46 ms·

James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google

• GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
  Watching discovery occur on this case will be interesting.
  • ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    It'll get settled first to avoid discovery, I suspect. Class action makes settling more awkward, but still, Google has more financial interest in avoiding discovery than winning the case.
• Veen 9y ago
  From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.
  • verroq 9y ago
    Techcrunch is just setting themselves up for libel
    • bhouston 9y ago
      Hard to sue publications.
      • mikeryan 9y ago
        Not sure Gawker would agree with you.
        • dguaraglia 9y ago
          Gawker wasn't sued for libel.
          • dguaraglia 9y ago
            Next time someone complains about me "jumping the gun" for talking about brigading on posts regarding Damore, I'll point them to this comment, where I state a 100% correct, non-controversial, non-offensive fact and I still get downvoted. Hard to explain, huh?
            • grzm 9y ago
              This is a highly contentious thread with a lot of participants and over 740 comments at this point. I don't think you can reach any meaningful conclusion other than HN members are human and behave in all variety of ways, rational, and otherwise.
              • dguaraglia 9y ago
                Of course Hacker News participants are just human. That said, automatic downvoting of non-controversial, easily-proven statements, while comments with highly subjective and inflammatory takes get upvoted show the worst this community has to offer. I used to think HN provided a good balance of open-mindedness and tech topics. It was a nice refuge from places like reddit and Twitter that had become overly politicized. In the last year - in particular since Damore's little lesson about shitting where you eat - the same kind of smarmy calls for "tolerance of different opinions" mixed with constant brigading of people (talk abut "tolerance") have taken over HN. I really hope for our community's sake that it's just a small number of users ruining it for everyone.
                • grzm 9y ago
                  I very much understand and appreciate the frustration. I think you should cut your fellow members a bit of slack. There are assumptions in your comment here that may not be entirely accurate or at least aren't representing the whole picture. I'm going to attempt to provide alternative perspectives here: I'm not claiming they're correct, but are an attempt to broaden what other's may be perceiving. That doesn't mean their perceptions are correct or even fair. > "automatic downvoting" Let's set aside the idea that they're automatic for a moment. Unless your mind reading skills are better than mine, it's hard to know the intent from a downvote alone. You can't even know who did it, other than it's not the person you responded to. > "of non-controversial, easily-proven statements" Even these may not be constructive to the conversation. They may be tangential, irrelevant, or intentionally misleading. Members may downvote for any of these reasons. > "comments with highly subjective and inflammatory takes get upvoted show the worst this community has to offer." Yeah, highly charged comments can get upvoted: emotions are a powerful thing, and there's a lot of evidence (is it even controversial at this point?) that emotions fire before rational thought. And there's increasing evidence that our rationality actual does more to rationalize our emotions than work as some sort of logic engine. People have to work against this, and that, indeed, is effort. Frustrating? Incredibly so. Human? Very. That's not to say we shouldn't work against this, at least some of the time. Internet fora make this all the more difficult because we're engaging with such limited bandwidth. We don't get to hear tone, or see facial expressions. We only have this limited text stream, and so we're likely bringing a lot more of ourselves to fill in the gaps than we often realize. There's a lot of charged language in your comment here. That's just an observation, not a judgement. How should I respond to that? Should I attempt to put it to the side and respond in a way I think is most effective? Or should I write you off as some hot head that can't control their commenting, going against site guidelines by complaining about voting? Or just silently downvote you for doing so? I often get the impression that that's how some members perceive others as behaving. I don't think that's a useful starting point from which to improve HN, so it's one I consciously choose not to take. > "a small number of users" I think it's a combination of a small number of users and the fact that each of us—just because we're human—can sometimes slip. What we can do the rest of the time is not let the slip-ups of others make us respond in kind. It takes more than one person to spread the flames. Help make HN the place you want it to be. Submit good articles. Write good comments. Upvote good articles and comments. Downvote and flag those you don't think are appropriate for HN. It sounds like you follow HN, so you know how threads on contentious articles go. Do what you can to make it better. (And make a conscious effort to not make it worse.) That includes commenting within the guidelines, such as not commenting on downvotes or mentioning you're flagging articles or complaining that a submission is inappropriate for HN. If you really think there's abuse going on, do contact the mods via the contact link in the footer: they want members to bring things like that to their attention so they can address it. Honestly, there's really little else you can do, but I think it's enough. Which is why I'm taking the time for this comment. Anyway, best wishes.
    • hsod 9y ago
      Is it libelous to interpret someones words in a way they don't like?
      • AFNobody 9y ago
        > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Not if it is anything resembling a reasonable interpretation of the text.
        • gnicholas 9y ago
          I was curious about this statement also, because he doesn't present any evidence of different abilites in the memo. On a reddit AMA, he explained that he had actually removed the ability-related evidence, which isn't what you'd expect: instead of showing that women have less of an ability to code, the evidence suggests that women who have high math ability are more likely to have high verbal ability also, vis a vis men with high math ability. So women with high math ability have more options than men, on average, because they're likely to have more verbal ability as well. These women can then pursue jobs in other areas, whereas the men with high math ability don't have those options and therefore pursue things like coding. I'm not weighing in on whether this evidence (which was based on SAT, IIRC) is correct or has been interpreted validly. I'm just pointing out that this was what Damore claimed (after the snafu arose—so take with at least a grain of salt) this statement was in reference to. I'd love to know if others have different information, especially if it was in earlier drafts of the doc.
      • ng12 9y ago
        IANAL, but I think so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation
      • gnicholas 9y ago
        It is libelous to say that someone said something that they did not say (assuming, as in all cases, that what you say could hurt their reputation in the community). There a spectrum of behavior: one the one hand, there are straight up misquotes—where you attribute a direct quote improperly. On the other hand, there are synthetic statements, where you 'sum up' what someone has said in a distilled way. In this case, TC would argue that they are distilling his memo by using the phrase "biologically less capable of engineering". Personally (and as a former lawyer, but not a libel lawyer), I think this position is not especially strong, since he focused mostly, if not exclusively, on inclination-type evidence. If you're going to give a one-sentence summary of the memo, you probably shouldn't refer to ability instead of inclination. And given that the person they're talking about just sued Google, I'd say it's unwise to use a characterization like this—even if it is ultimately legally justifiable. Why not say "biologically less suited for engineering", which would encompass the possibility of both ability and desire?
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    What wording do you suggest they use?
    • keerthiko 9y ago
      His memo was more along the lines of "women are less represented in tech because the industry does not favor their traits which are possibly a result of biological differences"
      • JustSomeNobody 9y ago
        And what biological differences would those be?
        • anonemouse145 9y ago
          Read the paper, including citations.
      • rifung 9y ago
        The article seems to have it correct to me? From the memo: "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership" preferences and abilities he says.
        • anonemouse145 9y ago
          Yes. And? He suggests ways to alter Google's engineering jobs to suit abilities females are more likely to excel at, such as making work more social. Its almost like different doesn't mean worse.
      • lurr 9y ago
        Also women aren't going into "high stress jobs" because they are too neurotic for them. oh and diversity programs are bad. for some reason.
    • 9y ago
  • brndnmtthws 9y ago
    News outlets generate income through sensationalism, and that's the storyline that they need to drive the most traffic.
    • threeseed 9y ago
      This has nothing to do with the news and everything to do with what Damore did. He was fired for a reason.
      • ironjunkie 9y ago
        Sure, and the politically correct system is never wrong. Continue to live in your utopia
        • dang 9y ago
          Name-calling and personal attacks will get you banned here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act. Here's a principle to help: If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.
      • anonemouse145 9y ago
        No he didn't. Stop spreading lies. This is the heart of the lawsuit. Unless you mean he was fired as part of a witch hunt which was much ado about nothing, and that's a sad fact of basing firing decisions on tweets. That is true.
