
Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O - smaddali
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
======
Shank
Honestly, I think he made the right move just from a PR perspective. His
firing makes sense: the CEO and HR are both acting to protect the company. The
author of the manifesto caused Google a PR disaster and created a huge state
of internal conflict, valid or not. The shareholders are probably _really
happy_ that their CEO removed a person who managed to get Google so much bad
press in so little time.

This is the reality of business. One does not simply create a PR disaster for
the company, with no positive return, and still maintain their job.

~~~
endorphone
The firing has been a PR disaster, and amplified and exaggerated the effect of
this issue (not to mention that it drew attention to other factors, like
Google's institutional ageism). And while I don't want to diagnose over the
internet, it seems like it's attacking someone on the spectrum for traits of
being on the spectrum.

By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, and doubled down on
this discussion. By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way they
legitimized almost everything he said, and it makes them look reactionary.

They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept
him in the fold.

~~~
agentultra
> By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups,

To a small, vocal group.

> By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way

There were good reasons for doing it that had nothing to do with science or
evidence.

There _are_ women working at Google who do not need to be reminded of the
genetic and biologic differences they have from their cishet male
counterparts.

If Damon had issues with the policies at Google there were many other channels
open to him that didn't involve circulating a manifesto. He brought it upon
himself. Once word of that memo leaked there was nothing for Google to do but
fire him.

~~~
endorphone
_There are women working at Google who do not need to be reminded of the
genetic and biologic differences they have from their cishet male
counterparts._

I'm a white male. I _know_ that the average Asian has a higher IQ than the
average white man. This means positively nothing when comparing me with a
given Asian, however.

That is the root of this discussion that so many so profoundly miss. The
average Google male is not the average male. The average Google female is not
the average female. He was _not_ saying that women who work at Google are at a
biological disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. He was
saying that on the whole there's a biological reason when you roll the dice
enough that more males are suitable for that work. In the scientific community
this is utterly indisputable, in the same way that there are far more
exceptional males (and autistic males), just as there are far more mentally
handicapped males. That doesn't preclude handicapped or exceptional females,
it's just less common.

~~~
dahart
> He was not saying that women who work at Google are at a biological
> disadvantage, in any way, and that is a perverse misreading. He was saying
> that on the whole there's a biological reason when you roll the dice enough
> that more males are suitable for that work.

I don't understand what you said there, can you elaborate? What is the
difference between males being more biologically suitable and females being at
a disadvantage? From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you
help me understand why it's not a contradiction?

What the memo proposed is that it's "possible" there are fewer women in tech
right now because of the biological differences. He may not have claimed it as
fact, but he implied it. The problem I have with the implication is that it's
_obvious_ that evolutionary forces are not the primary causes of the current
distribution, because the distribution of women in tech has changed
drastically in the last 50 years faster than evolution's say in the matter.
It's not possible that the current distribution is primarily caused by
biological differences, and it's exceedingly likely that it is caused by
social issues. But he suggested it is possible, and followed that by
suggesting we should stop treating it like a social issue because it's
possible.

And all of this so far is ignoring that the memo unironically takes the
opposite stance on the minority group of conservatives.

So what is the root part that I'm missing?

~~~
dropstickle
Let's say you are an american. 60% of americans are overweight. Does that mean
you are overweight?

~~~
dahart
Clearly not.

Does 60% of Americans being overweight today mean that it's likely that 60% of
people are naturally and biologically incapable of maintaining a healthy
weight?

There are genetic differences among underweight and overweight populations, so
it is "possible" that the distribution of healthy weights to overweight people
is natural a result of those genetic traits, and not the result of advertising
and availability of high calorie foods.

We should stop treating obesity as though it's a problem, right?

~~~
dropstickle
I think you misunderstood me. I was not making a biological correlation, but a
statistical one; namely that group averages doesn't say anything about an
individual. The nature/nurture debate of overweight people is besides the
point.

~~~
dahart
Then I think you misunderstood the memo. The memo _is_ making a biological
correlation. It suggests that the current distributions might accurately
reflect differences in biology.

Nature vs nurture is _completely_ the point here, Damore argued that nature is
the primary force, not nurture, and therefore we should stop nurturing women
in tech.

~~~
dropstickle
Maybe I should have been clearer, you stated to the parent reply that:

>> I don't understand what you said there, can you elaborate? What is the
difference between males being more biologically suitable and females being at
a disadvantage? From my perspective, you just contradicted yourself, can you
help me understand why it's not a contradiction?

This was in response to the parent that said Damore had not singled out any
female google employes. The overweight example was an attempt to clarify that
even though statistical averages say something about a group, it does not say
something about the individual, i.e the google females should not feel singled
out by statistical averages.

As for the nature/nuture point in the memo: yes the memo is making a
biological claim backed by sources. It does not suggest that current
distributions are correct. No, the memo is not saying that nature is the
primary force, only that it might play a part [1]:

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part
explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."

[1] [https://diversitymemo.com/](https://diversitymemo.com/)

~~~
dahart
> The overweight example was an attempt to clarify that even though
> statistical averages say something about a group, it does not say something
> about the individual, i.e the google females should not feel singled out by
> statistical averages.

Right. And what I've been trying to say is that the statistical averages
aren't the offensive part. That's a straw man.

Google women don't feel offended when they're told they're a minority, they
already know that; but they sure might reasonably be concerned when someone
suggests they're a minority "in part" "possibly" because women aren't
biologically as able to engineer as men.

> No, the memo is not saying that nature is the primary force, only that it
> might play a part [1]:

Sure, the memo didn't say it explicitly, but it did imply that. Everyone keeps
defending the exact wording as if implication and misleading statements don't
exist. Suggesting it's a "part" suggests it's a measurable and large part,
comparable to social causes. Pointing out that women are more neurotic (which
is a clinical term with very negative popular connotation, so extremely easily
misunderstood) _might_ be a _part_ of why Google has so few women is leading
the reader to conclude it's a major factor.

