Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge - Sensationalist Headlines

[url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/google-firing-of-damore-was-legal-u-s-labor-panel-lawyer-said]Source[/url] [QUOTE]Google’s firing of an engineer over his controversial memo criticizing its diversity policies and “politically correct monoculture” didn’t violate U.S. labor law, a federal agency lawyer concluded. Statements in James Damore’s 3,000-word memo “regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive” that they fell outside protections for collective action in the workplace, an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday. Damore withdrew his complaint in January and his lawyer has said she’s focusing instead on the engineer’s lawsuit accusing the internet giant of harassing him and others over their conservative political views. When he was dismissed in August, Damore accused Google of violating the employee right to engage in "concerted activity" to address workplace issues, a category which the labor board has found can include forms of activism ranging from lawsuits to strikes to social media posts. “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law, the labor board’s attorney, Jayme Sophir, said in the Jan. 16 memo. But Sophir went on to find that Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law. Because companies have a duty to comply with equal employment laws and an interest in promoting diversity, “employers must be permitted to ‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace,’ rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action," Sophir wrote. The company “carefully tailored" its messages in firing Damore and in addressing employees afterward "to affirm their right to engage in protected speech while prohibiting discrimination or harassment." Google also disciplined one of Damore’s co-workers for sending him a threatening email in response to the memo, Sophir said. [/QUOTE]

I would be interested in exactly which parts were considered "so harmful, discriminator, and disruptive" as to be outside of protections.

Nothing he said was discriminatory. In fact, he did nothing but push for the opposite, just in a way that actually works. Complete bullshit. [QUOTE] Statements in James Damore’s 3,000-word memo “regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive” that they fell outside protections for collective action in the workplace, an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday.[/QUOTE] Like this is just blatantly false.

heres the memo if you want to have a read through [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversitymemo-static.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf](link)[/url]

The memo uses mature discussion that anyone would agree with as a veil against his interspersed goal of causing unrest in the workplace for the advancement of conservative values. He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye rather than a genuine effort to balance social values by having dialogue in-company. He gets to play victim knowing the shitstorm it would cause, and his resultant firing. [quote]Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.[/quote] Conservatives are better employees. [quote]This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause[/quote] The Left is overly sensitive, Politically Correct, and violent. [quote]Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”[/quote] The Left are communists and communism is a failure, but since they failed they decided to take over our genders. Truly the work of a stable employee who just wants the best for Google.

[QUOTE=bitches;53138264]The memo uses mature discussion that anyone would agree with as a veil against his interspersed goal of causing unrest in the workplace for the advancement of conservative values. He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye rather than a genuine effort to balance social values by having dialogue in-company. He gets to play victim knowing the shitstorm it would cause, and his resultant firing.[/quote] Except he didn't release it to the public, nor did he write it for it to be read by the public eye. [quote]Conservatives are better employees.[/quote] That's not what that statement means. He says that people who are in higher percentiles of conscientiousness tend to be conservative. Conscientiousness tends to help in an environment where higher difficulties of work are present. It is also worthy of note that there is an overlap that exists, which means that there can be people who are liberal and also very conscientious. [quote]The Left is overly sensitive, Politically Correct, and violent.[/quote] No, he said the Authoritarian-Left tend to use violence and shaming to advance their cause. That is not an unsubstantiated claim considering that Authoritarianism is inherently controlling in nature. [quote]The Left are communists and communism is a failure, but since they failed they decided to take over our genders.[/quote] Literally no where does he say "The Left" in this statement, nor does he even correlate liberals to what he actually identifies. [quote]Truly the work of a stable employee who just wants the best for Google.[/QUOTE] If you have seen any interview of him you would know James is a pretty stable guy. He's very mild-mannered and soft-spoken and is clearly on the spectrum. When an engineer is presented with a problem (the problem being Google and their dubious efforts to increase employee diversity), he's going to do it because he wants the best for the company. That was his intention in writing the memo. So, not only are your summaries inaccurate, your basis for criticizing it as a thinly veiled smear piece is also incorrect. You're also just flat-out ignoring the single most important part of his point, and that is there is characteristic overlap between not only men and women but conservatives and liberals as well that cannot be ignored.

[QUOTE=bitches;53138264]He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye rather than a genuine effort to balance social values by having dialogue in-company.[/QUOTE] I thought he did only release that company-wide, and somebody else posted it publicly? Not sure though. I could very well be remembering it incorrectly.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53138309]I thought he did only release that company-wide, and somebody else posted it publicly? Not sure though. I could very well be remembering it incorrectly.[/QUOTE] You're correct. He released it to an internal group of employees at Google that evaluate these sort of things, and they leaked it on their own volition.