        • dang 9y ago
          This comment breaks the HN guideline against calling names in arguments. We ban accounts that do that, so please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do that. Edit: it looks like you've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly and ignoring our requests to stop. If you keep doing that we will ban you.
  • ebbv 9y ago
    From his memo: > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives always appear to defend this guy and try to pretend the memo wasn't full of repugnant crap.
    • x3n0ph3n3 9y ago
      I think the "preferences" part carries more weight. More men want to be engineers than women.
      • ebbv 9y ago
        We're not debating what you think, we're debating what he said, and he included abilities in there. He said what they claim he said, but people always appear to try to claim he didn't.
      • itaris 9y ago
        > preferences and abilities
      • threeseed 9y ago
        And if all Damore said was that he would still be at Google.
        • lurr 9y ago
          I don't know why you are being downvoted. I think if he had made a better written argument that focused more clearly on the idea that part of the gender gap is due to a lack of interest by women, that he probably still would be employed.
      • wellboy 9y ago
        Men also select more career oriented roles with higher pay, of which CS careers are one of the main ones.
  • briholt 9y ago
    The misrepresentation is a feature, not a bug. They need to create dragons in order to justify their dragon-slaying crusade. This has been going on for years, BTW.
  • paulgb 9y ago
    Is the quote you pulled not saying the same thing as this from Damore's memo? > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Edit: ebbv beat me to it
    • ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      There's a difference between "fewer women wind up having the skills for X" and "women are worse at X".
      • ng12 9y ago
        It's a little grating, to be honest. The tech world loves statistics and empirical research until it clashes with their world view.
        • threeseed 9y ago
          What a ridiculous comment. (a) There is no consistent world view for tens of millions of people distributed across the globe, (b) there is no research, none, that specifically states that women are genetically predisposed to be less suited to engineering and (c) there is no clear rules about what aspects of our biology are required to be a great engineer.
          • ng12 9y ago
            I mean this stuff has been studied for years: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ Maybe these studies are wrong, maybe the conclusions Damore drew were wrong (I certainly think they are). However, I think witch-hunting people for asking questions about sensitive topics is a much more clear and present danger.
  • john_moscow 9y ago
    >Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? Because this creates controversy, controversy creates engagement and engagement brings more ad revenue to the news outlets.
  • dmode 9y ago
    Can you elaborate on what in your mind is the correct interpretation ? Because, reading his memo, I had the exact same takeaway as the Techcrunch quote you posted here.
    • imartin2k 9y ago
      I tried to explain this in a blog post. It also irritates me why this is so consequently misinterpreted, as it makes for quite a big difference for the overall narrative. Because of course if someone would claim that an individual woman cannot be as good as an individual man in engineering (or better), that person would be an idiot. "Misunderstanding statistical distribution" https://medium.com/@martinweigert/misunderstanding-probability-distribution-ee19f8537415 https://medium.com/@martinweigert/misunderstanding-probabili...
      • lukev 9y ago
        That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that Damore thinks every man is a better programmer than every woman. He suggested that on average men are biologically more suited to programming, and the contention of his opponents is that that is still a problematic and inappropriate thing to say.
        • ThrustVectoring 9y ago
          He very clearly stated that the average male programmer is as good as the average female programmer. Please don't insinuate otherwise by stripping away some of the semantics Mr. Damore used - he used it for a reason to make a more precise claim than you're criticizing.
          • lukev 9y ago
            Again, that's not the argument. Even stating that men are more suited to become programmers* is problematic!
            • 9y ago
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • PeterStuer 9y ago
    Because the press loves polarization. Hitting sensitive nerves is the perfect click-bait. There is no sensible discussion possible anymore on this topic, so it is low hanging fruit.
  • lukev 9y ago
    What? Did we read the same memo? One of his central points is that the representation gap between men and women in technology is due to different biological distributions. From the memo: > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Minus a bit of softening language ("in part", "may"), proposing that women are on average less biologically capable of programming is exactly what he's saying. Also, because I know how HN works, let me pre-empt the inevitable reply to this one: "but what if there ARE sex differences?! shouldn't we be allowed to talk about that!? Freedom of speech!?!" Scientists who study this stuff (including those cited by Damore) can and do talk about it, and the consensus is that biological sex differences are not that big of an effect, certainly not enough to explain the gender disparity in tech. What effects there may be are absolutely dominated by sociological factors. Sociological factors that some companies are attempting to counter, which is what Damore didn't like, which is why he issued his complain-y memo to start with. And THAT is why people are upset with him. Not because he's an amateur biologist with a day job as a programmer who just earnestly wants to have an innocent conversation about sexual dimorphism. It's because he's just another brogrammer whose jimmies got rustled by the thought of women being his peers, and decided to insult (on average) his female colleagues and create a hostile work environment for which he was (quite correctly) fired.
    • Alex3917 9y ago
      > the consensus is that biological sex differences are not that big of an effect, certainly not enough to explain the gender disparity in tech. Whether sex differences explain the gender disparity in tech isn't even the kind of question that cog dev folks ask.
      • DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
        > You're making stuff up. Hey, let's keep things civil. Please consider Hanlon's Razor in this case. How about something like, "I don't think you're correct about the consensus. Citations please?"
  • zouhair 9y ago
    When the majority of people coming to your defense are right wing extremists[0][1] and neo-nazis you are doing something wrong. You can also read his twitter account, he went full on alt-right. I am happy he got his ass fired. [0]: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/18/james-damore-like-gays-1950s-conservatives-stay-closet-google-silicon-valley/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/18/james-damore-like-g... [1]: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450202/google-employees-awesome-anti-diversity-screed http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450202/google-employees...
    • coolso 9y ago
      > When the majority of people coming to your defense are right wing extremists[0][1] and neo-nazis you are doing something wrong. When the majority of people are too afraid to come to someone's defense (publicly) because they're afraid that the internet pitchfork mobs will come and destroy their lives too, a large part of society is doing something wrong. And that large part of society that attempts to do the silencing/shaming/smearing/destroying of the opposition might think they're scoring a victory for their cause (whether or not that cause is worthy is beside the point), but that's not necessarily true, and we saw proof of that in the last US election.
      • lurr 9y ago
        > we saw proof of that in the last US election. When Clinton got millions more votes?
    • erik_seaberg 9y ago
      http://thehill.com/policy/technology/348246-poll-google-was-wrong-to-fire-engineer-over-diversity-memo http://thehill.com/policy/technology/348246-poll-google-was-... reports solid opposition to his firing. If only extremists are openly defending him, it's because they have less to fear.
    • jacksmith21006 9y ago
      The alt right did not do him any favors as it probably made it harder for him to understand what he did wrong. Of course he had to be fired as how could you have him on a team trying to work together. As a manager you have to think about everyone in the team.
  • Digory 9y ago
    Americans, even those who attend good schools, do not understand statistical claims. This leaves them susceptible to all kinds of flim flam, especially when they are invested in an idea.
    • DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
      > Americans, even those who attend good schools, do not understand statistical claims. I'm having some difficulty understanding your statement. Would you mind clarifying a few things? - Do you mean all Americans, or just some? - When you say "do not understand", what do you mean by that? - I'm unclear as to why you specifically mentioned Americans. Are you comparing them to some other group(s)? And if so, which one(s)?
      • wellboy 9y ago
        He means 80% of Americans probably, not 100% and that that is a lot more than in any other demographic in the western world. Be aware, 60% of Republicans belie e that the earth really is only 6,000 years old. By not understanding he means that, that they don't understand that they don't understand that in distribution when traits are different on a average that that doesn't mean that in one group all individuals of one groups have stronger or weaker traits than individuals of the other group.
