
Fired Google engineer files complaint, weighs legal options - rbanffy
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOOGLE_DIVERSITY_CAOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-08-08-18-42-15
======
rtpg
For those who discuss this as "being fired for wrongthink":

Companies fire people for lack of cultural fit. How is this any different?

~~~
Inconel
It may not be any different. In any case, and irrespective of this specific
case or how anyone might feel about it, I think it's probably a good idea to
be critical of claims like bad cultural fit when coming from corporate execs.
Yes, there are some people who are unable to act in a way that most would
agree is a professional manner, and indeed these people are toxic and pretty
much impossible to work with, however, I have a strong suspicion that bad
"cultural fit" in many cases is probably just an instance of bias and
essentially a weasel term to make it acceptable to only want to hire people of
specific demographics.

At this point I really wish tech would just abandon this whole "culture" thing
were the company hopes to be a center of social activity and just go back to
being a place people work and get a paycheck in return.

~~~
rtpg
I feel like this is a "keep the politics out of everyday life" thing.

Ultimately if you're working together, then personal differences come into
play (just like they do in other sphere of life). There are ways of
professionalising environments, of course

I think once you reach "people management" itself, then its basically in the
job description that this sort of stuff matters.

------
abc_lisper
What escapes this whole shebang is the fact that his post went _Viral_ inside
google. Would he have been fired if it didn't?

~~~
thephyber
Perhaps not. But I don't see the fact that he wrote it as the proximal cause
for his firing.

I suspect it's the fact that his PR event caused by the memo makes it harder
for the company to hire women and to draw a clear distinction between Google
company culture and, say, Uber company culture.

~~~
cookiecaper
Or, put another way, the PR makes it harder for Google to defend itself in
lawsuits from current or former female employees alleging discrimination.
Would failure to discharge Damore _itself_ constitute grounds for a complaint
of a hostile work environment?

There is some heavy legal machinery firing underneath the covers here, forcing
Google's hand.

------
joliv
I'm willing to bet Damore would win his case with the NLRB if not for the new
Trump members that will be on the board by the time he gets there. Eager to
see some deal with their simultaneous passion for speech freedoms and disdain
for the only remedy here—strengthening labor protections.

------
davidreiss
For the life of me I still can't figure out what he wrote that was so
offensive.

I see people attacking him in general terms, calling him a bigot/sexist/etc,
but they never mention anything specific he wrote.

Can anyone point to anything specific that is upsetting so many people?

~~~
ilaksh
The document is the definition of sexism and a perfect example of why we still
need diversity laws and programs.

Despite the attempts to provide disclaimers, many of the comments he wrote
were explicitly sexist. For example the sections "Personality differences" and
"Men's higher drive for status".

Sexism means prejudice related to gender. Prejudice means pre-judging a group.
For example the belief that women do not have as high as drive for status can
(and previously has been) used as an excuse for promoting men instead of women
or a particular man instead of a particular woman.

[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-
Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

And other comments. In the context of discussion of things like hiring,
promotion and pay, acting on the beliefs he stated has been outlawed (even
though unfortunately these biases are still very prevalent). If they do not
fire him, the document will be used as evidence in discriminatory lawsuits.

These sexist beliefs are still just as popular as ageist and racist beliefs.
Many may be able to find scientific studies that back up their prejudice.
There are usually studies backing up just about any view, just due to the
nature of science. Regardless of how well accepted or not these studies are,
the laws have already been made years before. So if you want these types of
prejudicial beliefs to be openly consulted in hiring, promotion, etc.
decisions in companies, those laws will need to be changed.

~~~
visarga
> Prejudice means pre-judging a group.

Would it be a prejudice to say women on average are less tall than men? Where
do you draw the line between "pre-judgement" and "statistics" (can we call it
post-judgement?). Height is OK but work drive is not OK to post-judge?

~~~
ilaksh
In this context it's clearly a prejudicial belief that he is promoting that
can have negative consequences for women.

Go ahead and bury my comments. Judges will eventually explain the laws to you
people.

