4 ms·
This article lost a lot of credibility with me when in the early framing of the issue, Harris writes: > Following the release of the NLRB memo, a number of sci
by mattzito 9y ago
This article lost a lot of credibility with me when in the early framing of the issue, Harris writes:
> Following the release of the NLRB memo, a number of scientists on Twitter expressed alarm at the justifications provided within the memo, which appeared to relegate the discussion of sex differences outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech.
(emphasis mine)
The NLRB letter says nothing of the kind. It says that the memo contained both protected and unprotected speech, and that Damore was terminated for the unprotected form. You have very few first amendment protections in the workplace, and employees can be fired for saying almost anything. Sex differences, in particular, have never been a protected class of speech in a workplace, and to claim that this letter somehow changes the landscape of the workplace is disingenuous at best.
- gizmo686 9y agoFrom the memo: >The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstandingeffort to cloakcomments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. [0] [0] https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Google-Advice-Memorandum-1-16-2018 https://www.scribd.com/document/371689055/NLRB-Damore-v-Goog...
- conanbatt 9y agoI have to say i pereive it is weaseling out of the rules that one makes a claim and gets fired for another one. At the point of a single claim (the essay), anything contained in the memo that is not protected means you can fire for the protected things. Of course this is all a sham. He was not fired for discriminatory things he said but because of public outrage. What is the protection you get from that?