The Google memo

[Ethel mermania]

15 million dollars does go a long way.

Doubt it will reach that much.

kids young, google will have to cover future earnings. but w.ho knows, its a crap shoot

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Thank god it's only ten pages.
The scariest thing I read in there is that in egalitarian societies gender differences might be amplified...

Yeah it isn't a pleasant thought. There could be an unidentified third factor that affects both societal egalitarianism and psychological gender differences, but no one would use that information to back up their preconceived biases, be they radfem, egalitarian, or chauvinist. Here's a link to the article in question.

[Costa Fierro]

Interesting. So the worker can be objective but the manager can't?

Nope. Managers don't get their positions based on questioning company policy.

[Costa Fierro]

hopefully the kid wins

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-da ... gle-2017-8

"Google may have difficulty establishing that he broke the company's code of conduct because he used message boards the company provided to allow employees to discuss these issues, and because his manifesto repeatedly states he favors diversity and intended to "increase women's representation in tech."

This seems really really crucial.

Which is why they doubled down by calling him sexist, dragged his name through the mud and got the media on their side because they knew that firing him was the worst thing they could have done. He did absolutely nothing wrong other than share an opinion that the managers disagreed with...even though said managers implemented an actual forum for said opinions to be outed.

Focusing on the non-existent "sexism" is the distraction Google fabricated it in order to divert attention or even justify his dismissal because they know they've fucked up.

[The East Marches II]

I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?

We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.

Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.”

Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored.

Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed—that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same—could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google’s human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement.

Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.

It saddens me to leave Google and to see the company silence open and honest discussion. If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

—Mr. Damore worked as a software engineer at Google’s Mountain View campus from 2013 until this past week.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Huh, honestly, I didn't think I'd turn out to be right that this was a move to save face by Google by pulling this PR stunt against one of its employees by firing him over his argument that Google was taking the wrong approach to diversity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Google may have difficulty establishing that he broke the company's code of conduct because he used message boards the company provided to allow employees to discuss these issues, and because his manifesto repeatedly states he favors diversity and intended to "increase women's representation in tech."

This seems really really crucial.

Which is why they doubled down by calling him sexist, dragged his name through the mud and got the media on their side because they knew that firing him was the worst thing they could have done. He did absolutely nothing wrong other than share an opinion that the managers disagreed with...even though said managers implemented an actual forum for said opinions to be outed.

Focusing on the non-existent "sexism" is the distraction Google fabricated it in order to divert attention or even justify his dismissal because they know they've fucked up.

Depends on how you take fuckup.

They saved face. That's all that matters to them as a company led by liberals and progressives trying to pander to liberals and progressives about how liberal and progressive upper management is, in order to be part of the "in-crowd" of what they perceive to be the future.

A company that's led by blatant, open conservatives and try to pander to the conservative crowd to be part of the "in-group" would do exactly the same thing.

[The Black Forrest]

Interesting. So the worker can be objective but the manager can't?

Nope. Managers don't get their positions based on questioning company policy.

*shrugs* I have seen it happen and the fact they follow policy is part of the job. Just like when the putz joined the company. He agreed to follow the established policies.

[The Black Forrest]

I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and “cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?

We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.

Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.”

Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment. When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored.

Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed—that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same—could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google’s human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement.

Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.

It saddens me to leave Google and to see the company silence open and honest discussion. If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users.

—Mr. Damore worked as a software engineer at Google’s Mountain View campus from 2013 until this past week.

This piece contradicts his photo of with the gulag comment.

Cynical comment? Most likely written by his lawyer to paint him as a good guy for the upcoming law suit.

His problem was the way he distributed it. Management has this funny attitude of getting pissed when you try to circumvent them.

His 15 minutes will start to diminish once he is on the poor oppressed con circuit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nope. Managers don't get their positions based on questioning company policy.

*shrugs* I have seen it happen and the fact they follow policy is part of the job. Just like when the putz joined the company. He agreed to follow the established policies.

