16 ms·

Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

311 points by gbarc888 9y ago

blfr 9y ago
Has he set Google up for this blowup or do Americans just usually have complaints to federal regulators written and ready to send? Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-eng...
- chippy 9y ago
  I imagine that there are lawyers who are ready and willing to send something at short notice. Not so much ambulance chasers as SV drama chasers, perhaps!
- biggerfisch 9y ago
  It doesn't take long to write a complaint, and if he was sharing these views in a smaller circle for some time, he may well already have dealt with "upper management" in some fashion that he deemed worthy of a complaint
- umanwizard 9y ago
  I'm sure a competent lawyer who deals with employment law could put one of those together in half an hour -- we don't know for sure that he did it himself.
- 19guid 9y ago
  I think it's more likely that there's a history here that we're not aware of. His complaint suggests he's been arguing with Google's management for some time, and that this memo was the last straw.
- pktgen 9y ago
  It only takes a few minutes to file a NLRB charge. The charge form only requires a brief summary of the allegations (a few sentences, at most) and specifically tells you not to include any evidence (you provide that later, during or after meeting with a Board agent).
dangerlibrary 9y ago
Is any organization of meaningful size (# of employees, revenue, market cap - pick your metric) handling diversity issues in a way that completely satisfies the "proportional representation of the population" metric? Are there any success stories that one could use as case studies?
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  "proportional representation of the population" metric? Is there some reason the social disrupters only get all frothy mouthed about this in certain areas? Like shouldn't we spend much more time going after the NBA, Fishing, Logging, Elementary teachers, Nurses, etc. because these industries are far more out of "diversity balance." Are people clamoring for a "proportional representation of the population" metric prepared to fire a whole lot of Asians and Jews at places like Facebook and Google in order to bring these populations more in line with their broader United States society proportions?
  - dangerlibrary 9y ago
    Your point is pertinent and well-made in the latter part of your post, but the ad-hominem language in the former makes it difficult to believe you want to discuss the issue.
    - canoebuilder 9y ago
      Some people seem to have an unhealthy bias against colorful language when it is used in service of a larger point. But they seem all too happy to use it as a distraction from engaging with the points raised.
      - dangerlibrary 9y ago
        Calling people who disagree with you "frothy mouthed" is a distraction. Your comment is also not responsive to the question posed in the root comment.
  - 9y ago
jshevek 9y ago
"If the goal was to confirm Damore's thesis, Team Google is doing a great job." Yes, indeed. This is something we, as a culture, need to look at more carefully.
Froyoh 9y ago
Oh the irony...
caiob 9y ago
Wish I could paste that Michael Scott "Thank You" gif here.
macspoofing 9y ago
I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal that it a) got all the press that it got and b) that it required a personal condemnation from "Head of Diversity" and the CEO - who will now hold a town-hall to, I guess, denounce it even more? The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Consider that Google is currently facing a wage discrimination case from the US Department of Labor, so they're likely in the mood to go above and beyond to distance themselves from the author's attitudes.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal that it I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself. Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans. If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    You don't need a superpower, just a super computer to design the ultimate weapon for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Point_of_View_Gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%2...
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    >I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I don't work at Google, so I'm not. The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it. >I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself. Yeah, thanks for the condescension - just because I haven't reached the same conclusion must mean I haven't taken "time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself". >Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. Uh huh. >If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes. Why don't you try making an effort sometime.
gobugat 9y ago
> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did.
- fwn 9y ago
  > Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. They are. At least that's how civilised societies would handle it. It could be a textbook example of a decision a civil discourse could approach.
  - azinman2 9y ago
    But it’s not civil when you suggest there’s inherently biological reasons for your coworkers to be inferior to you.
    - nxsynonym 9y ago
      But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it. Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.
      - nxsynonym 9y ago
        Downvotes just prove my point, by the way. Make a valid counter-argument or bug off. Downvoting opinions you don't agree with is reddit-level hive mind. Make a stance and don't hide behind your ability to downvote.
      - azinman2 9y ago
        Guessing you’re not a minority in anyway. When others who aren’t a member of your class tell you anything that’s inherent to your class DOES hurt people... such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others. It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but then to get it at work as well....
sidlls 9y ago
What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of promoting gender stereotypes?
- leereeves 9y ago
  > unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired. That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original. People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      - dqv 9y ago
        The only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.
