3 ms·
>And given that, her behaviour is likely just trying to introduce spin in order to land her next job easier. By making it about race and gender, it's not someth
by chomp 6y ago
>And given that, her behaviour is likely just trying to introduce spin in order to land her next job easier. By making it about race and gender, it's not something behavioural and so clears the situation for future employers.
What's the point of this cynical and baseless speculation? They hired an ethicist who they wanted to toe the line. If you are truly an ethicist, it is your job to speak up about unethical and immoral behavior. I am glad that at least 1 person in SV is willing to bang a drum about big tech companies making superficial moves to look good on paper, but then keep everyone quiet inside the castle walls.
- jdmichal 6y agoBecause I'm a cynic, and because at the executive level this is how things work. I could equally ask you to justify your cynical view of "big tech companies". But I won't because I'm perfectly fine working with your chosen bias. Especially since you were so up front about it. Personally, I'm no fan of Google either, and I accept this cynical view of them. But there's plenty of space for cynicism on both sides in this situation. She was pressing the nuclear option by threatening to resign, so I assume that the relationship was already strained. And I severely doubt that it was entirely over the one cited instance. Therefore, I doubt she's going public to try to win her job back. She could solely be trying to give Google a black eye on her way out, whether out of disgust or altruism. But doing so requires her to paint Google as "the bad guy", and that in turn requires her to paint herself as "the good guy". So net effect is the same, regardless of motivation.