
James Damore has an above decent chance of winning his legal case against Google - SirLJ
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-may-win-nlra-legal-case-google-2017-8
======
danso
WIRED's take: [https://www.wired.com/story/google-manifesto-author-just-
mig...](https://www.wired.com/story/google-manifesto-author-just-might-have-a-
legal-case/)

> _The labor-relations law usually applies to union organizing, says Wagner.
> But over the years the act has been more broadly interpreted to protect
> employees who discuss their working conditions with each other. That might
> include Damore 's memo, Wagner says._

> _Damore says he also plans to invoke a California law that bars employers
> from retaliating against workers who complain about illegal working
> conditions. He doesn 't have to prove that his working conditions were
> illegal, Wagner says. Instead, she says Damore's lawyer might argue that his
> memo was protected under California law, because it related to allegedly
> unequal treatment of employees._

Citing a law that was put in place to protect union organizers seemed weird,
but I guess it makes sense if there is precedent for interpreting it in speech
not explicitly related to union organizing.

Arguing that Google retaliated because he made allegations about
unethical/illegal corporate behavior seems like a much stronger case, since he
literally did make those claims in the memo.

~~~
richmarr
(Not a lawyer) I would have thought Google would be able to argue other
causes.

Damore said Google policies "lower[ed] the bar for “diversity” candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate"

That statement is (a) factually inaccurate, you can't lower the bar by
descreasing the false negative rate, and (b) slanders his colleagues hired
through that policy by saying the bar had been lowered to allow them in.

You could argue that the word "effectively" means he actually _meant_
something slightly different in point (a), but he still made the claim in
point(b).

~~~
imron
> That statement is (a) factually inaccurate,

In fact, depending on the circumstances, it's mathematically accurate. See for
example, my comment here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14987168](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14987168)

In the original memo, that statement also linked to an internal Google
discussion to back up his claim - which presumably detailed what he meant.
That's context that we are all missing. It would be interesting to see what
that discussion was about.

> (b) slanders his colleagues hired through that policy by saying the bar had
> been lowered to allow them in.

No he didn't. He talked about reducing false negatives, not increasing false
positives.

~~~
richmarr
To reply to your linked comment:

The "bar" is an approximated objective assessment of ability, not an
assessment of someone's ability percentile... as demonstrated by the fact that
Google policy hires 'people that pass' rather than 'top x% of candidates' or
'top y% of the population according to some measure'

To reframe the "bar" as being a percentile is inaccurate and excuses Damore's
misleading and inflammatory terminology.

~~~
imron
It really depends a lot on what he originally linked to when he said that.
Unfortunately, as mentioned, he linked to an internal discussion.

~~~
richmarr
Honestly not sure what could be on the other end of that hyperlink that would
make it suddenly okay to suggest that a portion of your colleagues aren't
worthy enough to be there.

~~~
marrs
Well he has stated in interviews with the media that some candidates, who were
discriminated for, went through fewer interview stages than the others.

IIRC he mentioned this in his interviews with both Ben Shapiro and Jordan
Peterson.

------
carlosrg
Good for him. I might not agree 100% with his memo, but what we've seen the
last days, treating the guy like he just wrote Mein Kampf, silencing any
favorable opinion in the media (big headlines when a scientist disagrees with
him, being silent when a different scientist agrees with him) and internet
forums like this one just hinders any possibility of real debate. And that
fuels the most right-wing media and forums, by the way. Don't act surprised if
the "alt-right" keeps growing in tech and elsewhere.

~~~
m52go
Not sure the term "alt-right" will grow as much as it will dilute as it's
applied to everyone who doesn't conform to the mainstream liberal platform.

Just associating the term to James Damore is ridiculous. A couple weeks ago,
Linda Sarsour called Jake Tapper a member of the alt-right for criticizing
her.

It's become a meaningless catch-all term for the left.

