29 ms·

Why I Was Fired by Google

• minimaxir 9y ago
  Although many of the submissions to HN about the Google Memo have been redundant, this is new information.
  • dpflan 9y ago
    Agreed. Seems as though he decided to go through WSJ to get his take published.
  • storrgie 9y ago
    It feels like it was a relatively 'quiet' scuffle when it comes to Hn discussion. I hope this post gets discussed without being buried.
    • tajen 9y ago
      Previous posts have been censored: They would appear in the most active list https://news.ycombinator.com/active https://news.ycombinator.com/active and never be seen on the homepage.
      • dang 9y ago
        You can use the word 'censor' if you like but it's the normal action of user flags, software, and moderation and it works much the same way regardless of the story. This tends not to be so visible during turbulent periods, but what can you do. 'Google memo' stories have been on HN's front page. Many more have been flagged off it. That is understandable because they didn't contain significant new information. Quantity isn't the criterion here. Hot-topic discussions tend to all be the same, and the substantiveness quotient declines steeply under repetition. Many of the flagged stories have still been vigorously discussed (i.e. hundreds of comments each), so I wouldn't use the word 'censor' for those. The site goal isn't to hide them, it's to preserve the variety and substantiveness of the front page, which I believe is why most people come here.
        • peoplewindow 9y ago
          This thread has disappeared from the front page, but it doesn't say it's been flagged. What's up with that?
          • dang 9y ago
            It's there now; there's a certain amount of fluctuation as upvotes and flags come in. The [flagged] annotation only appears when flags exceed upvotes by a certain threshold. Story rank is affected by flags before that.
            • peoplewindow 9y ago
              Thanks for the explanation.
      • wmil 9y ago
        That's understandable. The admins don't want the story to dominate the front page so they limit the number of threads.
• dfps 9y ago
  Can someone post this. It's paywalled
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • tartuffe78 9y ago
    prepend it with facebook.com/l.php?u= followed by the url and you should be able to see it
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • vladimir-y 9y ago
    See here is the extension for Chrome https://github.com/njuljsong/wsjUnblock https://github.com/njuljsong/wsjUnblock Technically you just need to set the location referer to something like Facebook's domain.
  • dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    http://archive.is/Ltjzw http://archive.is/Ltjzw
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• nilved 9y ago
  nm
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • darawk 9y ago
    Maybe he believes his message is more important than his career.
    • prklmn 9y ago
      Hey can't be that common sense-less, he worked at google after all. Maybe he had a nice pile of options that were going to take a while to vest unless he was fired. If he truly didn't see this coming, he's a moron.
      • darawk 9y ago
        From reading the article he just wrote, it appears he intended it only for a smaller group within Google that he worked more closely with. But it got out, and went viral within the company.
      • renaudg 9y ago
        In the same way that Snowden is a moron for not seeing exile coming then ?
        • prklmn 9y ago
          Similar, you are correct. Except getting exiled from your home country isn't remotely similar to being fired. Also, Snowden blew the whistle, this guy from google was voicing an opinion.
  • danso 9y ago
    This WSJ piece is a far better look for him than his first interview on Stephen Molyneux
  • 9y ago
• danso 9y ago
  Archive http://archive.is/nc8Ij http://archive.is/nc8Ij
• ariofrio 9y ago
  How to read this through the WSJ paywall: 1. Go to http://drudgereport.com/ http://drudgereport.com/ 2. Open your browser's inspector (usually F12) 3. Modify a link to point to https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290 https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-15024... 4. Click on the link 5. Voilà!
  • vernie 9y ago
    Visiting the Drudge Report is too high a price to pay.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• peripitea 9y ago
  "In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment." If that is why Mr. Damore thinks he's being lambasted, he really doesn't get it.
  • true_religion 9y ago
    Well obviously. He's not a politician. He won't come out and debase himself in a false apology for his views. His worldview is fundamentally different from that of his opponents, and he makes no bones about it.
  • akhilcacharya 9y ago
    I don't work there nor do I know anybody that works there personally, but I can think of at least 1 Googler who has ignited firestorms over "fringe" beliefs on personal social media before. She's still at the company. As much as I disagree with his viewpoint I seriously doubt this would have been terribly big deal if he had approached the issue with more tact, at minimum.
  • engel 9y ago
    He doesn't get what? Do most people attacking him not have that belief?
    • patrickyan 9y ago
      The point of diversity isn't to force everyone to think men and women are identical in every capacity. The point of diversity is to create a desired environment with different kinds of people.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • engel 9y ago
        > The point of diversity isn't to force everyone to think men and women are identical in every capacity. I don't think he thinks that. At least not if we are to believe the memo. However I do think many of the responses took offence with the idea of biological differences between men and women. And maybe rightly so, since some of them referred to seemingly good research showing that he at least overstated his claims. What many of the responders don't seem to get, is that a good reply shouldn't dependent on whether differences exist or not. Instead it should tackle the question of how we treat different people equally. When should we try and level the playing field, and when should we accept that gender gaps (and other kinds of gaps) appear?
• basseq 9y ago
  His take still seems a little tone deaf and defensive (e.g., repeated use of "echo chamber"). But he hits the nail on the head of why Google fired him: ... they really couldn't do otherwise. No matter what you think about the memo, Google had absolutely no option but to fire Mr. Damore once this blew up into a firestorm (internally and externally).
  • reactor4 9y ago
    Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views.
    • true_religion 9y ago
      > Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document... You are James Damore?
    • CalChris 9y ago
      Actually, companies mostly exist to get work done and CA is an at will state. If you get in the way of getting work done then you likely will get fired. The document was readable by anyone internally and eventually everyone externally. So there was no misrepresentation.
