4 ms·

My uninformed interpretation is that Google wanted her gone and jumped at the first opportunity they got. If they wanted her around I don't think the reasons th

• itisit 6y ago
  Ethics work will inherently raise questions that challenge a company's narrative or image. Clearly both employer and employee had conflicting opinions on how to deal with said work. You can portray any large corporation negatively given the right thesis and research. I have the same hunch that this was a long-running contention between the two sides—one side had enough and fired the other; the other side went public to retaliate. Sure, you can add nuance, but I don't think it's much more complicated than that.
• NearAP 6y ago
  Technically speaking, how is that a problem? If your theory is right that Google was looking for a reason to fire her, then she shouldn't have given them a 'legal' one. At the end of the day, it boiled down to - she gave them an ultimatum and they called her bluff (this has nothing to do with whether her reasons were right or wrong; if her reasons were right and she really didn't want believe she could work under such conditions, then the focus of her statement and public debate should be about that and not whether Google fired her or she resigned.
  • pseudalopex 6y ago
    What makes you think it was a bluff? The debate about her being fired or resigning is a debate about who to believe about what led up to it. People who think she resigned see her saying she was fired as evidence of a victim complex and publicity seeking. People who think she was fired see Google saying she resigned as evidence of unfair treatment and dishonesty.