling. Essentially even if the content is not a-priori problematic, the way it is presented was.

Once again I'm not positing a right to "science-based discussion".

I'm saying the right to discuss workplace issues, granted by the NLRA, should include science-based discussion of these issues.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#302

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:50 AM UTC

ar-jan wrote: post #133

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 a reasonable assessment, but you still misrepresent Damore's memo - as virtually all who disagree with him have done since the controversy started. > [...] that men are better suited to software development at Google than women When you use generic "men" and "women", you imply he talked about a categorical difference. Damore explicitly talked about population distributions, even illustrated with a Bell curve.…

[deleted]

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#303

Post by refulgentis » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:50 AM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #286

Consultant32452 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the progressive left THRUST Damore and anyone who might have similar thoughts/questions into the welcoming arms of the alt-right. I'm disappointed with the "Goolag" t-shirts, but he did lose his livelihood, had his professional reputation destroyed, and only a limited time to cash out. So this socially awkward nerd did what any sensible person would do, rode the wave that was sent his way the best he coul…

For a company supposedly full of smart people, you'd think they'd be able to gracefully handle so called "problematic" views like Damore's.

His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender.

You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#304

Post by air7 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:51 AM UTC

I've recently encounter Jordan Peterson. He speaks very eloquently about topics such as gender differences from (IMO) a rational and scientific point of view. I'm linking an interview with him which I find fascinating: Both for the information he conveys and for the manner in which he manages to remain cool and clear-headed against a very aggressive interviewer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=4m55s

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#305

Post by ewjordan » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:51 AM UTC

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.

I have sympathy for what you're saying here; I think it would be a totally valid interpretation of the law to say that point 3), however clumsy it may have been, was made in support of point 2), and therefore under protection.

But the way this played out, the board ruled the other way, and I think this is a clear warning to future employees seeking protection under this rule: the NLRB will interpret things as tightly as possible, and be very deferential to employer's internal policies even if they hinder the ability to back up a labor conditions complaint with arguments.

Whether that's okay or not is a political fight, and I see how there's a slippery slope here that could theoretically be used to squash many legitimate labor complaints - if a company imposed rules against making people feel politically uncomfortable, would they be able to fire people for wanting to unionize and backing that up with political arguments that might offend capitalists? I'd be surprised if the board didn't act in that case.

But let's be honest. Damore was trying to score a backdoor win through a legal exception that pretty clearly was not in spirit carved out to protect people in situations like his. That's why I also expect him to fail in any CA civil suit, though I'm less certain about that one, political views are more protected in CA than elsewhere.

Just to be clear, I'm not personally in favor of Damore's firing over this memo, it sounds like Google tends to encourage vigorous internal debate about this sort of thing except when it goes public (as witnessed by the inaction until the memo was leaked and the outcry began). Despite his poor sense of what the response would be, I think he was engaging in good-faith argument, at first, at least, pre-Goolag and that nonsense. From what I hear, people on the left are pretty offensive and vitriolic on internal boards at Google without being disciplined [0], so I'd have loved to see management manage the situation and internally broker some peace between the offended parties rather than turn the thing into a classic alt-right recruiting talk-point by firing him. But I'm very much in favor of a company's right to fire anyone, for almost any reason, and I'm glad that was not interfered with here.

[0] Edit: from the memorandum, a Google employee was reprimanded for responding harshly to Damore over email: '“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. '

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#306

Post by taneq » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:52 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #212

ubernostrum wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Also this memo would be in the context of an official company policy of preferentially hiring southerners despite them making up a small portion of the applicant pool.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#307

Post by 5F36B5F62640 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:52 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…

> If I bully a co-worker or start stating at work that I think someone is less capable for any reason linked to their biology, religion, sexuality or age I will be putting my job at risk.

He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise).

He said that there are differences not related to capability, and that the current environment in tech is such that the work environment is more acceptable to people on the "male" side of those differences, which makes capable women less likely to go into or stay in tech. To increase diversity he suggested that we need to make the tech environment more friendly to women.

For example, he said that men on average are more competitive, and women more cooperative, and that women tend to value work-life balance more then men, and men tend to value status more. There's a fair bit of scientific literature supporting those claims. (To what extent these differences are biological rather than learned is less clear--but does it actually matter?)

Currently tech tends to favor competitive status seekers who will make their career the focus of their life (especially for management and leadership positions). Cooperative people who want a good work-life balance get left behind. He suggested Google move toward more pair programming and other cooperative ways of doing things, and make it so that it is easier for employees to balance their outside life with work. That should get more women coming into tech and increase the retention rate.

It is worth reading the actual memo if you have not. A very large amount of the discussion of it has been based on what people imagined it said, not what it actually said.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#308

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #274

tptacek wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant.

> The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant.

That the manner and context in which Damore referred to them is a violation of Google's reasonable anti-harassment policy does not mean that either that act, and even less referring to them more generally, is harassment.

Necessarily, any anti-harasssment policy that will successfully prevent harassment liability seeks to, through means up to and including termination, prevent liability by dealing with acts before they reach the level at which legal harassment—a violation of the law by the employer—occurs.

An anti-harassment policy that only addressed acts after the threshold for legal harassment was reached would be a very expensive failure.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#309

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:53 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…

Why is this chilling?

Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Instead, he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying. This reveals a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence within Google.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#310

Post by Consultant32452 » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

refulgentis wrote: post #303

ikeyany wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a company supposedly full of smart people, you'd think they'd be able to gracefully handle so called "problematic" views like Damore's.

His views _as stated_ necessarily meant _some_ women he worked with weren't qualified to be his coworkers because of their gender. You have a right to free speech, not to alienate your coworkers.

Could you point out that specific passage? As I read it he specifically went out of his way to say that all of the women he worked with were qualified.