~~~
golemotron
Over the past few decades the Left has used this technique a lot. Take a term
like 'racism' or 'white supremacy' and expand its definition to cover many
more people than the original definitions did. The problem is that the terms
then dilute and becomes less effective as a shaming label. Does the Right ever
use this strategy? I can't remember a case where it does.

~~~
geofft
> _Does the Right ever use this strategy? I can 't remember a case where it
> does._

Sure. Here's an example from this week:
[http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1502213891937.png](http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1502213891937.png)

 _" Conduct yourself in an honorable manner. Shouting things like n[...] and
k[...] just turns normies off and makes our movement look bad. If you have to
condemn someone, call them 'anti-white.'"_

Literally the literal alt-Right is suggesting that instead of insulting people
for their own race just because you don't like them, you should use "anti-
white" as an insult, ascribing racism to them, whether or not it's accurate.

~~~
pdkl95
from that .png

> This event does not exist so you can get your rocks off punching antifa.

("antifa" == "Antifascist Action")

They are concerned some of their attendees want to get into fights with anti-
fascists. For fun.

------
wonderwonder
I don't really understand the negativity being leveled at this guy. He has
presented an opinion, whether you agree with his opinion or his presentation
format, he does not seem to have taken any actions in a malicious way. He
appears to have simply used the approved channels provided by google to air an
employment related grievance.

That the memo was not addressed and discussed by Google management prior to it
going viral after being available for several months is no ones fault but
Googles. Especially after he specifically forwarded it to Google's diversity
department. That company executives are publicly demonizing him and
essentially validating his complaints in regards to the silencing of
alternative view points is not a forward thinking move by the company.

Looking at the percentage of computer science degrees being presented to women
which currently stands at less than 15% of the total, he may be on to
something. Or he may not. For a company to insist on a goal of having a
percentage of its workforce comprise a gender ratio higher than that of the
available market of engineers means that they would have to be giving women
preferential treatment. This appears to be forcing the issue and cannot help
but discriminate against men. It's simply math.

I'm not arguing for or against the validity of their approach but to deny that
Damore has a legitimate axe to grind, opinion and legal case is not a valid
view point.

~~~
emodendroket
People aren't offended at the way he presented his views but at the content of
them.

~~~
humanrebar
I'm not sure people _understand_ the content of them.

~~~
emodendroket
The endless hair-splitting some of his defenders want to do strikes many as an
exercise in delineating distinctions without differences.

~~~
humanrebar
I don't think that's really fair. There are a lot of people calling it "anti-
diversity" when he clearly states that he likes diversity and would like to
_increase_ it. If there's hair splitting in that case, it's not Damore doing
it.

Also, I guess you could call the statistical points about bimodal distribution
"hair splitting", but that's just taking sophisticated statistical discussion
off the table entirely.

~~~
emodendroket
I meant "hair-splitting" exactly like saying "he technically says he's in
favor of diversity," even though his idea of what diversity is diverges wildly
from how the term is generally understood.

~~~
malandrew
“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words.
If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must
use them.” ― Philip K. Dick

The word diversity used to encompass all forms of diversity, including
diversity of ideas. At some point in the last few years it was rebranded and
narrowed in scope to be only include gender, gender identity, race (except
white people), sexual orientation (except straight people), muslims (but not
christians).

His definition of diversity is broader than what those on the far left have
narrowed it down to.

~~~
emodendroket
However you want to define the terms, what people objected to was his claim
that Google should pursue "ideological diversity" at the expense of ethnic and
gender diversity. Frankly I think it is the term "ideological diversity" that
sounds more like an Orwellian neologism, and it's really telling that defenses
tend to focus on claims like "he actually wants more diversity" which obscure
what is actually being proposed.

~~~
malandrew
I have always been under the impression that the original stated goals of
those in favor of diversity was diversity of ideas and thoughts. The argument
in favor of gender and racial diversity was originally based on using race and
gender as _proxies_ for individuals with different life experiences and who
therefore will have different ideas and thoughts shaped by experiences as a
result of their race and/or gender.