      • toomuchtodo 9y ago
        I encourage folks to start surveilling Google employees in public who take part in civil disobedience for progressive issues, and demand they be fired. Companies exist to get work done, and CA is an at will state. This won't get fixed ("its okay to fire someone if they don't align with my opinions") until everyone has had their proverbial nose bloodied. Disclaimer: Progressive myself.
        • evgen 9y ago
• rsp1984 9y ago
  Non-paywalled version go through here: https://twitter.com/fired4truth https://twitter.com/fired4truth
  • mrisoli 9y ago
    Thanks for the link, but how cringe-worthy is this Twitter? I find memes to be very discrediting to one's claim and the Goolag bus stop felt like trying to meme out a serious issue.
• vgprice 9y ago
  He is wearing a shirt that says "goolag" from Google's logo. I love it. One of the better corporate slave names. Edit: This is more memeish if anything. Google is obviously not comparable to a gulag, its just the closest negative pun.
  • akhilcacharya 9y ago
    Seems a bit much to me. When the Soviets put undesirables and political prisoners into gulags they didn't give them fabulous salaries and incredible perks.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • m00x 9y ago
      I think the intent is for it to be over the top. Poking fun at something with excessive force with a catchy name works really well for branding. Works right in the meme culture.
  • medlazik 9y ago
    It's utterly ridiculous to compare Google to a "gulag" and just shows how disconnected from reality this guy is. You might enjoy this short piece https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16127968/fired-google-engineer-compares-high-paid-tech-job-to-soviet-forced-labor https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/10/16127968/fired-google-eng...
    • tengbretson 9y ago
      That article contains no direct quotes.
    • forgottenpass 9y ago
      Is this what we've come to? Willfully failing to acknowledge obvious hyperbole? And for what purpose? To score cheap political points? Defame the opposition? Drive clicks to hot takes on a low rent blog?
• marcell 9y ago
  I think the key new information is this: > When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. Apparently he published the memo about a month ago, and was only fired when it went viral externally.
  • where_do_i_live 9y ago
    Not really new information, that has been known for a few days now actually -at least for myself it has.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • dcole2929 9y ago
    The document seems to have moved in several stages. Distributed first narrowly, before eventually going viral to the entire company, and then spreading outward from there to the tech community as a whole before the media eventually picked up on it. It's hard to gauge what the internal opinion was on the issue without knowing how long it had actually been in circulation widely within Google. It's completely possible that it took management that long to catch wind of it.
  • noncoml 9y ago
    It would be nice to have a complete timeline of the memo's life. My guess of the sequence of events is: 1. First sent to the groups in charge of diversity: "I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google" 2. Their reply was something along the line of "thanks, but no thanks": "mostly I was ignored" 3. He forwards the memo to a wider group? (My guess) 4. The memo goes viral inside and outside Google 5. Execs have no option but to fire him under the internal and external pressure If my guess is correct it, I don't think Google execs were left with a choice. There is a time, place and way to discuss controversial topics. If on the other hand (3) didn't happen or it was not done by Damore, then Google does seem to not be able to tolerate different opinions and does have a problem indeed.
• Jun8 9y ago
  This piece is a huge missed opportunity for Damore. He could have used this chance to reach a wide audience and explain his arguments; instead he goes for a sensationalist tone (and image with the Goolag shirt).
  • Chris2048 9y ago
    a sensationalist tone does reach a wider audience. If nuance attracted eyeballs, none of this would be happening.
    • brailsafe 9y ago
      I really hate how right you are.
      • Chris2048 9y ago
        alt-right? :-)
• pooh_smear 9y ago
  Things look like they are turning around. Mainstream media wouldn't normally publish the "evil" side's story unaltered, although WSJ has always been respectable.
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    Please. The WSJ is owned by Murdoch, owner of Fox News, who brings you some brilliant totally not biased authors like Suzanne Venker who teaches women they are going to be way happier if they just give in and become doormats for their husbands.
• systems 9y ago
  does anyone really believe that google handling of diversity, will have any impact on its future is it easy to copy google, to build a competitor can google competitors really beat it, by handling diversity differently lets be realistic .. unless google breaks the law somehow in its handling of diversity .. anything they do is subjective ad of little impact on its future
  • wmil 9y ago
    > lets be realistic .. unless google breaks the law somehow in its handling of diversity .. anything they do is subjective ad of little impact on its future Ad-words provides most of Google's revenue. As long at ad-words stays on top the rest of the company can be dedicated to summoning Cthulhu without endangering it's future.
• losteverything 9y ago
  It doesnt sound like he regretted what he wrote or wished he had a "do over"
  • Chris2048 9y ago
    Why would he?
    • losteverything 9y ago
      Cause (im making this up) he never thought he would no longer work ot Google
    • s_kilk 9y ago
      Because his piece is filled with logical errors, makes a big noise about reason and logic while citing evopsych nonsense which isn't regarded as actual science? I mean, beyond any discussion of his ideology, the memo is laughable trash.
      • kevinsundar 9y ago
        I have read the memo the entire way through. Can you explain these logical errors that it is filled with?
        • dguaraglia 9y ago
          OK, I'll bite. The whole argument is weak simply based on his relative dismissal of societal factors because, he argues, there's proven biological differences. So, he just concludes that "meh, we shouldn't try to change the status quo, because that'd be discrimination." He built the straw-man ("politics based discrimination"), he gave it a name ("left-wing ideals") and then proceeds to beat it. The problem is the straw-man has little merit: there's no known quantifier of how much 'lack of interest' in the field is caused by societal factors, and how much might be caused by biological factors. Without that, isn't it a bit premature to conclude that it is discrimination against men to have outreach programs for females? The point that bothers me the most about this memo is that Damore is intelligent enough to know exactly what kind of reaction he would elicit. I'm not buying for a minute his claim that he just wanted "a healthy discussion." You don't put everything in terms of "left and right" and then say "and the left is repressive and authoritarian, and what's more, wants to discriminate against people like me" and then get to pretend you are not biased.
