Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.
I re-read his memo. I think it was wrong that he was fired, despite the fact that I can't actually agree that his memo was correct. He cherry picked much of his research and actually made a few over arching claims that are not well supported such as biological differences being represented in women vs men across cultures. He reached in a few places.
That being said, I don't know him personally, but I respect that he actually RESEARCHED and tried to have a dialogue, which unfortunately is lacking in today's society on both the left and right. I respect that he has an opinion, he shared it, he suggested changes and he actually seemed to be trying to reach the same goal that diversity programs are trying to reach but offered a critique.
I'm quite upset about how he was treated, and I wish that he took the lawsuit to it's natural conclusion in court rather than settling.
I think we can all agree, the main issue today is in our effort to create safe spaces and make the public forums safe for all, we've completely removed our ability to rationally think and listen to others viewpoints. What is offensive to the sensibilities of one person maybe completely rational and sane to another.
One of the reasons the legal system (supposedly) works is because it attempts to remove emotion from the process to provide a fair trial. I may not like the individual and think that they are guilty, but that doesn't matter. We need overwhelming evidence to determine that they are. We need to learn to put our differences aside and listen to the perspective of the other side and empathize. There is usually at least a grain of truth to what is being said. Without this, it's a pointless shouting match.
I think it was wrong to fire him and that he genuinely had no ill intend. More detrimental are voices that attest pervasive sexism in the industry and that women are oppressed by computer nerds, but it is no competition.
It was in conflict with the goals of management to get more women into tech. I also think such a memo (haven't read it) can put women under more scrutiny, even if it describes general trends that might not be applicable to individuals.
I think he is someone who can easily make the distinction in contrast to his accusers and everyone who studied computer science knows the demographics. Discrimination can be ruled out as a main factor easily. But even if the opinion of his accusers is dead wrong on all levels, management has decided that employment is not beneficial anymore. Science or not.
Backed by much of the media, and many spineless corps.
It was a convenient mistruth (for corps not wanting to threaten their bottom line with unwinnable controversy) that Damore is just a rabble-rouser;
You shouldn't pay too much attention to him, or read his actual memo, (or supporting links for context) - but if you are interested, we vox-plain the important stuff for you right here!..
Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics.
The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights.
Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work. To me that sounds like no one's essential rights were violated at all.
> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics.
That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel that has been used to slander him. Damore will be a case study at some point when reason returns and people look back and try to understand how it came to be that fools and liars became the arbitrers of what others were allowed to say and think.
I often find that the usual so-called defenders of free speech do not hesitate for one moment with that libel charge whenever they encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with.
We know that "Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." is factually false, considering that what should it be called if not libel?
> Google, a private corporation
Which by the way told its employees that they were free to publish their opinions and Damore acted on that premise.
free speech gives you certain right to say what you want to say, and express your opinion. It even lets you give your opinion on other peoples opinions.
It doesn't allow you to state as fact that someone holds an opinion that they do not. You can express an opinion, but there are limits on stating falsehoods, especially wrt other people.
you say "encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with", implying your statement about the memo is just your opinion, but you didn't say it in any way that suggests it was that subjective; and, making any unsubstantiated claim about a person is on shaky ground even if you did make it clear it was just opinion.
"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
" was of course a proposition, not advanced,but the propasition that it could not be debated was put forward.
Newsflash!! This was being debated 30 years ago. No evidence ever found, apart from < 50% women in STEM
"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."
Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying...
"women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"
That seems an acceptable interpretation only if it also means that "men and majorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics."
Because both are encompassed by the more general "people could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics."
And that's of course not the only interpretation possible, but the one you choose. You say it's because of "capability" but you could look at it in terms of "inclination", "interest", "comparative advantages" or other angles.
He literally had a list of suggestions for increasing the number of women in tech.
Much of the thrust of his essay was a critique of the methods being used to increase diversity, not of the goal or the feasibility of achieving the goal.
It was a technical critique. This method won’t work, kind of critique.
"Differences in traits" doesn't mean "incapable". You know what happens if you take a whole population and deprive them of adequate calcium and protein in their early years? You get a "difference in traits" as to their height. Damore made no Essentialist claims about race or gender. He was just trying to be helpful in explaining an observed phenomenon at one causal level back.
Mangalor said "should" rather than "could". Even then, I do not think that it could be interpreted like that. He talks about distributions of traits, the sentence that you quoted did not put minorities in a single box.
Not sure how this differs from a firing unless you are suggesting it was unrelated to the memo.
> his personal need to write long, politically charged, essays at work
You don't know the context. He didn't force the memo on people - he was actively encouraged to provide feedback to a forum on this exact, politically-charged, topic; then that memo was leaked, without his permission, (to unfriendly, politically-charged outside recipients) when someone found issue with it.
The insinuation "write long, politically charged, essays at work" that he abused company resources to do his own thing, versus being encouraged to engage with politics (which google does) and then finding himself on the wrong side of opinion is exactly the kind of abusive framing that hit-pieces used.
> women and minorities on staff
Who saw the memo because someone tried to offend them with it - not Damore. I don't disagree that sensitive topics might not be appropriate for wider audiences, but Damore is not responsible for that. No one was fired for leaking the memo, nor are media outlets being sued for propagating a false, offensive representation of the memo.
To be clear "women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics" is not something Damore said, it is something the media said, attributing it to him. It is the media therefore that owns these words and the offence they (and their distribution) caused. Not only did they slander Damore, but they also caused the offense Damore was fired for.
I have just reread the first few pages of his memo. I had forgotten, it has been a few years. It is naive, pompous, and offensive to people who have been fighting against the currents of prejudice and bigotry for generations.
I don't know Damore personally, so this concern might not apply, but I wonder if neuro-atypical folks aren't the hardest hit folks in the current reenactment of The Crucible.
EDIT: And The Scarlet Letter seems relevant as well.