Somewhere along the way using race and gender as proxies fell along the
wayside and those characteristics became the goal of diversity.

~~~
emodendroket
Well then I'd say your impression was mistaken. That's been a _rationale_
often offered for why diversity was a win for everyone, but the original
intent of affirmative action and other efforts to increase diversity was
actually to correct for historic injustices that saw minorities unfairly shut
out of jobs and industries and still leaves them disproportionately lacking
representation in those industries.

------
mabbo
The man is guilty of the ultimate corporate crime: making his employer look
bad. As one person I know put it,

> If you write a document that becomes such a public relations nightmare that
> it requires the CEO to cut short a family vacation to deal with the mess,
> update your resume.

([http://www.joeydevilla.com/2017/08/08/one-pragmatic-
lesson-y...](http://www.joeydevilla.com/2017/08/08/one-pragmatic-lesson-you-
should-take-from-the-former-google-manifestbro/))

~~~
humanrebar
I agree, but when I read this point of view (I've seen it elsewhere), I can't
tell if the problem is with the employee, the employer, both, or what.

It's not a law of nature, so it's not the same as "you ran with scissors,
dude".

I'm concerned that the takeaway will be, "If you anger the employment gods,
you get smote. That's the way the world works."

------
AznHisoka
"Of course, the irony here is that if Damore wins it will be regarded as a big
victory for conservatives who work in tech, even though the win would
strengthen the kind of workers' rights that are traditionally the focus of the
left."

This last paragraph left a bad taste. Does everything need to be about
politics?

~~~
danso
Probably? But Damore's memo is unavoidably about politics, because he
specifically complained about Google having a left-wing bias, how Google
didn't value ideological diversity, and how he believes Google has a culture
of shaming non-left-wing employees into silence.

~~~
ue_
It would not surprise me if Google would done something similar with a Marxist
or anarchist memo, though. I find it hard to call it left wing bias with that
in mind.

~~~
thatonechad
The difference is you are comparing an extremely far left memo
Communism/Marxism to one he wrote that is backed by science and is middle of
the road common sense. You are acting like this is some extreme right wing
babble when all actuality its not.

~~~
ue_
>to one he wrote that is backed by science and is middle of the road common
sense

Being a Marxist/anarchist manifesto and being backed by science, economics or
political philosophy aren't mutually exclusive. I don't view the memo as
common sense - that's not to say it's incorrect, but I don't view it as common
sense.

I'm not acting as though it's right-wing babble; my point is that I am against
people saying that Google has a left-wing bias, when it's hard to imagine that
positions which are core to the left wing would be accepted at Google. As
such, I'm not making a comment on the content of the piece, I'm making a
comment on the culture at Google which is supposedly 'left-wing biased'.

------
Torai
The media giving full attention to this issue, often taking an strong side in
either extremes of the debate. I've noticed how in the last years, the debate
about feminism/gender equality (or whatever It should be called) has gotten
worse, more binary. And how movements like the alt-right directly has directly
benefited from this.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
> often taking an strong side in either extremes of the debate.

His memo is very firmly left-wing and liberal though, hardly an 'extreme'.

~~~
sitkack
It was basically the bell-curve of tech gender equality.

To paraphrase

> Autistic men have the fast-twitch OCD neurons that make them ideally suited
> for programming.

~~~
jpttsn
Bet you paraphrased the Bell Curve, too.

~~~
sitkack
I'll let the Bell Curve speak for itself. The follow on comments by the
authors are pure gold.

------
Nokinside
Even if he wins the case, Google loses just limited amount of money. It's just
a legal case instead of continuing PR + HR nightmare inside Google.

~~~
jerf
Lawsuits like this are more about second-order effects than the primary
effects. If he wins, and it becomes established that firing people for some
reason related to this matter [1] is illegal and will carry large fines, then
even if that one lawsuit's resulting fine is trivial to Google, the sum total
of complaints that could be made if they don't change their policies is not,
nor is it to all the other employers (as this isn't even an IT case at this
point, this is an employment law case that will be relevant to all employers).

If a case goes through and has a concrete result (as opposed to a settlement +
gag order) it has a high potential of being a landmark case of one sort or
another. It's difficult to say what that will be, though, because the details
matter a lot and it will certainly be more complicated than any simple
sentence will accurately capture. The findings and final judicial opinion
matter too, not just the binary outcome of the case. I mark the "some reason
related to this matter" with [1] above because the case itself will also be
_deciding_ what that reason ultimately was; none of us currently are capable
of guessing what that is and I _guarantee_ you your knee jerk will prove an
inaccurate indication of the final judgment's logic.