He tried to submit it as feedback to a mandatory training he had to attend. The people who ran the training never replied; So he released it for people to view and comment on in an internal forum at Google that somebody leaked to the public later. This resulted in Gizmodo releasing a gimp version without the sources attached which was incredibly sleezy. [quote]At the summit, Damore told a Google HR representative that "he believed some of the positions taken by Google were divisive and misguided." At the end of the program, the lawsuit says, participants were asked to provide written feedback, so Damore wrote the first draft of his memo and sent it to Google's HR department as part of his feedback to the event. Damore didn't stop there. In early July, Damore posted a copy of the memo to an internal Google forum used to discuss diversity issues. He also "emailed individuals responsible for Google's diversity programs, the Women at Google Program, the Code of Conduct team, and Google HR." He pointed out that some of Google's training and recruitment programs were specifically reserved for women and minorities and asked whether it was legal to exclude white men from these programs. He told the Google Code of Conduct team that he believed "some of Google's policies were not being applied equally." Unfortunately, the lawsuit says, "Damore's complaint about Google's illegal hiring and employment practices were never investigated or pursued by Google HR, other than by firing him." Damore wasn't done. He went to another diversity event later in July, where he again raised concerns about viewpoint discrimination at Google. When Damore objected to the premise of one session focused on the concept of white male privilege, the lawsuit says, other Googlers "laughed at him derisively." At the end of this event, Damore submitted yet another copy of his memo—updated with some changes suggested by some other Googlers who saw the first draft. Damore still wasn't done. On August 2, he submitted the memo to an internal mailing list. Finally, the memo began to circulate more widely within Google, and it began to elicit the broader debate he had been craving. It also leaked to the technology press, causing a public furor. The result was an intense backlash. "You're a misogynist and a terrible person," one Googler reportedly wrote to Damore in an email. "I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you." "If Google management cares enough about diversity and inclusion, they should, and I urge them to, send a clear message by not only terminating Mr. Damore, but also severely disciplining or terminating those who have expressed support" for his memo, another Googler wrote in an internal discussion forum. Damore's critic got his wish—he got fired on August 7.[/quote] [url]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/lawsuit-goes-after-alleged-anti-conservative-bias-at-google/[/url] [b]EDIT[/b] The most ironic part is how the CEO who was gung-ho to fire him, literally used one of his exact points to explain why women are not interested in tech field. [quote]To which Wojcicki replied, "I think the problem is, is that computer science as a whole and tech as a whole has a reputation of being a very geeky male industry. And so if you look, not within the industry, but just as an educational pipeline, you see that we only have 20 percent of women graduating with computer science degrees, and that’s a problem in and of itself, because that means we don’t have enough people graduating who have those degrees. And you say, well, why is that? I think it has to do with these perceptions that the computer industry is, a geeky, not very interesting, [b]not social industries[/b], and it just couldn’t be further from the truth."[/quote] [media]https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/958138574171287552[/media]

Reading more about his employment history with google I'm surprised he wasn't fired earlier tbh.

[QUOTE=bitches;53138264]The memo uses mature discussion that anyone would agree with as a veil against his interspersed goal of causing unrest in the workplace for the advancement of conservative values. He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye rather than a genuine effort to balance social values by having dialogue in-company. He gets to play victim knowing the shitstorm it would cause, and his resultant firing.[/QUOTE] It's hardly offensive, if not totally accurate, but I don't think firing someone for having the wrong opinions is... a good idea?

So the lawsuit is still continuing? Not only that, but this article isn't about whether the NLRB came to a decision but rather a memo an associate counsel wrote? I can't find anything in the article saying the NLRB actually ruled on the complaint. Edit: Slightly more info at the wired article(Has the lawyer's memo linked in it) [URL]https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-james-damore-was-legal/[/URL] Counsel advised the NLRB Regional Director to dismiss the complaint, but Damore withdrew it claiming to want to focus on the lawsuit instead.

[url]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V0iwJ7pMRvH_he76i7l7vOyFxDQUQkqg/view[/url] Looks like this is the official legal document used in the complaint for anyone who's curious. [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/fGAc3Tc.png[/IMG] Some of the allegations look pretty bad.

It's hard to take anyone's side in this situation.

[QUOTE=Saxon;53138365]Reading more about his employment history with google I'm surprised he wasn't fired earlier tbh.[/QUOTE] [t]https://s17.postimg.org/4dogb0ken/damore.png[/t] You reading the same thing I am reading? Or did you just skip the majority of his actual employment and focus on the internal memo bit?

I think it's wrong to suggest you can't be discriminatory if you argue from a point of biological science. Like eugenics developed out of our understanding of genes, I don't think anyone would argue that eugenics doesn't have chance for abuse. I think that's why this legal attempt failed anyway. They felt the conclusions reached by damore were discriminatory even if the science he sourced was sound.

So is there more to this than the linked memo he made or did Google just fire him for releasing that? Either way I think he made a few legitimate points (even though I don't agree with much lf what he said) and it's sure as hell not worth firing someone over that alone - but if this other stuff did take place I can understand a little more now.