~~~
baumy
The author took great pain to distinguish between traits having a tendency to
exist at higher rates within a group, and traits being exhibited by an
individual. You don't seem to have comprehended his point. Barring diversity
programs allowing members of select groups to pass a lower hiring/performance
bar, a person sitting at the desk next to me at work is just as likely to be a
competent engineer as anyone else, regardless of their gender. But if you were
to take 1,000 women and 1,000 men from a young age and treat them precisely
equally, there are strong scientific arguments that we should expect to see a
larger number of the men go into tech than women.

To reiterate, this says precisely nothing about the qualifications and
competency of individuals who actually enter tech, it only speaks to the
relative number of men and women we ought to expect our workforce to be
composed of. It could be that the natural result of equal opportunity for all
men and women to enter tech is for there to be more than 50% men, possibly
quite a bit more. Again, there is a lot of research that indicates this (for
citations, see the "manifesto").

~~~
aaomidi
How does this apply to other countries where women are higher in STEM and tech
than men? For example, in Iran more than 60% of STEM students are female.

~~~
baumy
I am not particularly knowledgeable about that, so I don't have much to offer
here. I'll take a stab, but I don't have anything to cite, and my opinions
aren't well informed -

For various reasons I don't want to go into on this thread, Iran is not a
society that I think should be looked up to and emulated. It frequently gets
cited as an example of highly misogynistic culture, and as far as I know has
plenty of laws / official practices that codify inequality of women in a way
that many other developed countries (e.g., the United States, countries in the
EU, etc) don't. I'm happy to be corrected on this as I really don't know all
that much about Iran, but I strongly suspect the people decrying the google
essay as being sexist would agree that Iran is not a good role model for
egalitarian society. Regardless, from what little I do know, if the structure
of Iranian society/culture is what it takes to get high representation of
women in STEM, is that really worth it?

I have one more thing to add - I found this video to be thought provoking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70&t=300](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70&t=300)

(I've linked to a specific time where the material is particularly relevant,
but the whole thing is worth a watch)

To summarize, that video makes the observation that less wealthy, less
egalitarian countries have higher rates of women in typically male
professions. Conversely, very rich and egalitarian countries have a lower
amount of women in them. The explanation for this phenomenon that is proposed
in the video (if I remember right, I watched this years ago) is that when
factors like wages, status, family expectations, etc are given less and less
importance, and people are therefore relatively more free to choose
professions based on desire rather than need, women tend to avoid jobs within
STEM fields. To be clear, that's merely one interpretation of the data
(although it sounds plausible to me), there are likely other valid ones.

~~~
aaomidi
Oh I was definitely not saying Iran should be a role model for the rest of the
world. I'm saying examples exist that prove the negation of the "biological"
argument.

Which brings doubt into, if we're raising boys and girls without considering
gender norms would boys really outnumber girls in tech?

~~~
baumy
I would not go so far as to say they "prove" the negation of the biological
argument, when there is so much evidence that points the other direction, and
a practically infinte number of confounding variables are involved if all
you're doing is pointing at a couple of countries like Iran and saying "look
at that". So I don't actually think it brings doubt into anything.

Personally, I think it's very likely that if a large number of men and a large
number of women were each given exactly equal opportunity to pursue whatever
career they wished, more men would pursue tech than women. I haven't seen any
data that contradicts this belief, but if I did I'd like to think I would
change my mind. Of course, I have no idea what range we should expect the
proportions to fall into. 51/49? 60/40? 90/10? Obviously this also means that
I have no idea if the gender representation we see in tech currently
accurately represents the population of people who would be interested in it,
given the opportunity. But I think the weight of the evidence that we _should_
expect more men than women in tech is much higher than the weight to the
contrary. Not knowing the exact numbers simply means that we should focus our
efforts on making sure _everybody_ has equal opportunity to pursue whichever
career interests them the most, as opposed to trying to reach some arbitrary
numerical threshold. As long as all people are free to make their own choices,
we shouldn't be concerned how the distributions turn out.

------
throwerway
> _Men and woman ARE equal._

I used to believe so, until I discovered there were thousands of studies
suggesting that statistically, men and women _aren 't_ equal.

Each one of these points is backed up by dozens of statistical studies.

