5 ms·

One of the criticisms made of Damore when this first broke was "he should have expressed his concerns to HR first". Like pretty much all of the criticisms of D

One of the criticisms made of Damore when this first broke was "he should have expressed his concerns to HR first". Like pretty much all of the criticisms of Damore, this one was based on ignorance (or a lie). He in fact did initially submit his concerns to HR, and not merely of his own initiative but in response to their request. If HR had an objection to Damore's memo, the appropriate time to address that would have been when he initially submitted it. They had a whole month to respond before he shared it with other people. They could have had a private conversation with him and resolved any disagreements or misunderstandings without it ever becoming a fiasco. By inviting his comments but then failing to address them, Google HR bears most of the blame for the fallout. His decision to share the memo with his colleagues was his, sure, but he wrote initially it in response to a request from HR. If management asks for your feedback about something but then ignores it, seeking validation from your colleagues is a perfectly logical next step. Especially so at a place like Google, where open discussion was supposed to be a hallmark of it's internal culture.

wpietri 6y ago
One, we don't know that he submitted this to HR. Two, even if he did, they had no obligation to reply, let alone within a month. Three, we do not know that they didn't reply. Four, whether or not they did, it was his decision to publish broadly; he is responsible for his own actions. Five, after he received negative feedback, he just adjusted it slightly and kept going (and in fact kept going until he dropped this suit.). And six, he knew or should have known that an explicitly political attack on Google's culture and D&I practices was not the average thing you might pass along for feedback. He wanted a big reaction. He got it. He didn't get the outcome he wanted, but that was never his to control.
- lliamander 6y ago
  If you think he's lying about the sequence of events, that's your choice. But unless you have a better reason than that you disagree with his opinions, you're not going to convince anyone. Is it not the job of HR to address employee concerns? Is it not the job of HR to manage the liability incurred by employees? I fail to see how HR does not bear responsibility here. Had HR said "sharing the contents of the memo at work will get you fired" then whether he shared the memo or not at least he would know what to expect. However, it's pretty clear that at most he expected a heated discussion, not termination. And he did not publish it "broadly". He posted it to some sort of internal "skeptics" discussion group. The idea being that this would be the normal venue for employees to discuss controversial ideas in good faith and with an open mind. It was others who published it "broadly". Damore's disagreement (which was not even necessarily a disagreement about values, but about facts and policy) was not an attack. The failure to make that distinction on the part of Google leadership and the media is why this became such a big issue, nor was this failing Damore's fault. Fortunately, it seems that most people (if not necessarily the loudest people) are able to make that distinction.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story. It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that. The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he handed it to his manager or a couple colleagues and said "I'd like your feedback on this." He intentionally put it out to a wide audience. If you don't see it as an attack, I guess that's your prerogative. That's certainly how it was received. And given that the go link was titled pc-considered-harmful, it's clear that Damore saw it as a shot in the broader culture war. Something confirmed by his post-firing behavior, where the first people he talked to were strident antifeminists: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-interviews https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam...
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story. A reasonable question I suppose, but fruitless as no-one has contradicted his timeline of events. > It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that. You have yet to make the case that Damore's behavior was somehow irresponsible. On the other hand, an HR department doesn't respond to employee concerns and that only deals with the fallout of situations after they occur is not very effective or responsible. > The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he handed it to his manager or a couple colleagues and said "I'd like your feedback on this." He intentionally put it out to a wide audience. Access control restrictions are not particularly relevant. He did, iirc, solicit feedback from some select colleagues before publishing it internally. He also submitted his concerns to HR (unless you've forgotten). After that, he shared it with an internal forum devoted to discussing controversial ideas. What else should he have done? > If you don't see it as an attack, I guess that's your prerogative. That's certainly how it was received. By some, certainly not all. > And given that the go link was titled pc-considered-harmful, it's clear that Damore saw it as a shot in the broader culture war. Please explain how criticism political correctness amounts to an attack. Arguing that "political correctness is something only bad people complain about" is not sufficient. Feel free to include anything within the actual contents of the essay that also amounts to an "attack". > Something confirmed by his post-firing behavior, where the first people he talked to were strident antifeminists This whole "guilt-by-association" is very tiresome and low-effort. All the moreso considering that it was quite evident that "acceptable" media sources were never going to give Damore a fair shake, nor were they particularly interested in what he actually had to say.

