
Why I'm suing Google - mpweiher
http://www.unobtainabol.com/2018/01/why-im-suing-google.html
======
crooked-v
> Then, shortly after the 2016 election, Gudeman expressed skepticism toward a
> Muslim colleague who wrote on an employee forum that he was “someone already
> targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim.” Gudeman then
> allegedly investigated his colleague’s claim and suggested that, in the
> filing’s words, “something interesting” about a recent trip to Pakistan
> could explain why he was being targeted. The filing states that Google then
> fired Gudeman for accusing his colleague of terrorism based on religion.

[https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/james-damore-google-
mem...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/james-damore-google-memo-sues-
discrimination-against-white-conservative-men.html)

~~~
Banthum
Given how absurdly twisted and misrepresented the Damore memo itself has been
in the media (calling it anti-diversity when it was pro-diversity, posting it
but silently removing links to sources, stating that it says women are bad at
engineering when it actually said they're statistically less likely to be
interested in engineering, and many many other lies), everything reported in
these sources should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's perfectly likely that these stories are just not true, or are at least a
highly interpreted version of what happened. Only primary sources are
trustworthy; show me the chat logs and emails.

~~~
bduerst
The Damore memo was anti-diversity, under the stated guise of being pro-
diversity. It was a criticism of Google's policies to fight social biases and
promote diversity in hiring, using cherry-picked and misrepresented evidence.
(e: Yes, I've read it several times for those who question it)

Like most news cycles though, the media from all sides of the spectrum were
able to find something in it to get people outraged, drive clicks, gain
eyeballs, etc.

~~~
naasking
> The Damore memo was anti-diversity, under the stated guise of being pro-
> diversity.

It was anti-pro-diversity policies (at least the existing ones). That doesn't
entail it was anti-diversity. For instance, if I prove that diversity policies
are completely ineffective and say we should do away with them, that doesn't
make me anti-diversity except to people interested in token PR efforts rather
than real change.

> It was a criticism of Google's policies to fight social biases and promote
> diversity in hiring, using cherry-picked and misrepresented evidence.

Not really. Did you actually read the memo?

~~~
bduerst
Following your hypothetical: But if you _didn 't_ prove that diversity
policies are ineffective and still say we should do away with them, that
_does_ make you anti-diversity, to most rational, logical people.

Before you inevitably get further into semantics and burden of proof, you
should read a breakdown of how Damore failed to prove his memo's claims, from
the perspective of an Evolutionary Biologist:

[https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-
bio...](https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-
claims-made-in-the-document-about-diversity-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-
August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin)

~~~
naasking
Please, Sadedin responded to a strawman, not Damore's actual argument. I could
point out every mistake she made in interpretation, but it's frankly not worth
my time doing this again. I'll just say that plenty of scientists with
equivalent credentials agree that Damore's evidence was sufficient and used
more or less correctly, for example [1].

Most of the people who disagree don't even understand the terminology Damore
employed, and instead project their own inflammatory interpretations of
scientific terms (such as various personality traits from the literature, like
"agreeableness").

Finally, I will also note that we can even throw out any arguments about the
evidence and quite easily prove mathematically that Google's hiring practices
aren't biased and the methods will necessarily be ineffective at attracting
more women: women comprise about 19% of Google employees. Women comprise
around 20-21% of computer science graduates. Is Google expected to conjure
women from the aether so that their female ratio somehow supercedes the ratio
of women in the entire pool of possible applicants?

Even if Google were to achieve a better than possible ratio, they'd just be
making the ratio at other companies worse. We'd all be hailing Google as some
pinnacle of modernity and diversity, and we'd scold the rest of the industry
for not following suit. It's complete bullshit theatre.

The only real change can happen in the halls of post-secondary education, or
even earlier. Most of these arguments about culture at companies driving women
away is smoke and mirrors. The predictions of such theories simply can't
explain the data.

Women fought long and hard to get into achieve parity in plenty of other
fields that were way more of an old boys' club than programming, like medicine
and law. We're to believe that scores of women are so intimidated by nerds
with keyboards that they're running away from STEM back in first and second
year college? This narrative of the gender gap in STEM is total bull.

> But if you didn't prove that diversity policies are ineffective and still
> say we should do away with them, that does make you anti-diversity, to most
> rational, logical people.

Except you're clearly not even open to the possibility that Damore pointed
out, that there's some intrinsic factor driving _interest_ in STEM. Not
ability, as Sadedin's strawman argued against, but _interest_. I suggest
reading [2] for an overview of the evidence for the "things vs people" theory
that can explain gender differences in interest.

[1] [http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-
scientists-...](http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-
respond/)

[2] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-
exagger...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-
differences/)

~~~
bduerst
Sadedin quotes Damore directly and addresses his argument directly.

