I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian.
Not the Tweeters shaking with anger and demanding for him to get fired.
Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand.
Not the diversity officer reaffirming the commitment to diversity in a dystopian way.
It is scary, it really is. We have all grown up learning about regimes like this, we are all aware, yet seemingly nobody can help themselves.
Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that.
But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here."
IANAL, but it is illegal for employers to use the threat of firing to compel employees to take (or avoid) a political course of action.
Furthermore, it is illegal for employers to punish employees for speaking up about issues the employee believes affect working conditions (which was largely the premise of the employees essay).
Google side-stepped the issue by firing him for statements which may (or may not) violate anti-discrimination policies that just so happened to be in his essay.
They left largely unchallenged (and it seems to me, rather reinforced) the central complaint. Namely that Google was fostering a politically stifling atmosphere.
Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?
Consider the people within Google who declare their unwillingness to work with the person that believes in science and in treating people like individuals.
The author not only clearly stated this, he even included a picture to make it clear: https://diversitymemo.com/population-overlap.png
Does it really deserve a reaction of "You can't do that here"?
1) "... we will fire you, because you have generated negative press for us with this even though we had no explicit policy prohibiting this"
2) "... we will fire you because what you did has directly violated an explicit existing company policy"
3) "... we will give you a warning, and add 'workplace gender diversity' to the list of topics prohibited from public discourse by employees so that in the future we can fire people for this"
It's unclear whether 1) or 2) happened (I suspect it was 1), and they could have chosen 3). They didn't. And the poor sap probably doesn't want to consider a lawsuit against Google if it was 1) and not 2) even if one could argue wrongful termination. And that's exactly what authoritarianism is about, the power to make rules pretty much on the fly and expect those affected by your choices to play by them.
PS: Not taking sides here, IMHO the manifesto was dumb and the person sounded like a green'un who got a rude dose of reality from what he probably considered merely a provoking thought experiment/writing exercise.
And that's probably OK and kind of expected. To me what was interesting was that even the CEO had to not only denounce it, but also cut his vacation short to hold a staff town-hall.
I have heard people say he should get fired, but I haven't heard anyone saying he should be "expelled from society" or "forever vilified as an outcast."
Before, the major actor that could issue genuine consequences for speech was the state. The word "Consequences" in the statement "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", means a punch to the face or a stern shaming from townsfolk. You got on with it, kept doing your job, continued to live your life.
When the state objected to your speech, it would end your life, it would destroy you.
But fast forward to today. Suddenly loud demographics of people have the ability to destroy you in the long term, destroy your working prospects, smear your reputation, mark you as unhireable, harass you everywhere. State level consequences. It's no longer a punch to the face in a bar for obnoxious speech. It's no longer the "consequences" in "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences". Those consequences are now state level. How meaningless would this statement be if it was "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from the state."
"You're free to talk, no one will stop you, but we the state still get to destroy your life." How meaningless is that?!
You say people shouldn't be vilified as an outcast. But that's what will happen!
How is this any different than if I was to exercise my "free speech" to insult my CEO and found myself fired? This was a private corporation, operating in an at-will employment state. Now if the government had taken steps to censor speech, one could argue that we're in an authoritarian regime. But workplaces have always (at least since I've been working), been places where we voluntarily subject ourselves to private authority, or else quit or are fired.
I think it's widely accepted that work is generally a place where discussion of politics and gender relations is not appropriate. I know I do my best to avoid arguments on those topics at work, and that's fine. But when your employer explicitly encourages carrying out this kind of discussion in specific work-only forums, and then turns around and punishes you for it when some people throw a hissy-fit, that's gonna leave a bad taste in many people's mouths.
To use your example, if I insulted my CEO and got fired for it no one would be surprised. But if my CEO was soliciting honest feedback on their performance and then I got fired for pointing out some stuff they dropped the ball on, I'd be (understandably, I think) quite upset.
Could you give a link to that rant?
It seems like every time I make a politically controversial post on Reddit and increasingly HN, I can just CTRL-F my comment inbox and assure myself that there's some reference to punching in there.