naturalgradient 9y ago
What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with anger and demanding for him to get fired. Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Not the diversity officer reaffirming the commitment to diversity in a dystopian way. It is scary, it really is. We have all grown up learning about regimes like this, we are all aware, yet seemingly nobody can help themselves.
- int_19h 9y ago
  > Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Could you give a link to that rant?
  - tylersmith 9y ago
    https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
    - paapi__gudiya 9y ago
      This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed. Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.
danharaj 9y ago
What else could Google have done? He made himself a visibly toxic employee to have on most teams. This might be weird to some people, but at work you have to work with other people, and while it may be OK to hold <X> belief in general, advocating for it at work can make it harder for you to work with others. Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select your peers.
- quickben 9y ago
  Oh plenty of things. Maybe they can start with the outstanding Department of Labour lawsuit and request for information ?
- moduspol 9y ago
  The issue at hand is that it's entirely work-related (it's about Google's hiring policies) and that it's framed by offended parties entirely as something it's not (a suggestion that women can't perform in certain roles as well as men). Google could have: * Clarified the opinions shared are not theirs and they do not endorse them. * Clarified their existing position on the topic at hand (as they did). * Created or clarified a new policy on how such suggestions can be shared in a way less likely to be read by people easily offended by opposing views. * Created some training policies regarding how to effectively avoid or even (gasp) tolerate opposing views without taking personal offense. Perhaps this could be just after the microaggression training mentioned in the memo. This whole idea that it's A-OK to preach the need for discrimination to account for effects unmeasurably attributed to white privilege, yet as soon as one suggests an alternative view, it's suddenly off-limits and political is ridiculous.
eco 9y ago
> Media outlets like TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Motherboard jumped on board to declare the memo an “Anti-Diversity Manifesto.” It appears that the ideological echo chamber extends beyond Google’s campus. As I look up and see this article flagged on HN (since unflagged). The points and ideas from his memo may be wrong or they may be right (or anywhere in between) but more important than this incident has been the reaction to it. I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend the issues don't exist.
- runako 9y ago
  > I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way." Using the expansion in your paragraph: ===== I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend that women and minorities are biologically as qualified for this job, or that their hires are as legitimate as anyone else's. ===== That's what some people are hearing. Hopefully it's obvious why management at most companies would consider these discussions to be less than helpful in fostering the most productive work environment.
  - habitue 9y ago
    > the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here are illegitimate in some way." Accepting your characterization here for the sake of argument: if his claims are so laughably ridiculous as to be easily refutable, people should just have pointed to studies refuting it (of which there are plenty) and gone about their day. When you can't bring up a topic in a respectful way without being shouted down, it's a bad situation.
skylark 9y ago
I don't have strong feelings about the original memo, but the media coverage has been an absolute circus. Google's hand was forced because of the negative PR storm that happened, not because it systematically suppresses the voices of its employees. > This algorithm is tuned by an internal team of evaluators. If the company silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our access to information? I'm almost convinced that this is satire.
- MBCook 9y ago
  I agree with you that given the level of coverage I don't know how Google could NOT do something. It's becoming a huge distraction and to let it continue on for a few weeks seems like it would be even worse.
Mikeb85 9y ago
I'm glad that there's still at least some truly liberal voices out there. Regressive neo-liberalism is a cancer on society. Edit - also sad that this keeps getting flagged. Dissenting opinions and debate is good for society.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ithilglin909 9y ago
Here, here. I’m a software engineer who happens to be a woman. Mr. Damore's piece didn’t offend me at all. There were parts I agreed with and parts I didn’t agree with. I’m more bothered by Google’s response(s) which seemed to reveal an incredible lack of critical reading ability, and far more disturbed by the levels of harshly enforced group-think that seem to increasingly dominate supposedly intelligent circles.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  I wish there were more people like you. People able to have a better critical reading and don't fall quickly in easy offenses that might not even exists.
  - BertPhoo 9y ago
    "Not bad for a girl"
    - jorgemf 9y ago
      oh shit I am going to be fired for this? I said people and I mean people, not girls or boys.
      - BertPhoo 9y ago
        Of course you meant people ;) But it's not like this thread is full of people saying the exact same thing who haven't declared they are women.
        ithilglin909 9y ago
        You’re just trying to give us another example of how to read something innocuous in an unreasonably negative light…right? ;)
        jorgemf 9y ago
        I think I should reply to everybody who said the exact same thing with different world telling them that there should be more people like them. Maybe even create a community only for this type of people... or better not because I could be accused of discrimination. Maybe I should delete my original comment but I might offend someone too if I delete it. Life is complicated, I would jump from the window to end it but I think it will also offend someone. Ok, fuck it. I am happy. I don't care!
