Damore has basically 3 points in his memo, in increasing order of disputability:
1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions
2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is a problem for working conditions
3) The reason women are underrepresented in the tech job market is biology
Notice that 3) has nothing to do with working conditions, it's just an elaboration on why 2) upsets Damore so much; it could have been left out and he would have been covered under the exemption, while still making his point about working conditions and hiring policies.
People within Google are totally free to disagree about whether a 50/50 gender ratio is an appropriate goal, and they are protected under this law as far as protesting those goals as they relate to working conditions. But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. Especially when they could be construed as hurting a company's ability to abide by laws regarding hostile work environments.
There's probably room for disagreement about the correct interpretation of the law, but I don't see it as a matter of removing the right to discuss freely, it's merely a tight technical interpretation of where the at-will exemption ends.
Why do you separate 2 and 3? Point 3 is Damore's detailed criticism of point 2. He's arguing (clumsily) that the goals of the policies in point 2 conflict with certain scientific research.
Because in the course of making point 3, he violated Google's anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to companies as to the reasonableness of their anti-harassment policies, because a different federal law that NLRB does not manage requires companies to have anti-harassment policies.
If he'd been arguing for better office furniture and Google claimed to fire him over violations of an anti-harassment policy, the NLRB would almost certainly not defer to Google. But he wasn't arguing for better office furniture; he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.
For just asking a question? If even entertaining a thought with regards to science, if it doesn't "seem nice" through some narrow ideological lens, has become a crime, then we're already at the level of Lysenkoism.
he was arguing about biological differences between men and women and how they might impact the distribution of male and female engineers at Google.
And why in the world should that be a "thought crime?" There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise.
Keep in mind that this ruling doesn't say it's a crime. It merely says, it's not covered by an exemption to the at-will employment rules that let a company fire you for any reason.
If my boss doesn't like the fact that I put horseradish on my nachos, they can fire me for that. It's only exceptional cases where I'm protected from arbitrary and nasty and capricious actions.
Also, put horseradish on your nachos, it's a good thing.
>There are biological differences that make the population of Asian NBA pros much smaller than otherwise, and the population of high level Kenyan marathon competitors higher than otherwise.
Those are great examples because nobody is totally sure of those things either.
Those are great examples because nobody is totally sure of those things either.
As an Asian man let me say this: Stop pandering! It's quite obvious that height is a huge advantage in the NBA. (Also note that biological differences are not necessarily genetic, because I have a guess that you are going to cite diet next.)
I have sympathy for what you're saying here; I think it would be a totally valid interpretation of the law to say that point 3), however clumsy it may have been, was made in support of point 2), and therefore under protection.
But the way this played out, the board ruled the other way, and I think this is a clear warning to future employees seeking protection under this rule: the NLRB will interpret things as tightly as possible, and be very deferential to employer's internal policies even if they hinder the ability to back up a labor conditions complaint with arguments.
Whether that's okay or not is a political fight, and I see how there's a slippery slope here that could theoretically be used to squash many legitimate labor complaints - if a company imposed rules against making people feel politically uncomfortable, would they be able to fire people for wanting to unionize and backing that up with political arguments that might offend capitalists? I'd be surprised if the board didn't act in that case.
But let's be honest. Damore was trying to score a backdoor win through a legal exception that pretty clearly was not in spirit carved out to protect people in situations like his. That's why I also expect him to fail in any CA civil suit, though I'm less certain about that one, political views are more protected in CA than elsewhere.
Just to be clear, I'm not personally in favor of Damore's firing over this memo, it sounds like Google tends to encourage vigorous internal debate about this sort of thing except when it goes public (as witnessed by the inaction until the memo was leaked and the outcry began). Despite his poor sense of what the response would be, I think he was engaging in good-faith argument, at first, at least, pre-Goolag and that nonsense. From what I hear, people on the left are pretty offensive and vitriolic on internal boards at Google without being disciplined [0], so I'd have loved to see management manage the situation and internally broker some peace between the offended parties rather than turn the thing into a classic alt-right recruiting talk-point by firing him. But I'm very much in favor of a company's right to fire anyone, for almost any reason, and I'm glad that was not interfered with here.
[0] Edit: from the memorandum, a Google employee was reprimanded for responding harshly to Damore over email: '“You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will
keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[*] you.” The employee was issued a
final warning for sending this email. '
But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint.