Are there statistical differences between males and females in height? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in athletic
ability? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in memory recall?
Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in visuospatial
ability? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in short-term
mating strategies? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in long-term
mating strategies? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in partner
selection? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in partner
commitment? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in parental
investment? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in life
expectancy? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in aggression? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in neuroticism?
Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in suicide? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in infancy and
play? Yes

Are there statistical differences between males and females in wealth
inheritance to children? Yes

I could make this list 200 items long, it's crazy how many studies there are
out there. There's at least 50 years of research on this topic.

~~~
didgeoridoo
You're not parsing the difference between "equality" and "identicality".

Equality is about the rights one has, and how one should be treated as an
individual — equality before the law, and before society. We strive for a
society where men and woman are equal, blacks and whites are equal, straights
and gays are equal.

Universal equality, however, does NOT require us to believe that people are
identical in personality, in intelligence, or in any of the other dimensions
you've listed above. We don't even have to believe that specific groups, taken
together, are identical to all other groups in mean, median, and standard
deviation on these attributes.

People can be EQUAL without being THE SAME.

Edit: really bummed I missed the opportunity to make a JavaScript joke about
== vs ===.

~~~
throwerway
Edit: New accounts cannot reply so I rewrote my comment

I'm talking about equality in terms of attributes. The distribution of traits
in males and the distribution of traits in females, are not equal. So I will
not say males and females are equal. They do qualify as equivalent
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation)

I believe people should be treated as individuals, if you take two distinct
persons A and B, I don't believe they are equal. The only person equal to
person A is person A. On this vein, you can't say Group A is equal to Group B,
unless Group A and B are the same group.

You can apply equivalence relations to groups, which is basically a lower
threshold for equality.

~~~
didgeoridoo
I'm not sure where "equivalent" came from, and haven't really heard it used in
this context before. What do you mean by that?

Anyway, I think you've got it backwards. "Equivalent" suggests that men and
women are functionally interchangeable, which neither of us believes. "Equal",
on the other hand, has a long history of being used to carry social and
political meaning.

------
throwerway
Because evolutionary biology is fundamentally at odds with the core tenets of
Feminism.

Feminism is founded on the idea that males and females are equal. Biological
research over the past 30 years; specifically from the fields of genetics,
behavioral ecology, and evolutionary biology; directly contradicts this
premise. Evolutionary biology research tells us there are sex differences in
human males and females during all phases of the human lifecycle, including
prenatal, childhood, adolescence, mating, parenting, grandparenting, and
death. Behavioral ecology tells us we see these same effects in non-human
species too. Genetics tells us these traits are heritable and not socially
constructed (for example, the correlation between a parent's IQ and their
child is around .80, even accounting for adoption).

How does one reconcile evidence from a field of science, that directly
contradicts one's own beliefs? To protect one's identity, to avoid the
cognitive dissonance, the obvious answer is to discredit the field, discredit
the arguments, and discredit the person citing it.

That is why there is a concerted effort by Feminists, and supporters of
feminism in the media to squash statistical evidence that goes against their
ideology.

It is akin to telling a Christian that God is not real. You will receive a
similar response. Heretics must be punished.

~~~
matt_wulfeck
And the fact that you're writing this under a throwaway drives home how
difficult it is to have a discussion that goes against these ideas. You run
the risk of being bullied or shamed into quitting or simply fired.

~~~
throwerway
:) You get it

------
throwerway
Thank you. It's something that I think needs to be said.

One thing, about your point on 'gender deniers', I would try to avoid using
the term 'gender'. It's a term perpetuated by the left to avoid direct
conversation about biological sex. There has been a concerted effort to
separate the concept of gender and sex through justification by the social
sciences. This phenomena is not new, historically the social sciences have
always been used to justify the predominant ideology of the time.

Gender is considered a 'social construct' under the theory of social
constructionism, a philosophical theory not based on statistical evidence.
Once you start debating about what is 'Gender', you've already fallen into
their trap. I would use the term 'biology deniers' because it avoids people
from making roundabout arguments on what is gender.

~~~
dang
We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political and ideological battle,
regardless of which flavor they favor.

It's fine for community members who use HN as intended (i.e. for intellectual
curiosity) to also comment on divisive topics as long as they do so
thoughtfully. It's not fine to make throwaway accounts to post boilerplate
ideological talking points. Since that's what you've been doing, I've banned
this one. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969394](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969394)
and marked it off-topic.