tptacek 9y ago
This Bloomberg blog post doesn't add anything more to the discussion of what happened than would any >100 word comment, drawn at random from the biggest HN thread on this fiasco. All it's doing here is giving us a license to pointlessly recapitulate the same debate we had yesterday and the day before. Stuff like this is what the flag button on the site is for.
- onli 9y ago
  The media, that before completely warped what the memo is saying, now reporting differently is interesting, relevant to HN and newsworthy, and not something we saw yesterday.
  - tevonsb 9y ago
    Absolutely seconded, this is the first article with this tone that I've seen
trequartista 9y ago
Google is in a no-win situation here. Fire the guy - get these kind of reactions about not listening to opposing voices. Not fire the guy - incendiary reactions from the general public. If Google had not fired the guy, a large majority of women (and men) in Google wouldn't want this guy (as brilliant as he may be) in their teams - that would create an unnecessarily hostile and uncomfortable workplace.
- tanilama 9y ago
  This. I honestly think Google has no choice but firing him. That is the least damage they could manage to contain. If this guy's identity didn't get leaked, they might have an option to relocate him, but since this is already global event, there is very little room for a comprise.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  I think Google could have done things better. First, do not fire the guy the next day the article is in the public. Second, taking time and create a committee to evaluate the situation and decide the actions to take. Third, express in public they official opinion as a company and what they really do in the diversity programs (I still not sure if they have positive discrimination or/and just increase the pool of candidates from minorities). Forth, fire the guy or arrange any deal with him if that is what they have to do giving him an option to make clear any statement he did. I think the guy is intelligent enough to know the impact of the article he wrote and would leave the company by himself to avoid more internal conflicts even when a lot of people think he is right.
- calvinbhai 9y ago
  Firing this guy and settling with him later on a lawsuit was probably cheaper than keeping him and facing the "Diversity Industry complex, which may have cost Google a whole lot more. There's a whole set of NGOs out there that mint money milking such issues, in the name of "diversity" while doing little to address the real issue.
illuminati1911 9y ago
If companies/people REALLY want to solve the diversity issue, we have to have open discussion and let even "stupid" opinions be openly shared/discussed. If you are right about something you don't need to silence/censor others. If you are not, then you do. The witch-hunt has to end.
- MBCook 9y ago
  I think a lot of people (on both sides) feel like we've had the "stupid opinions" part of the debate repeatedly for a long time and are tired of having to put up with hearing the same "stupid" arguments and are ready change instead of vague platitude and promises.
reader5000 9y ago
This is the best piece I've read on this issue, and the most important sentence is this: "If the company silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our access to information?" I've noted today doing a Google search that I've already subconsciously demoted Google to "getting to be a SJW-daycare; consider search results suspiciously". But honestly, the internet SJW-battles are the gift that keeps on giving. Munches popcorn
throwa34943way 9y ago
The problem here is the people assuming "diversity" means actual diversity. Just like "inclusiveness" or "safe space". They do not mean what most people unaware of the political use of these expressions mean. These expressions are politically loaded. The confusion is orchestrated, on purpose, by the ideologues who redefined these words. Who can say he is against diversity? inclusiveness? safe-spaces, off course people want to be safe! these are positive words. Until you actually understand that a safe space isn't a physical safe space but a ideological safe space, where dissidence is prohibited. For the "ignorant", they mean one thing, for the ideologues, they have a complete different meaning. I too was completely fooled by the post-modernist double speak and engaged in the attack of the people who were against these "concepts", I too engaged in witch-hunts, before I truly understood how these words were politically loaded and didn't mean what I thought they meant. It is extremely subtle and cunning. Redefinition of words is an extremely effective and manipulative weapon. People say, well, keep politics out of work and you'll be fine. But if the internal rules at work use expressions such as diversity, inclusiveness or safe-space, these are politically loaded at first place! your work environment IS adopting the intersectional ideological framework.
baccheion 9y ago
My time at Google many years ago led me to the conclusion that they are completely full of it. Many employees are repulsive, off-putting, and enjoy treating others like nothing. They also couldn't care less about diversity. Based on their diversity report, only ~200 (of ~20,000) software engineers are black, which is still likely an exaggeration, as I bet many are software engineers in test.
grey-area 9y ago
It’s worth noting that the author has a Ph.D. in systems biology from Harvard University. This footnote is incorrect according to Harvard he never completed a PhD.
jorgemf 9y ago
I find it funny he was fired by "promoting gender stereotypes" when what he wants it to evaluate each individual without taking account any stereotype. And then Google has policies for increasing the minority diversity (like helping women to get in tech). Just the fact you have programs target for specific demographics supports the fact that there are "gender stereotypes". Not to mention all the analytics tools that split the population by gender. I would find more helpful if companies have programs to increase the tolerance and respect inside the company. Because the problem of sexims or racism are not the women or the black people, the problem is the people with prejudices. Adding to the company people of minorities is useless if the internal culture is a shit. At some point they will leave the company. I think Google made a step in the wrong direction and promote a worse culture with this action. People now will not talk about issues afraid of getting fired, even when they do it with respect.