This argument is cherry-picking the science in favor, and completely ignoring
the contrary evidence that suggests that social issues are much larger than
anything we could possibly measure about innate biological ability. For
example, that different countries have very different distributions of women
in engineering, or that the distributions have changed wildly in the last 50
years.

~~~
dropstickle
> Right. And what I've been trying to say is that the statistical averages
> aren't the offensive part. That's a straw man.

Well you did pose the question, I just answered it, so it was not to erect a
straw man, and I was not really trying to contradict the rest of your claim by
that example, maybe I should have been clearer on that.

> Sure, the memo didn't say it explicitly, but it did imply that. Everyone
> keeps defending the exact wording as if implication and misleading
> statements don't exist. Suggesting it's a "part" suggests it's a measurable
> and large part, comparable to social causes.

Yes, he certainly does imply that biological causes has a measurable effect,
and a large enough effect that it should be taken into consideration for
measures (that he also suggests) in order to change work practices so as they
might better fit females and thus increase diversity.

> Pointing out that women are more neurotic (which is a clinical term with
> very negative popular connotation, so extremely easily misunderstood) might
> be a part of why Google has so few women is leading the reader to conclude
> it's a major factor.

I agree that it is unfortunate that neurotic is easily misunderstood, but if
he didn't use the correct clinical term he would be critized for not being
scientific enough, which you are already critizing him for.

> This argument is cherry-picking the science in favor, and completely
> ignoring the contrary evidence that suggests that social issues are much
> larger than anything we could possibly measure about innate biological
> ability. For example, that different countries have very different
> distributions of women in engineering, or that the distributions have
> changed wildly in the last 50 years.

I don't agree with you that science has concluded that biological factors
don't play a role in what professions people go into. I saw an interesting
Harvard debate between Steven Pinker and Elisabeth Spelke on this [1]. The two
examples you present does not explicitly contradict that it might be part
biological reasons [2], the provided link has a fascinating discussion in the
comment section that gives you both sides of the discussion.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8)
[2] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-
exagger...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-
differences/)

~~~
dahart
I quite appreciate your measured response, thank you for that.

> I don't agree with you that science has concluded that biological factors
> don't play a role in what professions people go into.

I don't recall saying nature isn't a factor at all, and if I did I take it
back. But I do personally believe that right now nurture, which includes
social and historical gender issues plus all forms of implicit and explicit
social biases and discrimination, is the biggest factor. And enough bigger
that it doesn't make any sense to talk about nature yet.

I didn't really intend to contradict the possibility of any biological factor,
what I'm saying is that social issues appear to me to be a _far_ larger
influence than, say, any discernible difference in IQ. The memo either
disagrees or ignores that.

Given that social factors were >99% of the distribution discrepancy less than
a century ago, and that we're still working through huge social issues, and
that workforce distributions of women both locally and globally are far from
settled, I find it pretty hard to accept the idea that we should look at
anything other than social factors.

It _is_ possible that biological differences explain some of the workforce
distributions. It's also possible that nature's effect on the current sex
distribution of women in US tech is not even large enough to be measurable.
It's possible that should we eradicate social gender inequality globally,
biology's role will even out to a 0.0001% distribution discrepancy. It's also
possible that Sabine Hossenfelder is right, and that once we have equal
opportunity, "the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by
women".
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14976028](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14976028)

I will check out the videos, thank you for the links.

~~~
dropstickle
Social issues is quite a clearly a problem, I just guess we disagree on the
degree of biological influence, although there are some interesting points you
bring up.

This whole memo thing has certainly led me down the rabbit hole. Not being an
actual scientist with insight into both biological and social factors, I find
it hard to be to sure of where I stand on the issue, and the current political
climate is certainly helping to muddy the waters.

------
lisper
The primary thesis of Damore's memo [1] was _not_ that women are biologically
unsuited to STEM careers. The primary thesis was that, at Google, _you cannot
even advance the hypothesis_ that biology _might_ be a factor without putting
your career at risk. Ironically, by firing Damore, Pichai proved him correct.

EDIT: if you doubt this, just look at the document's title and TL;DR section.

[1]
[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-
Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf)

~~~
greendesk
I read James' document. I did not have the impression that this is his thesis.

~~~
rednerrus
What was your impression?

~~~
bhouston
Documents filled with political hot buttons screw up people's emotions and
they can not process such documents rationally or in a balanced fashion, many
people see only what offends them or what they want to defend. It is just
screwed up...

~~~
bduerst
Yep, it even rambles about the failure of Marxist communism at one point. It's
a rant with cherry picked evidence, but people find something it in to confirm
their beliefs and try to defend/attack it.

------
GreaterFool
This is _the first_ fair and balanced article on this topic I've seen.

> In his memo, Damore cites a series of studies, making the case, for example,
> that men tend to be more interested in things and women more interested in
> people. (Interest is not the same as ability.)

I've been trying to hammer this point to all my colleagues (in private of
course, I wouldn't dare to post it on public channel due to high probability
of getting decapitated!): interests/preferences not abilities.

Every time someone says the memo is denigrating women by telling them they are
unfit or incapable of working in tech it makes me want to scream! It is not
about any individual's ability but about preferences of a group. It might as
well be that the arguments don't support the conclusion. But I haven't seen
anyone offering a reasonable rebuttal that doesn't involve name-calling and
blanket statements like "the author _clearly_ doesn't understand gender".

~~~
clavalle
First, the author of this article is David Brooks -- a well known, very
conservative, commentator. So, it might be fair and balanced in a Fox News
sense of the phrase but not fair and balanced as most people would understand
the phrase.

And for the general population skew in interests/preferences to make any
difference whatsoever to the makeup of Google's technical and leadership staff
the argument would have to be that the population that makes up the part of
the interest curve on the 'high interest' part of the graph for the
underrepresented groups is completely exhausted or would be completely
exhausted before parity is reached.

I'd bet big that Google could completely fill their entire company with
underrepresented people that rank very high on the interest/preference curve
and never make a dent in that population. There are over 7 billion people in
the world. That's a big pool. Even the thinner parts of the graph represent
huge numbers of people. And Google completely controls their hiring so they
can pick and choose -- they are not pulling people at random from that general
population. They can easily pick people that compare very favorably with any
other colleague on the interest/preference scale.

~~~
humanrebar
So "conservative" is the same as "unfair and/or unbalanced"? The New York
Times (not exactly conservative) has considered him worth printing for quite
some time now.

Isn't this attitude more or less what Damore was concerned about in his memo?

~~~
clavalle
No, but he has an agenda that he's promoting with this opinion piece, which,
as someone who disagrees with him, has some pretty obvious holes which I point
out.

~~~
Spivak
Right, but the issue right now is that everyone is pushing an agenda. The only
constant is the literal text and the current research which, by accounts from
qualified people, don't seem to be in conflict.

In the conversation of this issue the facts, what tribe you belong to, and
what ought to be done in response to them have been tied together. Unless we
can disconnect those everyone's reality is going to be shaped by the latters
rather than the former.

~~~
clavalle
It's strange to me that people don't recognize the disconnect within the memo
itself: Basically, it starts off by saying 'Statistics of the general
population don't have anything to say about individuals.' Then turns around
and says 'Here's a bunch of statistics on the general population that show why
there are fewer individuals in various sought after positions.'