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
You'd be hard pressed to find a company where leveling personal attacks against your co-workers isn't a fireable offense.
Freedom of speech isn't the same thing as freedom from the consequences of his actions. All it means is you can't be jailed or executed for it. You are not entitled to have people continue to have you in their lives.
Furthermore, his employer has a right to freedom of association, and they have chosen to exercise that right by ceasing to associate with him.
If this is authoritarian, than I will proudly call myself an authoritarian. Perhaps Hobbes was right after all.
That would be very disturbing, but that's not what's written in the document. Saying that there are average differences between groups, and that therefore people should be treated as individuals, is not at all like saying that all individuals in one group are inferior to another.
It was an internal memo, which someone else leaked.
Whoever leaked that memo was not fired though.
You can try to cloak it in a longform "civil" or "facts-based" document but ultimately what this man wrote was sexist lies a.k.a a steaming pile of shit.
FWIW I don't give flat earthers the time of day or try to humor them as being scientific either. You have to go back to arguing the basic laws of kinematics with them. Sexists are one of the same.
A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system.
Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity.
If you go down this road, there is only one destination.
I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibly mental expenditure to not follow that style of thinking.
Lol. He is fine. He got fired from one job, will find another one. What you describe however does sound like the price people usually pay for not being white males. So common we don't even think about it any more.
Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references?
Here's a copy with the references:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
> Women, on average, have more:
> ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)
> ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
> ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
A bit further down:
> Men’s higher drive for status
> We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Holy crap!
- Edit below this line -
This is not expressing a different opinion based on facts, but pure stereotyping.
As a person who appreciates logic in arguments, I wouldn't like to work or have an argument with someone who presents his views of the world as axioms without data to support them.
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
I wish he had posted the anti-echo-chamber parts on their own, instead of using them to decorate an argument on gender differences.
I assume you're talking about when the Department of Labor asked for more information on employees? If so, I don't believe they actually found any gender pay gap; they were merely asking for more data which Google refused to give up due to privacy concerns.
The judge ruled in Google's favor so it's hardly "hot water" (https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/16/judge-sides-with-google-in...)
Is calling my co-workers who are people of colour racial slurs a thought crime? Should I be fired for that, or should my employer tolerate it? Should I be allowed to make remarks about how evolutionary psychology tells me that women should be in the kitchen? Or that African Americans are predisposed to crime?
At what point does saying things stops becoming thought crime, and starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'? There has to be a point of crossover, somewhere, right?
If you said yes, you're an authoritarian stifling discourse. If you said no, then... Well, that's certainly a principled stance you can take.
This is the part of this whole thing that bothers me the most. You can't just close this debate down with proof by repeated assertion. Whatever you think about the memo, its author, or the views he's presented, it's simply not settled science and certainly not settled on the side you seem to think it is.†
The following should get you started:
* Steven Pinker & Elizabeth Spelke | The Science of Gender & Science | Mind Brain Behavior Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8
* http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...
Answering questions as complicated as "Why aren't there more women in tech?" is extremely difficult. There are likely lots of factors, all intertwined, difficult to untangle.
The idea that you could just say, "Nope. It's settled. It's 100% sexism and no other cause" is just patently absurd. Anybody telling you otherwise is full of shit.
† Note that the science on this question is independent of questions like "Should he have posted this at work?" or "Did Google handle this the right way?"
Likelihood usually change on the environment, just look at Uber.
They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not.
Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did.
They could have reacted with a "Google does not support or endorse the views expressed", and let the rest happen naturally.
This is censorship. Yes, it's within a privately owned company, but it is very clearly a suppression of intellectual debate. Why not encourage this debate to happen?
This black-and-white, all-or-nothing trend in public speech in general is very concerning. Debate and discourse no longer exist, it's simply one side flaming the other.
A small soon as this became publicly known Google had to take a stand one way or the other. They may not INTEND to, but a big chunk of the audience (on either side) would have seen it as such.