      • Digory 9y ago
        >I'm having some difficulty understanding your statement. Heh. I rest my case. But, to respond directly: of course, I'm speaking colloquially to suggest many Americans. I specifically mention Americans because this discussion is about an American suing an American company, in a kerfuffle over American ideals (and law) of sex nondiscrimination. American education norms seem to leave even bright people susceptible to deep confusion when claims are based on statistics.
        • DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
          > Heh. I rest my case. I'm Irish.
  • lurr 9y ago
    Okay, replace engineering with management and that's exactly the argument he made.
• rvcamo 9y ago
  Getting my popcorn ready. "It aims to represent all employees of Google who’ve been discriminated against due to their “perceived conservative political views by Google,” due to “their male gender by Google” and “due to their Caucasian race by Google." He should have also added Christians, Trump supporters, or anyone who doesn't bow to the progressive agenda.
• falcor84 9y ago
  Is there actually any US law against discrimination based on political stance?
  • creaghpatr 9y ago
    In California, yes
    • falcor84 9y ago
      Could you please provide more detail?
      • xexers 9y ago
        https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be-fired-for-expressing-your-political-views-in-california.shtml https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be...
      • creaghpatr 9y ago
        https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be-fired-for-expressing-your-political-views-in-california.shtml https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be... TLDR: yes, and there are certain exceptions, IANAL so not sure where this particular case falls
        • falcor84 9y ago
          Thanks, that's interesting. This in particular may be relevant to the case: "However, there are exceptions. For instance, if you participate in a political activity that creates a conflict of interest with your employer's business model, your job could potentially be on the line"
        • mikeryan 9y ago
          The Law is here (at least according to your link) http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... The whole thing here emphasis mine: No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. It seems that Google has to have a specific policy in place for this law to be triggered, which does not seem to be the claim being made.
• vorotato 9y ago
  A fool and his money are soon parted.
  • lr4444lr 9y ago
    You really think the firm is taking an upfront fee or retainer for this? I assume they are expecting a settlement from Google/Alphabet so that the company can put an end to this PR nightmare once and for all, from which they will take a cut.
    • vorotato 9y ago
      If I was the firm I would. For google's intended audience it's basically free advertising.
    • taytus 9y ago
      Google's PR Nightmare? Honest question: Don't you think that the one with the PR nightmare is Damore?
      • oh_sigh 9y ago
        He's beloved by a certain right-leaning or libertarian bent portion of the tech world, and everyone else except for maybe Google's lawyers have forgotten about him. So it seems like he is in a better place now than simply being a midlevel employee in MegaCorp
        • vorotato 9y ago
          Yes from a certain angle it's a PR win/win. However if he actually pursues a lawsuit with his money he's with near certainty going to be the loser.
          • oh_sigh 9y ago
            I really doubt it is with his own money. Google pays pretty well, but he was only employed for a couple of years outside of school, so I doubt he has millions just sitting around. Almost certainly this case is taken on a contingency basis or they are using crowdsourced funds.
• mikeryan 9y ago
  Will watch this with interest AFAIK discriminating against conservative white men isn’t illegal. It’s not a protected class. There must be some twist here.
  • dmitrygr 9y ago
    In California, workplace discrimination due to politics is illegal [1] In USA, discrimination due to sex is illegal. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    • vorotato 9y ago
      Yes, discrimination against men, and or white people is illegal. They can show though that they hire plenty of white men. You are correct in California you cannot discriminate against employees due to politics, however I'm sure they'd be able to show they hire plenty of republicans. It is also an uphill battle for Damore since he'd basically be claiming that he was discriminated against at the same time as arguing that they shouldn't do more to balance the apparent discrimination against women. Whether or not any of that is true, it's going to be a hard sell to a California jury
      • dmitrygr 9y ago
        > however I'm sure they'd be able to show they hire plenty of republicans Discrimination is not just about hiring but also about workplace comfort. And let me tell you, being a non-democrat at google is NOT comfortable! VERY not comfortable!
        • vorotato 9y ago
          IANAL, but as I understand it, it depends on what causes the discomfort. If your discomfort comes from the existence of other protected classes, like a baptist in a den of atheists then it's tough beans. If however you can evidence that they've created a hostile environment for you outside of your relation to other protected classes then yes that makes sense.
• Jonovono 9y ago
  I never really saw too much issue with what he wrote. It seemed a lot of people were mad at him for things he never said. It's been awhile since I read his document, but I remember expecting it to be so bad from all the uproar I was hearing, but after reading it I couldn't find much to be angry about. Can someone enlighten me - i'll admit, this may be a highly ignorant topic of mine.
  • nashashmi 9y ago
    If you switch out words of gender with words of race, it may sound more offensive. That is what the Youtube CEO said and it immediately began to make sense.
    • AlwaysBCoding 9y ago
      "If you change what he said it sounds worse" lol, is that seriously your argument?
      • 5ilv3r 9y ago
        It's a very good argument. Behavior that is ok for one group should be ok for another group, and viceversa. That is a truth of equality.
        • ng12 9y ago
          I think there's a different point -- that we're willing to ignore certain avenues of discussion to maintain a civil society.
        • Chaebixi 9y ago
          > It's a very good argument. In the best case, that argument only has a little utility. However, it's a pretty bad argument now, since political correctness only allows you to make those kinds of swaps in certain cases. Nowadays, it can only be use to amplify the outrage against an already-identified villain.
        • 9y ago
• dguaraglia 9y ago
  Brace in for the brigading. I'm flagging this article because it always results in a bunch of trolling rather than any substantial discussion.
  • rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    Flag the trolls, not the article. It’s a perfectly reasonable article of information about the social state of the tech industry, regardless of how the media/workforce/HN feels about it. After all, isn’t the rash censorship of uncomfortable topics the central gist of the memo that got Damore in trouble in the first place?
  • lsaferite 9y ago
    You're flagging an article because you predict trolling? Does that mean that you expect HN to never be used to discuss potentially divisive news?
  • viridian 9y ago
    I personally hope we can avoid this attitude by and large on HN. The idea that this community needs to be proactively stopped from discussing a topic because a small subgroup decides that the larger community can't handle it maturely seems to be an abuse of flagging, to me.
  • rvcamo 9y ago
    Thought Police have arrived. All Wrong Think will be terminated.
  • minimaxir 9y ago
    Granted, this submission appears to be softkilled due to the flame war detector (which is unsurprisingly/unfortunately what's happening)
• towndrunk 9y ago
  I find this kind of funny... The king of search finds it too hard to compile data. http://fortune.com/2017/05/27/google-gender-wage-data-reporting/ http://fortune.com/2017/05/27/google-gender-wage-data-report...
  • cobookman 9y ago
    it wasn't that it was too hard. It was that there's a cost to compile the data, and Google shouldn't have to pay 250k to compile a data inquery just `because`. Just like you aren't asked to strip search when going through TSA, `just because`. There needs to be a legitimate reason and suspicion.
    • towndrunk 9y ago
      I think the reason was government contracts.
• vanattab 9y ago
  I hope he does not settle as a matter of principle.
  • dmourati 9y ago
    I agree. He needs to lose on the merits and walk away with nothing.
• jimjimjim 9y ago
  christ what an asshole.
• lilycaliber 9y ago
  good! If googly butts were SMARTER than they pretend to be, they'd actually offer him angel funds to start up a completely NEW platform to COMPETE with their frankenstenian perverted still a butt buddy collectivista broken search engine legacy! But then they'd have to go up against the TRULY evil giant bully in the room which is PALANTIR! Bwuahahahahaha. We're gonna gitch ya anyway, no matter WHO you scapegoat you holire than thou fucktards! Good Luck James! Hope you win a tidy sum that easily funds your creativity and passion and that you are able to provide the world with what Google et all promised but sold out to the most evil [wealthy] bidders.
  • ArchReaper 9y ago
    What have you been smoking?
