5 ms·
Firing this guy was just a PR move in order to keep things under control. The memo was accurate and I know that Google is going to learn from it even if the guy
by ainiriand 9y ago
Firing this guy was just a PR move in order to keep things under control. The memo was accurate and I know that Google is going to learn from it even if the guy has been sacrified.
- sethish 9y agoPrivate companies are not free speech zones. Not firing this person would have been a Title VII violation and opened them to lawsuits.
- revmoo 9y agoIt was ten pages, please read the whole document we're discussing before commenting about it.
- xname2 9y agoNot firing this person would have been accused a Title VII violation and opened them to lawsuits.
- hepolz 9y ago>Not firing this person would have been a Title VII violation I disagree. His manifesto is pretty clearly core political speech protected by the First Amendment, so Title VII would be unconstitutional as applied if it operates to force Google to suppress such speech. Unfortunately there is no precedent clearly establishing this, so the mere threat of lawsuits (and accompanying legal expenses) may have been a factor in Google deciding to fire him.
- happyrock 9y agoThis is correct. There is a lot being made about Google trying to enforce ideological purity, and not enough being made about why Google feels obligated to have this company culture in the first place. I speculate (without much evidence) that Google's intention is to manage PR and deflect attention away from their actual lack of diversity. http://time.com/4391031/google-diversity-statistics-2016 http://time.com/4391031/google-diversity-statistics-2016
- alecco 9y agoGooglers got a very clear message: comply or you are out. The diversity crowd grabbed power and asserted it. I don't see anything good coming out of this.