It's like a spouse saying "I know being poor doesn't make you a bad person but
here's a bunch of statistics showing otherwise which might make you change
your mind about your poor friends."

~~~
novembermike
An individual is an individual. Individuals make up a group. You can apply
statistics to individuals in a way that you can't apply to an individual.

I'm repeating the word to make a point. Your second quote might say
"individuals" but it's talking about a group.

~~~
clavalle
But you can't apply the statistics backward.

Say you have a population of 10,000. You can come to some meaningful
statistical conclusions about that group.

If you consciously pick 100 individuals from that original population you also
have a group, it's true. But you can't use the conclusions from the first
group on the second, much smaller, group.

You can discover some new statically valid facts on the new group -- they may
even be similar to the original statistics -- but that is far from a given.

The only thing you can reasonably say is that the new group will fall
somewhere in the domain of the original measurements.

Unless, of course, the new group is chosen at random or semi-random in regards
to the measured characteristics, in which case you can have some sort of
expectation for the new group and even measure (statistically) the amount of
randomness.

But when it comes to the question at hand: ability to handle stress, high
achievement potential, leadership talent -- these are all things I would
assume Google chooses non-randomly from the overall general population pool.
So there is no reason to think the relevant characteristics of the small sub
set should show any similarity to the general population at all for these
characteristics especially when the differences in the general population are
relatively small.

------
peoplewindow
I am minded to agree. And that's a shame, because Pichai has done good things
for Chrome and Android when he was leading those.

The article doesn't really touch on Pichai's biggest mistakes here.

Mistake one: Damore's memo alleged discrimination, both against men and
conservatives. Gender and political affiliation are both protected classes in
California and they just fired him for whistleblowing. He has now filed a
complaint with the NLRB. This seems like a legal headache that a better CEO
could have avoided by not firing the guy. Put him on the roof or something,
wait for things to blow over, find some other solution but the moment they
fired him, they set themselves up for this.

Mistake two: Google shareholders asked at the last shareholder meeting if it
was true that Google was a hostile work environment for conservatives (or
words to that effect). They assured shareholders that this wasn't true.
Clearly that answer has problems. Employees are leaking like crazy to
Breitbart of all places that Google is extremely hostile to conservatives. I
don't know what happens if leadership misleads shareholders in these sorts of
questions, maybe nothing. But it can't be good.

Mistake three: Google managers have been publicly announcing within the firm
that they are blacklisting employees for not being sufficiently pro-feminist
or even for just questioning the policies or the mob reaction to it. There are
screenshots of this along with interviews, again, on Breitbart. This seems
like a fantastically unhealthy culture that Pichai has allowed to grow on his
watch. I have heard from other Googlers that in one incident, a manager
claimed he'd blacklist anyone who was subscribed to an internal mailing list
for discussion of conservative viewpoints, and then when people objected, that
he'd blacklist them too (so they couldn't transfer to his team). Again this
seems like a cut/dried case of discrimination against people of certain
political affiliations.

Mistake four: this debate is happening because Googlers are furiously
attacking each other through leaks to the press. This is happening in both
directions: the original leak was clearly intended to get Damore fired and
publicly shamed, now others are leaking screenshots of internal communications
and Pichai's emails. Pichai has quite clearly lost control of his own
workforce to a staggering degree.

How much more of Google's guts spilling out onto the street will shareholders
tolerate?

~~~
malandrew
Do you have a reference for the shareholder's question? I had not heard that
before and would like to read more.

~~~
peoplewindow
I was repeating a claim I saw on HN earlier and went looking for references.
It turns out the person who asked the question wrote a whole article about it:

[http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/i-confronted-
go...](http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/i-confronted-google-about-
its-liberal-groupthink-at-a-shareholder-meeting-heres-what-happened-next/)

 _At the meeting, I asked Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt about the company 's
actual commitment to diversity and inclusion in light of the company's public
policy positions, not to mention the views of top management, that all skew to
the extreme political left. I noted conservatives may not feel welcome in such
an environment, let alone feel free to express their beliefs. Schmidt and
other company executives dismissed my entire question by claiming everyone at
the company — and in the tech industry as a whole — was in agreement with
them.

After that confrontation, a strange thing happened. I started receiving
messages from Google employees thanking me for challenging Alphabet's
leadership. Without realizing it, I was apparently speaking for a closeted
segment of Google employees with conservative beliefs.

One email read, "I'm working with a few other Googlers to fix the company's
political discrimination problem. Really appreciate you shining a light on the
matter."

Another said she was working closely with a group of conservatives at Google,
and noted, "(t)hey're all very appreciative that you were standing up for
their interests at the shareholder's (sic) meeting. The shareholder resolution
your organization filed also made a lot of people happy."_

------
KirinDave
And once again, the characterization of "allowing the debate" means one thing
for James (why, he "cited studies") and another for everyone else (they are an
angry mob). The most telling bias in this piece is that characterization.

Perhaps is James had not hamfistedly "cited" population research (as Brooks
suggests) but then given very specific personal-level fixes (e.g., pair
programming , suggestions of "pipeline" fixes, etc) he would not have cast
quite so much doubt over his intent.

What's also lost in this summary is one of the most important points: long
term exposure to stereotypes has a powerful influence on people (many
references of varying quality here:
[https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/resources/women-m...](https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/resources/women-
mathematics-stereotypes-identity-achievement)). By embracing them, we actually
create self-fulfilling prophecies.

These prophecies may be based on a statistical mean, but what's lost in that
simple numerical distillation is what harm befalls even modest outliers to the
distribution. Stereotypes which may seem obvious and unimportant to 3/4 of a
population may be a crushing burden and source of relentless stress to the
remaining quarter.

It's interesting how many of my peers fought to liberate themselves from
stereotypes of "weakness" and "inferiority" that were tied around them as
smart teenagers. But when it comes time to recognize the harm in these
stereotypes to outliers in a other group, they appeal to the same logic that
oppressed them. One might argue that these traits are adopted defense
mechanisms well-impressed by abuse. I'm not sure that justifies them, though.

~~~
avs733
While I agree, I think brook's argument is even more easily dismissable as the
BS it is. One of several reasons for citing material on which an argument is
based is to trace the flow of knowledge and tie statements to the prior
research they interpret.

James fundamentally misinterpreted much of the research he cited in ways that
are overly summative to make a point he wanted to make. He sought research to
give his biases the veneer of science without understanding what the authors
of the underlying research meant.

This whole incident, from the very beginning, represents one of the major
problems with public understanding of science. There are basic ontological
misconceptions about the relationship of researchers and research, about the
generalizability of most scientific research, AND about how scientists within
a field interpret and infer from results...and how future scientists build on
that work. Because so much of that thinking work is invisible to the naked eye
or is lost in media depictions, people think they have a greater understanding
of how science constructs knowledge and they feel excessively qualified to
infer and extrapolate research beyond what original authors had intended.

As you note, when science is discussed through means, when people attempt to
decontextualize science, and try and simply apply science as a post-hoc
rationalization for their fears and biases they are the problem not the
science and not those who call BS on bad uses of science.