• mtanski 9y ago
  > When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy This is a bit self referential. But seriously who cares. People get fired daily, many of them get fired unjustly... and you know what we don't write tons and tons of articles about them. At first I felt a bit bad for the guy... socially awkward guy who jumps to some misguided conclusions based on quoted research. Ideally, he would get some kind of training maybe an explanation from a sociology researcher how he incorrectly jumped to conclusions. But this woe is me shtick, reaching out to the alt-right publications, then continuing on to do an op-ed on the WSJ. I no longer feel bad for him; he got what he deserved.
  • gizmo686 9y ago
    He didn't make this a national controversy. But since it is a national controversy, and he is at the center of it, why shouldn't he make the most of this opportunity?
    • rhizome 9y ago
      That depends on what you mean by "most."
  • m00x 9y ago
    > But seriously who cares. People get fired daily, many of them get fired unjustly... and you know what we don't write tons and tons of articles about them. You can't dismiss fair trial for a case just because you know other cases that haven't received fair trials. I'm in the opinion that he was righteously fired, but he deserves to a chance to speak up.
    • mtanski 9y ago
      If this was a trial then and I believed he was unjustly fired I'd be right there with you. But we're now in the court of public opinion and I'm not really sure it's in his best interest to speak up.
  • Chris2048 9y ago
    > jumps to some misguided conclusions Yet as much as people keep saying this, few seem to be able to really make the case. Just "I'm sure someone can explain why he's wrong" - in this case some random "sociology researcher" is supposed to be able to do so. > this woe is me shtick He lost his job for expressing the "wrong" opinion. I think that is wrong. why are you downplaying this, and trying to make a show of your indifference? > reaching out to the alt-right publications Who should he have reached out to? WSJ seems fine to me.
• brian-armstrong 9y ago
  There's a lot of hypocrisy around this individual. If he were a woman facing termination for speaking out about something, then people would be referring to this media tour as "attention whoring." Instead this is being given the context of somehow speaking out against some kind of oppression. No matter where you stand on the issue, he disseminated a company wide memo criticizing the company-wide hiring practices in a preachy way that didnt leave room for the company to answer back. In what company would that not be labeled insubordination?
  • dsfjksdf 9y ago
    Yes, because women speaking up about issues in tech never get any platform at all. "Attention whoring" is definitely the standard reaction.
  • pooh_smear 9y ago
    Susan fowler. If you want to bring up differences in response, the difference in media response is interesting.
  • adamiscool8 9y ago
    From my reading it actually left a ton of room for an equally well-measured rebuttal, which I have yet to see.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • milcron 9y ago
      https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-by-point-refutation-of-the-google-memo-b7201d0cca04 https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-by-point-ref...
      • beaner 9y ago
        While I think a reasonable rebuttal to the memo could be made, the assumptions at the beginning of this article are so obviously missing the point of the memo that it's hard to see justifying reading the rest of it. Many people do make those assumptions, but I don't think you can honestly parse the original memo and believe that it was truly biased by, or literally promotes, those ideas.
• t_fatus 9y ago
  It's nice to finally hear the other side of the story. It has been a public execution for now, and I think, even if the way he formulates it might be better, that he has got a very good point: more and more the debate is cut short on some subjects, and some people rather keep their opinions to themselves by fear of being ashamed by the 'empire of the Good'. Not that I agree or not with their ideas, but it makes me sad to see self-limitation of free speech.
• ejlangev 9y ago
  > "When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny." Kind of meaningless though, could be he only sent it to people who agreed with him or who were men. "Goolag" shirt is pretty on the nose, I guess true hardship in Silicon Valley is losing your well paid tech job for... another well paid tech job? It's funny that he refuses to admit any fault in what he said even in a limited way when ideological rigidity and refusing to entertain other people's ideas in good faith is exactly what he's complaining about in others. Doesn't seem like this experience has resulted in him rethinking much of anything. Suppose it's true that whatever you accuse the other side of is exactly what you actually do.
  • Udik 9y ago
    What would be the fault in what he wrote? Can you provide some examples?
  • engel 9y ago
    > It's funny that he refuses to admit any fault in what he said Fault as in he regrets it?, or would have done it differently another time? If his goal was to get people to discuss this topic, how could he have done much better? > ideological rigidity and refusing to entertain other people's ideas in good faith is exactly what he's complaining about I don't think you can fault him for the rigidity or not entertain other people's ideas. It wasn't perfect or even great in either direction, but it surely made more effort than the many internet discussions, which we don't find fault with.
    • ejlangev 9y ago
      > it surely made more effort than the many internet discussions, which we don't find fault with. I wouldn't say he made significantly more effort, and people certainly (and correctly IMO) find fault with them. > Fault as in he regrets it? I don't think he should regret publishing it, but I also don't think it led to much productive discussion about the issues here. People on both sides just chose to ignore and distort what other people said. I don't think it's fair to say he made a good faith attempt to engage with the other side's position and fit it into the context of his beliefs. Instead he just presented his ideas and I don't think that does much on its own to advance the discussion. Predictably led to both sides digging in rather than finding some common ground.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• dghughes 9y ago
  When I was a kid we used to take aptitude tests to figure out what we were good at. Isn't aptitude essentially what Mr. Damore was debating?
• gavanwoolery 9y ago
  Somewhere between 30-40 (rough estimate) percent of the people I know support Damore. Hardly a majority, but also an indicator that these are not the ideas of a lone heretic. I am not as concerned with the fact that Google fired an employee for having an opinion, but more concerned with the fact that they only fire people with opinions that do not match those of the majority. Even if Damore's opinion's were wrong (which, according to several scientists, they are not), it should be ok to pose a theory without subjecting yourself to a potential witch hunt.