rwcarlsen 9y ago
Here is a link to the guy's original memo (with all his references that have been removed from much popular media coverage of its content): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... You should read it before you draw any conclusions. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (and how he says it), he does make some interesting points in a way that I would hope can promote constructive discussion. I definitely don't think he should have been fired just for the memo - maybe there is more to the story? - or maybe he shouldn't have been fired?
danschumann 9y ago
It's hard to say things that can easily be misconstrued. The wage gap: guess what, women don't take high paying dangerous oil rigging jobs. Men suffer 90% of workplace deaths. Those deaths are high paying. It's unpopular, because it sucks, but it's true, so lets not tabloid-ize it. The same people saying there is a wage gap are saying that every rich person is too greedy. So, if they're greedy and only care about money, why wouldn't they hire only women? They can pay women less and they only care about money. Are they saying that the only things ceos care about more than money is men? Doesn't add up. This is a single issue, a single "one liner" that won't die. Remember the old story "if you flash your headlights at a certain gang, they'll follow you and shoot you". Sometimes lies are more viral than the truth. It's much easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. It hurts to be told you were fooled, it feels fun to be a fool.
canoebuilder 9y ago
Who wants to discuss the suppression of content on HN? 163 pts in 37 mins, but flagged off the front page as soon as it appeared. Does the number of flags required to trip the [flagged] trigger increase with the number of points and speed of those points on a story? If not, why not? Yes one could say rapid point accrual on a story of this nature is telling of a hot-button issue that and thus likely to create discussion not up to our desired standards. But what I think is really being shown here is that this is an issue many feel is in much need of attention and the fact that a small group can just flag these so quickly when the rest of the community is saying this is important seems strange.
- stefantalpalaru 9y ago
  > Who wants to discuss the suppression of content on HN? Careful. This is how you get hellbanned.
jungletime 9y ago
Apparently Jordan Peterson will have an interview with the google memo guy on his youtube channel today. Just curious how this will go down, since youtube already took down Jordan's channel last week, before brining it back without explanation, fueling many conspiracy theories. Jordan is probably the first to layout a coherent logical, scientific argument against Identity Politics, that seems to have inspired the google memo.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Flagged discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693
neo4sure 9y ago
Wow so many hit pieces on how to tolerate sexism.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TheTruestKyle 9y ago
As someone who is looking for a job, but does not particularly agree with most people in tech or even on HN, how would you approach looking for a job and interviewing knowing that you are apart of a minority and can be ostracized for not having the same viewpoints? This is getting scary.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
I find it disturbing that they still link to the censored Gizmodo version. They should know better and use the original, either the PDF or https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/
tevonsb 9y ago
I find it rather sad that, before writing this comment I had to reconsider what I wanted to say , because, as a young engineer, I am worried how my opinions will effect my job prospects. When I am afraid to say what I believe, for fear or ramifications, it flies directly in the face of what Google and others profess to trying to do: 'create a work environment in which all people, regardless of political affliation, opinion, or creed feels safe.' The worst part for me, is that many in the valley (particularly on university campuses like Stanford's) have used the disguise of promoting diversity to battle ideas they disagree with. There is not enough emphasis on diversity of ideas.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  Too late. I already took an screen shot of your comment and will post it public tomorrow and they will fire you. (so sad this can be true for some of the people commenting here, I am even scared that my comments in this topic here can have consequences in the future). young engineer, women, white, black,... we are all worried because of this event. The people who was scared to talk before now are not going to talk for sure.
positivity89 9y ago
Does no one see what's happening? This whole thing is a massive sign of progress. Men are deeply scared of an increasingly growing population of female developers. This is a pretty significant moment of anxiety and fear. That's good. It means there's change. It's no coincidence that more women are joining CS AP courses than ever before: "HIGH-SCHOOL GIRLS ARE taking more Advanced Placement computer engineering exams than ever before, according to a new report from Code.org and the College Board. In 2017, largely thanks to a new test aimed at expanding the reach of engineering classes, female participation in these AP tests increased at a faster rate than young boys’ participation on the exam in 2017." Source: https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/ https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/
tomohawk 9y ago
This guys mistake was thinking that his organization was interested in learning. Learning requires admitting you didn't know something or that you were wrong about something. People who are in diversity leadership positions are often dogmatic, true believer types. The last thing they will tolerate is someone trying to tell them that the belief system on which their position is based might be faulty in some way.

