• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Biases inside corporations

JustLeb

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Ars Technica

Google fired James Damore for a controversial gender memo—now he’s suing

Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Nguyen Hung Vu

Google engineer James Damore was fired last August after he wrote a controversial memo arguing that Google had gone overboard in its efforts to promote diversity. He generated widespread outrage by suggesting that the under-representation of women at Google was a result of women's lesser interest in software engineering—rather than discrimination within the technology sector.

On Monday, Damore filed a lawsuitaccusing the Mountain View search giant of systematic, illegal discrimination against conservatives and white men. He was joined in the lawsuit by David Gudeman, another Googler fired under similar circumstances.

"Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males," their lawsuit charges. Damore and Gudeman are seeking to represent all conservatives and white men who have allegedly faced discrimination at Google in a class-action lawsuit.

There doesn't seem to be much dispute about the facts in the case. Where Damore and Gudeman disagree with Google management, of course, is in how to interpret the events described in their lawsuit. Damore and Gudeman view themselves as bravely standing up to a left-wing political culture that systematically discriminates against conservatives and white men.

Their critics—including Google's management and many Google employees—viewed them as right-wing trolls who were systematically undermining Google's benign efforts to create a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

"We look forward to defending against Mr. Damore's lawsuit in court," a Google spokesman told Ars.

The challenge for Google is that while Damore and Gudeman's viewpoint is marginal inside Google, it's not entirely marginal in the broader world. Many conservatives—including the president of the United States—share the duo's view that "political correctness" has gone too far in corporate America. The lawsuit offers plenty of ammunition for people who hold this view—even as many other people will look at the same set of facts and conclude that Google justifiably fired a couple of recalcitrant troublemakers.

Damore was a persistent critic of Google’s diversity policies
One thing that's clear from the lawsuit is that James Damore wasn't shy about advocating the views laid out in his memo. Over the course of two months, he promoted them to everyone who would listen.

"In June 2017, Damore attended a 'Diversity and Inclusion Summit,'" the lawsuit reports. "Damore felt pressured to attend the event because Google proclaims 'commitment to diversity and inclusion' to be an important factor in deciding promotion to leadership positions."

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. **** 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.

“Gudeman compared this document to that which slave owners would have written”
The story of Damore's fellow plaintiff David Gudeman was broadly similar. In 2015, Gudeman received a memo written by another Googler warning against "derailment." It was a plea for white men to be more deferential to women and minorities during discussions of social justice issues.

Gudeman wasn't convinced—and he chose a particularly inflammatory analogy to illustrate why. According to the lawsuit, "Gudeman compared this document to that which 'slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters.'"

That got Gudeman reported to the HR department, who (as the lawsuit puts it) "chastised him for attempting to stand up for Caucasian males and his conservative views." Gudeman got a verbal warning.

Gudeman became a supporter of Donald Trump, and after Trump won the 2016 election he pushed back against the widespread anti-Trump sentiment inside Google. Another Googler wrote that "as someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim, I'm worried for my personal safety and liberty."

Gudeman "responded skeptically" to his coworker's claim, arguing that if he had really been targeted based solely on his religion, he should have filed a civil rights lawsuit over it. Other Googlers didn't take kindly to Gudeman questioning a coworker's story, and he was once again reported to HR.

"Google HR stated that Gudeman had accused [the Muslim employee] of terrorism based on [his] religion, and this was unacceptable." Gudeman was fired over the incident, according to the lawsuit.

Lawsuit portrays pattern of anti-conservative bias
After describing Damore's and Gudeman's experiences, the lawsuit tells the stories of other, mostly unnamed Googlers who observed behavior that seemed to be biased against conservatives and/or white men.

For example, in one case a Google employee wrote in an internal company message board that "if I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy from a very young age. Our degenerate society constantly pushes the wrong message."

The lawsuit says Google HR responded by writing to the employee that "your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men work outside of the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender identity at birth. We trust that neither is what you intended to say."

In the wake of the Damore controversy, a Google manager wrote, "you know, there are certain 'alternative views, including different political views' which I do not want people to feel safe to share here. You can believe that women or minorities are unqualified all you like—I can't stop you—but if you say it out loud, you deserve what's coming to you."

In another post, a Googler wrote about a promotion committee she served on. "2/4 committee members were women. Yay!" she wrote. "4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!"

