Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. Let's set aside the content of his memo (I personally don't agree with what he said) and just appreciate that he made a mess.
As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.
He never released anything to the public. Someone who didn't like his political views leaked it to Twitter and the press.
If I were him, I would have personally sued the person that leaked the content and continued the fight until they had no money left. They really need to be taught a lesson that it's not okay to do something like this with the intention of destroying a person's life.
> Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess.
I agree with you; however Damore is only partly to blame... IMO the leaker of the memo is just as responsible for the PR mess as Damore is for writing the memo in the first place (no leak = no PR mess) (no memo = no PR mess) (memo + no leak = no PR mess).
I'm inclined to agree; it's never a good idea to discuss stuff like this on work comms. this leads to a bigger question though. why does google encourage this kind of discussion on an internal mailing list in the first place? seems like it can only lead to embarrassing PR moments.
I would like to see the breakdown of individual positions on James Damore versus Captain Crozier. I suspect very few people have consistent views (I do not) in spite of exactly the same arguments being made on both sides. Essentially: Should have known it would become public, or too important to keep silent. That tells me the real disagreement isn't in those arguments, but in the values behind them.
It was only a "PR mess" because his co-workers leaked the memo to the eager press and Google fired him over what was basically a paper attempting to explain why women might be underrepresented in engineering. If a famous company fires someone over something so trivial, of course the media will be all over it. Had none of that happened, none of us would be still discussing this because it's not like the paper's particularly groundbreaking or anything.
The company was backed into the corner because whether or not he was right, he created a hostile environment by starting and continuing the conversation where everyone in the company could read it.
There isn't a debate to be had in a public forum (even internal public) because the law has already decided the question.
All true. And in addition, we got to see the reactions of a large number of insiders, which changed the way a lot of us think about Google. If you haven't read the internal list captures, you owe it to yourself to do so.
Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification but it would be impossible for an institution like Bloomberg to have nuance on this issue. Just because some deplorable lifted him up doesn't mean he should be defined specifically on an ideological axis.
But, of course, who gives a fuck. The rage machine rages on.
He chose to appear on at least one show that routinely promotes white-nationalist talking points – I don't think his politics is really much of a question.
>Damore does not fit into the neat ideological right or left classification
Lets see, his lawyer for this suit who is quoted a lot in the article:
>Harmeet Kaur Dhillon is an American lawyer and Republican Party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California.
My thoughts as well - makes sense. It's going to continue to bring Google a headache, especially with conservatism on the apparent rise (i.e. still could have Trump in 2024).
Far easier to settle with a non-disclosure clause and an agreement to halt all public appearances. James Damore went on a campaign of visiting universities and other locations to discuss his views. Honestly, it was a good move, his case was weak, but the publicity seems to have paid off.
Exactly this; I just wonder what the settlement amount was. Seven figures plus certainly. I applaud anyone who sticks it to a mega corp, politics be damned!
I am shocked that there is even a discussion to be had on this.
In architecture (a somewhat older profession, but also concerning things constructed by people), women previously did have a hard time, and often had to practice under their husbands/partners name.
Mercifully this ended some while ago, and now architecture schools and onwards are more evenly gender balanced. Nobody suggests that women are somehow naturally 'less inclined', and the profession is richer for it.
It would be great if engineering could get to this point.
> Nobody suggests that women are somehow naturally 'less inclined', and the profession is richer for it.
It was not about "inclination", but rather that the current engineering culture tended to be lean a certain way when it comes to focus:
> Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait).[15] Damore's memorandum also suggests ways to adapt the tech workplace to those differences to increase women's representation and comfort, without resorting to discrimination.[1][14]
He argued that if Google wanted to change the gender balance in their engineering divisions, they had to change the types of things that can be worked on:
Google wants more women in engineering (which isn't a bad thing), but do they have a similar program for getting more men into HR?
As to gender balance in professions: are there initiatives to get more men into nursing or kindergarten / primary education, and women into plumbing or carpentry?
Not just architecture, also medicine and law. The whole question is what's different about math, CS, engineering and the physical sciences that makes it so much harder to reach gender balance there? If you look at the commonalities that these fields share, the "things, not people" aspect is the most prominent by far.
What country is this? In my country (Australia), the percentage of licensed female architects is around 20%, and this percentage seems to be about the same in the USA and UK. Europe seems a little better with around 30% female representation.
> I am shocked that there is even a discussion to be had on this.
We have to have this discussion is virtue signalers and far leftists keep spewing lies.
> It would be great if engineering could get to this point.
If it were, then it would mean that a significant number of women are forced into the field out of poverty or familial pressure.
"Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less."
We have decades of research on this already. The wealthier a nation is and more equal a nation is, the greater the disparity in STEM.
"What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at."
If you're looking for a little irony, here is Dr. Louanne Brizendine, Neuroscience PhD (Stanford, Yale, Berkeley) discussing how the female and male brains are different AT GOOGLE and with very warm, positive reception:
I remember at a previous job, a female engineer talking to other engineers when the Damore story broke. She said "I can't believe he said that women can't be good engineers" and indicated he deserved to be fired. As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, but even making the distinction makes you one of "them" and politicizes the workplace. It's just disappointing that these little whirlwinds of misinformation bullshit get to circle around and everybody just has to nod their heads.
I think conversations can be had with people like him, instead of taking the worst part of their views and ostracizing them for it. I think it is fine to acknowledge angst in the implementation of progressive ideals, that angst will often be mixed in with purely insensitive and uneducated thoughts.
There are productive outcomes possible by parsing and separating those issues.
I think it has been a big mistake of tech platforms - and really the people in the geographical area they are in - to simply be content with deplatforming people, assuming they are irreconcilable. It only emboldens, it doesn't stop the spread of disagreement, and from my perspective there really is a lot of common ground which is really just angst in implementation of progressive ideals.
I still do not understand why anyone is confused he got fired. He
negatively affected both the company's brand and productivity. He simply wasn't important/useful enough to keep around in light of that.
Want more rights then work in a union. Otherwise, don't forget you're employed _at will_.
This discussion is almost textbook flamebait. Indeed the very topic itself was all about flame. It's impossible, I think, to be able to discuss it rationally without falling into our usual traps. Actually for many people to even consider that it is possible to discuss it rationally would be problematic and borderline offensive, for others, the lack of a rational discussion is itself proof of a big problem.
That's my observation of these threads - it's a curious game - the only winning move, Professor Falcon, is not to play. How about a nice game of Chess?
"As part of and a central stipulation of this agreement, the plaintiff agrees not to purchase a luxury convertible vehicle and drive it around Sunnyvale while having scantily clad models recite his original memo through megaphones."
Was it Damore or Kevin Cernekee who quietly joined Apple to work on macos? I’m curious if they continue to be so outspoken there. My guess is their views would have to be kept to themselves. Apple really doesn’t tolerate unwanted attention.
Damore was not offered a chance to receive forgiveness by either the company or the outrage mob, therefore I don't respect what people generally have to say about whether what he did was right or wrong. It's astounding that people are still debating this in this very HN thread. A society of any size that makes virtue claims while simultaneously adding an undue price to being wrong or insensitive deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. You don't have to agree with anything Demore said, but the fact that Google openly encouraged political discussion, yet had an unwritten rule that if you say anything to upset a particular political demographic that you are terminated, is patently absurd. Companies shouldn't be encouraging employees to be political. We would never tolerate companies that encourage religious discussion but fire employees that say things against the Christian faith.
If you're going to come into this thread to refute Damore's memo and downvote people who don't tow your petty little line, your need to reexamine your principles, if you've got one.
Would it be too much to ask that we collectively say "The Damore thing is obviously a [scissor statement](https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/), on which otherwise-reasonable people bafflingly manage to hold different views very strongly, and we should stop talking about it forthwith because no good can come of it"? Nothing new can be said on the subject, vanishingly few people can be persuaded one way or the other, and "news site primarily populated by shortform comments" is hardly the appropriate place to hold a protracted argument.
It's annoying that Bloomberg refers to the memo as being "political" and expressing "political conservatism". The memo was attempting to explain the underrepresentation of women in tech via biological differences. That has literally nothing to do with politics, and framing it as such misrepresents and discredits the contents of the memo.
[+] [-] mabbo|5 years ago|reply
As has been said before, if your CEO learns your name for the same reason he has to end his vacation early, you probably should start polishing up your resume.
[+] [-] sacks2k|5 years ago|reply
If I were him, I would have personally sued the person that leaked the content and continued the fight until they had no money left. They really need to be taught a lesson that it's not okay to do something like this with the intention of destroying a person's life.
[+] [-] cassalian|5 years ago|reply
I agree with you; however Damore is only partly to blame... IMO the leaker of the memo is just as responsible for the PR mess as Damore is for writing the memo in the first place (no leak = no PR mess) (no memo = no PR mess) (memo + no leak = no PR mess).
[+] [-] spangry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leetcrew|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cleansingfire|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JSavageOne|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lliamander|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] discordance|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowgovt|5 years ago|reply
There isn't a debate to be had in a public forum (even internal public) because the law has already decided the question.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] downerending|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] look_lookatme|5 years ago|reply
But, of course, who gives a fuck. The rage machine rages on.