311 points by gbarc888 9y ago

blfr 9y ago

Has he set Google up for this blowup or do Americans just usually have complaints to federal regulators written and ready to send? Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-eng...

chippy 9y ago
I imagine that there are lawyers who are ready and willing to send something at short notice. Not so much ambulance chasers as SV drama chasers, perhaps!
biggerfisch 9y ago
It doesn't take long to write a complaint, and if he was sharing these views in a smaller circle for some time, he may well already have dealt with "upper management" in some fashion that he deemed worthy of a complaint
umanwizard 9y ago
I'm sure a competent lawyer who deals with employment law could put one of those together in half an hour -- we don't know for sure that he did it himself.
19guid 9y ago
I think it's more likely that there's a history here that we're not aware of. His complaint suggests he's been arguing with Google's management for some time, and that this memo was the last straw.
pktgen 9y ago
It only takes a few minutes to file a NLRB charge. The charge form only requires a brief summary of the allegations (a few sentences, at most) and specifically tells you not to include any evidence (you provide that later, during or after meeting with a Board agent).

dangerlibrary 9y ago

Is any organization of meaningful size (# of employees, revenue, market cap - pick your metric) handling diversity issues in a way that completely satisfies the "proportional representation of the population" metric? Are there any success stories that one could use as case studies?

canoebuilder 9y ago
"proportional representation of the population" metric? Is there some reason the social disrupters only get all frothy mouthed about this in certain areas? Like shouldn't we spend much more time going after the NBA, Fishing, Logging, Elementary teachers, Nurses, etc. because these industries are far more out of "diversity balance." Are people clamoring for a "proportional representation of the population" metric prepared to fire a whole lot of Asians and Jews at places like Facebook and Google in order to bring these populations more in line with their broader United States society proportions?
- dangerlibrary 9y ago
  Your point is pertinent and well-made in the latter part of your post, but the ad-hominem language in the former makes it difficult to believe you want to discuss the issue.
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    Some people seem to have an unhealthy bias against colorful language when it is used in service of a larger point. But they seem all too happy to use it as a distraction from engaging with the points raised.
    - dangerlibrary 9y ago
      Calling people who disagree with you "frothy mouthed" is a distraction. Your comment is also not responsive to the question posed in the root comment.
- 9y ago

jshevek 9y ago

"If the goal was to confirm Damore's thesis, Team Google is doing a great job." Yes, indeed. This is something we, as a culture, need to look at more carefully.

Froyoh 9y ago

Oh the irony...

caiob 9y ago

Wish I could paste that Michael Scott "Thank You" gif here.

macspoofing 9y ago

I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal that it a) got all the press that it got and b) that it required a personal condemnation from "Head of Diversity" and the CEO - who will now hold a town-hall to, I guess, denounce it even more? The entire thing seems like a big nothing-burger from every side.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Consider that Google is currently facing a wage discrimination case from the US Department of Labor, so they're likely in the mood to go above and beyond to distance themselves from the author's attitudes.
ucaetano 9y ago
> I am surprised how big this 'manifesto' got. Is it really that big of a deal that it I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself. Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. We all share the same difficulties, and that doesn't make us better or worse, just humans. If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  You don't need a superpower, just a super computer to design the ultimate weapon for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Point_of_View_Gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%2...
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >I'd guess that you feel that way because you're not affected by the issues discussed in the essay. I don't work at Google, so I'm not. The manifesto itself is controversial in that if you poll the plurality of the population or employees of Google on whether they agree with some or all of it, you won't have consensus, I'm sure of it. >I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself. Yeah, thanks for the condescension - just because I haven't reached the same conclusion must mean I haven't taken "time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself". >Also, please don't think that I'm judging you or saying that you're a bad person because of it. Uh huh. >If I had a superpower, it would be making people see the world through other people's eyes. Why don't you try making an effort sometime.

gobugat 9y ago

> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did.

fwn 9y ago
> Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. They are. At least that's how civilised societies would handle it. It could be a textbook example of a decision a civil discourse could approach.
- azinman2 9y ago
  But it’s not civil when you suggest there’s inherently biological reasons for your coworkers to be inferior to you.
  - nxsynonym 9y ago
    But it is. Just because he holds one opinion does not mean that he will act on it, expect google to act on it, or cause harm because of it. Ideas don't hurt people. People with no way to voice their ideas and opinions become angry, and then hurt other people.
    - nxsynonym 9y ago
      Downvotes just prove my point, by the way. Make a valid counter-argument or bug off. Downvoting opinions you don't agree with is reddit-level hive mind. Make a stance and don't hide behind your ability to downvote.
    - azinman2 9y ago
      Guessing you’re not a minority in anyway. When others who aren’t a member of your class tell you anything that’s inherent to your class DOES hurt people... such ideas are often used to restrict what you can do or set you up for failure in society in a particular way because ideas spread. They also do a lot of internal self-harm just from being expressed by others. It’s bad enough to get that in life in general, but then to get it at work as well....

sidlls 9y ago

What's more likely: the author was fired for suggesting alternate methods of improving diversity at Google or the author was fired for repeating unsupported gender stereotypes, offering alternate methods that themselves played on gender stereotypes, and creating an environment in which he would not be able to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a result of promoting gender stereotypes?

leereeves 9y ago
> unsupported Did you only read the Gizmodo version that removed all the references? Here's a copy with the references: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
- wfunction 9y ago
  Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired. That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original. People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    - dqv 9y ago
      The only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.

naturalgradient 9y ago

What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with anger and demanding for him to get fired. Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Not the diversity officer reaffirming the commitment to diversity in a dystopian way. It is scary, it really is. We have all grown up learning about regimes like this, we are all aware, yet seemingly nobody can help themselves.