I get that you support and want to make your own personal argument in for
Damore's memo, but if you would read the Sadedin's criticism of Damore's memo,
rather than dismissing it with an ad hom attack, you would see that the points
you and Quillette are raising are addressed.

You can't ask me, "Did you actually read the memo?" and then make excuses to
not read an expert's criticism. It smacks of confirmation bias.

~~~
naasking
> Sadedin quotes Damore directly and addresses his argument, point by point.

 _No she does not_. I read Sadedin's response when this Damore thing blew up.
Sadedin's mistakes are so blindingly obvious that I can't even... Here's
Sadedin quoting Damore and responding to it:

> Damore: I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and
> abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that
> these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women
> in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s
> significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about
> an individual given these population level distributions.

> Sadedin: At what point did we jump from talking about _personalities_ to
> _abilities_? It’s a massive leap to conclude that a slight difference in
> average personality must undermine women’s professional abilities in
> software engineering.

Except _Damore didn 't say anything of the sort_. Damore literally said
_nothing_ about ability in his entire memo except this one off-hand remark
that some differences in ability _might_ exist due to biology, and Sadedin
spends half her text attempting to debunk something Damore didn't even claim.

Sadedin clearly has an axe to grind, and Damore's memo was a convenient
outlet. Sadedin's reply is riddled with exactly this sort of pattern, building
up a nice Damore strawman and easily knocking it down.

And now I suggest you read the other expert's opinion that I linked in my
previous comment, as he provides an overview of over 4 decades of cross-
cultural research on gender differences which actually _explains the data we
have_ , rather than some bizarre conspiracy theory of nationwide sexism, oh
but not everywhere, just in these specific fields for no reason whatsoever.

I'm not even going to bother responding to any more uninformed comments on
this topic. You believe what you like, but if you're interested in evidence-
based measures to improve gender disparity in STEM, then inform yourself. If
you just want to wage some gender holy war, then I'm not interested in hearing
about it.

~~~
bduerst
>Except Damore didn't say anything of the sort.

Damore did right here: (emphasis added)

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences _and abilities_ of
> men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these
> differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in
> tech and leadership.

This is a key misrepresentation of the evidence, as it is claimed, right here
by Damore. Whether or not it's claimed _multiple times_ in the memo, as you
say, does _not_ mean Damore does _not_ make the claim. It is one point of many
that is addressed directly by Sadedin.

Again, your attempt to minimize Damore's fallacious statement, as well as
unwillingness to continue a discussion you started in lieu of new information
you find disagreeable, is confirmation bias.

~~~
naasking
Except it's not a misrepresentation at all. It's well known that men and women
have different abilities. And note how Damore said such differences _may_
contribute, not _do_. So where's the misrepresentation exactly? Also, you're
misusing "fallacious". Damore's argument wouldn't be fallacious if it were
factually incorrect.

Furthermore, the straw man I referred to is that she took his brief mention of
possible difference in abilities as an implication that Damore was saying they
would adversely affect female success in engineering. He _doesn 't say that
anywhere_. She's putting words in his mouth instead of making a charitable
reading like one should in any debate. Considering Damore's argument doesn't
in any way depend on differences in ability, what do you think the charitable
reading is?

You're arguing exactly the same straw man as Sadedin. Damore's whole argument
does not depend on this one statement, even if it were untrue. Many more of
Sadedin's rebuttals make exactly the same mistake and I'm not going to rehash
this whole thing again.

I also notice that you've now repeatedly ignored the other experts I've cited
in preference to one that agrees with your chosen narrative. I suggest
exposing yourself to a wider variety of opinions and data.

~~~
andrewprock
If feels truly odd read you saying "he didn't say it!" and the saying "but
it's true!"

It feels like you've gotten yourself a little lost. My guess is that you are
indeed suffering from systemic confirmation bias.

------
rgbrenner
Reading the complaint.. all I can think: why is this in the workplace?
Politics is a mess--just generally, no matter which side you're on... It
amazes me that anyone would look at our politics and think: let's bring this
dispute into our company. It's just asking for trouble.

~~~
tabeth
If not the workplace, where else?

~~~
rgbrenner
In their private discussions with their friends and family in their own
personal time.

~~~
tabeth
What if the politics in question concern work? I'd love to live in the society
you (apparently) live in where work and the rest of reality apparently don't
interact with each other at all.

~~~
rgbrenner
The only overlap between politics and work is hiring and work-related policies
(as far as your viewpoint on, for example, maternity leave is a political).
Companies should have a process of developing and refining policies, and
certainly politics may come up during the discussion of those policies.. but
it should end when the policies are written and management has made a
decision. If that policy is illegal, certainly go talk to HR about it or
pursue a legal option. But there's no need to have this constant political
fight within a company between employees.