In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.
Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological. Which, let's be fair, it totally is, because he's no scientist and he has a very limited understanding of the sources he quotes in support of his views.
Scientific debate doesn't take place in Google forums through Google memos, any more than it happens in HN comments, so what was Damore's point of providing references to back his position, other than a misguided attempt to appear "scientifick"?
Actually, it flags Damore's interpretation of science as squishy and ideological.
The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty on the level of Global Warming denialism. The Big-5 personality traits he cited are the strongest results in psychology outside of the effect of General Intelligence.
The NLRB is basically saying that it's now open season on anyone who cites scientific studies, based on whether anyone on the internet finds it offensive.
>> The 55-country study he cited has effectively one of the highest P-values in
social science of recent years. It's widely considered in psychology to be an
important result. Denying this is basically parroting intellectual dishonesty
on the level of Global Warming denialism.
Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your
comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's
currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any
case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in
fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much criticism, from inside the field (and the wikipedia article you reference has a big section devoted to that criticism).
More improtantly however, Damore did a lot more than name-drop the big-5 in
his memo. The memo is peppered with references to sources from varied fields,
from psychology and sociology, to biology, evolutionary psychology,
anthropology, economics, statistics and so on.
The problem of course is that Damore is not an expert in any of those fields-
much less an expert in all of them. Which tells us that, most of the time,
when he says that some paper he's referencing is backing his views, he simply
hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and the paper may very well be
claiming exactly the opposite than what Damore is saying.
Damore's memo is indulging in cargo-cult science. He references stuff he
half-understands in the hopes to do what scientists do. Except he doesn't even
understand what scientists do and why they reference others' work: which is to
say, not to win a debate and show you're right on the internets, but to
contribute new knowledge by building on the knowledge already contributed by
others.
To have any respect for science and consider Damore's memo anything else than
pseudo-scientific claptrap is a contradiction. To call that garbage "science"
is offensive to the work of scientists. That is an even bigger reason to be
angry at an idiot like that, without even going to what he was trying to say
with his "sai-ent-tifickal" way.
Of course it is not and I take umbrage at the offensive undertone of your comment ("parroting"? Really?). Psychology is not climate science, it's currently going through a widely publicised reproducibility crisis and in any case, the reliance on p-values has been criticised widely by experts in fields as varied as economics, medicine and of course the humanities. The big-5 model itself has been the subject of much criticism, from inside the field (and the wikipedia article you reference has a big section devoted to that criticism).
So you're admitting that James Damore is referencing legitimate scientific sources. It's just that you're claiming the whole field isn't valid. Then you go on to make unsubstantiated claims that his interpretations are wrong, but you produce no specifics. That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.
I re-read the comment several times. What I get out of it, is that he notes that Big-5 has been criticized. That's what's supposed to happen in science. Bringing up that something is criticized in science is a classic climate denier tactic! (Also, given the controversial subject matter, one would expect that.) He also mentions his credentials. Then he engages in name calling. ("cargo-cult.") I'm sorry, but exactly where in that comment does he actually substantiate anything? After several readings, it still looks like he doesn't.
He's citing "legitimate scientific sources" but he doesn't understand them, so his citations are meaningless.
Where am I claiming that "the whole field isn't valid"? I said there's a reproducibility crisis and that the reliance on p-values has been criticised in various fields.
I made no claim that his interpretations are "wrong". I said that his interpretations are most likely wrong because he's not a psychologist and he doesn't understand the field. That's what you expect from non-experts who pretend to know what they're talking about, to be talking nonsense.
>> That sounds a lot like what climate science deniers do.
It's funny how you are trying to defame Damore and then take offense at the perceived insult. And all the appeals to authority can be used against you - you are not an expert in those fields, so you cannot claim Damore is wrong.
At least provide some citations or examples before you use such childish phrases as "sai-ent-tifickal". You sound really terrible when arguing like that.
stcredzero, I enjoy vigorous debate (I'm an academic) and in the past I've benefited tremendously from engaging opposing viewpoints. That's nothing like what I got from our conversation, which is instead becoming more and more embarassing for both of us, the more it grows. My apologies but it is evident to me there can be no productive debate between us and therefore I will now stop replying to you.
which is instead becoming more and more embarassing for both of us, the more it grows
Your argument just came down to: "I don't lend any credence to psychology/sociology, therefore I'm right to label it all pseudoscience." Also, since you're not supplying particulars, your mention of your background just amounts to argument by authority. Unless one grants that, I don't see that you really have a supported position. The rest is all heated assertion on your part. I will happily leave it to 3rd party readers to decide who is being intellectually honest here.