~~~
Spivak
Okay, help me out here. People keep saying that he mischaracterized existing
research but then we have qualified people in the field saying that he got it
right.

[https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-
manif...](https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-
isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/)

~~~
avs733
This is deserving of a response obviously...and it is a vitally important
point to understand clearly because the ramifications go beyond just this
incident. I don't have a chance to write something tonight but I will try and
write it up tomorrow and either post it here or post it on my blog.

------
EduardoBautista
Convincing women to focus on a career in STEM is telling them that their
choices for careers in nursing, teaching, and any other career dominated by
women are wrong choices. I don't believe that, they are essential to our
society and are arguably more important than helping create better ads at
Google and Facebook.

~~~
eganist
That's not the argument being made by advocates for women in STEM. The mission
(I among one of many adherents to it) is to open pathways in STEM up to women
who are choosing not to pursue it _because_ of socioeconomic blockers.

Blockers such as this guy.

Anyway, the real position being pushed by Women in Tech/STEM movements is that
anyone can/should be free to work in any career and not expect e.g. pay
differences and biases against them solely because of gender. Male nurses are
an example in the reverse direction.

~~~
UK-AL
The more free the genders are, the more they tend to polarise on certain
careers.

Since they tend to pursue what they prefer.

I'm all for having no blockers for people choosing what careers they want.
However people will move towards there preferences, and there preferences will
be set either by nature or culture.

~~~
peeters
What evidence do we have of that?

------
dahart
> When it comes to the genetic differences between male and female brains, I’d
> say the mainstream view is that male and female abilities are the same
> across the vast majority of domains — I.Q., the ability to do math, etc.

It's weird that Brooks paints the memo as largely factually correct, but
clearly doesn't believe what is the main thrust of the memo.

The problem with the memo is not with any claims that are stated as fact, the
problem is the FUD he's spreading by suggesting that the small and likely
irrelevant biological differences we do know about _might_ be responsible for
the large differences in today's gender distribution in tech.

There is plenty of evidence that there are much, much larger factors in the
distribution discrepancy today than any possible difference of ability, but
Damore is casting doubt on that and suggesting that the current distribution
might be the natural fixed point, that it _could_ be at steady state already
due to the biological differences.

Okay sure, he doesn't propose that as fact, he uses weasel words and doubt-
casting to say it might be true, and that's the most damaging part. Getting
people to believe it's possible is worse than any easily provable lie.

People like Brooks defending the memo's factual accuracy are hiding behind
this idea that only things claimed as fact might be damaging. Not true, the
things claimed as possibility are more damaging.

The obvious problem with suggesting that the current distribution might have
settled to it's natural steady state is that it encourages turning a blind eye
to the cultural sexism that we already know exists. It perpetuates sexism if
we don't fix it first.

~~~
humanrebar
> ...the problem is the FUD he's spreading...

He seems earnest to me. If he's earnestly voicing ideas that result in fear,
uncertainty, or doubt, is it his fault? What is the appropriate way to broach
the subject publicly? Or are certain thoughts inherently unspeakable?

If Damore bears significant blame, what is an appropriate response for a boss
to have to that situation? Why is Damore the only person in trouble if
controversial discussions themselves are against the rules?

~~~
dahart
I believe he's earnest, that makes his being wrong all the worse, he doesn't
know he's wrong and he's not trying to be wrong. It's more convincing, and
thus more damaging, that he sounds earnest.

I don't think it makes sense to assign blame, I don't care who's fault it is,
and I believe he's free to share his thoughts. I hope you're not suggesting
that being fired from a company is somehow censorship.

What I care about is that his ideas are regressive and unintentionally sexist.
He is using specious scientific sounding arguments to say we should turn a
blind eye to cultural sexism. By ignoring it, we perpetuate cultural sexism.

~~~
humanrebar
> I hope you're not suggesting that being fired from a company is somehow
> censorship.

It is censorship. Read the first sentence:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

The defense of the firing is that the censorship is justified, not that it
isn't censorship.

> What I care about is that his ideas are regressive and unintentionally
> sexist.

It's not his fault, but he's fired anyway? That doesn't seem fair.

~~~
dahart
The stated reason for his firing was for breaking the existing written rules
of the company. That part was his choice and is his fault. I feel like the
goal posts are moving. The question you asked was whether it was his fault if
doubt occurred as a reaction to his ideas, not whether he was at fault for
getting fired.

I guess you're right, it is censorship, so I take it back. I still feel like
it applies to government and public speech, more than within companies. It
feels like the wrong word when describing the legal consequences that are
widely considered acceptable for breaking the rules inside a company. It feels
pretty different than public speech suppression, which is, in contrast, widely
considered unacceptable.

~~~
humanrebar
The code of conduct, I understand, banned creating an unwelcoming culture
through biased behavior. Saying he's in violation of that rule is begging the
question.

So I'm not moving the goalposts. They weren't really set in the first place.
I'm asking, more or less, if it's fair for a code of conduct (explicit or ad
hoc) to make employees responsible for how their words are taken.

> It feels pretty different than public speech suppression, which is, in
> contrast, widely considered unacceptable.

It's _worse_ when governments do it because it's hard to change countries if
you want your freedom to express yourself. But it's still an undue burden to
have to switch jobs or even careers.

------
teton_ferb
Steve jobs would have fired an Apple employee for staring at him for too long
in the elevator and the press would have written fawning articles about how
decisive Steve is, how secretive Apple is, and how much Apple employees fear
Steve.

Take any other industry: A friend of mine working for a management consulting
firm was fired for losing a presentation and making a partner look bad because
_the company supplied laptop had a hard disk crash_. People have been fired
for less.

But Sundar Pichai should take personal responsibility for firing an employee
who wrote a jackass memo and caused Google PR harm. If the fellow was not
fired, we'd have more articles calling for Sundar Pichai's resignation for
making Google a hostile place for women and adding to gender imbalance in the
industry. There's no winning strategy here.

Now, if someone is calling for Google CEO's resignation for killing reader, I
wholeheartedly agree :-)

Edit: A CEO's job and responsibilities are to his/her shareholders, users and
employees. Not to make decisions consistent with their personality traits.

------
Torai
> There are many actors in the whole Google/diversity drama

Says the guy who has just claimed its CEO should resign.

~~~
chubot
Yup.

