5 ms·

Why is this chilling? There are many much-less-disputed things which are obviously factually true but which, nonetheless, could put you on the hook for harassm

Why is this chilling? There are many much-less-disputed things which are obviously factually true but which, nonetheless, could put you on the hook for harassment depending on how, why, and how often you say them. For example, suppose I have a co-worker who is an ardent believer in the cause of the southern states during the US Civil War. It is factually and indisputably true that the southern states lost that war, and were subjected to a humiliating period of military occupation afterward. If I were to, say, constantly bring it up and rub it in my co-worker's face, my co-worker could certainly go to HR and claim I was committing harassment.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 9y ago
A more accurate analogy might be a memo claiming that southerners are poorer than northerners because they lost the Civil War. Would you consider such a memo harassment?
- tptacek 9y ago
  Maybe? Most of the challenges on this thread seem to be premised on the idea that Google needs ironclad justification to terminate an employee. The opposite is true. We have, as conservatives vigorously argued for, at-will employment in pretty much the whole country. The NLRA will protect your right to improve workplace conditions. The NLRB will not enforce that right if what you're doing isn't really about workplace conditions, or is about a desire to change those conditions to something that might conflict with your employer's requirements under the law.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    My challenge to the NLRB's opinion is premised on the idea that Google employees have a right to discuss Google's diversity policy. The NLRB seems to agree, repeatedly saying that Damore's memo contained protected speech. But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      The issue isn't that the science is unpleasant. It's that state and federal law compel companies like Google to maintain anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to the company on how they're enforced. If you want to complain about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that's a different discussion; it's not really fair to take the NLRB to task for that.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant. That the manner and context in which Damore referred to them is a violation of Google's reasonable anti-harassment policy does not mean that either that act, and even less referring to them more generally, is harassment. Necessarily, any anti-harasssment policy that will successfully prevent harassment liability seeks to, through means up to and including termination, prevent liability by dealing with acts before they reach the level at which legal harassment—a violation of the law by the employer—occurs. An anti-harassment policy that only addressed acts after the threshold for legal harassment was reached would be a very expensive failure.
    - jxdxbx 9y ago
      Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy. That does not fall within the “improving workplace conditions” exception. Google is within its rights to simply fire all conservatives if it wants to. I think labor law should be different, but it’s not.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy. Yes, they do; that right however does not extend to violating Google's anti-harassment policy (which id, itself, a key means by which Google avoids liability under anti-discrimination law.) This is sensible; the alternative would be the NLRA forcing Google to engage in acts and/or omissions which would result in liability under the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not a tenable state of affairs.
- taneq 9y ago
  Also this memo would be in the context of an official company policy of preferentially hiring southerners despite them making up a small portion of the applicant pool.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  None of the groups involved being a protected class under Title VII, and harassment being a means of discrimination against such a class, no, it wouldn't be harassment in the relevant legal sense, and would probably not be within the scope of an anti-harassment policy.
stcredzero 9y ago
Why is this chilling? Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Instead, he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying. This reveals a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence within Google.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Careful there. What you mean is he wasn't saying anything you personally consider particularly bad. This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". This is not the same thing as "something no reasonable person could object to". And jumping from your personal opinion that it wasn't bad straight to "a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence" is, well, quite a leap. Finally: he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying The issue with the original "diversity memo" was that there was absolutely no way to read it with the principle of charity in mind and also end up with the interpretation of it his supporters wanted (in order to support the "he didn't say that" narrative). So much of the "he didn't really say that" boils down to ambiguity in the text, but if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important, and that he was making what he believed was a rational evidence-based argument, and then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particular facts) to be "bad" is "objectively not bad." if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important Here, you're basically admitting that the reading required to support your position is an imputational and emotional interpretation which can't be supported by particular facts. then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at. There are lots of possible alternative conclusions. Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 (Overwhelming persistent effects of human cultural capital.) It's entirely possible that a best-effort fair society with perfect equality of opportunity would still result in other than a 50-50 distribution in a given field for any number of complex, ever changing reasons, in much the same way that it would be impossible to have a vast liquid ocean with no waves. Or are you effectively making the questioning the validity of "equality of outcome" a thought-crime in and of itself? There are plenty of reasons to question "equality of outcome" without ever having to invoke the superiority of anyone.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

leereeves 9y ago

A more accurate analogy might be a memo claiming that southerners are poorer than northerners because they lost the Civil War. Would you consider such a memo harassment?