(And let me emphasize explicitly I've written this post generic to the outcome
of the case. Either major outcome could be a landmark case depending on the
reasoning given by the court.)

~~~
cannonedhamster
Which is why he'll get some kind of settlement. Which is largely what this
seemed about anyways. Any way you look at it this employee is costing Google
money. He went right to alt-right commentators and podcasters and targetted a
group of people inside Google as PC leftists, which has now led to Google
employees having targets painted on their backs. Google loses no matter what
they do here because this employee wrote an inflammatory internal post. This
more and more comes off like the type of thing done by an individual who
supports things like walking around with an AR15 in public. Sure it's legal
but it's only being done to cause a reaction which can then be pointed at to
claim oppression.

~~~
rapsey
> He went right to alt-right commentators and podcasters and targetted a group
> of people inside Google as PC leftists,

And to how many leftist podcasts was he invited?

~~~
cannonedhamster
Leftists podcasts are generally known as "the news". I'm pretty sure there
were people clamoring to talk to him as it's hot news right now. He chose the
receptive audience that he knew would support him.

~~~
rapsey
If that is the case he made absolutely the right decision. The podcasts he
appeared on allowed him to speak and state his case.

"The news" is far from an editing unbiased reasonable discussion. They
completely misrepresented his views already, there is absolutely zero reason
to believe they would give him a fair chance to represent himself.

------
imron
> Because start-ups like Google

Excuse me, what? Is Google still considered a startup?

------
VikingCoder
If he wants to win a legal case, he should hire a good lawyer.

If he had hired a good lawyer, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing him doing
interviews and tweeting images of himself wearing a T-shirt comparing Google
to a gulag.

No, I'm pretty sure he just wants attention.

~~~
cabalamat
> If he wants to win a legal case, he should hire a good lawyer.

That sounds reasonable.

> If he had hired a good lawyer, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing him
> doing interviews

People who hire good lawyers don't do interviews? That's some stretch.

~~~
dagw
Any decent lawyer will tell you that interviews rarely help and often hinder
your case. And the times it can help your case it only does so if you've been
well coached by a competent lawyer and manage to stick to the script.

~~~
zimpenfish
Also, if you're trying to claim you're pro-diversity, having your first two
interviews be with people that many would consider strongly MRA / misogynistic
might not look good.

~~~
Alain-lf
Dr. Jordan B Peterson a misogynist? Give me a break.

~~~
andrewprock
He may or may not be a misogynist, but looking at his wikipedia page, he
certainly spends significant time in the culture wars gutter discussing topics
like:

5.1 White privilege

5.2 Feminist postmodernists – the Oedipal pathology

5.3 Cultural appropriation

5.4 Neo-Marxist postmodernists and 'identity politics'

------
dionidium
Damore's NLRB claim is by far the most interesting aspect of this controversy.
Counterpoint here:

[http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-
smash-...](http://mattbruenig.com/2017/08/10/the-trump-nlrb-will-smash-the-
google-guy/)

He walks through all the relevant points, concluding:

 _" In basically all cases, a conservative NLRB will want to reduce the ways
workers can coordinate with one another, and increase employer discretion to
terminate employees. When I raised this point on Twitter, someone said that
this might be different under Trump because wouldn’t such a ruling feed into
the political correctness and whatnot that he hates. And to that I can only
laugh: at the end of the day, what conservatives want to do is shift power to
bosses over workers, and they are really good at keeping their eyes on the
prize."_

------
abhi3
Rewriting and posting a couple of past comments on the topic >

One thing you learn quickly in law school is that you win cases not on the law
but on facts, or rather your characterization of the facts. A good lawyer
presenting facts in a way that they get through to a carefully selected jury
can win almost any case that's based on a legally plausible claim.

Also, Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the
negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the
discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct
towards third parties and expose the company to further liability). The case
doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend.
Every suit has some nuisance value.

------
anotherevan
Like how they have a photo of Damore with the American flag in the background.
About as subtle as a television evangelist.

------
skc
Small price to pay for keeping some semblance of a functional working
environment at Google.

------
pault
It has so much utility because you can effectively call your opponent a nazi
without invoking Godwin's law!