• badloginagain 9y ago
  Just to clarify, is he stating he was fired due to his gender/political views? I would assume the literal army of attorneys will point to various violations of Code of Conduct or Employment Agreement Damore undoubtedly broke. He openly published a memo condemning his employer, tarnishing the brand and bringing the company under considerable negative press. I figure there must be some clause in any employment agreement stating that you can't actively cause damage to the company. Edit: Looks like the memo wasn't intentionally released to the public, but it still caused damage. If I drop tables unintentionally on production, I'm not surprised if I'm fired- even if it was an accident.
  • DanAndersen 9y ago
    >openly published a memo False. He published a memo internally for other Google employees in a culture of internal openness and intellectual discussion which had been implied to exist inside the company for a while. His memo was then leaked outside the company, possibly by an ideological enemy. Hard to say he was "actively causing damage to the company".
  • ggg9990 9y ago
    Didn’t he publish it only privately inside Google?
  • pnw_hazor 9y ago
    "Both federal and California law also protect your right to discuss labor issues - even in a non-union workplace. This includes conversing with coworkers regarding wages, working conditions, and expressing your preference for candidates who support favorable labor issues such as higher wages for hourly workers." This will probably come up. https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be-fired-for-expressing-your-political-views-in-california.shtml https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be...
  • bzbarsky 9y ago
    OK, but continuing with your analogy, what about if you write a script that drops tables from a database it's pointed to, for internal use, then someone else runs it against the production server? And then you, not whoever ran it, get fired.
• whack 9y ago
  "...employees of Google who’ve been discriminated against due to their “perceived conservative political views by Google" Is that really illegal? If someone was not hired on account of his being a White supremacist, would he have any basis for a lawsuit?
  • gnicholas 9y ago
    In California, yes. See section 4 of: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/05/does-california-law-protect-employee-speech-hostile-to-homosexuality-as-well-as-employee-speech-that-defends-homosexuality/?utm_term=.3a24b7c71215 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    • whack 9y ago
      Interesting. I guess that law would have protected both Brenden Eich and Donald Sterling, if they had been fired during their respective controversies. To anyone assuming that I'm opposed to such a law: you're wrong. I've written in favor of such laws in the past, and think they should be strengthened even further. Assuming of course that they are used to protect all political opinions, both left wing and right.
  • dmitrygr 9y ago
    Yes, yes it is No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
    • zpallin 9y ago
      This is good information for people to reflect on this discussion. There is a lot of speculation in this thread and it's what is ultimately leading to the divisive arguing. However, I don't think Google did what you have pasted here. As far as I can tell, they fired him for violating code of conduct, which maintains that employees do not publicize discriminating memos, which he did.
• john_moscow 9y ago
  He doesn't have a choice really. With the PR mess he got himself into, no big company will ever hire him. Imagine the possible headlines "Microsoft hires the James Damore, the male supremacy advocate fired from Google". Nope, regardless the technical skill or his actual personality, his public image is forever ruined. So he realistically has a choice between becoming a paid speaker for fringe ultra-right organizations, trying to sue Google and retire off the proceeds, or leaving tech and becoming a noname blue collar or a freelancer forever hiding his face. I hope they will settle for an amount sufficient for retirement and the dude's life won't get ruined due to a stupid political game he didn't even realize he was playing.
  • carrja99 9y ago
    > So he realistically has a choice between becoming a paid speaker for fringe ultra-right organizations Isn't that what he's been doing through his twitter account where he muses whether people join the KKK because they have cool titles? Or his interviews with people like Milo?
    • xeeeeeeeeeeenu 9y ago
      >Isn't that what he's been doing through his twitter account where he muses whether people join the KKK because they have cool titles? That was just a joke, stop pretending he is a neo-nazi.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • geofft 9y ago
        I'm very tired of this "joking" thing. Neo-Nazis (and historical Nazis before them) use jokes to cover their actual, earnest beliefs, and then go "it's just a joke bro" to shield themselves from criticism from those who disagree while gaining earnest support from those who agree. From the Daily Stormer style guide: "The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not. There should also be a conscious awareness of mocking stereotypes of hateful racists. I usually think of this as self-deprecating humor - I am a racist making fun of stereotype of racists, because I don't take myself super-seriously. "This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that's neither here nor there." I admit that he's almost certainly not playing by the alt-right's playbook - but he should be smart enough to realize that he's playing into the alt-right's playbook, and if he's not that smart, he doesn't have any business getting a job at Google or Microsoft. There are absolutely ways to express the points he's trying to make without letting yourself be turned into an alt-right poster-boy (and they're also more effective at convincing his ostensible target audience, namely senior decision-makers in large tech companies).
• zamalek 9y ago
  > illegal hiring quotas Whether or not this is illegal, or true, this is an anti-pattern. If you want representation (and PR) hiring quotas are great; however, if you truly want to empower they work against your goals. At the end of the day any person who walks into a job because of a quota will question, "did I get this job because of my gender/race/creed/orientation?" While you have provided them with opportunity it would be very difficult for that person to fairly evaluate themselves and especially determine whether they are making progress in their career.
  • sp332 9y ago
    Making someone question whether they are qualified is better than not hiring them at all. Quotas are useful if you have reason to believe that your hiring process is biased and you are missing out on qualified candidates. That way you're not passing up too many candidates from specific groups that you're having a hard time characterizing.
    • zamalek 9y ago
      Quotas do have their place for instigating change, to more correctly state my views (which are incredibly complex, just like the subject is): I think that they rapidly outgrow their usefulness. If you have women in hire/fire positions, in theory the bias should work itself out. It probably wouldn't in reality. It's a nasty situation. We want to make progress as society, which means quantifying that progress (quotas make this impossible). However, at the same time we are trying to make that progress to represent individuals and, yes, place them in lucrative jobs to level the playing field (which quotas assist). > reason to believe that your hiring process is biased and you are missing out on qualified candidates That is to my point. How could you justify that position if you have no way of measuring it? Find 50 lions and 50 white lions, put them in an enclosure and ask a scientist to tell you what percentage of lions are white based on that sample. I'm not saying that we don't have to solve this, or that it has been solved. It hasn't. I really question our approach (and I don't have a better alternative, apart from eradicating gender stereotypes from a young age). Are we still in the 1990's with a social equality facade?
• vijayr 9y ago
  presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings. What does this even mean? People booed simply because they were white and male? I honestly don't get it. And who did the booing?
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • aceoflxlx 9y ago
    Why not? It's happened at GitHub. http://i.imgur.com/7YaVYUx.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7YaVYUx.jpg
  • beedogs 9y ago
    My guess is he's lying about it.
  • JulianRaphael 9y ago
    Read the class action lawsuit, I found one example for this on page 44, lines 14-16, of the document.
  • sergiotapia 9y ago
    Yes sir. It's happened all over. Even at Github: https://imgur.com/7YaVYUx https://imgur.com/7YaVYUx
• bsaul 9y ago
  And now the boomerang is coming back... But judging by the reactions here i see asking for the right to express complexity isn't always welcome when it comes against the moral values of the day. (and just to make sure : people should be treated just great even if they're different, meaning they have different abilities somehow, somewhere, and we don't know them all because science isn't advanced enough yet to make any kind of definitive statement). EDIT : And for those with a great desire of flaming people in public, i suggest tracking people that : - don't believe climate change is due to human activity - don't believe public social security should cover every expense - don't like electric cars, or keep driving SUVs - have been found watching (racial) porn at the office - have made any kind of bad joke on any minority - have made public declaration (at the office cafetaria to his neighbor) supporting any decision by president Trump. - has bought a gun for his home - think Google should pay its taxes. Oh no, wait this one is still too controversial.