tptacek 9y ago
Maybe? Most of the challenges on this thread seem to be premised on the idea that Google needs ironclad justification to terminate an employee. The opposite is true. We have, as conservatives vigorously argued for, at-will employment in pretty much the whole country. The NLRA will protect your right to improve workplace conditions. The NLRB will not enforce that right if what you're doing isn't really about workplace conditions, or is about a desire to change those conditions to something that might conflict with your employer's requirements under the law.
- leereeves 9y ago
  My challenge to the NLRB's opinion is premised on the idea that Google employees have a right to discuss Google's diversity policy. The NLRB seems to agree, repeatedly saying that Damore's memo contained protected speech. But when that discussion brings up unpleasant scientific findings, the NLRB and I diverge; IMO a scientific explanation should not render otherwise protected speech unprotected.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The issue isn't that the science is unpleasant. It's that state and federal law compel companies like Google to maintain anti-harassment policies, and the NLRB defers to the company on how they're enforced. If you want to complain about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that's a different discussion; it's not really fair to take the NLRB to task for that.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The issue is that referring to these scientific results is "harassment" because they are unpleasant. That the manner and context in which Damore referred to them is a violation of Google's reasonable anti-harassment policy does not mean that either that act, and even less referring to them more generally, is harassment. Necessarily, any anti-harasssment policy that will successfully prevent harassment liability seeks to, through means up to and including termination, prevent liability by dealing with acts before they reach the level at which legal harassment—a violation of the law by the employer—occurs. An anti-harassment policy that only addressed acts after the threshold for legal harassment was reached would be a very expensive failure.
  - jxdxbx 9y ago
    Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy. That does not fall within the “improving workplace conditions” exception. Google is within its rights to simply fire all conservatives if it wants to. I think labor law should be different, but it’s not.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Google employees do not have a right to discuss Google’s diversity policy. Yes, they do; that right however does not extend to violating Google's anti-harassment policy (which id, itself, a key means by which Google avoids liability under anti-discrimination law.) This is sensible; the alternative would be the NLRA forcing Google to engage in acts and/or omissions which would result in liability under the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly not a tenable state of affairs.
taneq 9y ago
Also this memo would be in the context of an official company policy of preferentially hiring southerners despite them making up a small portion of the applicant pool.
dragonwriter 9y ago
None of the groups involved being a protected class under Title VII, and harassment being a means of discrimination against such a class, no, it wouldn't be harassment in the relevant legal sense, and would probably not be within the scope of an anti-harassment policy.

stcredzero 9y ago

Why is this chilling? Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Instead, he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying. This reveals a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence within Google.

ubernostrum 9y ago
Because he wasn't actually saying anything particularly bad. Careful there. What you mean is he wasn't saying anything you personally consider particularly bad. This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". This is not the same thing as "something no reasonable person could object to". And jumping from your personal opinion that it wasn't bad straight to "a breathtaking level of authoritarian ideological adherence" is, well, quite a leap. Finally: he was terminated on the emotional reaction to what others imputed he was saying The issue with the original "diversity memo" was that there was absolutely no way to read it with the principle of charity in mind and also end up with the interpretation of it his supporters wanted (in order to support the "he didn't say that" narrative). So much of the "he didn't really say that" boils down to ambiguity in the text, but if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important, and that he was making what he believed was a rational evidence-based argument, and then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  This is not the same thing as "objectively not bad". Anything that requires an imputational and emotional interpretation (which can't be supported by particular facts) to be "bad" is "objectively not bad." if we assume he had some purpose in mind that he thought was important Here, you're basically admitting that the reading required to support your position is an imputational and emotional interpretation which can't be supported by particular facts. then try to figure out "what important thing is he arguing in support of here", well, there aren't a lot of possible conclusions to end up at. There are lots of possible alternative conclusions. Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16398682 (Overwhelming persistent effects of human cultural capital.) It's entirely possible that a best-effort fair society with perfect equality of opportunity would still result in other than a 50-50 distribution in a given field for any number of complex, ever changing reasons, in much the same way that it would be impossible to have a vast liquid ocean with no waves. Or are you effectively making the questioning the validity of "equality of outcome" a thought-crime in and of itself? There are plenty of reasons to question "equality of outcome" without ever having to invoke the superiority of anyone.