There seem to be a plague of pseudo-academics under the "Postmodernist" flag, which claim their own "alternative facts" and "alternative logic." In such an environment, skepticism and asking for substantiation of positions is quite understandable.
If, on the other hand, you'd like to actually substantiate something, then it would seem this would be beneficial and educational. (One thing we've seen from Postmodernist "fake academics" is that they are actually embarrassed when people are given a link to their work.)
It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this? You're a reasonable guy. We've had dinner together!
What's happening here isn't a shift. What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
It's open season on everyone in virtually every American workplace. Why won't you acknowledge this?
Oh, but I do acknowledge this. I would like to call attention to it. I thank you for your support.
What's happening here isn't a shift.
In the old days, one could cite such studies. The reactions and the consequences are indeed a shift in society. An outrageously authoritarian shift.
What you're demanding is a new special protection for "people who can defend their position scientifically".
Funny, but the NLRB was once a new special protection. The witch-hunts back then had took a different direction. I would grant that your interpretation of what's been discussed and apparently needed as a special protection. It does seem to me that our current society apparently needs special protection for things that used to be ok and which are still vital to the workings of our democratic society. Things like:
Peacefully donating to political PACs.
Peacefully having a mainstream political opinion. (Like being a Republican or a Libertarian)
Civilly stating an opinion.
Peacefully gathering to express political views.
At-will employment is now being used as a political tool against the category of people who are "Classical Liberals" and everyone to the right of that. It is different yet very similar in many regards to at-will employment being used against labor organizers in decades past.
You understand that, in much of the country, you can be fired simply for being a Democrat or a Republican, right?
The law recognizes the rights of the owners and managers of companies to organize them out of like-minded people.
If that's problematic for you, you should lobby for employment laws to change. It's arguably not the NLRB's place to come up with new protections; they're an agency largely unaccountable to the voters.
You understand that, in much of the country, you can be fired simply for being a Democrat or a Republican, right?
I was once pushed out of a job for being perceived as "too leftist." In retrospect, perhaps I should have claimed harassment.
I don't think any but the most ideologically fervent would consider firing someone for simply being a Democrat or a Republican anything but a crappy thing to do. I understand that at-will employment is a beneficial freedom to employers in the same way that free speech and freedom of association are beneficial freedoms to individuals. However, at-will employment was once used to actively discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion, or place of national origin. Society came to recognize that as a problem, and society came around to change "the social compact." The exploitation of ideologues to use at-will employment to implement "thought-crime" is abhorrent, and by your own admission, has come to be a widespread societal phenomenon.
> In effect, the ruling ratifies a particular squishy, ideological interpretation of science.
No, it just says that you can't wave a “labor organizing” flag to immunize yourself for consequences of violation of your employers facially-reasonable anti-harassment policy, thereby avoiding a situation in which employers could be put in the position of having to choose between violating the NLRA and violating the Civil Rights Act.
1) Conservatives are discriminated against at Google, which is a problem for working conditions
2) Google pushes an aggressive voluntary affirmative action policy which aims to hire women and underrepresented minorities at rates much higher than they appear in the relevant sector of the workforce, and the way this is pushed internally is a problem for working conditions
3) The reason women are underrepresented in the tech job market is biology
Notice that 3) has nothing to do with working conditions, it's just an elaboration on why 2) upsets Damore so much; it could have been left out and he would have been covered under the exemption, while still making his point about working conditions and hiring policies.
People within Google are totally free to disagree about whether a 50/50 gender ratio is an appropriate goal, and they are protected under this law as far as protesting those goals as they relate to working conditions. But the ruling says that the specific arguments you bring into play may still be in violation of company policy, and such arguments are not automatically protected by virtue of being connected to a working conditions complaint. Especially when they could be construed as hurting a company's ability to abide by laws regarding hostile work environments.
There's probably room for disagreement about the correct interpretation of the law, but I don't see it as a matter of removing the right to discuss freely, it's merely a tight technical interpretation of where the at-will exemption ends.