  • daseiner1 9y ago
    > have been found watching (racial) porn at the office pretty sure we don’t want anyone watching any sort of porn at the office
• lilycaliber 9y ago
  GOOD for you James! Sorry that you have to engage their tactics to get justice or some monetary semblance of it. If the googly buttheadz were as smart as they pretend to be theyd be offering to angel invest in you to create a new platform that'd be the opensourced mega data provider they promised but sold out for "the gods of profits over product integrity!" and as for the buttheads who rape us with their gender insanity,...yeah you read that right! YOURE the problem because you mistake your SEXUALITY with your fn GENDER! You have the right in this country to be as FD up as you wish, but you still dont have the right to Fck up everyone elses rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness !! DATS JUST HOW IT WORKS BITCHES!!!!!! [I'm using that term to describe all you wage slaving idiots sucking off the googly corporate rat trap!] because it fits. IF YOU EXCUSE THIS GOOGLE POLICY BECAUSE "MUH PAYCHECK" THEN YOU ARE* THE FUCKING PROBLEM!!!! HYPOCRITES ALL!
• mydpy 9y ago
  Legal question: Most employment agreements require employees sign an arbitration clause. Even though these have mixed enforceability, they are very intimidating (which I believe is their intended purpose). If you had a high-profile case like this, are you choosing to defy the arbitration agreement? Anyone ever gone through this and willing to share the process?
  • Dowwie 9y ago
    James's legal team will try to argue why the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.
  • dragonwriter 9y ago
    California has a very high minimum standard for am arbitration agreement to validly cover fair employment claims, including the employer covering all arbitration costs (irrespective of outcome), where they would not have to cover all court costs unless they lost and the employee was awarded costs. Armendariz v. Foundation Health, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (2000) [0] I wouldn't be surprised if an employer chose to leave claims to which those rules apply out of the coverage of any arbitration agreement; leaving the employee on the hook for court costs is probably a better discouragement to claims, especially meritless ones, than arbitration is. [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16049594513709134145&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=160495945137091...
• MBCook 9y ago
  I hope he finds some right-wing outlet to hire him, because at this point it seems like he’s radioactive waste and no real company is going to hire him ever again.
  • jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Kind to have to be a right wing organization he is not working along side of women. You do have to think of everyone on your team including the women.
    • ntuch 9y ago
      > not working along side of women Women able to read and comprehend at high school level would have no problem working along side him.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• grondilu 9y ago
  > after posting a memo to an internal Google message board He should really have posted that somewhere else, and maybe with a pseudonym. I'm no lawyer but I'm willing to bet that although it's illegal to fire someone for his political opinions, it's fine if those opinions are expressed via the company's internal communications channels.
• ironjunkie 9y ago
  After reading the memo and after reading most of the comments here that claim that users also read the memo makes me very afraid on the state of educated people in America. I cannot believe that most of you still go with the media narrative that Damore claimed "women are worse than man at engineering" while this is a very obvious misrepresentation of what he wrote in order to fill a narrative. This is all part of a politically driven agenda that destroys everyone trying to question the unique, politically-correct acceptable way of thinking. And it kills me that smart people in HN are falling for it so easily.
  • BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    What? He actually does say that... > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. [...] > This is all part of a politically driven agenda that destroys everyone trying to question the unique, politically-correct acceptable way of thinking. This is nonsensical. He wrote bullshit, he caused a problem at his office of employment, he was fired. End of discussion. If you end up pissing off most of your co-workers it leads to a hostile environment so you remove the fewest amount of people to fix it. It doesn't even matter if what he wrote is or isn't correct at that point.
    • ironjunkie 9y ago
      No, he didn't say that. He speaks about the `distribution of preferences and abilities`. Going from a distribution to state that `women are worse then men at engineering` is a false narrative and COMPLETELY different. You probably didn't realize that because you already made your own politically-correct version of the truth on that subject, and refuse any discussion about those topics. For example, what he said doesn't say anything about two specific individual women and men abilities. About your second point. That's the whole issue! Bringing up any point of debate or discussion on those politically-driven topics will end up pissing of some people (while a majority might agree, but will stay silent because politically incorrect). It is very very sad that this is the state of affairs, and that we cannot discuss those sensible subjects anymore without being fully ostracized.
• dmode 9y ago
  Why would a "white male conservative" sue a corporation when the conservative platform believes that in a free market corporations should be allowed to discriminate as they please ? I have heard Ron Paul (ok, a libertarian) state numerous times how he doesn't support civil rights, because the public will stop visiting those businesses who engage in discriminatory behavior. Shouldn't James Damore just let the free market take care of Google for its allegedly discriminatory position and wait till we all migrate to Duck Duck Go and iOS to teach Google a lesson ?
  • ogre_magi 9y ago
    Damore wouldn't describe himself as conservative I think.
    • DanAndersen 9y ago
      And even if he did describe himself as such, the idea that all 'conservatives' are free-market absolutists is strange. The sort of free-market-first small-government-at-all-costs ideology has only in the past few decades become a fixture of US right-wing movements.
    • dmode 9y ago
      Is that true ? I thought he describes himself as a conservative in the lawsuit. Anyway, my comment was a bit "tongue-in-cheek"
    • orblivion 9y ago
      He sometimes describes himself as libertarian. But he's no radical.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      Damore’s lawsuit describes his memo as a defense of conservative ideology, so unless he was just playing Devil's Advocate with the whole thing...
    • coupdetaco 9y ago
      In the memo and court filings he is describing himself as a classical liberal. So, a conservative.
• jetcata 9y ago
  Legitimate question here, how is it ok for all the screenshots of internal tools which the authors must have assumed would remain internal to Google to be put into this publicly visible suit? Their names are visible and not redacted? Is this just a reminder to be careful what you post at work?
  • Jach 9y ago
    Generally good work advice: assume every internal email or slack IM you send might one day be read out loud in court.
• Shank 9y ago
  Just for once, I'd like a story like this to turn out positively. Not in that James wins or loses this lawsuit, but that something could be positively gained in his life from this experience. Being fired from Google has been traumatizing. He's gone farther and farther into the "unrecoverable from a PR standpoint" zone, and that's really horrible. 10 years from now, he's going to have a hard time finding employment or basic living possible. He's still a human though. If he committed himself to being humble and actually trying to work on himself, it would be really positive. Even the PR thing can go away -- everyone loves a redemption story. The problem is that moves like this just deepen the hole. A lot of people are cheering for his demise, and seeing that hole get bigger is eye candy. But again, he's still a human. He still has hopes, dreams, fears, etc., just like the rest of us. Maybe positive encouragement to change is a better route to go than just watching him keep digging. In no way do I support his ideas -- quite the opposite -- but is it fair to characterize someone as fully a lost cause this early?
  • splintercell 9y ago
    > 10 years from now, he's going to have a hard time finding employment or basic living possible. I just feel like this is a wishful thinking on the part of left. There are plenty of fields which do not care about his opinions. There are plenty of technological ventures who explicitly look to hire people who are 'uncucked' (term a recruiter used when reaching out to me) run by people HN and left in general absolutely hates (Occulus guy, Pharma bro, Peter Thiel). Plus the job of technology is such that as long as you're writing code, and pay taxes, you can make a decent living. Not to mention the numerous developers blockchain industry hires, nearly nobody there cares about it, because majority of them are located outside US. The technological right has money, and not everyone in technology needs to maintain an image like Google, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft etc.
  • wellboy 9y ago
    He can get a job at a semi-big software company, that is not trendy, maybe in the midwest or in any other country pretty much, he might not make SV-pay, but surely can still pay his bills.
  • saturdaysaint 9y ago
• oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
  Whatever you think of the memo, you have to be a little concerned about the precedent this would set if companies were not allowed to discriminate based on 'political' views. Should I be forced to hire a neo-nazi or a terrorist sympathiser so long as they're up to the job?
  • ihsw2 9y ago
    Companies can simply have a straight-edged policy of no politics -- from religion to economics, it's all off-topic and out-of-bounds.
    • oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
      If you ran a traditional company, and were interviewing a candidate who wanted to bring about the destruction of capitalism, would you hire them if there were equally-good alternatives?
      • ihsw2 9y ago
        If they lacked the emotional regulation to restrain themselves then that would be a red flag that disqualifies them.
        • oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
          Would publishing and distributing a manifesto amongst your colleagues fall beyond 'restraint'?
      • zbentley 9y ago
        Unequivocal yes. If I wasn't paying them to do that on company time, it would negatively impact their performance towards goals that were requested.
    • stale2002 9y ago
      That is illegal, according to California law. It is illegal to prevent people from engaging in politics, in California.
• grondilu 9y ago
  There was a thread about this guy some time ago[1]. It was flagged. Not sure why. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15321438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15321438
• jimrandomh 9y ago
  This clearly is (or is going to be) a Demon Thread. https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-threads https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-th... . People seem to be angry about what was said in the past, but don't agree on what was actually said or what those things meant. Attempts to clarify seem to mostly be throwing fuel on the fire instead. None of this is helping.
  • ihsw2 9y ago
    Social constructivists and progressive supremacists are the only ones angry about what he said -- he exposes their narrative as fraudulently based on moral principles.
    • jimrandomh 9y ago
      This comment appears calculated to make people angry without adding anything of value to the discussion. I would appreciate if you would delete it.
    • dmode 9y ago
      Yet, he leans on their work that have prevented corporations from discriminating on people, to sue Google.
  • rainbowmverse 9y ago
    I think you're right. My instincts must be improving because something felt off after I made a few comments, and then I paged down a few times to here. And by a few I mean a few tens. I tried collapsing subthreads to get a handle on it, but it's really just a mess. How else would several subthreads of subthreads report 40+ replies in an hour once the whole thing is collapsed? There be demons.
  • jochung 9y ago
    The worst part is that both damore's statements and actions are being dissected with a scalpel, by people who rear their legs at the mere implication they might not be 100% morally right. Replace "white men" with "black woman" and they'd have a field day clutching pearls and fanning themselves silly. Damore may be an insensitive autist... Or maybe he's one of the few sensitive to see through all the posturing.
• muninn_ 9y ago
  Color me not surprised. Institutionally we are casually practicing in discriminatory actions against white men with a rebuttal that 'because you're a white man you have certain privilege' - which conveniently ignores that nobody asks to be born into their body. It's unfortunate because that is largely not the intention of programs which seek to ensure that women and men of color (I don't include white women because they are largely not 'diverse') have equal opportunity to work and make a living. Instead, these programs have been hijacked by, for lack of a better term, lunatics to push their political agenda instead of genuinely trying to make sure that we find ways to minimize institutional racism and sexism. Have 'white men' abused positions of power to push political agendas? Of course, and we need to call them out on that and drag them out of their offices. But that doesn't excuse other people from performing this same kind of institutional hijacking. At my organization (Fortune 50) we don't have quotas for women or minorities, but they are definitely metrics that are tracked and optimized for at the highest levels. We attend more women and minority events than others, at least from my vantage point within the organization that performs this work. Largely I don't think we practice discriminatory hiring practices or anything, but the elephant in the room for me is are we hiring under qualified candidates to fill a position that somebody else can do, just because we want to be 'more diverse'? Typically we have to train people once they start the job (which is something I actually advocate for so I don't mind) but if you look at our hiring criteria and who we bring in - they don't line up. Hopefully we can soon get over this uniquely American mass hysteria about race and just chill the fuck out soon. I'm so sick of it. I couldn't care less about what's between your legs or what color your skin is if you're just a nice person that can do whatever work we're hiring for. Why is that so difficult?
• myaso 9y ago
  He got crucified because he didn't make anybody laugh -- now he will be paraded around as a poster boy for the alt-right or w/e. Aren't autistic traits highly prelevant in programmers? Isn't it also true that those traits will show up much more often in men compared to women -- a token factoid curtesy of wikipedia. Also anecdotally, how many male devs do I know that started hacking at 13 -- a lot. How many women? Personally none, but I know colah from Google Brain is one example, and a rather extreme data point too -- at the extreme end of the scale it's irrelevant anyways, a successful female comp sci prof or a female researcher will be picked. Unless there is some extremely good reason like Google drained all the capable men already out of the ecosystem there doesn't seem to be rational reason to explicitly optimize their hiring pipeline for the wrong demographic -- maybe they don't optimize it like that, but a lot of people have the perception that they do which will get you the same result in the end. Update: one moment this gets up voted and the next moment it gets down voted and this repeats, is anybody willing to actually argue? Call my bs, I have thick skin.
• dotnetisnotdead 9y ago
  Honestly, this whole thing is just ugly. I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Before you downvote/call me a Nazi, I'm a mixed race woman in tech. I definitely see people hired just because of their minority status. I also see people hired who are minorities but also great at their job. It's not a binary pattern. But those who are hired just because they are a POC or female, yet are terrible at their job stand out. People notice it, but few say it. Our company recently hired a black woman as a "Software Engineer" who can't write a SQL statement. She has a "taken some tutorials" level of programming skill as far as I have noticed and produces things very, very slow. People notice this, and it makes them angry. I'm sure the other engineers talk about this even more when I'm not in the room. Our boss is proud of how much he is "making the team diverse" yet it's only going to cause problems for the team. I like to think I was hired based on my skillset, not to improve the numbers. I've worked hard to get here. People likely forget or don't care how "diverse" I am when I am working because I produce. And I fully support bringing in diverse candidates, it's essential to get those viewpoints, so long as they are a qualified candidate to start with. I do think that men and women are biologically different and, it likely does contribute to a lack of interest in tech from women. Almost all of the women from my social circle are smart, pragmatic, driven and successful yet have zero interest in a technical career. They excel in their given industries but ours they want no part of. I don't believe intelligence is more prevalent in either gender, but I do believe there are some traits that shape who we are. That's something that's rarely addressed, for fear of being ostracized. As far as his "conservative white male" discrimination claims, I've seen that too. My boss specifically requested candidates that are not middle-aged white males. But it's nowhere near the same level of discrimination that people of color or women have endured for decades. Perhaps the reason people don't feel sorry for conservative white males is that if they are rejected by one company they can keep trying and will find an "old school" company that will hire them. We have not had that luxury, for blacks and women it was 100 nos for every 1 yes. It's not that way for white guys, sorry.
  • pm90 9y ago
    > Almost all of the women from my social circle are smart, pragmatic, driven and successful yet have zero interest in a technical career. They excel in their given industries but ours they want no part of. I don't believe intelligence is more prevalent in either gender, but I do believe there are some traits that shape who we are. That's most definitely a cultural thing, and I believe its what diversity programs try to address. > As far as his "conservative white male" discrimination claims, I've seen that too. My boss specifically requested candidates that are not middle-aged white males. But it's nowhere near the same level of discrimination that people of color or women have endured for decades. Perhaps the reason people don't feel sorry for conservative white males is that if they are rejected by one company they can keep trying and will find an "old school" company that will hire them. We have not had that luxury, for blacks and women it was 100 nos for every 1 yes. It's not that way for white guys, sorry. I get that, but I think your boss was still wrong to think and phrase of it that way. No one should be disqualified simply because of their race or age. Give more points to minorities? Yes definitely. But reducing points because you're of a certain race and age just sounds icky, and is probably illegal.
• cratermoon 9y ago
  Damore's name will now go in the history books along with such luminaries as Allan Bakke, Cheryl Hopwood, and Abigail Fisher.
  • jxramos 9y ago
    Placing Supreme Court bets eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v._Bakke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_...
• 282883392 9y ago
  Are there (in part) biological reasons for the differences in behavior between men and women? Clearly there are sociological differences. Damore clearly did not separate the two ideas or their relative impact on the issue, which led to the enormous amount of publicity. The idea that the tech industry needs to change their approach to incentivizing women to the workplace still stands regardless.
