4 ms·
>Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and most likely, still have a job. Doubtful. Brendan Eich was ousted for "controve
by DanAndersen 9y ago
>Had he posted this on his personal blog in off hours, he would have a case, and most likely, still have a job.
Doubtful. Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time. In the current climate, there'd still be the same outrage ("Googler has evil thoughts, why isn't Google firing him?!"). If anything, he'd have even less of a case in the court of public sympathy, as the entire point of this guy's post was not just diversity issues in general but how they applied to Google's internal operations. Taking the initiative to air that publicly would have been an intentional hit against Google PR. In this case, though, the author of this memo had posted it to internal Google groups, and then presumably an ideological opponent leaked it to the public for the purposes of stirring public opinion against the author.
- michaelchisari 9y ago> Brendan Eich was ousted for "controversial politics" on his own time. That's a completely different situation, and can't really be compared. A CEO position for a non-profit and Sr. Engineer at Google are not comparable. A CEO position is the public face of a company. There is so much more that goes into it on multiple levels than being an engineer with only 4 years under their belt who nobody has ever heard of. Had he posted this to a personal blog, it would have barely been a footnote. And more importantly, California law would have protected him.
- chrisco255 9y agoNot in this day and age. One of my high school teachers posted political commentary to his Facebook profile that was controversial to some. It went viral and he got fired...effectively for his religious beliefs. We live in a day and age of viral outrage. So some might say he's a teacher and therefore he can't make his students uncomfortable. So his free speech is effectively cut off. Meanwhile as a student in college I'm forced to suffer through the opinions of heavily biased professors who literally assign term papers which only act as exercises in progressive liberal confirmation bias.
- michaelchisari 9y agoK-12 teachers have always had an ethical behavior imperative outside of school, by virtue of their position. That's nothing new. The difference now is that so much of what we do is found so easily. I can't really evaluate anything else you've said without examples of that person's "religious beliefs" or your professors "heavily biased progressive liberal confirmation bias".
- chrisco255 9y agoThere's nothing unethical about posting an opinion on Facebook. I was literally unfriended by a progressive classmate of mine because I ate Chik-Fil-A nuggets in the wake of that company's CEO's stance on gay marriage. I support gay marriage...but I just wanted some sweet tea and fried chicken. I suppose I was not sufficiently outraged for this progressive. That's how bad some people have gotten.
- michaelchisari 9y agoI don't understand. Are you a K-12 teacher? Ethical behavior imperatives apply to K-12 teachers. I'm sorry you got unfriended though. I hope you're doing ok.
- chrisco255 9y agoI'm just indicating how strongly people feel about their views these days. I wouldn't even unfriend someone for saying offensive things about conservatives, even though my whole family is that. People have gotten very tribal and very righteous about very trivial things (like chicken nuggets). K-12 teachers still deserve first amendment rights. They have a right to say controversial things (outside of work hours)...that's precisely what the Constitution protects. This isn't ethics...this is speech. If folks haven't learned to accept that some people will sometimes offend you with their opinions and that it's okay...then I question their ability to function as adults. The teacher did end up getting reinstated but not before some lengthy dragged out debacle. We can't say the first amendment applies to everyone except teachers or CEOs or (insert arbitrary profession here). We can't say progressive views are inherently less offensive than conservative views and proceed to shut down conservative speech through intimidation or termination. That's ridiculous. It doesn't matter which class of people were offended. If all that matters is who is offended the strongest, then all you're doing is setting up an arms race for which side can get the most riled up. You're not encouraging constructive dialog and nobody is growing. Offensive speech happens.