  • throwaway_2343 9y ago
    > it should be ok to pose a theory without subjecting yourself to a potential witch hunt. That theory is that a large portion of your coworkers are unfit for the job because science. And they were only hired because of misguided politicking.
  • deepsun 9y ago
    > they only fire people with opinions that do not match those of the majority. No, they only fire people that boiled media. For Sundar, it doesn't matter what the guy actually wrote, what matters is what media wrote about it. And they pictured him as a misogynist. So that is the new truth, now deal with it.
    • Caveman_Coder 9y ago
      > "...that is the new truth, now deal with it." I'd want my employer to have a spine and defend me, not kowtow to the flash-in-the-pan media opinions...
  • dclowd9901 9y ago
    > which, according to several scientists, they are not Good thing that's enough for a quorum. /s There is absolutely no evidence that there is a biological imperative that prevents women from being as effective as men at software development. None. Zero. Zilch. Just about every disparity you can imagine can be categorically dismissed by upbringing and cultural side effects. It doesn't even pass the sniff test: do you really think there's something inherent to the Y chromosome that allows better rote analysis?
• ue_ 9y ago
  >My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? This statement leaves me divided. One could soundly argue that Google isn't the place for "scientific debate and reasoned argument" on that topic, and there is such thing as appropriate and inappropriate topics, and correct and incorrect channels to discuss those topics in. To say that Google is simply "intolerant of scientific debate" misses the point. I'm sure Google has research divisions in which scientific debate occurs. The point is that they're not debating whether women are more predisposed to front-end development or not. There's a time and a place; I'm not sure what made Mr. Damore think it was either the time or the place for his "scientific debate" (which, I may be wrong, didn't actually invite debate, it was more of a rant) such that now he has sound basis to say that the issue doesn't lie with his choice of words in the document, how he approached the matter, where he published and if it was in good faith or not, and it does lie with Google simply being "intolerant of scientific debate". I wouldn't stand up in a high school (or any level of schooling) biology classroom, read from a list of even science-based points about gender or race, which genders or races are fit for certain tasks etc. with or without citations, and complain my conservative views are being silenced. Why? Beacuse it's not appropriate for the time and the place.
  • danarmak 9y ago
    > which, I may be wrong, didn't actually invite debate, it was more of a rant You are wrong. Why do people persist in commenting about a document they appear not to have read? The memo can be found at https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/ .
    • ue_ 9y ago
      I have read it, though I can't find where he calls for scientific debate (or any kind of debate) rather than reeling off a list of points with more Wikipedia links and popsci articles than someone with research skills should know not to put in. I just realised how comical the little table of "left biases" and "right biases" is, even if he does try to hedge out the unfounded categorisations with "it's not 100% accurate".
• notliketherest 9y ago
  Let's hope this doesn't get flagged and buried like the "Google CEO should be fired" link. This is clearly relevant to a large percentage of Hackernews readers and bears discussion. There irony of stories related to this getting flagged and hidden is rich.
  • alexandercrohde 9y ago
    I know nothing about the "CEO should be fired" link (nor does it sound like something I'd want to read). But I can wholeheartedly agree that this is one of the deepest, most emotional divides I've seen in an otherwise fairly united community. I think it's been continually swept under the rug for years because companies don't want it associated with their name (remember the whole dongle-joke github thing?), nor should they really.
    • peoplewindow 9y ago
      There was an op-ed in the New York Times saying Pichai should be fired. The discussion was flagged off the front page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990494
  • briholt 9y ago
    Flagged. To be fair, if we give people too much information about this issue they might form accurate opinions and that'll really dampen cult membership.
  • ribosometronome 9y ago
    Looks like it's been removed!
  • DarkTree 9y ago
    Yeah I only found this by searching for it after hearing about its existence from another news source. Pretty sad
• nyxtom 9y ago
  Alternative title: why I will probably never get a job in a number of companies by stringing along political controversy. In all seriousness, he knew the climate; made a prediction about that climate and chose to prove it correct - even string it along after being fired. It is almost a tragic irony that despite his biology background, he failed (or perhaps intended to be fired) to see the evolutionary case for collective altruistic punishment. In a data oriented climate like Google, there are other approaches that could of been taken to address the individualism-collectivism/relational scales by actually conducting and collection data from employees. The principle prediction boils down to: it is likely that I will be fired for saying these things, here is some conclusions I came across, watch as the community proves me correct. Based on this approach and his appearance in alt-right videos/blogs, I can only conclude he wanted to instigate chaos rather than have a data driven discourse by conducting surveys and opinions from collegues. As such, it is not unlike calling your friend up and prefacing an insult by saying: you are likely to be hostile from what I am about to say. That's not being fired for group think, that's being fired for instigating chaos. If he had done alternative approachs, it is likely things may of been better received given that a number of people within and out of the community appear to have some lines of reasoning to agree with. Heck, even Sundar saw merit in discussing some points.
  • dfps 9y ago
    Why should he have to?
    • nyxtom 9y ago
      He doesn't, but he made a prediction and was proved correct and thus was fired as a result of the nature and dynamics of altruistic punishment. I claim that his observations and claims about the diversity policy were merely a footnote in a much more pointed argument. That is to say, the diversity policy was not really what he intended to gain from this controversy but rather make it a point to focus on politics, which is toxic enough in this society. We don't need another talking head (left or right)
      • dfps 9y ago
• naturalgradient 9y ago
  What I find very dysfunctional is that rarely anything ever happens to the ones doing the shaming. They are most toxic to an organisation's culture in the long run. It is a failure of management that people fuelling the outrage cycles via public shaming, virtue signalling and grandstanding feel empowered to exercise mob justice.