• inopinatus 9y ago
  As with prior posts on this topic, the comments from all sides are mostly cantankerous, polarised, and entirely unedifying. Suggest you don't waste your time & energy reading, let alone posting an opinion. Flagged.
  • sctb 9y ago
    Please resist the temptation to place yourself above everyone else. It doesn't improve the discussion. > When you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• alvil 9y ago
  Go for it.
• azr79 9y ago
  As a white male, good for him
  • dang 9y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Also, we ban accounts for race war, which this arguably is.
• mbrumlow 9y ago
  It's like if any concept can't be fully realized in the size of a tweet people are going to just misconstrue it. Read the memo before telling people what it said... Twitter has eroded out society.
• lurr 9y ago
  I wonder how much evidence google has of people who were pissed off by Damore's memo. Cause really, that's all it should take. "He made his continued employment here impossible because he pissed off his coworkers". Sounds like a completely valid reason to fire me.
  • TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    If everyone in Google is getting outraged over something that is debatable and that much of the population agrees with, isn't that a sign that Google is kind of in a cultural bubble, an echo chamber? If Google is striving to be a global, multicultural corporation, shouldn't it be allowing of a diversity of thought as well?
    • lurr 9y ago
      I didn't say everyone was outraged. You don't there are women at Google who say this memo as yet another attack on the idea that they are just as capable as their male counterparts?
  • OCASM 9y ago
    Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? "He's saying things we don't like! Fire him!" That doesn't seem valid to me.
    • lurr 9y ago
      "I won't work with someone who thinks I'm less capable because of my genitals" sounds a bit more valid to me.
      • OCASM 9y ago
        So they have no problem working with Damore then since he never said such a thing.
    • chillacy 9y ago
      > Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own emotions? That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.
• ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  You need a very minimal amount of social skill to succeed in programming - just enough to not piss coworkers off too badly while working together on projects. Past that, you get mostly quiet and controlled environments, managers willing to let you work on your special interests, and generally get left alone to stare at your screen and type things out. This is one of the best working environments you can find for autistic people. And all these factors that make it so good for autistics makes it more hellish for neurotypicals: you have techies to socialize with who do not like to be interrupted, lots of time expected to be working instead of socializing, and your soft-skills aren't particularly well suited for making the computer do the things you want. There are something like three to five times as many autistic males than females, depending on the cutoff point and study used. I'm honestly astounded that people are rejecting the biological claim, given how strongly it attracts autistics. IMHO, a lot of inclusivity-in-tech movements are horrifically ableist for wanting to destroy this niche in the pursuit of making the programming niche more welcoming to other groups. It's about goddamn time there's some push-back against these sorts of gentrifying movements, they're incredibly bad for the work environment interests of autistics.
  • bertil 9y ago
    Your argument that “inclusivity-in-tech [is] ableist for wanting to destroy this niche in the pursuit of making the programming niche more welcoming to other groups” is interesting and probably a much better way to represent a claim similar to Damore in a far less offensive way to women. I can personally name a handful of non-neuro-typical people who would wholeheartedly agree (half of them females because my friends are frustratingly non-representative). However, if you check the ratio of people even moderately high on the Asperger’s scale among programmers, it is much higher than other more social profession but still a small portion overall. That difference doesn’t come close to explaining the gender gap. Maybe you care for all introverts (who resent interruptions) including the majority of introverts who are neuro-typical. I do believe most programmers are introvert but I’m not familiar with the gender distribution of introversion but I’d be surprised if it were large enough to explain the gender disparity in tech.
    • deleted 9y ago
• huffpopo 9y ago
  Even if James Damore does not win Google has a number of practices that could be considered embarrassing if they were to be made public. I know a number of Googlers who confide to me privately about their experiences. Traditionally they would not have an outlet to express their grievances because no-one really cares. I'm hoping this lawsuit will give them and others a chance leak some of these practices. I'm interested in what people outside of SV tech bubble will think about it.
  • hnaccy 9y ago
    Could you describe some of these practices?
    • hguant 9y ago
      If there's any veracity to the lawsuit's claim that Google employees maintained blacklists of employees based on their political affiliations, or boo'd new hires on the basis of their skin tone, Google just handed Fox News an excellent ratings boost.
• balls187 9y ago
  Are White Men really booed during company meetings?
  • ryanbrunner 9y ago
    I think this is maybe what the suit is referring to: https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950452593565798400 https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950452593565798400 The person in question is talking about what they presented at a meeting, but I don't think it should be interpreted that the booing actually occurred during the meeting itself. In any case, it's not really the best look, but the suit is mischaracterizing it IMO.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
• lnino 9y ago
  The merit (or lack thereof) of his claims and views matter little in this case. The case is visible enough and touches on politically relevant points enough so that there will be tons of people on both sides willing to fund this case all the way to supreme court. Then there is the problem with how damaging discovery would be to the company. It will probably will get settled fast, with Google paying him a few years worth of salary and a non-disclosure clause that will make him never speak publicly about the episode again. Unless the guy gets too greedy and push for too many figures, then it will be a shit storm.
  • odorousrex 9y ago
    It simply comes down to money. Damore was fired because he was bad for business. Not because he's white, male, conservative, or the contents of his memo. Had the memo not been leaked publicly, I have no doubt he'd still be working at Google and his memo ignored and/or forgotten. He simply became too much of lightning rod for Google to continue to employ him. Google will settle for the same reason. It is better for business to pay him off and make sure he never talks about it again, than to drag this out. The only people who will be financially better off in this whole deal will be the lawyers, and nothing will be resolved in reference to the larger issues surrounding this case.
    • lnino 9y ago
      Spot on.
    • OCASM 9y ago
      He was fired for going against the "feminist" narrative that dominates Google.
      • kpdxxx 9y ago
        i.e. "What are all the women and brown people doing in MY office?" In all seriousness, there's no such thing as a general "feminist narrative" at Google.
  • emerged 9y ago
• lifeisunfair 9y ago
  I think the whole story worked in favor of Google. As a middle aged white male software engineer, this story had made it less likely for me to apply to Google. Firstly, the odds are against me as I have to do much better than people who would improve their diversity numbers. Secondly, I can't help but feel that the only reason they want me to interview is to improve their stats by rejecting me. But I guess it was about time for the tables to turn.
• Clarencewhorley 9y ago
  Going to be great when the Department of Labor comes in and had some conservations with Google and their HR team members. It's all fun and games until the Labor department starts dropping fines that go up every day till it's fixed and they get execs on the record. Have fun
  • jacksmith21006 9y ago
    Google has zero to worry about. It is California so Google does not even need a reason. But come on! You could not have Damore in your ranks with his views and considering he is sitting at home unemployed unable to get a job supports it. Who would want someone with his views on a team with women?
• Clarencewhorley 9y ago
  Enjoy your Labor Department investigation with fines that go up every day of noncompliance. I'm sure the Trump admin will be totally understanding to the tweets from hiring managers that admitted to breaking labor laws. I'm sure there are no emails that also break the law. Should be totally fine LOL
• armsmerchant 9y ago
  "difference in preferences and abilities" has been characterized by TechCrunch.com as "biologically less capable of engineering." This is not simply an inaccurate representation of Damore's memo, it is a complete smear job. The SJWs can't tolerate anyone, especially a white male, speaking out against their bullshit. I hope Damore wins, and wins big.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• Y_Y 9y ago
  I wonder if there should be a court that decides what is ethical and what isn't (according to the prevailing view of the society) as opposed to the current system where all you can do is try to right wrongs or punish actual harms to society.
