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

671–680 of 863 posts

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#671

Post by AHZHKPA »

The way we are talking to each other here is just toxic. Most of it isn’t even a conversation at all and I see very few attempts at understanding or empathy. It all just stinks of tribalism.

Every time the memo is brought up I see this same shit, and feel someone needs to call it out. I don’t care what side you are on; how we are going about this conversation is clearly not working. I wish I had a solution for this. I don’t. But understanding that there is a problem may be a good first step.

We must be better than this

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#672

Post by Radim »

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…

Honest question: I'm from eastern Europe, trying to wrap my head around this US controversy.

I fully respect Google's right for at-will termination, just trying to figure out whether Damore sinned by going against "world-as-is" or "world-as-ought-to-be".

I took the effort and found both the full text of this new National Labor Relations Board judgement [0, PDF], which includes:

"… statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism … were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment…"

and Damore's original memo, which cites a peer-reviewed published source [1]:

"research in large samples has shown that levels of N (neuroticism) are higher in women than men. This is a robust finding that is consistent across cultures. This is especially the case during the reproductive years, but is also visible in children and elderly."

Does such research really constitute harassment in the US? If so, what are the broader implications for science?

Other rebuttals I could find were similarly vague in distinguishing between facts ("is") and desires ("ought to be"). Has Damore's memo been rebutted at the "is-level"? Is he wrong in facts, or merely controversial in his proposed policies?

[0] https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391 (PDF)

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23068306

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#673

Post by rurounijones »

eitally wrote: post #148
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…

The firing was over his methods (and the adverse impact they directly had on the broader organization), not his opinions.

As far as I know his methods were to post his document to an internal mailing list specifically for feedback on potentially controversial topics[1]. This seems a "by the book" method (although I am surprised such a mailing list exists).

Someone ELSE then disseminated it more widely (Internally and externally).

[1] I cannot find any citations on this right now though, google-fu appears to be failing me.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#674

Post by lawnchair_larry »

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…

I think you have misrepresented a few things. One, it was a pro-diversity memo, not an anti-diversity memo. Two, it didn’t say anywhere that men are better suited to software development.

It’s fine to disagree with what he said, but it’s not fine to mischaracterize what he said.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#675

Post by iovrthoughtthis »

This is the ultimate HN bikeshedding topic.

It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate.

I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men can and persisting the ideas that they can't sucks.

That is my opinion and I am unwilling to change it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#676

Post by lawnchair_larry »

dragonwriter wrote: post #467
stcredzero wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 find this disturbing. I find this very disturbing as well. The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, f…

> The only way that even the most ardent opponents of Damore's memo can come to a "discriminatory" and "harassment" interpretation, is to disregard a literal, face-value reading of the memo and impute motivations to him. Motivation isn't what defines harassment; effect on others is what is relevant to harassment; not only is imputing a motive not necessary to finding harassment in the act of presenting the memo as he…

Is there legal backing to your assertion, or is that just your opinion? Clearly that can’t be true either. Otherwise, I can claim that socks and sandals are offending me, and it becomes your problem to modify your attire, not my problem to tolerate it.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#677

Post by DoreenMichele »

iovrthoughtthis wrote: post #675

This is the ultimate HN bikeshedding topic. It's a proxy for the nature / nurture debate. I put my vote token in the nature side. Women can do what ever men can and persisting the ideas that they can't sucks. That is my opinion and I am unwilling to change it.

I agree it is bikeshedding. But I think it is bikeshedding with a constructive purpose of serving as a safe sandbox in which people can practice talking about difficult subjects without it blowing up in their face.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16399006

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#678

Post by nsgoetz »

leereeves wrote: post #548
ncallaway wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say it doesn't matter what's in the memo. He said it doesn't matter how you interpret the memo.

If you want to convince me, show me the evidence from the memo. Throughout this discussion I mostly see people stating their own opinions with nary a quote from the actual memo.

It sounds like you are saying the law and precedent is good. You just disagree with their interpretation of the facts in this particular case. Not everyone in a scociety can come to a consensus on every issue. That’s we have the court system decide.

Re: Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

#679

Post by Udik »

fzeroracer wrote: post #468

The problem with Damore's theory he posited (that the difference in traits and abilities between men and women is why you see a certain imbalance in tech) ignores the history of computer science, where in the early days of CS you had a large amount of women entering into software followed by a sharp dropoff in the 80s [1]. The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed…

> The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today.

Or that computer science, and programming, started to change around 1984, which is not at all implausible.

Also, in the article you linked there is a good observation:

> The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.

Which coincides with the time in which programming became a hobby you take up in childhood because you enjoy doing it, rather than a profession like any other. In other words, this could hint to a self-selection into a computer science career based on pure enjoyment of the activity as a child.

(The article instead suggests computers were marketed mainly as toys for boys- which is also not implausible, but doesn't explain why tech companies would have willingly cut themselves off half of the possible revenues of their product- I bet a 100% increase in sales would beat any prejudice).

Post reply on HN