Many of these anecdotes will look different to people with different politics. Fans of aggressive pro-diversity efforts are likely to see all of these as examples of Googlers trying to cultivate a tolerant and diverse workplace. In their view, advocating these kinds of views creates a workplace environment where women and minorities don't feel comfortable—and so the company is forced to choose between tolerating outspoken employees like Damore and Gudeman or attracting and retaining a more diverse workforce.

But for many conservatives, the lawsuit will read as a damning indictment of Google's corporate culture. Damore's defenders on the right will interpret a line like "4/4 committee members were white. Boo!" as straightforward evidence of discrimination against white people.View article comments
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
Right so technically he wasn't fired over a memo but for spending 2 months undermining Google's efforts towards being more inclusive! I can understand why someone constantly nagging about gender would become annoying ^_^

Also booh! What a horrible company policy! How dare they attempt to be more diverse and inclusive towards women! That immediately signifies they're discriminating against the white male!
 

JustLeb

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Right so technically he wasn't fired over a memo but for spending 2 months undermining Google's efforts towards being more inclusive! I can understand why someone constantly nagging about gender would become annoying ^_^

Also booh! What a horrible company policy! How dare they attempt to be more diverse and inclusive towards women! That immediately signifies they're discriminating against the white male!

Actually my take on this, if you permit of course ;) is that companies are a place to work and not a place for social debate and politics.
I believe Google is wrong for allowing such things inside its campus. Because this will create tensions between employees of different backgrounds and different schools of thoughts.
A company should be neutral in this regard.
But that does not mean it should discriminate against people, meaning anyone who fits the requirement for a job should be considered disregarding his color, religion, sex etc...
However, if M. James Damore is right about Google giving more chances to women and minorities just for the sake of being "inclusive" than this becomes discrimination.
Personally I recruited more girls than guys in my team throughout my career (tech industry), but I used the same scale for all candidates, and it happened that among those who applied girls were better than boys.
But after the story of Damore went public I took a walk in the open space, where around 500 persons are working, and I could count less than 15% of them women. Clearly there is a mismatch here, it should be investigated to know the reasons.
- if the reason is that software is less appealing to girls like Damore claimed, there should be ways to encourage girls to enter the domain, but not through bias, instead through describing the importance of softwares in human lives.
- if the reason is intimidation, of course measures should be taken to remove this intimidation and force the mutual respect on all colleagues.

I see the way Google is handling this (at least the way it is described by the media) is a total mess.
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
Actually my take on this, if you permit of course ;) is that companies are a place to work and not a place for social debate and politics.
I believe Google is wrong for allowing such things inside its campus. Because this will create tensions between employees of different backgrounds and different schools of thoughts.
A company should be neutral in this regard.
But that does not mean it should discriminate against people, meaning anyone who fits the requirement for a job should be considered disregarding his color, religion, sex etc...
However, if M. James Damore is right about Google giving more chances to women and minorities just for the sake of being "inclusive" than this becomes discrimination.
Personally I recruited more girls than guys in my team throughout my career (tech industry), but I used the same scale for all candidates, and it happened that among those who applied girls were better than boys.
But after the story of Damore went public I took a walk in the open space, where around 500 persons are working, and I could count less than 15% of them women. Clearly there is a mismatch here, it should be investigated to know the reasons.
- if the reason is that software is less appealing to girls like Damore claimed, there should be ways to encourage girls to enter the domain, but not through bias, instead through describing the importance of softwares in human lives.
- if the reason is intimidation, of course measures should be taken to remove this intimidation and force the mutual respect on all colleagues.

I see the way Google is handling this (at least the way it is described by the media) is a total mess.

I agree with you, it's well known that programming and the tech industry in general has a very skewed ratio in favour of the male gender... However we don't know whether Google is indeed trying to hire more females (sous entendu- even though they may not be the most qualified applicant) in favour of diversification... At least based on what I've read in the article Google is trying to be more inclusive and the guy who was fired spent two months undermining that, we don't really know how Google is going about their inclusivity

But yeah I agree with your post as a whole lol
 

Elvis left the building

Legendary Member
The problem isnt google

Its HR being infested by ideologues from the left

This is the problem with western companies

Lots of colored haired weird ppl being the new priests of ethics

Any cause, just or not, touched by these blind cultists turns to dust
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Why can religious businesses refuse services to people they claim "offend their religion" (like performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or selling cakes to same-sex couples, among a myriad of similar actions not restricted to LGBT individuals), but a private company cannot fire someone for failing to adhere to company policy? No respectable company will allow an employee to create a hostile work environment without punishment. This man knew what he was doing, and is now playing victim. He's about to get a life lesson in accepting consequences of his own actions.