Here is the only intelligent thing I've read about this debacle:

 _To me, if you read it and are completely outraged or uniformly in favor,
then you are part of the problem._

[http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/google-employee-
manif...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/opinions/google-employee-manifesto-
against-diversity-opinion-randazza/index.html)

~~~
Danihan
I don't understand that statement.. or why you would agree with it. The auther
of the memo was attempting to present facts. Why wouldn't I completely agree
with facts that are true? Especially in this case, when most cognitive
scientists seem to agree upon the facts as presented? _[1]_

It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with facts... they are still
reality, regardless. And I see very, very few people arguing against the facts
that Damore presented in any sort of cogent manner.

Damore's only real policy suggestion was to (gasp) treat everyone as
individuals, rather than as stereotypical tribal members. And I'm personally
very confused as to how anyone _isn 't_ wholly in favor of that. We are all
more than our skin color or gender.

 _[1]_ [https://archive.is/VlNfl](https://archive.is/VlNfl)

~~~
chubot
First, you have to accept that the debate isn't about all about scientific
facts; it's about their implication in workplace policies. Reducing workplace
interaction to science is a fallacy.

When deciding how to act in the world, you have to use your judgement. When
planning your diet, do you read a bunch of nutrition papers and decide what to
eat 100% on what they say, or did you apply some cultural knowledge?

Second, _" facts that are completely true"_ does not gibe with _most cognitive
scientists seem to agree_.

Which is it? Did you check every fact yourself, or did you just accept what he
had to say uncritically?

From the article: _Similarly, if you can read this guy 's entire memo and find
yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren't using your brain either._

The phrase _facts that are completely true_ sounds young and naive. Just like
the left can cite studies about unconscious bias, the right can cite studies
about biological differences. That doesn't mean they're all true.

Even if you accept that "scientific facts" are the way to decide the workplace
policy, his article isn't complete. Where is the scientific fact that says how
much discrimination against women there is? He said "I'm not denying
discrimination exists" but didn't address it further.

BTW I largely defended Damore, because many people I talked with have extreme
"left wing" views. His points were completely mischaracterized in the media.
It became a political circus. But I will also argue against extreme "right
wing" views. That was the point of the quote.

FWIW I worked at Google for 11 years, and both my parents and sister have
Ph.D.'s and are in the sciences, two in biological sciences. I know how
"studies" work. Both people on the left and right (at least in this debate)
have a naive view of science.

~~~
Danihan
Obviously I have my own worldview and biases. That being said, I've tried
painstakingly to develop a worldview that is accurate and not based on wishful
thinking. Yes, I do base what I eat on nutritional facts, rather than just
cultural norms. For instance, I don't eat vegetable oils hardly at all. I do
periods of water fasting to initiate autophagy in my body. Neither of those
things is culturally common in my circles, in fact, the vast majority of
people around me are fairly unhealthy.

"Everyone is equal" is absurd, fantastical thinking. A criminal serial killer
with a 70 IQ is not equal to Einstein by any metric. Whereas, the precept of,
"Everyone should be given equal opportunity under the ruleset," is a noble
ideal worth pursuing at nearly any level of policy.

When I read Damore's memo, I was nodding, not because I was being uncritical,
but because he's right, as far as I can tell.

He's saying Google is chasing a fantasy of equal outcomes, rather than
providing equal opportunities. That's correct, they are. His suggestions were
to treat people more as individuals, rather than ham-fisting treatment based
on perceived group identity. I think that's very obviously a better approach.

And like most responses to his memo, you can't say (or haven't said) a single
thing you think he is wrong about. You can't, or won't, dispute a single line
he said.

Just because you come from a good family, and believe that centrism is always
the way to go, doesn't mean you're automatically right.

~~~
chubot
By "you are part of the problem", and the article and I are saying the debate
is too extreme.

I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" people are just
as naively contributing to the debate as the "James Damore says women are
inferior" people. As I mentioned (and you didn't address), the argument that
there shouldn't be any training programs directed toward women leaves out any
science about discrimination against women.

It's possible that everything he said is 100% true, but that there should
still be programs at Google directed toward women (as he argued against).
That's what I meant by "reducing workplace policy to science is a fallacy".

The problem is the "100%, _facts that are completely true_ " mindset.
Certainly you may use nutritional science to guide what you eat, but it's not
100%. Nutritional science is a great example because many of those studies
have been overturned -- some would argue MOST such studies are false. You
should read a little about the philosophy of science.

I think what he said should have been said, although he could have done it in
a more constructive way.

And I think it's likely that someone on the opposing side leaked the memo on
purpose, to get him fired. I saw a lot of these types of internal manifestos
in my time at Google. Usually they don't leak, and a logical motive here would
have been to force Google's hand and get him fired.

------
hliyan
Isn't this author's reaction to the firing the same as Google's reaction to
the memo -- over-outrage?

~~~
where_do_i_live
Arguing someone should be fired from their job for doing a bad job doesn't
seem to be over-outrage... seems applicable. Maybe you disagree with his
arguments, but seems normal to me.

------
mwytock
A lot of people on "our side" did a bad job of simply refuting the argument
presented. Its straightforward to do in one sentence:

"While there may be scientific evidence of differences between men and women,
using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less inclined
to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by
the facts."

Then you can go on and explain why for historical and societal reasons putting
forth this weak theory is highly offensive and damaging to a large group of
people.

Of course, many feel that you shouldn't _have_ to explain this to people, but
unfortunately in todays environment, you do!

~~~
chongli
_" While there may be scientific evidence of differences between men and
women, using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less
inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all
supported by the facts."_

That is not true. The facts support the exact opposite conclusion: that
prenatal exposure to androgens orients a person toward things/systems rather
than people. [0]

[0]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/)

~~~
mwytock
I'm not sure what you are arguing, can you be more explicit? You're saying
that you agree with the fundamental point of the memo?

~~~
chongli
I'm saying that the scientific research agrees with the point of the memo.
Whether or not I agree is irrelevant to the facts.

~~~
mwytock
I see. Well I'm saying it does not. Obviously we disagree about what the
scientific research says.

~~~
LunaSea
Could you link to these research papers you are mentioning?

~~~
mwytock
See citation above. I'm saying its much too strong a claim to go from this
paper to the conclusion that women are biologically less inclined to
engineering.

EDIT: To be consistent with my original statement (see child)

~~~
peoplewindow
You are losing this argument because you aren't being consistent with
yourself.

Originally you said, "using these differences to conclude that women are
biologically _less inclined_ to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning"

So you were talking about inclination and interest. You then claimed the facts
were on your side, that it was offensive to claim otherwise, and the existence
of anyone who doesn't already agree is "unfortunate".