  • rhizome 9y ago
    Are you saying that the entire concept of shame should be disregarded? On the other hand, might he be guilty of something? Of creating a hostile workplace, of destroying his own credibility with regard to performance reviews and interviewing, or at least, at Google, supporting his reasoning with bad science? Even outside of his employment environment, there's something to be said about his skills as a scientist as they are illustrated by the essay, about whether he was a false positive that slipped through GOOG's hiring filters.
    • pooh_smear 9y ago
      > about whether he was a false positive that slipped through GOOG's hiring filters. IIRC he mentioned in an interview that he got the highest performance rating and a promotion last cycle. There is a middle ground to shaming. People can overshame and instances of overshaming have been very toxic. For example, calling for violence or for a coworker to be fired. These instances are never punished.
      • jcranberry 9y ago
        He was also on the Google search team, which we all know is full of scrubs and duds.
• devdad 9y ago
  A tinfoil hat would go great with that t-shirt.
• wybiral 9y ago
  Yeah but it seems like Google was just a bad cultural fit for him anyway. He should have applied at Uber or something. Edit: Too soon?
• dfps 9y ago
  What will happen next though?
• anindha 9y ago
  If the memo was against the code of conduct, why did they wait one month to take action? A better response from HR would have been to tell him: "this may violate our code of conduct - could you please take it down for the moment while we discuss amongst HR". This could have turned into a reasonable internal discussion than a media circus.
  • gamblor956 9y ago
    Corporations aren't all-knowing entities. Sometimes it takes time for them to learn what their own employees are doing.
  • tajen 9y ago
    I don't think he leaked the memo himself, did he? He showed it to coworkers, I don't think he expected viral sharing.
    • anindha 9y ago
      He didn't leak the memo but it was shared publicly within Google.
  • alexandercrohde 9y ago
    Agreed. They also have now unfortunately signaled to that they will make hasty personnel decisions if enough politically-minded individuals complain at once. This encourages people to find new things to be offended by in order to advance their social cause.
  • egonschiele 9y ago
    I would also like to know this, Google should have fired him the same day. I have heard that it took a while to get all their legal ducks in a row before firing him.
• frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I think this is the problem: Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.” Google may ingratiate itself into all these parts of your life but really it only wants one thing: your work. Damore fell into the illusion that Google really was a way of life, that they ever really cared about a political debate. They don't. It's just a company. Keep your political opinions out of the workplace.
  • alexandercrohde 9y ago
    I think the inconsistency I see, is that those who wrote letters of complaint about him did so out of a political agenda. I see this argument being used unilaterally. You could just as easily say to those offended "Don't read things you are offended by. Shame on you for reading political stuff at work, keep it out of here." [Seeing the tone of this thread I expect to lose a lot of karma for this, but it's just imaginary internet points]
    • frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      >I think the inconsistency I see, is that those who wrote letters of complaint about him did so out of a political agenda. You mean those outside of the company like on twitter and stuff? Sure I agree, but they're not bringing it up at their workplace. The people working at google who have complained I think is actually reasonable. Damore brought this issue into the workplace. When somebody brings an issue like that in, your solution is that everybody should ignore it? It has to be addressed at that point. Really I'd say if you go to your job and you bring outside political issues into your workplace you're creating a messy problem because you're piercing the work-veil so to speak.
      • alexandercrohde 9y ago
• Upvoter33 9y ago
  I personally find the whole "Goolag" thing ridiculous. I've had relatives (great grandparents/uncles/aunts) in the USSR who were removed from their homes in the middle of the night by the government. One was even shot/killed. Getting fired from your high-paying job to go off and get another high-paying job, after you spent numerous hours writing some controversial BS about women/hiring instead of, you know, doing your actual job, is not anywhere close to the type of persecution people have faced in the past - so let's please not pretend it is.
  • where_do_i_live 9y ago
    Man everyone's a victim nowadays?
  • ardit33 9y ago
    Alright, let me chime in: For people that were less political danger, they usually were fired for "Political Incorrectness" and "Agitation and Propaganda", sent to re-education classes, and only given shitty job opportunities from now then. It was a convenient way to keep the less dangerous masses at bay. If "being conservative" becomes a "fireable" offense in most large tech valleys, then we are in a path to similar stances. Now, here where I disagree with the memo in general (it didn't seem constructive), I disagree with the way google handled the whole situation overall. Anyway, this whole episode (if you are not a feminist you are the enemy stance and the black list that managers at google have) starts smelling more of a McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism For people that just want to do their job and don't want to get involved in these discussions you almost are forced to do something, otherwise you are an evil/enemy/suppressor/whatever else. That bothers me, as I lived under communism and have lived the results of blind ideology.
    • vilmosi 9y ago
      > If "being conservative" becomes a "fireable" offense in most large tech valleys, then we are in a path to similar stances It's not similar. It's not even remotely similar, that's what you don't get.