My guess is Google will win this suit, and (if they're vindictive or just want to make an example out of him), they can bankrupt this fella by stretching out the court battles for as long as possible.

Besides, Damore got the science wrong: We've studied gender and STEM for 25 years. The science doesn't support the Google memo.. He's about to find out that diatribes of basement-dwelling redditors are not a substitution for actual scientific research and expertise.
 
Last edited:

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
- if the reason is that software is less appealing to girls like Damore claimed, there should be ways to encourage girls to enter the domain, but not through bias, instead through describing the importance of softwares in human lives.

That is not the only thing that Damore claimed, and this particular subject (software being more appealing to boys than girls) is not controversial. What is controversial is reason of this:
-Damore claimed that the reason why software engineering is more appealing to men is because women's biology and brain structure make them less able or suited to work in technology jobs. There is no scientific evidence for this claim; it merely perpetuates false gender stereotypes. Tell me -- do you think your daughters are less capable of working in technology field just because they are women? If not, stop defending this guy.
-Scientific research found that social norms impact the career choice of men and women. It is society, for example, that mold women towards being nurses and men towards being engineers, or towards playing with dolls and cars, respectively.
 

JustLeb

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
That is not the only thing that Damore claimed, and this particular subject (software being more appealing to boys than girls) is not controversial. What is controversial is reason of this:
-Damore claimed that the reason why software engineering is more appealing to men is because women's biology and brain structure make them less able or suited to work in technology jobs. There is no scientific evidence for this claim; it merely perpetuates false gender stereotypes. Tell me -- do you think your daughters are less capable of working in technology field just because they are women? If not, stop defending this guy.
-Scientific research found that social norms impact the career choice of men and women. It is society, for example, that mold women towards being nurses and men towards being engineers, or towards playing with dolls and cars, respectively.

I am not defending anyone, but I am defending everyone's right to ask the questions that they want without retribution.
Though I also think that corporations are not the right place for such debate and Google is wrong in allowing it.
I was 10 years old when I quarrelled with my father because he said men are smarter than women!
It was simply against my observations at the time. The first, not only in the class, but in the section (several classes) in my school was a girl...
I don't want anyone to put career barriers in my kids way especially to my daughters. I will give them advice but they are free to decide their future themselves (as I did myself against my initial parents will).

However after so many years in the industry, I have some observations that I can't ignore.
Most of the women I met in the industry (including those I recruited in my team) have left the "software engineering" after few years (usually 3). They went to what they call career evolution, like becoming business analysts, project managers and those posts do not have better salaries but of course do not require them to talk to machines all day.
On the other hand it is easy to see men with 10, 15, or 20 years in software engineering.
I participated to many coding contests and the difference in numbers between men and women is staggering! Although I never really counted, but saying 90% of the contestants were men is not an exaggeration.

Which leads to the logical question, what explains this difference ? Is it biology like Damore said ?
He has the right to ask such question, he might be right or wrong but it is something to debate and provide evidence or counter evidence. This does not degrade women ability nor intelligence to do whatever they like, because we are not discussing their intelligence but their preferences.

Now what Damore claims that women and minorities are given more chances than white men at Google (ex: given another chance if they fail the first time) , if true, it than constitutes an unfair discrimination.
However, I have some question marks here. I don't know about Google but I know several white guys who were recruited by Amazon and Microsoft after their second or even third attempt...
 
Last edited:

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I am not defending anyone, but I am defending everyone's right to ask the questions that they want without retribution.
Though I also think that corporations are not the right place for such debate and Google is wrong in allowing it.
I was 10 years old when I quarrelled with my father because he said men are smarter than women!
It was simply against my observations at the time. The first, not only in the class, but in the section (several classes) in my school was a girl...
I don't want anyone to put career barriers in my kids way especially to my daughters. I will give them advice but they are free to decide their future themselves (as I did myself against my initial parents will).