What I really wonder is, now that this leak happened, how clamped will they keep their network and moderation in the social media spaces they have provided to their employees, or if they are going to do anything at all, of if they're just going to close social media venues to their employees in an attempt to "sanitize" the company internal image and content so this incident doesn't happen again.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This piece contradicts his photo of with the gulag comment.

Cynical comment? Most likely written by his lawyer to paint him as a good guy for the upcoming law suit.

His problem was the way he distributed it. Management has this funny attitude of getting pissed when you try to circumvent them.

His 15 minutes will start to diminish once he is on the poor oppressed con circuit.

Huh, now you're making me wonder what is the appropriate channel to voice this complaint at Google.

Did your manager friend know anything about how to send these sorts of comments through the chain?

[The East Marches II]

This piece contradicts his photo of with the gulag comment.

Cynical comment? Most likely written by his lawyer to paint him as a good guy for the upcoming law suit.

His problem was the way he distributed it. Management has this funny attitude of getting pissed when you try to circumvent them.

His 15 minutes will start to diminish once he is on the poor oppressed con circuit.

I'm not surprised tbh. Do you believe Google will just settle?

[Costa Fierro]

Depends on how you take fuckup.

In this case, it'd be "firing someone for no reason".

They saved face.

They have, although how they have done so is blatantly dishonest at best.

A company that's led by blatant, open conservatives and try to pander to the conservative crowd to be part of the "in-group" would do exactly the same thing.

I'm not saying they wouldn't. That doesn't stop Google's response being one of irony.

Nope. Managers don't get their positions based on questioning company policy.

*shrugs* I have seen it happen and the fact they follow policy is part of the job. Just like when the putz joined the company. He agreed to follow the established policies.

He did, but Google gave their employees a vehicle to express their opinions on said policies. Where does voicing an opinion on Google's policies put him in the wrong, if Google wanted feedback?

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* I have seen it happen and the fact they follow policy is part of the job. Just like when the putz joined the company. He agreed to follow the established policies.

What I really wonder is, now that this leak happened, how clamped will they keep their network and moderation in the social media spaces they have provided to their employees, or if they are going to do anything at all, of if they're just going to close social media venues to their employees in an attempt to "sanitize" the company internal image and content so this incident doesn't happen again.

Indeed. Leaks are hard to plug. There are ways but you really clamp down on productivity. Many companies have social media sites. In the old days there were BBS, php sites up to php sites. They usually are monitored and but not always to the point of all emails and files being reviewed before posted. Once a file get's out; it's easy to pass around.

I remember way back Lockheed was doing major layoffs (the pretty term was down/right sizing). One guy did a something similar but it was appropriate for the time. Only a few saw the original document and it was leaked. It was well written and heart felt for the way people were being treated. He basically became the defacto representative for the workforce. Management met with him and tried "persuade" him to tone down his message. He refused and left the company on his own. May have got a payoff but nobody knew for sure.

The difference between these two was the Lockheed guy questioned the practices. He didn't judge people.

[The Black Forrest]

This piece contradicts his photo of with the gulag comment.

Cynical comment? Most likely written by his lawyer to paint him as a good guy for the upcoming law suit.

His problem was the way he distributed it. Management has this funny attitude of getting pissed when you try to circumvent them.

His 15 minutes will start to diminish once he is on the poor oppressed con circuit.

I'm not surprised tbh. Do you believe Google will just settle?

I do. Most companies want to avoid a judgement. If later on they get another case with the same accusations and they loose again? The damages would significantly increase.

I only know of one case where somebody fought till a judgement was declared. Apple lost to a guy in an age discrimination case. It was blatant and they tried to settle and muscle him into settling stating the costs of the case and time, etc. They didn't do their background research as the guy's family owned a few malls. He basically told them he wanted them to loose so the next time they pull this and somebody else decides to fight.

This piece contradicts his photo of with the gulag comment.

Cynical comment? Most likely written by his lawyer to paint him as a good guy for the upcoming law suit.

His problem was the way he distributed it. Management has this funny attitude of getting pissed when you try to circumvent them.

His 15 minutes will start to diminish once he is on the poor oppressed con circuit.

