Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

Post by Toboe » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:41 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…

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:43 AM UTC

refulgentis wrote: post #356

Consultant32452 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He literally says that those hiring practices can lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.

Post by mirimir » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:46 AM UTC

Clanan wrote: post #367

> The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. This Advice Memo establishes the precedent that discussing biological differences between men and women constitutes sexual harassment, even if those differences are supported by scientific research.

Post by leereeves » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:47 AM UTC

andrewprock wrote: post #368

leereeves wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo. > the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected. Notice the reason the NLRB gave in this statement for why they are unprotected: not because they are unrelated to the discussion of workplace issues, but because they are offensive.

> Several people have claimed that. I dispute that claim because that's not what I see in the memo. It matters little what you see in the memo. Google and the NLRB saw enough to terminate his employment, and to uphold that termination. This is generally how at-will employment works.

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 2:49 AM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #325

InclinedPlane wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about children, we're talking about adults. Literate, tech savvy, affluent, college graduates. How would you imagine those folks educate themselves? Easily, by relying on the abundant resources available to them. The internet, books, youtube, etc. There's a ton of material out there, if you actually care, if you think it's important to educate yourself the resources are available. He did not do that…

His agenda was to make Google aware of some of the consequence of their diversity politics, something they themselves had asked for feedback on. He didn't ask whether women deserved to be equals and just the fact that you think that shows just how ignorant many commentators are in this case. If you actually are interested in hearing his version of the story, not just your own wrongly informed and biased one here is a…