
Firing expected of Google employee who penned controversial memo on women - akalin
https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/16110696/firing-google-ceo-employee-penned-controversial-memo-on-women-has-violated-its-code-of-conduct?utm_campaign=karaswisher&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
======
johnnyg
The original "echo chamber" memo was written clearly and respectfully. The
message was set out to encourage debate and make progress toward
understanding. This wasn't a fox news drive buy, trump rally or some alt right
rant. It was a real call for discussion.

Google comes back and makes it clear that this isn't a discussion and isn't
discussable. What? Google's response is that this is per se wrong. And what do
we do with a valid and stronger position as free people in a free society? We
put out our logic, blowing away the other idea with a rational counter
argument.

What we don't do is what Google is doing, what our society has been doing and
what it looks destined to continue to do for some time - declare we are
absolutely right without debate and start using the force available to us to
push our point instead of reason.

Yup, Google is a company. They get to do this. Remember when Google stood up
to China? Man I was proud of that. Google meant a bigger thing then, a
commitment to intellectual discourse.

Why can't we talk anymore?

------
smallnamespace
The saddest part about this spectacle is that the author and his detractors
are literally talking past one another.

The author did not say that his female colleagues can't do tech. He's saying
that the pool of talent in general population might not be the same size
across genders. A quick glance at CS graduation statistics shows that is
basically true today.

This is the same point that led in part to Larry Summers losing his job, when
he dared wonder aloud about why there weren't more female academics.

If you're going to fire a man, you should at least do it for what he actually
did.

~~~
tzm
I take it you haven't read the manifesto. Here you go:
[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-
Ideo...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-
Echo-Chamber.html)

Then read about the law of averages:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages)

~~~
Chris2048
What's your point about law of averages.

------
thowaway26539
Wow, it's not enough to even wait for this guy to get fired and then discuss,
right or wrong, but they even have to write articles just salivating with the
very anticipation of it...

This is a big group of people gathered around the stake chattering to each
other in gleeful anticipation of burning a heretic. Even if this guy is wrong
about everything, the spectacle is extremely disturbing.

------
sanxiyn
> Our co-workers shouldn't have to worry that each time they open their mouths
> to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo
> states, being "agreeable" rather than "assertive," showing a "lower stress
> tolerance," or being "neurotic."

Ugh, this is not okay. It is almost certain the author meant "agreeable" and
"neurotic" as two of Big Five personality traits (others being open,
conscientious, extraverted), this is standard terminology in psychology. And
it is indeed established that women score higher on agreeableness and
neuroticism, across cultures.

I'd think the right conclusion to draw is that Google should be a great place
to work even if you are agreeable and neurotic (alternative wording would be
sensitive). Instead, Pichai implies Google is not a great place to work if you
are agreeable or sensitive, and denies science that women are more agreeable
and sensitive. Denying reality is useless.

------
Overtonwindow
There's an interesting article on the front page that firing this guy might be
grounds for a lawsuit in and of itself. I don't think this guy should be
fired. Google should make him an example of their willingness to listen, have
thoughtful introspection, and consider all points of view. I truly hope this
person is not fired. Free speech seems to only work when you're the majority.

~~~
paulcole
>Free speech seems to only work when you're the majority.

Also helps when you're not at work.

~~~
flukus
Since when? The github transgender controversy a few years ago was about posts
one of the contributors made in a different forum. Brendan Eich was pushed out
because of his personal views. If this person posted it on his facebook page
the result would likely be the same.

~~~
paulcole
>If this person posted it on his facebook page the result would likely be the
same.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

Also, wasn't Eich CEO? Different standard there.

------
daotoad
While I can understand Google deciding to fire the author, he's embarrassed
the shit out of his company in a very public way, I think it would be sad if
they do.

The dude has some serious misconceptions about the world and people, but I
think his heart is in the right place. He's working from some bad assumptions
and has come to bad conclusions as a result. It's classic Garbage-In-Garbage-
Out.

I'd really like to see the Goog take this as an opportunity to really reach
out to this guy (and hopefully all the other software bros who give enough of
a fuck to pay attention) and help him understand better. If they can get
through to him, they will have a very persuasive proponent of reform on their
hands.

Also, treating this guy with respect and not firing him outright will
demonstrate that open conversation about _important_ issues is allowed at
Google.

And, in case it sounds like I agree with Mr. Bro Grammer, "wimmins is soo
emotional", I think the gentleman needs a solid walloping with a clue-stick.

~~~
Chris2048
> "wimmins is soo emotional"

Is that what he said? What are his bad assumptions?

------
flukus
> He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them
> less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

So now the CEO of one of the richest companies on earth is on record blatantly
misinterpreting what the guy wrote. This is the wildest dream of every unfair
dismissal lawyer the world over, they'll be lining up at his doorstep to take
on the job.

Aside from that, it's a text book example of why codes of conduct are such an
awful idea, they're a weapon designed to be used against anyone who steps out
of line. Usually vague enough that most people will violate it, but only
wrongthinkers will be punished for it.

~~~
davemp
> So now the CEO of one of the richest companies on earth

Even more frightening--one of the companies that has the most power in
determining the information that people see.

------
jacknews
"he sent across the company that said, among other things, that women just
can’t do tech."

I believe this statement is lacking truthfulness.

------
eelliott
I've noticed some people on Twitter, including Susan Fowler and Kara Swisher,
saying free speech is only a protection against government intrusion and
doesn't apply in the corporate sector. That seems to be mirrored in this
article.

The only thing I'd say is that those people should think carefully. Denouncing
and shrinking rights such as free speech and normalising their role as
negative rights when it is convenient to do so will work against their agenda,
and is in common with how people like Trump view other rights

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
I think you missed the point. Nobody is shrinking or denouncing rights because
right of free speech never protected against corporate sector sanctions. You
are the one who is trying to expand free speech to protect you in places that
no one intended.

~~~
snewk
maybe we need to re-evaluate free speech protections to bring them into
alignment with today’s world, where certain corporations can be (arguably)
more powerful than governments

------
davemp
> To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less
> biologically suited to that work

Didn't the paper suggest biological reasons for not entering the field and
nothing to do with capability?

~~~
throwgoog452
Yes! Men and women are of course _equal_. They're just _different_ , and
different people choose to do different things. Why is that so fucking
controversial?

------
paulcole
Good. If you don't see how sharing this in the workplace in 2017 was a
terrible idea, look harder.