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
I think the story just notes that he got a lot of positive attention from some specific groups.
[+] [-] azinman2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muglug|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgcj_poster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] varjag|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belltaco|5 years ago|reply
Lets see, his lawyer for this suit who is quoted a lot in the article:
>Harmeet Kaur Dhillon is an American lawyer and Republican Party official. She is the former vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California.
Wonder if it was pro-bono.
[+] [-] kyrieeschaton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CalChris|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|5 years ago|reply
Far easier to settle with a non-disclosure clause and an agreement to halt all public appearances. James Damore went on a campaign of visiting universities and other locations to discuss his views. Honestly, it was a good move, his case was weak, but the publicity seems to have paid off.
[+] [-] marktangotango|5 years ago|reply
Edit down voters love mega corps?
[+] [-] somewhereoutth|5 years ago|reply
In architecture (a somewhat older profession, but also concerning things constructed by people), women previously did have a hard time, and often had to practice under their husbands/partners name.
Mercifully this ended some while ago, and now architecture schools and onwards are more evenly gender balanced. Nobody suggests that women are somehow naturally 'less inclined', and the profession is richer for it.
It would be great if engineering could get to this point.
[+] [-] throw0101a|5 years ago|reply
It was not about "inclination", but rather that the current engineering culture tended to be lean a certain way when it comes to focus:
> Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait).[15] Damore's memorandum also suggests ways to adapt the tech workplace to those differences to increase women's representation and comfort, without resorting to discrimination.[1][14]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
He argued that if Google wanted to change the gender balance in their engineering divisions, they had to change the types of things that can be worked on:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing–systemizing_theory
Google wants more women in engineering (which isn't a bad thing), but do they have a similar program for getting more men into HR?
As to gender balance in professions: are there initiatives to get more men into nursing or kindergarten / primary education, and women into plumbing or carpentry?
[+] [-] zozbot234|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhhwrongagain|5 years ago|reply
He cited the big five personality trait model as evidence for why engineering culture is not welcoming to women.
[+] [-] spangry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thestu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milankovic|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dntbnmpls|5 years ago|reply
We have to have this discussion is virtue signalers and far leftists keep spewing lies.
> It would be great if engineering could get to this point.
If it were, then it would mean that a significant number of women are forced into the field out of poverty or familial pressure.
"Some would say that the gender STEM gap occurs not because girls can’t do science, but because they have other alternatives, based on their strengths in verbal skills,” she said. “In wealthy nations, they believe that they have the freedom to pursue those alternatives and not worry so much that they pay less."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
We have decades of research on this already. The wealthier a nation is and more equal a nation is, the greater the disparity in STEM.
"What’s more, the countries that minted the most female college graduates in fields like science, engineering, or math were also some of the least gender-equal countries. They posit that this is because the countries that empower women also empower them, indirectly, to pick whatever career they’d enjoy most and be best at."
[+] [-] door99|5 years ago|reply
The problem is that our community isn’t very friendly or welcoming to women. How can we make that cultural change?
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|5 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu_uGr1ZOn4&t=2s
[+] [-] daenz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 11thEarlOfMar|5 years ago|reply
Are you saying: "This statement is false, so I must argue against it."
Or are you saying: "I cannot accept the implications of this statement, so I must argue against it."
[+] [-] vmception|5 years ago|reply
There are productive outcomes possible by parsing and separating those issues.
I think it has been a big mistake of tech platforms - and really the people in the geographical area they are in - to simply be content with deplatforming people, assuming they are irreconcilable. It only emboldens, it doesn't stop the spread of disagreement, and from my perspective there really is a lot of common ground which is really just angst in implementation of progressive ideals.
[+] [-] throwaway4715|5 years ago|reply
Want more rights then work in a union. Otherwise, don't forget you're employed _at will_.
[+] [-] screye|5 years ago|reply
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html - Paul Graham's 'What you can't say'
[+] [-] bpsh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gamechangr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|5 years ago|reply
That's my observation of these threads - it's a curious game - the only winning move, Professor Falcon, is not to play. How about a nice game of Chess?
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seemslegit|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoonsies|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowgovt|5 years ago|reply
What is it about this story that keeps people engaged? Are other engineers concerned they could be fired like Damore for saying the wrong thing?
[+] [-] ravenstine|5 years ago|reply
If you're going to come into this thread to refute Damore's memo and downvote people who don't tow your petty little line, your need to reexamine your principles, if you've got one.
[+] [-] Smaug123|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JSavageOne|5 years ago|reply