After chongli pointed out that you're wrong about the facts, you have moved
the goalposts. Now you're pretending you said "biologically _ill-suited_ ".
This is not true. You said "less inclined".

As the memo in question didn't claim women are biologically ill-suited to be
software engineers, only less inclined, your original statement was
contradicted by science and your second try is not what anyone tried to argue.

~~~
mwytock
Thanks for the play-by-play! I do disagree about winning/losing. I feel I've
done a good job representing my views.

I fixed the typo in my statement, sorry for the confusion.

As I said, the fact that this memo is offensive to many people is evidenced by
the huge outrage. I'm not sure how that is a controversial statement.

~~~
chongli
Nobody argued with the obvious fact that people expressed outrage and took
offense at the memo. The argument started with your baseless claim that _"
women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in
reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts."_

------
hugh4life
Completely nuts... and I generally agree with the guy who was fired. First,
this issue has little to do with the end product of the corporation. Second,
CEOs have less control of the socio-political environment they find themselves
in than say the "Newspaper of Record".

------
plinkplonk
Sundar Pichai does seem to be a little off balance and a bit out of his depth.

That said, why should he resign? In the overall scheme of things, this isn't
much of a crisis. If this were the standard to fire CEOs by not many companies
would have CEOs left.

~~~
jamesrcole
I think that firing sets a very dangerous precedent. I think it was wrong and
it's important that there are consequences to disincentivise such behaviour in
the future. (Obviously, there's lots of differing opinions on this)

I'm not sure whether I think that means he should resign, though.

------
taysic
"He could have wrestled with the tension between population-level research and
individual experience. He could have stood up for the free flow of
information."

Honestly I don't agree. It's his job to facilitate an enjoyable work
environment not be a champion of free speech. Free speech is plentiful outside
the workplace. If you want to contact HR go for it.

But the person who wrote the memo opened a can of worms implying that his
perspective was super valuable to the discussion rather than the many female
employees who work there. There are a myriad of debatable perpestives but this
was not the appropriate channel to vent them.

Women want to be respected by their coworkers and arguments like "biologically
we've hit the max amount of women who are interested in this field" don't
align with our experience.

~~~
peoplewindow
_> It's his job to facilitate an enjoyable work environment not be a champion
of free speech_

Obviously he hasn't been doing that. Lots of Googlers apparently feel like
they can't speak out on topics that might offend hard-left sensibilities.

 _> Women want to be respected by their coworkers and arguments like
"biologically we've hit the max amount of women who are interested in this
field" don't align with our experience._

Align with your experience? How would that be a valid way to measure anything?

The reason this thesis has weight is because it aligns with hiring data.
Despite huge efforts software is not 50/50 balanced. This is because there's
not 50/50 male/female graduation rates, and that in turn is because there's
not 50/50 male/females studying CS to begin with.

Obviously there's some cause for this. If you rule out biological causes then
you're left with unconscious bias and other evidence-free theories. Biological
explanations have actual scientific studies behind them.

~~~
taysic
So just because theories are "evidence-free" or too hard to make studies
around, they are untrue?

My experience should count for something because I am actually a woman in
tech, who loves to code, who started my own successful tech business. People
like me should be a vocal part of the discussion because we're a minority who
has some first hand insight. Studies have been shown time and time again to
sometimes create conclusions from biased premises, to make the wrong
conclusions, or simply be contradictory to a dozen other studies.

Not to say they are always wrong. I have no reason to believe biology plays no
role but I personally don't believe it plays a significant role.

------
onebot
I also believe it was the correct move. But not because he wrote it, but
because what he actually said in it. He made many generalizations that
contribute to gender inequality and never backed any of those statements up
with any scientific data. Thus, it could be reasoned that he clearly displayed
his own biases and showed that he is a contributor to gender inequality.

Furthermore, the PR backlash against his firing is far more news worthy if it
was "wrongful" and he has gone on a media tour acting as the "victim". I am
not sure news outlets would approach the firing objectively.

------
danso
Political debates aside (which I know is difficult to set aside since the memo
is literally about politics), what is the actual threat to Google's bottom
line, or its ongoing operations.

Obviously, if Damore's lawsuit succeed, Google will pay a penalty. But what
other impacts will there be? This incident doesn't seem to have the same
snowball potential of Susan Fowler's Uber essay, because Fowler wrote about
sexual harassment, which put Uber in greater legal jeopardy than Damore has
with Google (as far as we can tell, as Damore's complaint moves through the
system).

#DeleteUber was a big thing on Twitter, did it have a noticeable impact on
Uber's bottom line? I know Damore supporters have called for a Google boycott,
but quitting Uber for Lyft seems easier than quitting Google for Bing, GMail
for Yahoo, and YouTube for Vimeo/Twitch.

Damore's firing likely pissed off his like-minded colleagues. But based on
what Damore claimed, non-liberal Googlers were already rare.

So what upcoming challenges/attacks would Google CEO's resignation head off?

------
thegayngler
Note to engineers. If you put your employer in a damned if you do damned if
you don't legal situation, you will be fired and should be fired. Why is that
so hard for everyone to understand? David Brooks should know this as he has
worked at a big company for awhile now. No matter what Google did there would
be people who were angry.

------
untangle
> Some people embrace moral absolutism in a desperate effort to find solid
> ground. They feel a rare and comforting sense of moral certainty when they
> are purging an evil person who has violated one of their sacred taboos.

I find this observation on-point and profound.

I expect this level of moral reasoning in my teenager. But I was shocked at
its embrace by much of Google. It seems unlikely to me that CEO Pichai would
be caught up directly in this stream of moral certitude and virtue signaling.
Far more likely that influencers carried the torch.

But while I disagree with Pichai's decision, I think that firing him would be
an inappropriate remedy that would represent a form of counter-extremism. I do
suggest that Pichai surround himself with more able counsel (and not just
legal). And that this episode be discussed at the Board level within the
context of Google's culture.

------
tootie
I think that's even more nuts than the media response to the actual incident.
Pichai is a product guy who made handled a personnel issue poorly. I think
this is still a minor issue and one where he has hopefully learned some
lessons and we can move on.

------
daenz
An excellent and relevant video to this discussion is an episode of Brainwash
called "The Gender Equality Paradox." It covers the paradox of why, in more
gender-equal societies, we see more separation between what men and women
choose to do, and in less gender-equal societies, we see less separation
between the interests. The host talks to scientists on both sides and goes
back and forth relaying information and starting debate. It is fantastic.

[https://vimeo.com/19707588](https://vimeo.com/19707588)

------
pow_pp_-1_v
What good would it do if Sundar resigns? If an employee, by his actions, sour
the working environment in a company, I would think it's management's duty to
get rid of the employee in no time. I am not commenting about the content of
the stuff Damore wrote. But why did he write it in a way that would cause harm
to his workplace? If he wanted change in the organization he should have
probably found less public means of doing it.

------
zellyn
It seems disingenuous not to mention the many debunkings of the memo's Science
by Scientists.

For example: [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-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-
August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin)