~~~
geofft
Godwin's Law is that the probability of a comparison to the Nazis approaches
one, not that the person making the comparison automatically loses.

Furthermore, Mike Godwin himself says that you _should_ make comparisons to
the Nazis when warranted.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-
call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/)

Tomorrow the alt-right will be marching in Charlottesville in support of
actual literal neo-Nazis who call themselves Nazis, and claiming that they
share a common enemy with the neo-Nazis and will therefore not criticize the
neo-Nazis about anything.

AlternativeRight.com is run by actual literal neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.

They're calling themselves Nazis, and it's _technically accurate_. There's no
need for their opponents to do it, and also, why should we censor facts simply
because they are politically incorrect? Does it hurt the alt-right's feelings
to be called "Nazi"? Facts don't care about your feelings.

~~~
leereeves
This is precisely the tactic that the left has relied on for the past couple
years: cite a few actual white-supremacists and claim they represent everyone
to the right of Bernie Sanders.

~~~
eesmith
The 15-million-member Southern Baptist Convention voted 'to condemn "alt-right
white supremacy."'.
[http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2017/06/southern_baptists...](http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2017/06/southern_baptists_to_vote_on_c.html)

The SBC is to the right of Bernie Sanders. For example, it prohibits male
pastors and says the husband is the head of the family and the wife
subservient to him.

They define 'alt-right' as a synonym for white supremacy, thusly: Racism and
white supremacy are, sadly, not extinct but present all over the world in
various white supremacist movements, sometimes known as "white nationalism" or
"alt-right" \- [http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2283/on-the-antigospel-of-
alt...](http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/2283/on-the-antigospel-of-altright-
white-supremacy)

Therefore, your description about this being a tactic of the left doesn't hold
water.

~~~
leereeves
Shocking that the Southern Baptist Convention isn't familiar with online
debate.

> They define 'alt-right' as a synonym for white supremacy

That's not how the term is usually used online, though, except to suggest that
anyone to right of Bernie Sanders _is_ a white supremacist.

~~~
geofft
> _That 's not how the word is usually used online, though, except to suggest
> that anyone to right of Bernie Sanders is a white supremacist._

The world alt-right was a) coined by its members, not by its detractors and b)
stands for "alternative right," that is, it implies that there exists a
mainstream right wing that is _not_ the alt-right.

(It's also a term used in the real world and not just "online debate"; for
instance, the alt-right is marching in Charlottesville this weekend, which is
located in Virginia and not on the internet.)

~~~
leereeves
As we see on this page, clearly the meaning has expanded far beyond the
origins you're familiar with.

~~~
geofft
OK, sure, but - to bring this back on topic - do you disagree that "alt-right"
in the original meaning is an appropriate descriptor for Stefan Molyneux, with
whom Damore immediately sought an interview with to present his side of the
story?

(He doesn't actually seem to self-identify as "alt-right," so I think there is
room for disagreement here.)

~~~
leereeves
I've never watched Stefan Molyneux. Could you point to a video you think
proves he's a white supremacist?

------
throwawaymanbot
Google is a private company. They did the right thing. He does not have a
winning chance other than PR value, simply because his memo was divisive and
just insanely bad for moral there. People have been fired/let go for way less.
Just Look at the comments posted here already to see what this sort of "memo"
does.

Anyway, even if you think all the same things Damore did, why on earth would
you grow a second ego, and circulate a memo of these ramblings to your
company? Who in their right mind would do something like this? Who thinks that
I MUST tell everyone at work my thoughts that I know to be highly
controversial in the form of a memo? Who does this and expects to keep a job?