------
noncoml
Getting flagged in 5, 4, ...

~~~
cratermoon
I notice no stories about how Damore lied about having a PhD from Harvard have
made it to the top.

~~~
fumigator
> I notice no stories about how Damore lied about having a PhD from Harvard
> have made it to the top.

[http://sysbiophd.harvard.edu/people/alumni/james-
damore](http://sysbiophd.harvard.edu/people/alumni/james-damore)

~~~
in_cahoots
Note how there's no dissertation or thesis advisor listed, unlike the other
alumni. Here's an article saying he didn't graduate more explicitly:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-
enginee...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-engineer-
fired-gender-memo.html)

------
imaginenore
Liberals / progressives keep missing the point - silencing your opposition and
calling them names only shows how weak your side of the argument is. That's
how you get 4 more years of Trump.

Fight bad ideas with better ideas, better arguments.

~~~
thephyber
> Liberals / progressives keep missing the point - silencing your opposition
> and calling them names

You're conflating a political movement with a company doing PR damage control.
Google management didn't "call him names".

You're not thinking about it like a corporate manager. Google is trying hard
not to be seen as just another Frat startup like Uber (albeit an older one).
They are actively trying to hire the best engineers in the world and this memo
just put a dent in their hiring process for 50% of their potential hiring
candidates.

> Fight bad ideas with better ideas, better arguments.

Of course.

The irony is that social conservatives are usually the ones to cry foul when
an employee sues a company for firing the employee for social/cultural
reasons. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, both political poles are
shown to be hypocrites.

~~~
davidreiss
> You're conflating a political movement with a company doing PR damage
> control. Google management didn't "call him names".

Google is heavily invested in the political movement. Lets not pretend google
is an objective observer in this.

> They are actively trying to hire the best engineers in the world and this
> memo just put a dent in their hiring process for 50% of their potential
> hiring candidates.

Can you point to anything specific that was written that would scare 50% of
potential hires? That is quite an assertion and I would love to here the
rationale for it.

> Now that the shoe is on the other foot, both political poles are shown to be
> hypocrites.

That's the point. Why are you defending one foot and not the other?

~~~
nikdaheratik
>Google is heavily invested in the political movement.

What "political movement" did the guy they fired represent? "All men are
created equal" is a political statement, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is a
political statement, "Half the world's population is unsuitable for technical
work because of their gender" is bigoted nonsense. That he tried to use
discredited pseudo-science to back up his statement doesn't make it any more
valid than bigoted nonsense from less educated people.

If he had kept his nonsense to himself, it wouldn't have been a major issue
for Google. But because he chose to share it with his coworkers, who then
leaked it, they were put in a position where if they kept him on, they would
be seen as endorsing the nonsense, but if they fired him, they were seeing as
joining in some kind of political crusade.

Bottom line: the core thesis of the "manifesto" was on par with eugenics,
anti-vaxxer propaganda, or anti-climate FUD. If someone in their HR department
was seen as embracing those ideas and encouraging their coworkers to put them
into practice, Google would probably fire them as well.

~~~
fooker
>Bottom line: the core thesis of the "manifesto" was on par with eugenics,
anti-vaxxer propaganda, or anti-climate FUD.

Awesome strawman!

Don't agree with someone? Equate their argument with something significantly
worse..

------
true_tuna
They fired him for making women and minorities at google feel unwelcome due to
their gender and ethnicity respectively. That's a violation of the company
code of conduct and kind of a dick move. People who work hard to become
experts in their fields should not have to continually prove that they are in
fact good enough and smart enough for the positions they have earned.

~~~
davidreiss
> They fired him for making women and minorities at google feel unwelcome due
> to their gender and ethnicity respectively.

What did he say that made women feel unwelcome? What did he say about
minorities?

~~~
aaomidi
Automatically assuming that women are there because the standards were lowered
for them. Indicating that when he's working with a female co-worker, he thinks
they shouldn't be there and the only reason they're there is because of
"reverse discrimination".

He spoke about affirmative action as well, but most of his arguments were
against women.

~~~
wst_
Now, I haven't got opportunity to read his note. Did he really said that? Or
people just assumed?