• jacksmith21006 9y ago
  The most fascinating part of all of this is who thought up making it a social justice issue? Gen up the right wing? Also it is really that easy to manipulate them? I mean we have an employee who does not work in HR and I do not think a manager working on something that has nothing to do with their job. Something people are fired for everyday. Then on top is negative no matter how you look at it towards other employees that makes it impossible to keep and have him on a team. Double firable offence and Google would be wrong not have. Then it is freaking California where the law is in the employer side. But somehow it has become some weird rally call for the alt right and the abuse of white guys which I am actually am one of. Someone should write a book. It is just insane how easily some are being manipulated. But there must be something deeper inside that makes it this easy that for some reason I am missing as a white guy. Why do we have angry white guys? Why not me?
• Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
  I feel like this study published in july 2017 is very relevant: "Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)" link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302975 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616... Abstract Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do not necessarily imply equal brain sizes. Highlights • Sex differences in brain morphology and general intelligence were examined. • MRI and test data of the Human connectome project were used (N = 896) • Males and females differed in total brain size, gray, and white matter volumes • The male-female difference in general intelligence, g, was d = 0.25. • Sex differences in brain morphology mediated the sex difference in g.
  • novia 9y ago
    Do we really need to rehash the whole phrenology period of our history?
    • tomji 9y ago
      equally so transistor counts in CPU's don't matter. My Pentium MX is just as fast as the latest chips and doesn't have any of this speculative execution madness! In fact CPU speeds cannot be measured at all. My CPU is differently fast.
    • Idontknowmyuser 9y ago
      wait so a correlation between brain size and "generral intelligence score (g)" is phrenology? don't you feel like your mispresenting the study?
• jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Why does the right wing embrace Damore instead of being pissed at him? There are people that might generalize and think all right wing people feel this way about women. I have right wing friends and know that is not true but others might. Instead Damore has become some kind of right wing matre which seems really strange.
• beedogs 9y ago
  Total moron. He will lose, yet again.
• malcolmgreaves 9y ago
  This whiney kid is absolute trash.
• dragonwriter 9y ago
  So, having finally gone through this in detail, what strikes me the most about this as a legal filing is that it seems very unlikely to be certified as a class action. A class action usually required a simple factual mechanism to identify class members; part of the point of a class action is to avoid needing to litigate the details of each individual case. But instead of identifying a specific, readily identifiable class that is affected, the classes in this suit are defined as any Google employee against whom Google engaged in certain classes of illegal discrimination in California in a given timeframe; this require litigating individual discrimination claims for each potential class member to determine if they are a class member. Since class members have to be identified and given a chance to opt-out before settlement or trial, this is impractical—its what a class action exists to avoid. Compare to the Microsoft sex discrimination class action, which defined the class as all women employed in defined roles and levels in particular parts of the organization during a given timeframe. Also, a class lead plaintiff’s claims—not just the law claimed to be violated but the specific manner—are supposed to be typical of the class; while it's very hard to make any guesses of what would be typical of such an ill-defined class, Damore’s case seems to all appearanced to be sui generis. Maybe I'm missing something, but the class action aspect here seems to be either a complete Hail Mary or a ploy for additional media attention.
• ryan_j_naughton 9y ago
  The lawsuit says he was discriminated against not only for being a white male but also "discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views by Google". Discriminating against someone for their political beliefs is not illegal. Federally political affiliation is not a protected group and in California apparently 'political affiliation' is according to wikipedia[1] however I couldn't find the relevant section of the CA statute on the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) of CA[2]. If he was discriminated against because of his race or gender, then that is a problem. But firing him for having conservative views should be entirely valid. I am not saying that believe firms SHOULD fire people who have X view or Y view so much as they should have the right to. While we can debate the merits of James' individual views, let's take a more extreme example. If an individual regularly spouted off white supremacist and neo-NAZI views, I don't think any of us would have a problem with a firm firing that co-worker. Firms are trying to create a culture that aligns with their objectives and enhances employee/workplace happiness and harmony. Some views are antithetical to that. Furthermore, we can back away from such extreme views and still find cases where it would be legitimate to make decisions based on individual's views and perspectives. If you owned a company focused on selling sustainably sourced, carbon neutral products. Hiring a sales person who does not believe in climate change and is actively hostile the the concept of environmentalism would be a bad idea. It is entirely logical to hire/fire people based on non-religious beliefs. Beliefs are choices individuals make, and thus they should be judged by their choices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#State_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160909163923/http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_FEHADescr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20160909163923/http://www.dfeh.c...
  • mrebus 9y ago
    >Discriminating against someone for their political beliefs is not illegal In Cali it is. These laws were enacted in the 30/40s when people were blacklisted for being Commies. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... It would be interesting if this goes to the supreme court and the conservative court rules these laws unconstitutional on freedom of association grounds.
• tscs37 9y ago
  Reading through the court document [0] makes me deeply concerned. Some of the stated actions, if they turn out to be true, are uncomfortable. I believe that in a modern society like ours, such discrimination should not be necessary, advocated for or considered in a healthy workplace. I do hope for Google that none of this is true. 0: [https://www.scribd.com/document/368689407/Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit https://www.scribd.com/document/368689407/Damore-vs-Google-C...]
• johan_larson 9y ago
  I think this lawsuit is a sign that Google's management miscalculated. The last thing they wanted was for this issue to drag on. They don't want to be on the front lines of the culture war. They want to build great things and make piles of money.
• petraeus 9y ago
  thank you hacker news randoms for telling me what my opinion is on james danmore because with my finite and trivial amount of wisdom I cannot possibly be depended on to form my own thoughts of a classic white racist screaming about how oppressed white hetro males are in a social culture shaped by 1000 years of white dominance roll-eyes
  • pluto9 9y ago
    a social culture shaped by 1000 years of white dominance Every culture is shaped by the people it's comprised of by definition. Do you have a problem with the fact that Chinese culture is "shaped by 1000 years of Chinese dominance"?
• 4WIW 9y ago
  Most of the discussion here focuses on The Famous Document which I think is missing the point. TFD could be totally right, or totally wrong but the lawsuit is about wrongful termination and discrimination and has only remote relevance to the document. Would be interesting to hear the opinion of the people with legal experience: what are the merits of the lawsuit? My personal unqualified opinion is that they will settle out of court for wrongful termination. Since white males are not protected class, the discrimination case is much weaker. It is much easier for Google to settle this lawsuit than to deal with hundreds of others they would get should they kept Damore on payroll. I think regardless of the merits of TFD this lawsuit is a good thing because companies would be less inclined to punish people for objecting groupthink.
  • gizmo686 9y ago
    >Since white males are not protected class. Yes they are. Or at least whites and males are a protected class (at the suit alledges discrimination against these classes independently, not just their intersection). It is true that the intent of the anti discrimination laws was to protect non-whites and females, codifying that into law would be a clear violation of the equal protections clause and make any such law unconstitutional. >My personal unqualified opinion is that they will settle out of court for wrongful termination. The wrongful termination argument defiantly seems stronger here. However, it is worth keeping in mind that they have not settled yet. I assume Damore's laywers would have tried settling before even filing [0]. If Google wanted to settle they should have done it back than, before the PR hit of the suit being filed happened. Coming up is the PR hit of discovery, which is going to bring to light a lot of skeletons that Google would rather keep hidden. (Even if Google did nothing wrong with regards to this case; no organization the size of Google can go through discovery without something coming out) [0] Assuming their actual goal is just money. They claim to be doing this to effect change. While their public statements on motivation are highly suspect, it is within the realm of reason that they are actually interested in this case for the political agenda, in which case they would want to take it to court.
• rendall 9y ago
  "James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering..." I have stopped reading TechCrunch, ArsTechnica and Vice magazine because they continually report this inaccurately (at best) if they are not outright lying. Once again, Damore never says that women are biologically less capable. Nothing like this is every stated nor even implied. In fact he goes out of his way to say this is not so, in the memo. Frustrating.