~~~
nzjrs
By my estimation there is about 7 layers of recursive debunkings so far. How
many times you recurse before breaking out seems to depend most strongly on
your initial starting biases.

~~~
thomasahle
If the refutals are serious, you should be able to eventually find some
underlying, simpler disagreement, or some experiment that needs to be done. If
we give up, and break the recursion early, we get tribalism.

------
jblow
This topic, a link to an NYT editorial, has been flagged. This seems highly
problematic to me. Discussion here was pretty reasonable last I checked.

------
visarga
I read that as "Sundar Pichai Resigns as Google’s C.E.O" and was shocked for a
second.

I think he made a moral mistake by firing the memo guy, but he has to worry
about potential legal ramifications, should an employee sue for "condoning
discrimination" or something. Too bad for diversity of opinion, can't have
that under threat of lawsuit.

------
pgodzin
There are 2 sentences in the entire article about Sundar, essentially saying
he should have handled this better. There is no great way to handle this. If
he hadn't fired him there would be 10x more articles demanding his resignation
as many outraged employees would leave and diversity efforts set back.

------
Overtonwindow
How would this have played in other countries? Is there someone from the U.K.
or broader EU that could weigh in? I seem to recall that other countries have
greater protections for speaking ones mind like this, which would have
protected the author from termination.

------
samfisher83
Whether he resigned would it really make that much of a difference in grand
scheme of things? He got 200 mil he can do whatever he wants and he doesn't
worry about what his next job is.

------
codegeek
Regardless of who is right or wrong here, I don't get what the point of that
Memo was ? I mean there are other ways of voicing your opinions on
controversial topics like these. If I work for a large organization and I send
a memo that discusses a sensitive and controversial topic, I am really
creating trouble. I am not supporting his firing on this but he could have
just avoided doing this. Companies exist only for 1 reason: profit for their
shareholders. That is the hard fact, whether we like it or not. If a company
gets bad PR because of one employee, they will fire the employee.

Even if there was some merit in his argument, he could have chosen to do it
differently. Bad choice which blew up pretty fast.

------
wudangmonk
Going by this piece from the NYTimes no less it seems like the US university
social justice warriors are starting to spill out into the mainstream
population.

------
senthil_rajasek
", is not capable of handling complex data flows"

What ? he is the CEO of Google.

These silly opinion making pundits.

------
arihant
No he should not. That letter was a disaster. While some of the points in that
letter could have sparked valuable debate, one simply can't get away with a
written claim that his coworkers are biologically incompetant to do their
jobs.

------
alixaxel
Flagged, huh? Censor everything!!!

------
akras14
I think he should resign, but mainly because he is a shitty CEO. Google can
really use their version of Nadella.

------
voidhorse
As with any issue worth talking about, Damore's memo isn't outright sexist or
discriminatory--but it isn't the well reasoned call to arms for an
individualistic approach to diversity or a reconsideration of biology that he
might've hoped for it to be.

Some of Damore's footnotes reveal he lacks a certain subtly and researcher's
tact and has quite a hefty number of biases of his own:

"Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to
capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure.
As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t
going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals
transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core
oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white,
straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” -- Damore, note 7.

This is a polluted conceptualization of the issue and outright mythology. You
can tell from his phrasing he's fallen prey to the us v. them mentality that
plagues many of those who rail against the 'sjws'\--linking identity politics
_directly_ to marxism and its development is patently ridiculous, a bleeding
of domains, and shows that he can't help letting his own biases color his
reading of contemporary situations and narratives. Sure, there are offshoots
and links between these struggles but--I mean seriously--does he really
believe there's some cohort of marxists who collectively decided, 'man we got
to overthrow capitalism somehow but the proletariat didn't do it so lets try
to level gender and race inequalities' _what_? Are we in fairytale land? There
are people who research and write about identity politics that may draw upon
marxist thought in some of their critiques, but it isn't some legion of people
who just want to consistently uphold an 'opressor-opressed' dynamic regardless
of the participants. There are plenty of marxists who also find identity
politics to be total hogwash. For a memo that tries to "advocat[e] for quite
the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their
group (tribalism).", it fails spectacularly at its mission in this footnote.

Damore's document is not a sexist screed by any means, but it isn't some lucid
reconsideration of diversity either--plenty of his word choices and preemptive
defensive measures (see the several instances where he reiterates that he
definitely not a sexist and definitely supports diversity) show that, even if
he was making an honest effort to step back, he is still victim to particular
ideologies.

We should ask ourselves why Damore would write such an memo in the first
place. He makes no direct mention of an incident that prompted this call to
arms. No quantitative predictive analysis into how a change in Google's
diversity program would improve it and foster greater diversity and make it
'psychologically safe'. This makes one think his primary motivation was more
likely a personal sense of injustice, or fueled by adherence to an ideology
(his conservatism). It sounds like the result of a personal incident in which
Damore's ideas were challenged, and he felt the instance was the result of
company wide systemic practices and not an individual issue.

I can't say whether or not the firing was justified, but Damore definitely
isn't the scientific, neutral paragon Brooks reads him to be. The memo is
loaded with ideology. It is not a scientific paper--nor does it claim to be.
It is a political argument that tries to mask how politicized it is under the
protective badge of 'but I have science on my side'. There's some ridiculous
idea that, so long as _science_ is on your team you're in the right. People
forget that science only describes the world. What we _argue for_ using
science and how we interpret it still point inevitably to our own values. Just
because you can leverage scientific fact to push your agenda does not make it
'correct' or 'objective'. Yes, science tells us the world is getting really
hot and we should probably stop that if we want to avoid major climactic
shifts--but science doesn't tell us we _should_ act to save the world--that's
up to us. Hell, the universe might be better off if the world does go to ash.
There's no way to know. you make a value judgement and you act, scientific or
otherwise. Even Damore's urging that we de-moralize, and de-empathize and
generally act more like inhuman robots when it comes to diversity to
depoliticize it is a major value judgement (that it's valuable to be neutral
and objective and science guided as possible) and is thus both moral and
political.

------
v1n337
> The fourth actor is the media. The coverage of the memo has been atrocious.

The irony.

------
EugeneOZ
this journalist should resign. Sundar is right.

------
maplesirupfan
Google should hire OBAMA!

------
mankash666
This is a surprisingly accurate, well written, neutral article, save the click
baity headline.

Everyone here should treat suggestions of resigning with a grain of salt, the
author just wants your attention

------
moneytalks
Let's take bets on how long this survives on the front page.

I'm going with 15-20 minutes from now.

Who wants the over/under?

edit: Already down from 3rd to 6th while points went from 130 to 170. 7
minutes in.

edit: now 7th

~~~
revelation
It sinks like a stone because it has attracted 160+ comments in a mere hour.

~~~
moneytalks
Didn't realize that too-high engagement counted against rank. Interesting
approach.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
Wow, I'd never imagine to read this piece in NY Times.