int_19h 9y ago
> Not the Ex-Google guy with his medium rant about how people would punch him in the face and he would understand. Could you give a link to that rant?
- tylersmith 9y ago
  https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
  - paapi__gudiya 9y ago
    This whole episode has been so disgusting and shows how regressive and authoritarian the mainstream tech community is. People can't work with someone because he has a different point of view about injustice in the society and has the courage to voice it respectfully? They would resort to violence against someone because they have a different point of view? If you can resort to violence against someone and get away with it, you're the oppressor in the society, not the oppressed. Sundar, Yonatan and their likes are so privileged and delusional. These people have no issue with a war-criminal like Kissinger being invited to talk at Google but have such serious issues with a software engineer writing his views.

danharaj 9y ago

What else could Google have done? He made himself a visibly toxic employee to have on most teams. This might be weird to some people, but at work you have to work with other people, and while it may be OK to hold <X> belief in general, advocating for it at work can make it harder for you to work with others. Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select your peers.

quickben 9y ago
Oh plenty of things. Maybe they can start with the outstanding Department of Labour lawsuit and request for information ?
moduspol 9y ago
The issue at hand is that it's entirely work-related (it's about Google's hiring policies) and that it's framed by offended parties entirely as something it's not (a suggestion that women can't perform in certain roles as well as men). Google could have: * Clarified the opinions shared are not theirs and they do not endorse them. * Clarified their existing position on the topic at hand (as they did). * Created or clarified a new policy on how such suggestions can be shared in a way less likely to be read by people easily offended by opposing views. * Created some training policies regarding how to effectively avoid or even (gasp) tolerate opposing views without taking personal offense. Perhaps this could be just after the microaggression training mentioned in the memo. This whole idea that it's A-OK to preach the need for discrimination to account for effects unmeasurably attributed to white privilege, yet as soon as one suggests an alternative view, it's suddenly off-limits and political is ridiculous.

eco 9y ago

> Media outlets like TechCrunch, Gizmodo and Motherboard jumped on board to declare the memo an “Anti-Diversity Manifesto.” It appears that the ideological echo chamber extends beyond Google’s campus. As I look up and see this article flagged on HN (since unflagged). The points and ideas from his memo may be wrong or they may be right (or anywhere in between) but more important than this incident has been the reaction to it. I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend the issues don't exist.

runako 9y ago
> I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about it To try to shed a little light on this phenomenon, the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way." Using the expansion in your paragraph: ===== I don't understand the attempts at shutting down conversation about why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here as our teammates are illegitimate in some way. If you think he's wrong, you share your opinion and persuade others. You don't shut down the conversation and pretend that women and minorities are biologically as qualified for this job, or that their hires are as legitimate as anyone else's. ===== That's what some people are hearing. Hopefully it's obvious why management at most companies would consider these discussions to be less than helpful in fostering the most productive work environment.
- habitue 9y ago
  > the "it" you refer to expands to "why women and minorities may be biologically less qualified for this job, and those that are here are illegitimate in some way." Accepting your characterization here for the sake of argument: if his claims are so laughably ridiculous as to be easily refutable, people should just have pointed to studies refuting it (of which there are plenty) and gone about their day. When you can't bring up a topic in a respectful way without being shouted down, it's a bad situation.

skylark 9y ago

I don't have strong feelings about the original memo, but the media coverage has been an absolute circus. Google's hand was forced because of the negative PR storm that happened, not because it systematically suppresses the voices of its employees. > This algorithm is tuned by an internal team of evaluators. If the company silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our access to information? I'm almost convinced that this is satire.

MBCook 9y ago
I agree with you that given the level of coverage I don't know how Google could NOT do something. It's becoming a huge distraction and to let it continue on for a few weeks seems like it would be even worse.

Mikeb85 9y ago

I'm glad that there's still at least some truly liberal voices out there. Regressive neo-liberalism is a cancer on society. Edit - also sad that this keeps getting flagged. Dissenting opinions and debate is good for society.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ithilglin909 9y ago

Here, here. I’m a software engineer who happens to be a woman. Mr. Damore's piece didn’t offend me at all. There were parts I agreed with and parts I didn’t agree with. I’m more bothered by Google’s response(s) which seemed to reveal an incredible lack of critical reading ability, and far more disturbed by the levels of harshly enforced group-think that seem to increasingly dominate supposedly intelligent circles.

jorgemf 9y ago
I wish there were more people like you. People able to have a better critical reading and don't fall quickly in easy offenses that might not even exists.
- BertPhoo 9y ago
  "Not bad for a girl"
  - jorgemf 9y ago
    oh shit I am going to be fired for this? I said people and I mean people, not girls or boys.
    - BertPhoo 9y ago
      Of course you meant people ;) But it's not like this thread is full of people saying the exact same thing who haven't declared they are women.
      - ithilglin909 9y ago
        You’re just trying to give us another example of how to read something innocuous in an unreasonably negative light…right? ;)
      - jorgemf 9y ago
        I think I should reply to everybody who said the exact same thing with different world telling them that there should be more people like them. Maybe even create a community only for this type of people... or better not because I could be accused of discrimination. Maybe I should delete my original comment but I might offend someone too if I delete it. Life is complicated, I would jump from the window to end it but I think it will also offend someone. Ok, fuck it. I am happy. I don't care!