Huh, now you're making me wonder what is the appropriate channel to voice this complaint at Google.

Did your manager friend know anything about how to send these sorts of comments through the chain?

I didn't ask. There usually is but I can't answer for Google.

I can ask him the next time I see him if you like?

[Terran Imperial State]

Why don't MRAs ever stop fucking whining?

You wouldn't complain if someone blamed you for something that you not only didn't do, but wasn't even done in the first place?

[The Black Forrest]

Why don't MRAs ever stop fucking whining?

You wouldn't complain if someone blamed you for something that you not only didn't do, but wasn't even done in the first place?

Eh?

[The East Marches II]

I'm not surprised tbh. Do you believe Google will just settle?

I do. Most companies want to avoid a judgement. If later on they get another case with the same accusations and they loose again? The damages would significantly increase.

I only know of one case where somebody fought till a judgement was declared. Apple lost to a guy in an age discrimination case. It was blatant and they tried to settle and muscle him into settling stating the costs of the case and time, etc. They didn't do their background research as the guy's family owned a few malls. He basically told them he wanted them to loose so the next time they pull this and somebody else decides to fight.

Thank you for your perspective on the matter. You answered even my follow ups, good information.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not surprised tbh. Do you believe Google will just settle?

I do. Most companies want to avoid a judgement. If later on they get another case with the same accusations and they loose again? The damages would significantly increase.

I only know of one case where somebody fought till a judgement was declared. Apple lost to a guy in an age discrimination case. It was blatant and they tried to settle and muscle him into settling stating the costs of the case and time, etc. They didn't do their background research as the guy's family owned a few malls. He basically told them he wanted them to loose so the next time they pull this and somebody else decides to fight.

Huh, now you're making me wonder what is the appropriate channel to voice this complaint at Google.

Did your manager friend know anything about how to send these sorts of comments through the chain?

I didn't ask. There usually is but I can't answer for Google.

I can ask him the next time I see him if you like?

That'd help me personally, so I'd appreciate it

[Terran Imperial State]

You wouldn't complain if someone blamed you for something that you not only didn't do, but wasn't even done in the first place?

Eh?

""Sexism""

[The Black Forrest]

I do. Most companies want to avoid a judgement. If later on they get another case with the same accusations and they loose again? The damages would significantly increase.

I only know of one case where somebody fought till a judgement was declared. Apple lost to a guy in an age discrimination case. It was blatant and they tried to settle and muscle him into settling stating the costs of the case and time, etc. They didn't do their background research as the guy's family owned a few malls. He basically told them he wanted them to loose so the next time they pull this and somebody else decides to fight.



I didn't ask. There usually is but I can't answer for Google.

I can ask him the next time I see him if you like?

That'd help me personally, so I'd appreciate it

Ok. I will do that......

[The Black Forrest]

Eh?

""Sexism""

Ohhh got you. Well? For all we know he could have been punished for attitudes against female employees in the past. We will never know as HR and legal would forbid such information from being released. California has what "free market" people would call rather draconian laws protecting workers in such matters. As a previous HR person once told me. You can only ask start and end dates and if the person is eligible for rehire (this was awhile ago so it may have changed).

[Bakery Hill]

Why don't MRAs ever stop fucking whining?

You wouldn't complain if someone blamed you for something that you not only didn't do, but wasn't even done in the first place?

Luckily that isn't the situation. No one's blaming me for nothing.

[Yortium Allanstan]

One wonders if a memo leaked saying that black people were biologically predisposed to being shitty at their jobs would the dudebros defending the trog that posted the original tripe be as willing to trip over each other to defend him?

[Hydesland]

One wonders if a memo leaked saying that black people were biologically predisposed to being shitty at their jobs would the dudebros defending the trog that posted the original tripe be as willing to trip over each other to defend him?

The memo was about personality differences, and how they might affect the distribution of career choices, not ability - I'm aware of no published paper in a mainstream scientific journal that finds anything like this between races. The connotation of claiming there are personality differences between race, an already fuzzy concept, is far more inflammatory and controversial - it's not like races have different testosterone levels, genders do.