4 ms·

Google CEO: ‘I don’t regret’ firing James Damore

sundarurfriend 9y ago
I wonder, if mass media existed at the time, whether this is what the Church vs Galileo affair would have looked like from the outside. There have even been arguments that the "verdict against Galileo was rational and just" because they took into consideration "the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too."[1] This has been a major argument in the Damore debate also, that even if his entire menu was true, it was right to fire him because of the social consequences within the company. Galileo's opposition also used less well-supported opposing theories (like geocentrism and others) to discredit his work, and on a personal front tried to shame him as a religious heretic for going against dogma and established "moral" order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church#Modern_view_on_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Churc...
- eesmith 9y ago
  There are many events you could have chosen, including those with mass media. If you think the science is wrong (as I do), you might have selected Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Or Ng v. Jacobs Eng'g Group, where an employee was fired for using "company equipment and facilities to proselytize for her evangelical Christian faith." As you believe the science is essentially right, the Scopes Trial could be another comparison. If you are for free speech, you might have selected Abrams v United States. But since Google has no power to enforce house arrest, or levy fines, or apply other coercive power, all of these comparison are far grander than the case deserves. Best would be to compare it to similar cases, like those described in the EEOC guidelines regarding a 'hostile workplace' at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm . For example, it says "it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general", and gives guidelines on what 'offensive' might mean. Along with https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html : "Unless the conduct is quite severe, a single incident or isolated incidents of offensive sexual conduct or remarks generally do not create an abusive environment. As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII." ... A "hostile environment" claim generally requires a showing of a pattern of offensive conduct". ) So perhaps Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and similar workplace-related lawsuits are the better comparison. There are quite a few.

I wonder, if mass media existed at the time, whether this is what the Church vs Galileo affair would have looked like from the outside. There have even been arguments that the "verdict against Galileo was rational and just" because they took into consideration "the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too."[1] This has been a major argument in the Damore debate also, that even if his entire menu was true, it was right to fire him because of the social consequences within the company. Galileo's opposition also used less well-supported opposing theories (like geocentrism and others) to discredit his work, and on a personal front tried to shame him as a religious heretic for going against dogma and established "moral" order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church#Modern_view_on_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Churc...

eesmith 9y ago
There are many events you could have chosen, including those with mass media. If you think the science is wrong (as I do), you might have selected Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Or Ng v. Jacobs Eng'g Group, where an employee was fired for using "company equipment and facilities to proselytize for her evangelical Christian faith." As you believe the science is essentially right, the Scopes Trial could be another comparison. If you are for free speech, you might have selected Abrams v United States. But since Google has no power to enforce house arrest, or levy fines, or apply other coercive power, all of these comparison are far grander than the case deserves. Best would be to compare it to similar cases, like those described in the EEOC guidelines regarding a 'hostile workplace' at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm . For example, it says "it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general", and gives guidelines on what 'offensive' might mean. Along with https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html : "Unless the conduct is quite severe, a single incident or isolated incidents of offensive sexual conduct or remarks generally do not create an abusive environment. As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII." ... A "hostile environment" claim generally requires a showing of a pattern of offensive conduct". ) So perhaps Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson and similar workplace-related lawsuits are the better comparison. There are quite a few.