However after so many years in the industry, I have some observations that I can't ignore.
Most of the women I met in the industry (including those I recruited in my team) have left the "software engineering" after few years (usually 3). They went to what they call career evolution, like becoming business analysts, project managers and those posts do not have better salaries but of course do not require them to talk to machines all day.
On the other hand it is easy to see men with 10, 15, or 20 years in software engineering.
I participated to many coding contests and the difference in numbers between men and women is staggering! Although I never really counted, but saying 90% of the contestants were men is not an exaggeration.

Which leads to the logical question, what explains this difference ? Is it biology like Damore said ?
He has the right to ask such question, he might be right or wrong but it is something to debate and provide evidence or counter evidence. This does not degrade women ability nor intelligence to do whatever they like, because we are not discussing their intelligence but their preferences.

Now what Damore claims that women and minorities are given more chances than white men at Google (ex: given another chance if they fail the first time) , if true, it than constitutes an unfair discrimination.
However, I have some question marks here. I don't know about Google but I know several white guys who were recruited by Amazon and Microsoft after their second or even third attempt...

The problem is that Damore is not asking questions -- he is asserting falsehoods as facts. That's why his "manifesto" is controversial.

He wasn't fired for asking questions. He was fired because he asserted as fact that his female co-workers were less qualified to work in software engineering just because they are women. That is the definition of creating a hostile work environment.

No one disputes that more men choose to work in software/IT, or that the ratio of men-to-women is heavily skewed towards the former. Not only in software, but also in other STEM professions (including mine -- civil engineering).

No one is saying he has no right to question whether Google was discriminating in its hiring process. I, for one, do not think they are. This assertion of fact that they are stems from complete misunderstanding of what "affirmative action" means. No less qualified woman is taking the place of a more qualified man. Damore would be hardpressed to prove otherwise.
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
Ars Technica

Google fired James Damore for a controversial gender memo—now he’s suing

Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

Nguyen Hung Vu

Google engineer James Damore was fired last August after he wrote a controversial memo arguing that Google had gone overboard in its efforts to promote diversity. He generated widespread outrage by suggesting that the under-representation of women at Google was a result of women's lesser interest in software engineering—rather than discrimination within the technology sector.

On Monday, Damore filed a lawsuitaccusing the Mountain View search giant of systematic, illegal discrimination against conservatives and white men. He was joined in the lawsuit by David Gudeman, another Googler fired under similar circumstances.

"Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males," their lawsuit charges. Damore and Gudeman are seeking to represent all conservatives and white men who have allegedly faced discrimination at Google in a class-action lawsuit.

There doesn't seem to be much dispute about the facts in the case. Where Damore and Gudeman disagree with Google management, of course, is in how to interpret the events described in their lawsuit. Damore and Gudeman view themselves as bravely standing up to a left-wing political culture that systematically discriminates against conservatives and white men.

Their critics—including Google's management and many Google employees—viewed them as right-wing trolls who were systematically undermining Google's benign efforts to create a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

"We look forward to defending against Mr. Damore's lawsuit in court," a Google spokesman told Ars.

The challenge for Google is that while Damore and Gudeman's viewpoint is marginal inside Google, it's not entirely marginal in the broader world. Many conservatives—including the president of the United States—share the duo's view that "political correctness" has gone too far in corporate America. The lawsuit offers plenty of ammunition for people who hold this view—even as many other people will look at the same set of facts and conclude that Google justifiably fired a couple of recalcitrant troublemakers.

Damore was a persistent critic of Google’s diversity policies
One thing that's clear from the lawsuit is that James Damore wasn't shy about advocating the views laid out in his memo. Over the course of two months, he promoted them to everyone who would listen.

"In June 2017, Damore attended a 'Diversity and Inclusion Summit,'" the lawsuit reports. "Damore felt pressured to attend the event because Google proclaims 'commitment to diversity and inclusion' to be an important factor in deciding promotion to leadership positions."

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. **** 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.

“Gudeman compared this document to that which slave owners would have written”
The story of Damore's fellow plaintiff David Gudeman was broadly similar. In 2015, Gudeman received a memo written by another Googler warning against "derailment." It was a plea for white men to be more deferential to women and minorities during discussions of social justice issues.

Gudeman wasn't convinced—and he chose a particularly inflammatory analogy to illustrate why. According to the lawsuit, "Gudeman compared this document to that which 'slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters.'"