tptacek 9y ago

This Bloomberg blog post doesn't add anything more to the discussion of what happened than would any >100 word comment, drawn at random from the biggest HN thread on this fiasco. All it's doing here is giving us a license to pointlessly recapitulate the same debate we had yesterday and the day before. Stuff like this is what the flag button on the site is for.

onli 9y ago
The media, that before completely warped what the memo is saying, now reporting differently is interesting, relevant to HN and newsworthy, and not something we saw yesterday.
- tevonsb 9y ago
  Absolutely seconded, this is the first article with this tone that I've seen

trequartista 9y ago

Google is in a no-win situation here. Fire the guy - get these kind of reactions about not listening to opposing voices. Not fire the guy - incendiary reactions from the general public. If Google had not fired the guy, a large majority of women (and men) in Google wouldn't want this guy (as brilliant as he may be) in their teams - that would create an unnecessarily hostile and uncomfortable workplace.

tanilama 9y ago
This. I honestly think Google has no choice but firing him. That is the least damage they could manage to contain. If this guy's identity didn't get leaked, they might have an option to relocate him, but since this is already global event, there is very little room for a comprise.
jorgemf 9y ago
I think Google could have done things better. First, do not fire the guy the next day the article is in the public. Second, taking time and create a committee to evaluate the situation and decide the actions to take. Third, express in public they official opinion as a company and what they really do in the diversity programs (I still not sure if they have positive discrimination or/and just increase the pool of candidates from minorities). Forth, fire the guy or arrange any deal with him if that is what they have to do giving him an option to make clear any statement he did. I think the guy is intelligent enough to know the impact of the article he wrote and would leave the company by himself to avoid more internal conflicts even when a lot of people think he is right.
calvinbhai 9y ago
Firing this guy and settling with him later on a lawsuit was probably cheaper than keeping him and facing the "Diversity Industry complex, which may have cost Google a whole lot more. There's a whole set of NGOs out there that mint money milking such issues, in the name of "diversity" while doing little to address the real issue.

illuminati1911 9y ago

If companies/people REALLY want to solve the diversity issue, we have to have open discussion and let even "stupid" opinions be openly shared/discussed. If you are right about something you don't need to silence/censor others. If you are not, then you do. The witch-hunt has to end.

MBCook 9y ago
I think a lot of people (on both sides) feel like we've had the "stupid opinions" part of the debate repeatedly for a long time and are tired of having to put up with hearing the same "stupid" arguments and are ready change instead of vague platitude and promises.

reader5000 9y ago

This is the best piece I've read on this issue, and the most important sentence is this: "If the company silences dissent within its own ranks, why should we trust it to manage our access to information?" I've noted today doing a Google search that I've already subconsciously demoted Google to "getting to be a SJW-daycare; consider search results suspiciously". But honestly, the internet SJW-battles are the gift that keeps on giving. Munches popcorn

throwa34943way 9y ago

The problem here is the people assuming "diversity" means actual diversity. Just like "inclusiveness" or "safe space". They do not mean what most people unaware of the political use of these expressions mean. These expressions are politically loaded. The confusion is orchestrated, on purpose, by the ideologues who redefined these words. Who can say he is against diversity? inclusiveness? safe-spaces, off course people want to be safe! these are positive words. Until you actually understand that a safe space isn't a physical safe space but a ideological safe space, where dissidence is prohibited. For the "ignorant", they mean one thing, for the ideologues, they have a complete different meaning. I too was completely fooled by the post-modernist double speak and engaged in the attack of the people who were against these "concepts", I too engaged in witch-hunts, before I truly understood how these words were politically loaded and didn't mean what I thought they meant. It is extremely subtle and cunning. Redefinition of words is an extremely effective and manipulative weapon. People say, well, keep politics out of work and you'll be fine. But if the internal rules at work use expressions such as diversity, inclusiveness or safe-space, these are politically loaded at first place! your work environment IS adopting the intersectional ideological framework.

baccheion 9y ago

My time at Google many years ago led me to the conclusion that they are completely full of it. Many employees are repulsive, off-putting, and enjoy treating others like nothing. They also couldn't care less about diversity. Based on their diversity report, only ~200 (of ~20,000) software engineers are black, which is still likely an exaggeration, as I bet many are software engineers in test.

grey-area 9y ago

It’s worth noting that the author has a Ph.D. in systems biology from Harvard University. This footnote is incorrect according to Harvard he never completed a PhD.