wpietri 6y ago

One, we don't know that he submitted this to HR. Two, even if he did, they had no obligation to reply, let alone within a month. Three, we do not know that they didn't reply. Four, whether or not they did, it was his decision to publish broadly; he is responsible for his own actions. Five, after he received negative feedback, he just adjusted it slightly and kept going (and in fact kept going until he dropped this suit.). And six, he knew or should have known that an explicitly political attack on Google's culture and D&I practices was not the average thing you might pass along for feedback. He wanted a big reaction. He got it. He didn't get the outcome he wanted, but that was never his to control.

lliamander 6y ago
If you think he's lying about the sequence of events, that's your choice. But unless you have a better reason than that you disagree with his opinions, you're not going to convince anyone. Is it not the job of HR to address employee concerns? Is it not the job of HR to manage the liability incurred by employees? I fail to see how HR does not bear responsibility here. Had HR said "sharing the contents of the memo at work will get you fired" then whether he shared the memo or not at least he would know what to expect. However, it's pretty clear that at most he expected a heated discussion, not termination. And he did not publish it "broadly". He posted it to some sort of internal "skeptics" discussion group. The idea being that this would be the normal venue for employees to discuss controversial ideas in good faith and with an open mind. It was others who published it "broadly". Damore's disagreement (which was not even necessarily a disagreement about values, but about facts and policy) was not an attack. The failure to make that distinction on the part of Google leadership and the media is why this became such a big issue, nor was this failing Damore's fault. Fortunately, it seems that most people (if not necessarily the loudest people) are able to make that distinction.
- wpietri 6y ago
  I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story. It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that. The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he handed it to his manager or a couple colleagues and said "I'd like your feedback on this." He intentionally put it out to a wide audience. If you don't see it as an attack, I guess that's your prerogative. That's certainly how it was received. And given that the go link was titled pc-considered-harmful, it's clear that Damore saw it as a shot in the broader culture war. Something confirmed by his post-firing behavior, where the first people he talked to were strident antifeminists: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-interviews https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-dam...
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > I don't think he has to be lying. I think we've only heard one side of the story. A reasonable question I suppose, but fruitless as no-one has contradicted his timeline of events. > It's the job of employees to manage their own behavior. It's HR's job to do their best to contain the problems when employees fail to do that. You have yet to make the case that Damore's behavior was somehow irresponsible. On the other hand, an HR department doesn't respond to employee concerns and that only deals with the fallout of situations after they occur is not very effective or responsible. > The dude created a go link, the purpose of which is to make something available to the entire company. Publishing it into an open internal group fits my definition of "broadly". It's not like he handed it to his manager or a couple colleagues and said "I'd like your feedback on this." He intentionally put it out to a wide audience. Access control restrictions are not particularly relevant. He did, iirc, solicit feedback from some select colleagues before publishing it internally. He also submitted his concerns to HR (unless you've forgotten). After that, he shared it with an internal forum devoted to discussing controversial ideas. What else should he have done? > If you don't see it as an attack, I guess that's your prerogative. That's certainly how it was received. By some, certainly not all. > And given that the go link was titled pc-considered-harmful, it's clear that Damore saw it as a shot in the broader culture war. Please explain how criticism political correctness amounts to an attack. Arguing that "political correctness is something only bad people complain about" is not sufficient. Feel free to include anything within the actual contents of the essay that also amounts to an "attack". > Something confirmed by his post-firing behavior, where the first people he talked to were strident antifeminists This whole "guilt-by-association" is very tiresome and low-effort. All the moreso considering that it was quite evident that "acceptable" media sources were never going to give Damore a fair shake, nor were they particularly interested in what he actually had to say.