Regarding the supposed discriminatory hiring practices, I discovered a video where Damore mentions two scenarios: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-

Regarding the supposed discriminatory hiring practices, I discovered a video where Damore mentions two scenarios: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engineer-damore-i-feel-google-betrayed-me-video https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engin... 1. Giving multiple attempts at interviewing. 2. Once an interview is passed, a connection to a manager is ensured. (Supposedly, you can pass an interview but never get matched up with a manager to work under, in which case you won't actually have a job there) It would seem there are three possibilities (though I'm open to alternative interpretations): 1. Damore is lying (or at best, misinformed) 2. Damore is telling the truth, but such discrimination is deemed ethical 3. Damore is telling the truth, and such discrimination is deemed unethical (and arguably illegal) If what he says is true, I imagine there would be great outcry if the discrimination was instead in favor of white men, and so it would seem that leaves us with either possibility 1 or 3. ... unless one supposes that, for any unethical discriminatory act, there exists some sort of "counter-discriminatory" act that is then both ethical and somehow no longer discriminatory (a necessary condition for being both ethical and legal in business), despite clearly meeting the definition of the word "discriminatory". As is probably apparent, this strikes me as absurd. However, if one finds error in this reasoning, I'm certainly open to an explanation of what I'm missing.