Heck if they tried to ride the middle some/many women may have felt betrayed and unwanted and some/many men felt ignored or slighted.
Is this view not pretty clearly authoritarian? It literally comes across like a comic book villain speech.
Is it not possible that there simply are intelligent people who disagree with you validly, and that shaming them into silence isn't the best solution?
Am I meant to work alongside a person who has literally said he wants me to die, completely seriously?
So at some point, there is a line - I feel the more interesting discussion is why you feel this isn't beyond the line - presumably it comes down to a matter you not believing there was harm caused?
For me, I think the obvious justification for the firing here is that this guy had hiring as a part of his responsibility, and this document is a statement he isn't going to be able to fulfil that.
If I'm a developer and I write a manifesto about how we should be writing code to optimise for the worst maintainability to keep job security, am I fair game to fire? If I'm literally coming out with a manifesto that says I'm not going to do the job I was hired to do (of part thereof), is it unreasonable to fire me?
In other words, I'm not sure whether the firing is to supress opinions or to punish putting the company in a bad spot.
Exactly but then in the statement, don't pretend people should have the ability to speak their mind freely. By firing the guy they basically closed that door entirely, they choose to inflict the maximum penalty they legally could on a guy that wrote an internal memo.
Google executives basically just said: "Anyone expressing any other view other than our official politically correct position will be excommunicated (fired) on the spot" then goes on saying "but hey, we like free speech you know ;-)". They are not fooling anyone.
You may agree with the manifesto author or not, but his thought were articulate. He provided evidence for his theories and at no point was he needlessly insulting to anyone.
I feel a better response form the Google team would have been to issue a statement defending and justifying their position: "Google executive team does not agree with those theories for reasons X Y and Z, and our internal measurements have shown that mixed gender teams perform on average better for X Y and Z reasons as shown by report foo and bar. We however agree with the author that gender equality is a difficult issue to tackle bla bla bla".
The discussion would have moved to the manifesto evidence vs Google evidence and we would have actually had something to talk about regarding gender equality. Now it's just about Google inability to cope with free speech inside the company, as shown by the Bloomberg article.
No, no, and no. Asserting that half of humanity is incapable of taking on pressure and responsibility is insulting, and suggesting that his rant was articulate or evidenced shows a serious lack of basic humanity. Strong words, but as I said, this is not a TV debate. This is a struggle. We won't convince each other here.
They are. At least that's how civilised societies would handle it. It could be a textbook example of a decision a civil discourse could approach.
Some have said, "Reacting to it would dignify it". Is that an endorsement?
> They are not.
Are you saying we can't use science to determine whether differences between the sexes exist?
> Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments.
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
PS. Why is your username green?
An account created just a few days ago. After some time it will become grey.
The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.
I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.
Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans.
If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
I don't work at Google, so I'm not.
The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it.
>I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself.
Yeah, thanks for the condescension - just because I haven't reached the same conclusion must mean I haven't taken "time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself".
>Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it.
Uh huh.
>If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
Why don't you try making an effort sometime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%2...
This is also nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
Imagine how surreal this must be for Damore.
In regards to the explosive nature of this episode, I think it is indicative of the people who seem to be going progressively more insane's realization that their little social engineering experiments curry no favor in the halls of reality and their misguided efforts are rapidly being washed out to the sea of history while the scattered sand from their tantrums is being transformed by the tide into a nice, orderly and peaceful beach for those of us in the reality-based community to enjoy.
I'm not 100% convinced that he didn't expect this. Some of the points he raised are valid and people should be able to agree to disagree. But the points about biological differences being responsible for women not being interested in STEM are controversial. I don't think Science is there on that - so raising them in this kind of a manifesto is inflammatory.
It is unfortunate that it took this memo to expose what a lot of people were previously afraid to say (from BOTH sides)
And Google has no choice but to clean up the mess with the right signals.
I don't think concern over diversity or sexism (which deserves its own calm debate) is what's driving this "nothing burger" story.
I've been seeing the stories from my software dev friends who happen to be women, and it's shocking that the same dumb shit is happening in 2017. "Wow, YOU'RE a developer?" "Hey, will she sit next to me?" etc etc etc etc.