~~~
mdekkers
_He does not have a winning chance, simply because his memo was divisive and
just insanely bad for moral there_

That is not how law works

~~~
throwawaymanbot
Perhaps, But its certainly how HR departments work!

------
raisinbread1234
My company sent a mail to all...."we have achieved XX.X percentage of
women...we intend to go for YY.Y percentage! ...we didn't do this by hiring
women intentionally, we did this by choosing the best people for the job" What
crap. The situation now is that even if a man qualifies better than a woman
for a job, they would choose a woman for boosting the numbers. This is gender
discrimination. The companies must be sued for that.

~~~
crispyambulance
You're assuming that it is even possible to objectively determine one's
suitability for any given job. It is not and never has been.

Many, many jobs are filled simply by virtue of the candidate's professional
contacts, half-baked interview processes, and gut-instinct. Given this, it
won't hurt to make an effort to hire more women and minorities in roles where
they've been underrepresented.

~~~
leereeves
If it's impossible to determine a candidate's suitability for any given job,
how can the employer claim to be choosing the best people for the job?

Under your interpretation, they're still lying.

~~~
crispyambulance
It is not objectively possible.

You can't _really_ tell, in advance, if one candidate or another is better
suited. Sure, a "D" student who failed at the white-board is probably not a
good choice compared to an "A" student who aced the whiteboard... usually.

But what we're talking about here, at worst, is relatively minor differences
in a female vs male candidate, where the underrepresented gender gets a
"boost." In other hiring scenarios, the candidate's professional contacts or
school pedigree or family connections may give a similar (or even greater)
boost.

------
raisinbread1234
"No, I'm pretty sure he just wants attention." Not unlike women who claim
sexism is the reason for their own failures

~~~
sctb
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988585](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14988585)
and marked it off-topic.

------
empressplay
I don't think he can win on these grounds. He was terminated because he made
his position untenable. Google did not prevent him from voicing his opinion
(or "commenting on conditions).

~~~
exergy
Yeah, my understanding leads me to believe that he used the company's official
"Air your grievance here" forum for posting the memo. So, he acted exactly in
the manner that the company required him to. Google's case will probably focus
on the _result_ of him voicing his opinion, rather than the fact that he did
in the first place. Still can't say I agree with them firing him. His memo was
considerate enough to have _not_ lead to a kneejerk firing.

------
arkitaip
Every interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that
he's a misogynist. I can't imagine any SV tech firm would want to hire him
with his toxic background. I suspect he calculated this outcome in the first
place, so I'm curious where he thought he would end up. My guess is some kind
of "realist"/alt-right media outfit, where he can preach to the choir all he
wants, or starting his own business.

~~~
danso
What's an example of a revelation that "confirms" his misogyny?

~~~
kuschku
He argues against affirmative action that benefits women, because they are
inferior[1] anyway, but then argues for affirmative action that benefits
conservatives[2], and suggests to start by "breaking down Googlegeist scores
by political orientation", and to hire more conservatives because
"conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for
much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company"

This shows he has no problem with affirmative action - aka discrimination - as
long as he profits. But as soon as someone else profits, he disagrees.

    
    
        ________________________
    

[1] "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between
people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)", also see his point w.r.t.
"Neuroticism"

[2] because "Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of
diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and
significant ways in which people view things differently"

EDIT: He argues that political diversity is most important:

> Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and
> political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in
> which people view things differently.

and that Google should change its hiring practices to improve this, instead of
ethnical or national diversity.

And he makes up more pseudo-scientific arguments for why Google should hire
more conservatives:

> conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for
> much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature
> company.

In the context of his memo - where he states that Google is too far left-wing
- the recommended changes are obvious: Hire more conservative. He also
recommends to track the political affiliation of all existing employees to
track the diversity gap there:

> I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation

This is the same kind of affirmative action that he criticizes just a few
paragraphs before.

EDIT2: With regards to biologically inferior, he references IQ (see his
footnote 8, and its use in text), "Neuroticism", and other pseudo-scientific
arguments why women would be biologically inferior.

~~~
naturalgradient
This is a malicious misinterpretation of the memo.

Please state the specific passages where he:

\- argues for affirmative action specifically benefiting conservatives

\- calls women genetically inferior