~~~
guelo
Maybe you have unfounded biases against the NYT based on the propaganda
outlets you get your information from.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
I agree with parent based on my own experience, and I'm sure parent bases
his/her comment based on experience too.

I have been a NYTimes reader for a while and still read some of their less
political articles, but when it comes to political pieces I stay away from
them because I get nothing new, most of their articles are obviously left
biased (For the record, I am NOT right wing. I just appreciate unbiased
journalism and NYT has been failing me)

If you think NYT being left is based on some untrue propaganda by right
tilting media websites, then you're the one who's mistaken, because as I said,
I'm not right wing and I don't even read any right wing media.

~~~
guelo
Well I do read NYT's political pieces and haven't ever noticed any biases
against conservatives.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
Interesting. Do you think NYT is a neutral publication? Honest question.

~~~
guelo
Yes I believe so. They employ hundreds of the top journalists in the country
who sincerely want to do a good job. They are like the Google of the
journalism world in that the very best journalists want to work there. I'm
sure some bias creeps in but for the most part they will try harder than most
other organizations to play it straight.

------
alexashka
If we had CEOs resigning over every hissy fit an employee throws - we'd have
no CEOs left.

~~~
drakenot
It isn't about the "hissy fit" an employee threw.

The resignation would be because of Sundar's intellectually dishonest
characterization of the memo, and his subsequent handling of the situation.

I don't know if he should resign, but I do think he fucked up in his handling
of this situation.

------
nikolay
I've never found him fit for this role anyway.

------
sounds
Please be aware this is an opinion piece by David Brooks. This does not
represent a majority opinion of the New York Times shareholders.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Nevertheless, to see such a balanced presentation of the case in mainstream
media is uplifting.

------
matt_wulfeck
> _In general the evolutionary psychologists have been winning this debate._

Yes they are, by getting people fired who disagree with them.

------
aaron-lebo
lol what a clickbait obnoxious headline.

What was he supposed to do? He's got a workforce of tens of thousands, lots of
who were offended rightly or not. To keep the guy around would've been just as
bad. You publish something like that you accept the consequences. You make
yourself obnoxious to your bosses who expect you to be a quiet cog in the
machine, that's what happens. Duh.

It's kind of funny that Damore dropped out of Harvard to work at Google and
he's now been fired from there. Kind of throwing away his advantages.

------
j45
I can't seem to locate articles by Mr. Brooks calling for the resignation on
other CEO's who have recently had worse issues.

Happy to read anything from NYTimes or this opinion writer on other tech
CEO's.

~~~
j45
Haven't been downvoted in a while!

------
thrill
Actually the Board should make this decision for him, but looking at who the
members are and who have positioned the company exactly where it sits, I don't
expect any displays of leadership in this matter.

------
systems
I dont understand, why did this google employee send a memo, why didnt he just
write a blog about .. like normal people do

I honestly think this is his biggest mistake (the google employee not the ceo)
.. he didnt understand boundaries

It is sad, that someone gets fired for his opinion, even if this opinion is
offensive ... i do believe in ones right to be offensive

But I think the medium used to express his opinion , and the boundaries where
choose to do so .. is erratic

~~~
Afton
There are lots of opinions that I might hold that would open my company up to
lawsuits. In this case, he posted something that dramatically increases the
likelyhood that some percentage of people fired will file suit, and this memo
and the failure to reprimand/fire him will be part of the legal arsenal used
against the company. Firing him is a simple mitigation strategy against this
attack vector. ANY company that cares about lawsuits would have to make this
move completely independently of the possible merits of his article. If it
hadn't been leaked, he might not have needed to be fired. But once it was
public news there was no sensible choice that Google could make. Again, I'm
not trying to weigh in on his paper's content here, but as a simple legal
precaution he needed to be fired.

Note that this isn't just about sexism, but lots of protected class opinions
could fall into this category of 'express this openly and you'll be fired'. No
company of any size would be able to tolerate it.

------
xrd
This is comment in the memo that changed the consequences: "Stop restricting
programs and classes to certain genders or races." He's advocating restricting
programs that reduce the _massive_ gap in distributions. If he had left his
arguments and asked people to make their own conclusions, he might still have
a job. Brooks is wrong here.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Are we reading the same text? He says: _Stop restricting programs and classes
to certain genders or races. These discriminatory practices are both unfair
and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I
outlined._

How is this "advocating restricting programs that reduce the massive gap in
distributions"?

~~~
xrd
I guess we will have to agree to disagree that these programs he allocated
cutting mitigate this gap.

Isn't down voting my opinions evidence that Hacker News doesn't tolerate
diverse opinions? Where is the outrage at that?

------
petraeus
But the question is, why would he do that? He made the best possible choice
out of many bad choices forced by the anti-diversity memo guy himself.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
It's not an "anti-diversity" memo.

------
ynniv
I must have read a different memo than everyone else. The one I read said that
the massive gender imbalance in software could be due to genetics, and because
of that we shouldn't try to fix it with policy. But the reality is that there
is a gender imbalance in software because of the way women are treated, and
the best way to correct that is through policies that treat them better.

It shouldn't be a stretch to see that arguing against treating people
respectfully is offensive.

~~~
vibrato
Who is arguing against treating people respectfully? For the sake of argument,
if a group is less inclined towards a given profession, isn't it disrespectful
to push them into it?

~~~
ynniv
The goal of affirmative action in general is to make a more welcoming
environment. When the status quo is disrespectful, making the argument to
perpetuate the status quo is making the argument to disrespect.

~~~
vibrato
sure, of course I agree that if cultural impacts or discrimination are the
cause of these discrepancies, then perpetuating that is disrespectful.
However, if biological differences cause them then affirmative action is
disrespectful of those differences.

------
jalayir
The big assumption in David Brooks' piece is that the so-called "manifesto"
was Damore's one and only "transgression". Were there other, previous internal
complaints about him, and this was the straw that broke the camel's back?

~~~
daughart
Especially given the reporting about him offending his classmates at Harvard.

