Private business, Clothahump. “Expressing an opinion” is not a protected cause for challenging termination AFAIK, much as I’d like it to be. (Plus he did a lousy job of supporting the opinion. He just said supporting evidence exists but does not point to it) His publication created a disruption and once it got out, the public image of the company would be affected no matter what they did.. So it is within their discretion to cut their losses.
Now, were I the employer I could have gone in their place for a “this was the wrong way, wrong time and wrong venue to bring this up and you should have known that”, or a “you were aware of what the company’s policy is, and that it’s a settled matter not up to further debate; you are obviously the wrong fit for our workforce” as the parting shot. But that’s just me.
Do you have an example of someone posting on a public employee forum that blacks were inferior and should only be hired for menial jobs?
There is a passage in the novel 1984 about how the Declaration of Independence could not be translated into Newspeak, because there is no word in Newspeak for the concepts expressed besides “crimethink”. The opposite concept is “duckspeak”, where the speaker automatically repeats the approved phrases without having to think about it.
The memo cited isn’t duckspeak, therefore, it is crimethink.
Google needs to fire the person who hired this piece of scum in the first place. You get a feel for a person when you interview them. So this person knew what a waste of a human being this guy was when they interviewed him yet hired him anyways. These alt-right assholes need to be out a job and homeless so they’ll learn their lesson.
Sorry, but do you or do you not think that private companies should have the ability to choose who they fire, hire, and retain, or do you think that should be subject to governmental approval in all cases?
I think this might be a problem in and of itself. Something so long and so dense allows people (critics) to extract more offensive passages while the author’s message, however valid (or not) it may be, tends to get muddled.
Now that I actually made an attempt to read the manifesto itself, I have to say that I don’t think he was going out of his way to be an asshole. He was probably engaging and putting into an email what many of us might think of as bar stool talk.
I frequently disagree with Shodan but maybe he has a point here. I, for one, don’t think the automatic response ought to be dismissal every time someone writes something that offends the sensitivities of others. There could be intermediate interventions such as a suspension, sensitivity training, and an apology. I think this is why some people have a jaundiced view of “political correctness”.
Did I say that? Of course they’re not being ‘tricked and compelled’. They’re being culturally encouraged to become politicians by, e.g., mass media portrayals of women politicians in excess of their actual numbers, children’s books, schoolteachers and parents, etc… No one is tricking or compelling anyone here.
What would you consider strong evidence that differences between male and female trait distributions are biological rather than culture? Let me know what sort of evidence you’re looking for and then I can go ahead and see if I can find it.
I would say that the fact that within-gender differences in things like leadership ability, innovation, empathy etc. are linked to prenatal testosterone and estrogen exposure suggests that the same factors explain between-gender differences as well. Here are a few examples of cognitive and psychological traits linked to prenatal androgen exposure (they’re using the 2D:4D ratio as proxy for that).
[ul]
[li] Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.[/li]
[li]This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.[/li]
[li]The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.[/li]Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
[li]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. [/li]
[li]Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.[/li]
[/ul]
It’s a far more thoughtful and nuanced piece than most articles have given it credit for, not that I agree with all of it. It’s definitely comes from one extreme of the debate. Unfortunately, that’s where we are today. You have to be a complete idiot to publicly dispute the all demographic discrepancies are due to biases line and only someone on the extreme is going to disagree enough to risk their career.
There was much I don’t agree with either, (and it’s poorly written) but overall it was mostly a respectful attempt to have a conversation. I wouldn’t have fired the guy. A simple, “thank you for sharing, but Google disagrees with your analysis” would have been sufficient. They had every right to fire him, but I don’t think it was necessary.
If he kept it to himself, he would be accused of not speaking up; if he condensed it into fewer vaguer pages, he would be accused of making wild fuzzy generalities; if he did not speak up, that would be complacently accepted as everyone agrees with the status quo. Etc…
No matter what you do, they will find a reason to screw you.
Alienating 1/3 of his co-workers is pretty poor judgement.
Completely misunderstanding the field of tech is also pretty poor judgement.*
Stuffing his paper full of stereotypes without a citation or sourced claim is poor judgement.
This needs to be reiterated. His memo was the textbook definition of creating a hostile working environment. Can you reasonably put any women on the guy’s team ever again? Google relies heavily on peer-review rather than a top-down review. Do How do you deal with reviews he’s given to women when he’s stated he doesn’t think they’re as capable and driven as men?
*I work in engineering. The stereotypical engineering part of what I do (e.g. crunching numbers) is the entry level stuff. The high level stuff is communication, persuasion, and integration of the stereotypical engineering stuff. A graduate with a BS can come in and start crunching numbers, but it’s the Vice President who authors the policy papers and who testifies in court. The Google Guy completely dismisses the communication and empathy portion of the job in his diatribe. Code/equations is not the goal, code/equations is the tool.
I want to add that it’s not that he can’t/shouldn’t discuss diversity and efforts to hire women in the workplace. It’s that he did it in a way that was incredibly alienating and dismissive of his female coworkers. There’s an ocean of difference between “Google’s efforts to make diverse hires are hurting the company and result in us passing over better candidates,” and “Women aren’t as good in tech because of prenatal testosterone [citation needed].”