> that doesn't necessarily mean that he couldn't have been given the option to begrudgingly disavow his position in order to remain at Google. Unless I'm mista

> that doesn't necessarily mean that he couldn't have been given the option to begrudgingly disavow his position in order to remain at Google. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that was possible for him. Looking at the very basic timeline of events, I'm really unsure this is true. Wikipedia says there was about a month between the initial memo and his removal and that Damore did add an addendum to the memo generally denouncing sexism (though, I think, not engaging with the critiques of his writings as "sexist")[1]. I suspect that if he had, in that addendum, retracted some or all of what he had said, he had a real opportunity to keep his job. That said, I also want to question the idea that a just and fair resolution of a mis-step should necessarily include an opportunity to be perfectly restored to your previous situation. It's common, for instance, for a project to go in what turns out, in hindsight, to be the wrong direction. The people in charge of that project might be removed to let someone with fresh eyes come in - not because they're being punished, but because that's how humans work. People removed in that way are seen to have...performed suboptimally, but not failed exactly. I think it's totally possible that Damore writes a memo that is filled with sexist tropes and ignorant reifications of sexist hierarchies and is removed from his current position, but it's understood that his response enables him to go on to new positions. An older example of this is the standard of conduct for US judges, which says that even the appearance of impropriety is banned. I think Google is well within its rights to remove people for the appearance of sexism and those people who appeared sexist have the opportunity to demonstrate that they're not, in fact, sexist and go on to further positions. Again, I don't believe Damore has tried very hard to prove that he doesn't actually hold sexist views. >I don't think the analogy of Dan Harmon completely holds up. I think you're quite right about the difference between their contexts. I thought Harmon's apology was just a great example of addressing serious misdeeds after the fact. Harmon's apology was positively received by his victim and, as far as I know, he's gone on to success in new ventures[3]. > I don't think someone can credibly call Damore a predator or dangerous. I think I generally agree with what you're saying here but I think the word "dangerous" deserves more examination. One of the core tenants of the critique of Damore's work is that it supports a generally misogynistic world view. He's highlighting that women perform differently than men on certain measurements and that those measurements are also associated with being an effective engineer. This ignores the problem of how these terms come to be defined - if nearly all engineers are men, any measurement of the 'good' engineers will find they almost all test 'like men.' So saying that the weakness of female engineers is revealed by their failure to test 'like men' is ignoring the historical slant to the data. To me, that is dangerous. You can see this same problem in the Amazon AI that scored resumes from women more poorly because Amazon had previously hired few female engineers[4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch... [2] https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unit... [3] It's worth saying that lots of people who have credibly been accused of sexual assault also go on to great success. The idea that accusations destroy someones career are overblown. [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...