• graycat 9y ago
  Lesson 1: Don't talk about sex, politics, or religion. Source: Very, very old stuff, I got from Mom. I wish I'd always followed it. Lesson 2: Don't tell them ANYTHING! Source: From an astoundingly, intensely socially cautious person, my mother in law. Some of the most intense brain activity I ever saw was by her anywhere in public. So, e.g., the woman I married found E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life easy reading and obvious! In part the mother's intensity came from some delicate, highly stressful circumstances of her mother in the Great Depression where in their small community just a single wrong word could wipe out the finances of the family, literally. Lesson 3: "... keep to two subjects: the weather and everybody's health." Source: My Fair Lady, advice to Professor Higgins who was socially crude! Lesson 4: He who always calls a spade a spade is fit only to use one. Source: Common from some parts of the English upper class. I was very slow to follow this advice. So, I had to learn the hard way, pay "full tuition", from experience -- "Experience is the great teacher, and some will learn from no other." So, Professor Higgins had to learn these lessons the hard way. Much of the theme of the movie Patton was that Patton also had to learn the hard way. IMHO, basically the advice is good. I've been astounded at how eager some people, how many people, are eager to attack strongly against any violation of those lessons. My current working guess is, TOO MANY people are just wildly oversensitive to even small violations of those lessons. So, the simple solution is, when in doubt, which means nearly all the time, follow the lessons. Yes, there is a downside: As in E. Fromm, The Art of Loving, four of the keys to intimacy (between the ears if not between the legs) are knowledge, caring, respect, and responsiveness. Here, for "knowledge" he meant, roughly from memory, "giving knowledge of one's self to the other." So, the lessons above conflict with this part of Fromm's version of intimacy. So, if have a really good relationship with your spouse and work at a place where some wound up clique is running the place and has their war paint on and are on the war path, then express your true feelings -- blow your stack, blow off steam -- in private, at home, with your spouse. For more examples, apparently in WWII, both the German army and the Japanese navy were very intense organizations. Victorious? No. Intense? Yes! So, can remember the movie Tora, Tora, Tora where in the WWII Japanese navy apparently a subordinate needed an explicit "you may speak freely" to say much. And in the TV series Winds of War apparently a German officer was encouraged to voice whatever concerns he had until the superior issued a direct order at which time the subordinate would stop the concerns and just say "Immediately". Once around DC I was in a part-time job working myself and my wife through our Ph.D. degrees. At one point the US Navy had a request: Evaluate the survivability of the US SSBN (missile firing submarines) fleet under a special scenario of global nuclear war limited to sea. They wanted the results in two weeks. Gads. Well, I found a continuous time, discrete state space Markov process and delivered something in two weeks, and apparently they liked it. Then a few days later, some guy I'd never seen before was in the offices. He wandered back to my office and started making small talk. He did this for 1-2 hours a day, for about 2 weeks. Gee, it was no longer small talk! He got the conversation going to current political topics of US national security and defense. I answered like a well informed voting citizen with some reasonably solid, not very unusual, opinions. Dumb de dumb dumb, dumb. Looking back it was a high end security interview for some high position, and I missed out on it. Should have followed Mom's advice: Don't talk about politics. Certainly don't talk about national security politics in an office doing classified work for the US Navy. Another related lesson: Limit all communications with co-workers to objective aspects of the work, and do not permit more than trivial instances of small talk. Such small talk can be the seeds of destructive office gossip, deliberate efforts to distract from the work, etc. Sure, the small talk should avoid sex, politics, and religion, but should avoid essentially everything else, too. So, limit small talk to, say, very short, obvious, trivial, innocuous remarks on the weather -- of course, NEVER mention "global warming" or "climate change"!
• wonderwonder 9y ago
  His presentation and the way he is representing himself appears to have hit an interesting cultural middle ground. He clearly has the alt right supporting him, but he also has scientists and professors from prestigious and relatively liberal colleges publicly supporting the science of his argument. Even commentators on NPR and the Times are supporting him and blaming google. He does not come across as vengeful, just disappointed, appearing to have just genuinely wanted to have a conversation about what he say as flaw/injustice in the way Google approached hiring. He is well spoken for the most part and decent looking, that in itself will give this story legs and the media will want to have him on. Google really made a mistake in their approach to this. I believe that if they had just spoken to him and heard him out in the beginning after he submitted his memo to their diversity department this never would have happened. As another poster said, they could even have just paid him off and have had him sign an NDA to go away. This is a monumental failure of PR on Googles part.
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    A monumental failure of PR would've been Google getting sued for gender discrimination if this guy was ever put in charge of a mixed-gender team and someone in the team thought they were being put at a disadvantage. This guy clearly wanted to stir controversy, that's why the memo kept doing the rounds (he says he submitted it to several diversity groups inside of google himself.) I doubt he would've put up with having a "sensible discussion" with Google HR and let it go.
    • throwaway12124 9y ago
      Google could easily have blacklisted him from any future management positions. This would have been essentially cost-free to them.
      • unityByFreedom 9y ago
        And employee evaluations? Everyone takes part in those.
• KaiserPro 9y ago
  So the problem is this: there are parts of his "manifesto" that are actually quite interesting, about the nature of diversity, its key importance for the health of a company. The supplemental implication that diversity should be able to be justified by its own terms, and not held on a pedestal, guarded by armed militia. the problem is that he half-arsed the bit about biological differences. Firstly he didn't bother to find decent primary sources (I suspect because they didn't backup his initial point.) There are other assertions that are iffy, but they will be utterly forgotten, as they are not as simple as "he said women are Inferior" The problem for google is this: o If they fire the author, they create a martyr o If they keep him on, he would have been de-anonymised o If they didn't fire him after being found out, they would have been accused of harbouring a malfeasant misogynist. Basically its your standard loose loose situation for a company. All of which masks the main point of this whole cerfuffle. what is the nature of diversity I think Diversity is good. I want people from all walks of life in my company. However I also want Equality of access and treatment. Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or negative discrimination.
  • TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
    I'm not an expert on the subject. However, in his interview with Jordan Peterson [0], whom AFAIK is an expert on the field, the following claim was made: "I would like to state for the record that I believe that what you said in there, if not accurate, was at least representative of the current state of the art among well-trained psychometrically informed psychologists who are experts in the field of individual difference." Peterson points out a few issues in his writeup as they go over it. Considering the author of the memo is not an expert, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more charitable with his writeup. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU
  • nyxtom 9y ago
    > Hiring someone because they conform to a (non work skill based) target is discriminatory. discrimination is the enemy of diversity, be it positive or negative discrimination. Not sure about this one, companies hire based on whether or not they feel like people will be a cultural fit all the time (in the positive and negative sense). Is it discriminating to avoid hiring someone whom you perhaps could expect will not keep pace with what is required of their job? Or use company hours to stir up political controversy? I realize that some of this is a straw-man argument given the overlap of the discussion, but cultural fits are something companies do whether it is direct or indirect bias. Stirring up controversy is almost by definition the antithesis of a productive work environment; this is evident by all the time now wasted in the totality of Silicon Valley at this point. Is it a bad idea to stir the pot? Absolutely not, but these are definitely causal effects of it (good or bad). That being said, there is probably some evolutionary utility in generating such polarities as I would expect a social group to address the point of controversy where they vehemently disagree.
• jsky_goog 9y ago
  This was briefly on the frontpage but now I can't find it listed on HN. Did this violate some kind of rules?
• jahaja 9y ago
  I have no idea why people are giving this guy the benefit of the doubt in absurdum. Apparently if he quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, he is a cat. I mean heck, among the first thing the guy did is to give interviews to dubious people (with slanted views matching the docs generalizations) and printing up a damn "Goolag" t-shirt? So even now with the benefit of hindsight people seem still convinced that this was more or less a scientific doc with no ideological bias. The ability to read between the lines seems to blinded by vague links to academic papers.
• mychael 9y ago
  South Park predicted this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI
• dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  > I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored. So as long as the memo was internal, nobody cared. It looks like he was fired because the memo went viral, not because he wrote and submitted it to the diversity groups (which happened a month ago).
• dcole2929 9y ago
  I think a lot of people struggle with the idea that how you say something matters as much if not more than what you say. And Damore definitely seems to suffer from that. He's focused on the fact that his document was to his mind well reasoned and factually supported (it has citations I guess), while ignoring the problem, that it was also incredibly tone deaf and to an uncharitable reader offensive. Assuming you take no issue with the evidence he cites, his reasoning is at best flawed, he ignores a lot of easily cited counter evidence, and worst of all uses a lot of strongly coded language. I'm fully willing to believe his intentions were as he stated but the fact is his memo doesn't present well unless you're already inclined to believe his argument. Also generally speaking, upsetting a large number of people you work with is a good way to get fired. Sound arguments or not. People have been fired for repeatedly microwaving smelly food in the kitchen, and other comparably minor offenses. Releasing a document which criticizes the companies hiring practices and can be validly interpreted to call into question the credentials of many of your coworkers is a no brainer pink slip.
• alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Can anybody please talk about the actual science here? As far as wikipedia is concerned, yes there are biological mental differences between men and women. I see a lot of "This is so disgusting I won't even respond to it," which is a cop-out. But here's wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Psyc...
  • lancewiggs 9y ago
    Wikipedia is not a scientific source, nor is it (at all) an unbiased source.
    • alexandercrohde 9y ago
      All due respect, wikipedia cites only published scientific articles. You're of course free to edit it if you think it has an anti-left bias...
  • zbobet2012 9y ago
    I think the biggest mistake he makes is about magnitude of those effects and the specific outcomes. We don't really know how much of a difference those biological differences make. There is a lot of research that show women (on AVERAGE) are more people oriented. But the percentage and distribution of women vs men that are thing vs people oriented isn't well settled. We have some data on outlooks in adults but that is obviously _not_ pre-culture. When looking at [research on the matter](http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-thing...): Therefore, from the inter-individual perspective,the individuals who pursue STEM careers are more likely to be male than female. For example, assuming that individuals within the highest 25% of a population interest distribution are likely to make occupational choices consistent with an interest type, the number of women entering the engineering occupation, then, is only 19.5% of the number of men entering the field. This percentage is very similar to the actual female–male ratio of individuals employed in engineering. In science and mathematics interest distributions, the female–male ratios in the upper 25% asymptote are 0.60 and 0.64, respectively. However, the actual female–male ratio of individuals employed in the field of physical sciences is only about 0.40 and, in mathematics, it is about 0.45. This discrepancy between interest data and real employment composition indicates that there may be reasons other than sex differences in interests that can account for gender disparity in science and mathematics. Considering Google pulls a lot from the Science and Mathematics fields (Dalmore is one such individual), I would expect Google's 83% male to 17% female engineering composition is somewhat skewed by sexism.
• AcerbicZero 9y ago
  Another reasonable, fairly noninflammatory piece of writing from Mr. Damore. I'm sure this will be read carefully by his critics, so they can provide a rational, articulate rebuttal.
• monodeldiablo 9y ago
  Required reading for this discussion: https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-by-point-refutation-of-the-google-memo-b7201d0cca04 https://medium.com/@adljksbvkj/heres-your-point-by-point-ref... And, for those still outraged by his dismissal: Damore made a subset of his co-workers feel uncomfortable. That's all the reason any at-will employer needs in order to pull the trigger. End of. There are constructive ways to discuss diversity in the workplace and potential ways to improve it. His memo (and the WSJ "open letter") is a great example of how not to conduct this conversation.
  • zbobet2012 9y ago
    Oh lord that's note even close to a good rebuttal. Mostly because it starts off with a list of "sexist" assumptions, some of which don't even tangentially relate to the memo, or are directly contradicted. What the article says: > Sexist assumption 6: Gender bias is not a real issue. Anyone who thinks so is blinded by political bias. What the memo says: > Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. Literally, can anyone argue against the guy without misrepresenting and demonizing his argument? I don't even agree with him and find this stuff head-ache inducing.