jorgemf 9y ago

I find it funny he was fired by "promoting gender stereotypes" when what he wants it to evaluate each individual without taking account any stereotype. And then Google has policies for increasing the minority diversity (like helping women to get in tech). Just the fact you have programs target for specific demographics supports the fact that there are "gender stereotypes". Not to mention all the analytics tools that split the population by gender. I would find more helpful if companies have programs to increase the tolerance and respect inside the company. Because the problem of sexims or racism are not the women or the black people, the problem is the people with prejudices. Adding to the company people of minorities is useless if the internal culture is a shit. At some point they will leave the company. I think Google made a step in the wrong direction and promote a worse culture with this action. People now will not talk about issues afraid of getting fired, even when they do it with respect.

rwcarlsen 9y ago

Here is a link to the guy's original memo (with all his references that have been removed from much popular media coverage of its content): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... You should read it before you draw any conclusions. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything he says (and how he says it), he does make some interesting points in a way that I would hope can promote constructive discussion. I definitely don't think he should have been fired just for the memo - maybe there is more to the story? - or maybe he shouldn't have been fired?

danschumann 9y ago

It's hard to say things that can easily be misconstrued. The wage gap: guess what, women don't take high paying dangerous oil rigging jobs. Men suffer 90% of workplace deaths. Those deaths are high paying. It's unpopular, because it sucks, but it's true, so lets not tabloid-ize it. The same people saying there is a wage gap are saying that every rich person is too greedy. So, if they're greedy and only care about money, why wouldn't they hire only women? They can pay women less and they only care about money. Are they saying that the only things ceos care about more than money is men? Doesn't add up. This is a single issue, a single "one liner" that won't die. Remember the old story "if you flash your headlights at a certain gang, they'll follow you and shoot you". Sometimes lies are more viral than the truth. It's much easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. It hurts to be told you were fooled, it feels fun to be a fool.

canoebuilder 9y ago

Who wants to discuss the suppression of content on HN? 163 pts in 37 mins, but flagged off the front page as soon as it appeared. Does the number of flags required to trip the [flagged] trigger increase with the number of points and speed of those points on a story? If not, why not? Yes one could say rapid point accrual on a story of this nature is telling of a hot-button issue that and thus likely to create discussion not up to our desired standards. But what I think is really being shown here is that this is an issue many feel is in much need of attention and the fact that a small group can just flag these so quickly when the rest of the community is saying this is important seems strange.

stefantalpalaru 9y ago
> Who wants to discuss the suppression of content on HN? Careful. This is how you get hellbanned.

jungletime 9y ago

Apparently Jordan Peterson will have an interview with the google memo guy on his youtube channel today. Just curious how this will go down, since youtube already took down Jordan's channel last week, before brining it back without explanation, fueling many conspiracy theories. Jordan is probably the first to layout a coherent logical, scientific argument against Identity Politics, that seems to have inspired the google memo.

manigandham 9y ago
Flagged discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967693

neo4sure 9y ago

Wow so many hit pieces on how to tolerate sexism.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TheTruestKyle 9y ago

As someone who is looking for a job, but does not particularly agree with most people in tech or even on HN, how would you approach looking for a job and interviewing knowing that you are apart of a minority and can be ostracized for not having the same viewpoints? This is getting scary.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

I find it disturbing that they still link to the censored Gizmodo version. They should know better and use the original, either the PDF or https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/

tevonsb 9y ago

I find it rather sad that, before writing this comment I had to reconsider what I wanted to say , because, as a young engineer, I am worried how my opinions will effect my job prospects. When I am afraid to say what I believe, for fear or ramifications, it flies directly in the face of what Google and others profess to trying to do: 'create a work environment in which all people, regardless of political affliation, opinion, or creed feels safe.' The worst part for me, is that many in the valley (particularly on university campuses like Stanford's) have used the disguise of promoting diversity to battle ideas they disagree with. There is not enough emphasis on diversity of ideas.

jorgemf 9y ago
Too late. I already took an screen shot of your comment and will post it public tomorrow and they will fire you. (so sad this can be true for some of the people commenting here, I am even scared that my comments in this topic here can have consequences in the future). young engineer, women, white, black,... we are all worried because of this event. The people who was scared to talk before now are not going to talk for sure.

positivity89 9y ago

Does no one see what's happening? This whole thing is a massive sign of progress. Men are deeply scared of an increasingly growing population of female developers. This is a pretty significant moment of anxiety and fear. That's good. It means there's change. It's no coincidence that more women are joining CS AP courses than ever before: "HIGH-SCHOOL GIRLS ARE taking more Advanced Placement computer engineering exams than ever before, according to a new report from Code.org and the College Board. In 2017, largely thanks to a new test aimed at expanding the reach of engineering classes, female participation in these AP tests increased at a faster rate than young boys’ participation on the exam in 2017." Source: https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/ https://www.wired.com/story/ap-computer-science-2017/

tomohawk 9y ago

This guys mistake was thinking that his organization was interested in learning. Learning requires admitting you didn't know something or that you were wrong about something. People who are in diversity leadership positions are often dogmatic, true believer types. The last thing they will tolerate is someone trying to tell them that the belief system on which their position is based might be faulty in some way.