[QUOTE=Tudd;53138473][t]https://s17.postimg.org/4dogb0ken/damore.png[/t] You reading the same thing I am reading? Or did you just skip the majority of his actual employment and focus on the internal memo bit?[/QUOTE] People in this thread seem to not even know the story at all, yet already jump to conclusions (see bitches post above)

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Xo3B3Ws.png[/IMG] I dunno guys, that sounds pretty biased to me.

James Damore has more or less been destroyed by a dishonest media over something that mature adults should be able to talk about without freaking out.

[QUOTE=bitches;53138264]The memo uses mature discussion that anyone would agree with as a veil against his interspersed goal of causing unrest in the workplace for the advancement of conservative values. He released it as a highly publicized smear piece for the public eye rather than a genuine effort to balance social values by having dialogue in-company. He gets to play victim knowing the shitstorm it would cause, and his resultant firing.[/QUOTE] I'll give you that the title and some of the text is somewhat provocative, but it remains roughly as polite and down-to-earth as it could've been without being academically abstract. It presents and attempts to justify the author's opinions and suggests policy changes (none of which stand to lower anyone's status within the organisation let alone get them fired). It does not attempt to pressure or call out or threaten anyone. In the current Bay Area climate, do you see [I]any[/I] way for someone like Damore to publish his complaints about a trend that [I]did[/I] endanger him personally (and indeed got him kicked out) and he believes harms the company and the industry as a whole in the long term, [I]without[/I] either causing a shitstorm or being heard by no more than 5 people and remaining completely inconsequential? Sure, he would've had to be pretty oblivious to not expect things to blow up in his face, swiftly turning him into a PR liability and getting him fired. But he had no way of avoiding that other than to [I]shut up[/I]. If you blame him for "playing victim", then unless you sincerely believe there is a way for Googlers and the like to do effective political activism that vaguely runs counter to SJ causes without endangering themselves (in which case, please enlighten us), you at minimum accept the lack of one as the lesser of two evils. And - I'm not claiming you fall into that group, I wouldn't know - there sure seems to be an ever growing number of SJ activists in tech these days who actively wish to cast their political opponents out and consider threats to their careers (or worse) acceptable means to an end, or even actively wish them harm (as opposed to merely valuing their concerns and free speech below SJ goals). [editline]---[/editline] That said, I do think Damore's conduct after being fired has been mostly populist attempts to stir shit up (he probably doesn't have a lot of career options left besides attempt to stay relevant as a Miloesque provocateur). As for the lawsuit, I'm guessing it's half attempting to draw the public's attention to as many points as possible, half the common practice of sticking as many complaints in your suit as possible in the hopes that at least one of them sticks.

As a general rule I find conservative ideology to be basically worthless, but that in no way justifies the utterly absurd misrepresentation of this memo and the person who wrote it. People have no idea what the memo even says and they assume they're qualified to speak on how the person who wrote it is an evil bigot.

I'm glad i can chalk this up as another instance of Americans loosing their shit at each other for no discernible end-goal.

[QUOTE=Reshy;53138366]It's hardly offensive, if not totally accurate, but I don't think firing someone for having the wrong opinions is... a good idea?[/QUOTE] They didn't fire him for his stupid and incorrect opinions, they fired him for violating company policy in order to spread them.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53138552]I think that's why this legal attempt failed anyway. They felt the conclusions reached by damore were discriminatory even if the science he sourced was sound.[/QUOTE] According to the article, the legal attempt is still proceeding. This article is an opinion piece from a general counsel lawyer. There was no decision made.

[QUOTE=Paramud;53139220]They didn't fire him for his stupid and incorrect opinions, they fired him for violating company policy in order to spread them.[/QUOTE] Except that everyone else in the company was seemingly free to share theirs? Even management got in on it: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/sPJAOVg.png[/IMG] Now, I don't care about how accurate or not the memo is, but I don't think selective enforcement of company policy is ethical.

[QUOTE=Reshy;53139243]Except that everyone else in the company was seemingly free to share theirs? Even management got in on it: [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/sPJAOVg.png[/IMG] Now, I don't care about how accurate or not the memo is, but I don't think selective enforcement of company policy is ethical.[/QUOTE] I googled around and this woman appears to have left google in 2016, long before damore even wrote his memo.

Damore is a demonstration why media's formula for mass distrust is being simultaneously gigantic but also grossly irresponsible. It's incapable of evaluating and reporting on those debates and discussion of sensitive issues that often have to take place behind closed doors and among people who are far more diligent than journalists. We've become a very complex information based open society while media has become more concentrated and its spotlight more powerful. It's a failure of capitalism and part of the erosion of democracy

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53139286]I googled around and this woman appears to have left google in 2016, long before damore even wrote his memo.[/QUOTE] According to the lawsuit he was employed at least four years? That's still two years around a manager that felt it was okay clearly stating their biases, and I don't think it's fair to say that they cannot use that experience as a basis for his claims just because they left the company before it was published.

[QUOTE=Reshy;53139328]I don't think it's fair to say that they cannot use that experience as a basis for his claims just because they left the company before it was published.[/QUOTE] It's more that google can't really crack down on someone who no longer works there