• notacoward 9y ago
  Predictably dishonest. > I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences ...and then said whole lot more. Sundar Pichai did not specify which parts of the memo were considered to have violated the code of conduct. Without that, it's disingenuous for Damore or anyone else to assume it was the one part they want everyone to focus on (because the rest are weaker). > I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. OK, James, who was claiming all? Show us where that claim was made. Or is that just a strawman? > Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document Who among Google's upper management misrepresented the document? Where, when, and how? Or is that just a Trumpian persecution complex?
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    Prepare for the downvotes. Nobody points out holes in Damore's arguments and survives the rage of the poor downtrodden males of HN.
    • Chris2048 9y ago
      Do you believe your own comments on the matter are "pointing out the holes"? I think "misrepresenting" and "spreading vitriol" is more accurate.
• alexandercrohde 9y ago
  How does one vouch for this? I don't think this article deserves to be flagged. I'm also unclear if whoever flagged it was trying to flag the article itself or the discussion it created.
  • detaro 9y ago
    You can only vouch for things that have been killed by flags (are [dead])
    • alexandercrohde 9y ago
      Oh. Does the flag penalize it in the rankings?
      • detaro 9y ago
        Yes, flags have quite strong impact on ranking.
        • alexandercrohde 9y ago
          So there's no way I can "vouch" for it to not be buried somewhere off the front page? That's too bad. I understand the intent of the algorithm, but personally I feel these are some of the great conversations of our age being held by some very smart people and it seems like the discussions keep disappearing once they get good.
• egonschiele 9y ago
  So far most of the discussion has been around a. whether the facts in the memo were accurate and b. whether google was right to fire him. Can we talk about whether putting out a memo like this is a good idea? What is the benefit of putting out a memo like this? Clearly James saw a problem and is trying to fix it. Sexism does exist, even today, even in Silicon Valley. Why put out a paper saying that biological differences between men and women result in fewer women in tech? Women are already the underdogs in this fight. Even if it's true, what is being improved by him pointing this out? It kind of feels like if someone was to put out a paper saying "The Koch brothers pays millions of dollars in taxes but my neighbor doesn't. That's not fair!" Why defend the side that already has too much power?
• nunez 9y ago
  I just read the memo: http://archive.is/5wD9x http://archive.is/5wD9x I really don't think he should have been fired over this.
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    Let me guess: you are not a woman, or friends with women working in the field?
    • nunez 9y ago
      The former is correct; the latter is not.
• unityByFreedom 9y ago
  When has it ever been socially acceptable to demand that another individual discuss everything that you want? I would never go up to my friend and say, I want to talk about coconuts! If you don't want to talk about coconuts, then you're not really open and tolerant! You are intolerant of my affection for coconuts! Meanwhile, I'm willing to talk about coconut milk, but you require that the conversation include discussion of the shell. Nobody would ever do that. Damore stubbornly ignores Pichai's willingness to discuss some of what he wrote more deeply. Damore pretends that Google isn't willing to discuss any of the issues he raised, which isn't true. And, he really has no standing to demand his political beliefs be discussed at work. If people don't want to discuss them, including his managers, and they feel he's being a distraction, then he's out.
• dguaraglia 9y ago
  > That's your opinion. You've not made the case the memo has "no merit" I just replied to your other comment clarifying why the memo is weak at best, and a stupid violation of the code of conduct at worst. > No you aren't, you don't have a case. Oh, yes I do. Males working in Silicon Valley complaining about their precious feelings have 0 of my sympathy. I'm a male and work in tech. You don't see me or any of my friends whining about "discrimination" because more women are coming into the field. It's beyond ridiculous. Only people who are not very sure about their skills would be complaining about that. > quote it specificly. Refer to my other comments. Essentially he tries to pass the biological argument as the One True Argument, completely ignoring that while the social arguments are still there the biological argument is unquantifiable and building a case around is bullshit. > There are citations in the original memo The citations don't quantify, they just quote. Nobody, ever, has put a number to the percentage of women that don't go into engineering for "lack of interest" derived from biological factors. It's literally unquantifiable. > Just because you have none? Read the memo, that's a start. I read the fucking memo. It reads exactly like the kind of shit I'd expect from a "disenfranchised" alt-righter. I'm surprised he didn't publish it on Breitbart. > For me to read the memo to you? No, for you to give me a number. What percentage of women are not interested in engineering because of genes. C'mon, can't be that hard!?
  • Chris2048 9y ago
    >> you don't have a case > You don't see me or any of my friends whining ok, datapoint #1 - you and your friends. Have anything better? You think that's a case made? >> quote it specificly. > Refer to my other comments The ones where you also don't quote anything specifically? > No, for you to give me a number. Show me the part of the memo that requires it? you are the one that suggested the memo said things that it didn't.
    • dguaraglia 9y ago
      > Show me the part of the memo that requires it? you are the one that suggested the memo said things that it didn't. What, exactly does the memo say in your opinion? Because so far I hear you complain about all kinds of things it allegedly doesn't say, but I haven't heard you explain what it does say. I understand that's the semantic game most alt-righters love to play, but c'mon, if you want me to take you seriously at least argue something instead of just saying "no, didn't say so."
• foobar_femme 9y ago
  Brilliant. At last Michael O. Church is not Google's silliest hire. If only they had not fired this doofus and turned him into an alt-right martyr. They could just have assigned his silly ass to Special Projects and let him ride out the attendant humiliation.
• wyclif 9y ago
  Apparently many HN users still don't understand how flagging is supposed to work. This is a first-person account from the subject of the controversy, so it shouldn't have been flagged. Flagging is for spam and off-topic posts. The echo chamber, attacks on heretics, and attempts to enforce groupthink are strong on HN, which should not surprise anyone given how woven it is into SV culture.