Note, this hiring and work-related discussion is very different than what's
going on in google. They have mailing lists for everything from conservatives,
liberty (liberal), transgenderism, furries, polygamy, etc. I would be very
interested in hearing how polygamy is work related.

~~~
tabeth
Can't say I understand what you're suggesting. Even without mailing lists
people will talk about what they want to, by whatever means.

Are you saying the workplace should censor and/or prohibit anything not work
related? Your opinion of what work should be sounds pretty draconian, and is
political, sure enough.

~~~
rgbrenner
Sure, people will talk, but a company does not have to facilitate it or
encourage it.

These are _professional_ relationships. Very different than your personal
relationships. People should understand that, and restrain themselves from
bringing personal matters into the workplace.

------
davedx
> Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you
> truly think Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis[sic], or wants to hurt
> gays, women or the disabled, thenyou are so badly out of touch it borders on
> delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but aresaying them
> anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.

Yes, well then.

~~~
ImSkeptical
Are you suggesting Trump is like Nazis or ISIS? Can you point out Trump's most
Nazi/ISIS like action?

~~~
paulcole
> or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled

He is on tape saying he hurts women. WTF else do you want?

~~~
ImSkeptical
He's on tape saying that women will let you do anything when you're rich and
famous. That's certainly a crude thing to say, and an unhelpful attitude
toward women. However, you may not be aware of this, but both the Nazis and
ISIS did, and said, things that were far worse.

Is it so much to ask that you restrict yourself to saying things that are
true? If you said that "Donald Trump has repeatedly said things which are
contrary to the ideal of treating men and women as equal" then you'd be
stating a simple and defensible fact. When you go to extreme and perverse
lengths, like equating the former with "Trump is like a Nazi" then you're just
willfully engaging in empty partisan rhetoric which is obviously untrue.
Ironically, that's a claim that could be made against Trump. The hysterical
Trump critics aren't so far from Trump himself.

~~~
paulcole
>However, you may not be aware of this, but both the Nazis and ISIS did, and
said, things that were far worse.

I was not aware of this. Thanks.

------
qubex
If we fall into the trap of conditional probability (“this person is a member
of such-and-such-category, therefore this-is-frivolous-because-he-doesn't-need
...) we are committing precisely the kind of prejudiced stereotyping that
diversity is supposed to avoid. It's quite telling that conditional
probability is one of the hallmarks of rational thought.

Let's let them have their minutes in court, if a court considers their
complaint to have merit. That's the whole point, isn't it? No point tossing
out two cents’ worth around and about.

~~~
__jal
Exactly so.

Having read the "Damore memo" and knowing it is not even a good rehash of bad
arguments, and having seen this silly attempt at a gotcha-flip of actual
grievances, (not to mention some apparently sincere whining about oppression
from a position of dominance), I have little doubt about where it will end up,
but even whiny revanchists deserve their day in court.

~~~
qubex
Literally ”to settle it” once and for all.

------
throwbsyxgsbend
Look at this guys performance review information in the lawsuit and judge for
yourself if you think he was only let go because of his comments.

Damore has a much stronger case without this guy.

~~~
40acres
Can you link this information? I had not known the performance reviews were
made public.

~~~
tghw
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0)

~~~
FireBeyond
Can you give more specifics than having to wade through a streaming 161 page
PDF?

------
thecolorblue
I am not a lawyer but the only advice I have heard from lawyers consistently
is, "don't take about the case." Is there anything he has to gain from
speaking publicly about his lawsuit?

------
iaw
Is this flagged for an obvious reason or is it that the topic is distasteful
to some in the community?

Reading through the actual complaint[0], as much as I despise many aspects of
the Damore memo, there is a lot of substance (in the complaint itself).

One example is the quote: “If you put a group of 40-something white men in a
room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative,
they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they
want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!”

HR defended this speech, but when substituting in any other class of
individuals it would have been violating... It's hard to empathize with the
conservative white males that filed the complaint but the substance of the
complaint does hold some weight.

[0] [https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/20180...](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/20180108-Damore-Complaint_fs.pdf)

~~~
dragonwriter
> there is a lot of substance (in the complaint itself).

All that means is that Damore has a minimally competent attorney. A complaint
and the supporting information in a complaint (which isn't required to include
evidence at all, that's what trials are for) is constructed to sell the idea
of a violation of legal right (and, often, in a case expected tomget public
attention, secondarily for PR reasons). It is not, quite often, a fair
reflection of what the full evidence in context will show, though to be at all
ethical it should be a plausible interpretation of the most favorable evidence
when all other evidence is discarded as untrustworthy.

