
Google CEO: ‘I don’t regret’ firing James Damore - LearnerHerzog
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/19/google-ceo-i-dont-regret-firing-james-damore/
======
sundarurfriend
I wonder, if mass media existed at the time, whether this is what the Church
vs Galileo affair would have looked like from the outside.

There have even been arguments that the "verdict against Galileo was rational
and just" because they took into consideration "the ethical and social
consequences of Galileo's teaching too."[1] This has been a major argument in
the Damore debate also, that even if his entire menu was true, it was right to
fire him because of the social consequences within the company.

Galileo's opposition also used less well-supported opposing theories (like
geocentrism and others) to discredit his work, and on a personal front tried
to shame him as a religious heretic for going against dogma and established
"moral" order.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Churc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church#Modern_view_on_Galileo)

~~~
eesmith
There are many events you could have chosen, including those with mass media.

If you think the science is wrong (as I do), you might have selected
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Or Ng v. Jacobs Eng'g Group, where
an employee was fired for using "company equipment and facilities to
proselytize for her evangelical Christian faith."

As you believe the science is essentially right, the Scopes Trial could be
another comparison.

If you are for free speech, you might have selected Abrams v United States.

But since Google has no power to enforce house arrest, or levy fines, or apply
other coercive power, all of these comparison are far grander than the case
deserves.

Best would be to compare it to similar cases, like those described in the EEOC
guidelines regarding a 'hostile workplace' at
[https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm)
. For example, it says "it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive
comments about women in general", and gives guidelines on what 'offensive'
might mean.

Along with
[https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html](https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html)
: "Unless the conduct is quite severe, a single incident or isolated incidents
of offensive sexual conduct or remarks generally do not create an abusive
environment. As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or
racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not
affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to
violate Title VII." ... A "hostile environment" claim generally requires a
showing of a pattern of offensive conduct". )

So perhaps Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and similar workplace-related
lawsuits are the better comparison. There are quite a few.