That got Gudeman reported to the HR department, who (as the lawsuit puts it) "chastised him for attempting to stand up for Caucasian males and his conservative views." Gudeman got a verbal warning.

Gudeman became a supporter of Donald Trump, and after Trump won the 2016 election he pushed back against the widespread anti-Trump sentiment inside Google. Another Googler wrote that "as someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim, I'm worried for my personal safety and liberty."

Gudeman "responded skeptically" to his coworker's claim, arguing that if he had really been targeted based solely on his religion, he should have filed a civil rights lawsuit over it. Other Googlers didn't take kindly to Gudeman questioning a coworker's story, and he was once again reported to HR.

"Google HR stated that Gudeman had accused [the Muslim employee] of terrorism based on [his] religion, and this was unacceptable." Gudeman was fired over the incident, according to the lawsuit.

Lawsuit portrays pattern of anti-conservative bias
After describing Damore's and Gudeman's experiences, the lawsuit tells the stories of other, mostly unnamed Googlers who observed behavior that seemed to be biased against conservatives and/or white men.

For example, in one case a Google employee wrote in an internal company message board that "if I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy from a very young age. Our degenerate society constantly pushes the wrong message."

The lawsuit says Google HR responded by writing to the employee that "your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men work outside of the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender identity at birth. We trust that neither is what you intended to say."

In the wake of the Damore controversy, a Google manager wrote, "you know, there are certain 'alternative views, including different political views' which I do not want people to feel safe to share here. You can believe that women or minorities are unqualified all you like—I can't stop you—but if you say it out loud, you deserve what's coming to you."

In another post, a Googler wrote about a promotion committee she served on. "2/4 committee members were women. Yay!" she wrote. "4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!"

Many of these anecdotes will look different to people with different politics. Fans of aggressive pro-diversity efforts are likely to see all of these as examples of Googlers trying to cultivate a tolerant and diverse workplace. In their view, advocating these kinds of views creates a workplace environment where women and minorities don't feel comfortable—and so the company is forced to choose between tolerating outspoken employees like Damore and Gudeman or attracting and retaining a more diverse workforce.

But for many conservatives, the lawsuit will read as a damning indictment of Google's corporate culture. Damore's defenders on the right will interpret a line like "4/4 committee members were white. Boo!" as straightforward evidence of discrimination against white people.View article comments

Great guy this damore, hope he wins his lawsuit and gets millions out of google and its aggressive positive discrimination policies.

When will people learn thats its about merit and not which colour or gender you are..
 

JustLeb

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Why can religious businesses refuse services to people they claim "offend their religion" (like performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, or selling cakes to same-sex couples, among a myriad of similar actions not restricted to LGBT individuals), but a private company cannot fire someone for failing to adhere to company policy? No respectable company will allow an employee to create a hostile work environment without punishment. This man knew what he was doing, and is now playing victim. He's about to get a life lesson in accepting consequences of his own actions.

My guess is Google will win this suit, and (if they're vindictive or just want to make an example out of him), they can bankrupt this fella by stretching out the court battles for as long as possible.

Besides, Damore got the science wrong: We've studied gender and STEM for 25 years. The science doesn't support the Google memo.. He's about to find out that diatribes of basement-dwelling redditors are not a substitution for actual scientific research and expertise.

Not serving some type of clients is a management or mismanagement thing, these decisions are taken and might present a risk of losing clients and markets.
This is different from firing an employee who successfully passed the interview process and is working in the company for sometime and then gave his opinion about something the company itself permitted the discussion about.

I read Damore memo long ago but I don't pretend I still remember everything, but what I retained from his multiple interviews (including the one on CNN) is that he said probably biology can explain the difference in preferences between men and women. He said he based his memo on some research (probably he misunderstood it), but in summary he said women are interested in people while men are interested in things.
So he thinks making it easier for women to go into Google will not solve the problem.
This what I understood from him.
And frankly I don't see where he faulted in this. The sheer difference in the numbers should make someone ask questions and also think if it is related to biology.
Thinking about biology does not mean women are less smart than men, it means they don't like the same stuff and I see this perfectly normal.


Finally if Google allows such discussions within its walls it should be ready to accept all types of thinking, it is not like you can discuss only if you are going to say something that I like ! this is no more discussion, this is North Korea
 
Last edited:
Top