So the memo strikes a nerve. That doesn't make it right or wrong, I'm not saying his being fired is this or that. What I'm saying is that it's not nothing: a lot of human beings who happen to be women and who happen to be software developers have been trying to fight these insane gender stereotypes that somehow are still being perpetuated.
As I look up and see this article flagged on HN (since unflagged).
The points and ideas from his memo may be wrong or they may be right (or anywhere in between) but more important than this incident has been the reaction to it. I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend the issues don't exist.
To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way."
Using the expansion in your paragraph:
=====
I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend that women and minorities are biologically as qualified for this job, or that their hires are as legitimate as anyone else's.
=====
That's what some people are hearing. Hopefully it's obvious why management at most companies would consider these discussions to be less than helpful in fostering the most productive work environment.
Accepting your characterization here for the sake of argument: if his claims are so laughably ridiculous as to be easily refutable, people should just have pointed to studies refuting it (of which there are plenty) and gone about their day. When you can't bring up a topic in a respectful way without being shouted down, it's a bad situation.
This generally happens when ideas presented in the conversation are radical and dangerous to a point the target people in the discussion feel an existential threat.
Look at the nature of this discussion. Presented in its simplest form, its a case for a merit based system. The socialist types don't like this, the very fact that merit is being discussed implies their entitlement to free resources at the expense of other hard working people is threatened. They can't allow it to go on.
You don't want people to start thinking about it.
And what's even more frustrating is Google's response of firing him. It makes me scared of working in the tech industry, luckily, I am a "minority" in both gender and race. Yet I can't help but wonder, if someday I speak up about my different views than the vast majority of my company, am I going to get fired for it?
When factoring in all the egregiously false headlines, news stories, tweets, etc. about this I think what is really going on is not lack of critical reading ability, but rather some people's willingness to tell outright lies and willful misrepresentations when someone points out aspects of reality that these falsehood peddlers would prefer didn't exist for whatever reason.
Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-eng...
Is there some reason the social disrupters only get all frothy mouthed about this in certain areas? Like shouldn't we spend much more time going after the NBA, Fishing, Logging, Elementary teachers, Nurses, etc. because these industries are far more out of "diversity balance."
Are people clamoring for a "proportional representation of the population" metric prepared to fire a whole lot of Asians and Jews at places like Facebook and Google in order to bring these populations more in line with their broader United States society proportions?
Is the ideal representation of women in tech (assuming sexism doesn't exist) 50/50? I have no idea, probably not.
Let me offer a counterpoint: I work on a team of 12 people with 0 women programmers. I'm personally convinced that's not ideal. So wherever the finish line is, I don't think we're there.
This NPR infographic seems to support that assertion, at least that seems to make more sense to me than an interpretation where programming became dramatically less attractive to women due to reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with sexism.
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/21/womencoding_wide...
If Google had not fired the guy, a large majority of women (and men) in Google wouldn't want this guy (as brilliant as he may be) in their teams - that would create an unnecessarily hostile and uncomfortable workplace.
There's a whole set of NGOs out there that mint money milking such issues, in the name of "diversity" while doing little to address the real issue.
Stuff like this is what the flag button on the site is for.
Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select your peers.
Google could have:
* Clarified the opinions shared are not theirs and they do not endorse them. * Clarified their existing position on the topic at hand (as they did). * Created or clarified a new policy on how such suggestions can be shared in a way less likely to be read by people easily offended by opposing views. * Created some training policies regarding how to effectively avoid or even (gasp) tolerate opposing views without taking personal offense. Perhaps this could be just after the microaggression training mentioned in the memo.
This whole idea that it's A-OK to preach the need for discrimination to account for effects unmeasurably attributed to white privilege, yet as soon as one suggests an alternative view, it's suddenly off-limits and political is ridiculous.
When I am afraid to say what I believe, for fear or ramifications, it flies directly in the face of what Google and others profess to trying to do: 'create a work environment in which all people, regardless of political affliation, opinion, or creed feels safe.'
The worst part for me, is that many in the valley (particularly on university campuses like Stanford's) have used the disguise of promoting diversity to battle ideas they disagree with. There is not enough emphasis on diversity of ideas.
young engineer, women, white, black,... we are all worried because of this event. The people who was scared to talk before now are not going to talk for sure.
Google's hand was forced because of the negative PR storm that happened, not because it systematically suppresses the voices of its employees.
> This algorithm is tuned by an internal team of evaluators. If the company silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our access to information?
I'm almost convinced that this is satire.
If you are right about something you don't need to silence/censor others. If you are not, then you do. The witch-hunt has to end.
Just like "inclusiveness" or "safe space". They do not mean what most people unaware of the political use of these expressions mean. These expressions are politically loaded.
The confusion is orchestrated, on purpose, by the ideologues who redefined these words. Who can say he is against diversity? inclusiveness? safe-spaces, off course people want to be safe! these are positive words. Until you actually understand that a safe space isn't a physical safe space but a ideological safe space, where dissidence is prohibited.
For the "ignorant", they mean one thing, for the ideologues, they have a complete different meaning.
I too was completely fooled by the post-modernist double speak and engaged in the attack of the people who were against these "concepts", I too engaged in witch-hunts, before I truly understood how these words were politically loaded and didn't mean what I thought they meant. It is extremely subtle and cunning. Redefinition of words is an extremely effective and manipulative weapon.
People say, well, keep politics out of work and you'll be fine. But if the internal rules at work use expressions such as diversity, inclusiveness or safe-space, these are politically loaded at first place! your work environment IS adopting the intersectional ideological framework.
Yes, indeed.
This is something we, as a culture, need to look at more carefully.
You should read it before you draw any conclusions. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (and how he says it), he does make some interesting points in a way that I would hope can promote constructive discussion. I definitely don't think he should have been fired just for the memo - maybe there is more to the story? - or maybe he shouldn't have been fired?
I would find more helpful if companies have programs to increase the tolerance and respect inside the company. Because the problem of sexims or racism are not the women or the black people, the problem is the people with prejudices. Adding to the company people of minorities is useless if the internal culture is a shit. At some point they will leave the company. I think Google made a step in the wrong direction and promote a worse culture with this action. People now will not talk about issues afraid of getting fired, even when they do it with respect.
The same people saying there is a wage gap are saying that every rich person is too greedy. So, if they're greedy and only care about money, why wouldn't they hire only women? They can pay women less and they only care about money. Are they saying that the only things ceos care about more than money is men? Doesn't add up.
This is a single issue, a single "one liner" that won't die. Remember the old story "if you flash your headlights at a certain gang, they'll follow you and shoot you". Sometimes lies are more viral than the truth. It's much easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. It hurts to be told you were fooled, it feels fun to be a fool.
This footnote is incorrect according to Harvard he never completed a PhD.
"HIGH-SCHOOL GIRLS ARE taking more Advanced Placement computer engineering exams than ever before, according to a new report from Code.org and the College Board. In 2017, largely thanks to a new test aimed at expanding the reach of engineering classes, female participation in these AP tests increased at a faster rate than young boys’ participation on the exam in 2017."
Source: https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/
Based on their diversity report, only ~200 (of ~20,000) software engineers are black, which is still likely an exaggeration, as I bet many are software engineers in test.
Regressive neo-liberalism is a cancer on society.
Edit - also sad that this keeps getting flagged. Dissenting opinions and debate is good for society.
163 pts in 37 mins, but flagged off the front page as soon as it appeared.
Does the number of flags required to trip the [flagged] trigger increase with the number of points and speed of those points on a story?
If not, why not?
Yes one could say rapid point accrual on a story of this nature is telling of a hot-button issue that and thus likely to create discussion not up to our desired standards.
But what I think is really being shown here is that this is an issue many feel is in much need of attention and the fact that a small group can just flag these so quickly when the rest of the community is saying this is important seems strange.
