There is nothing more pathetic than a butthurt white boy.

You're playing the game on Easy mode and you're still losing.

Offensive. But I bow to your experience with butthurt boys.

Someone fighting for equal protection against discrimination. Hilarious.

"Discrimination" against people who want to discriminate based on sex? Come on.

Haven't you heard, you're allowed to be butt hurt and cry about anything these days and expect to get your way.

Homeboy probably has a case actually - political views are protected from retribution in CA. I suspect he will win it. The way Google handled the situation was pretty terrible.

The other lawsuits mentioned in the article sound less likely to be successful.

Legally you are correct; he does. We hashed this out back in August and at the time I dug into the relevant laws and statutes:
"Federal labour law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions … California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action."

That's not going to hold up where the "political view" is itself illegal.

The political view is not illegal. Agree or not, what he wrote was simply exploring the hypothesis that more men are found in engineering positions because that particular aptitude is biologically distributed unequally between the genders. This isn't a radical or new idea. If men and women were to compete in the olympics equally against each other there would be entire sports where either men or women would completely dominate. Genes make our meat and our meat is different - whether it's arm meat or head meat doesn't seem to change the rather obvious argument that the sexes are objectively different.

Yeah, you try explaining that to your HR department and see what happens.

I know what would happen. At the same time, I'm not sure that would reveal anything more than the rationality and objectivity (or lack thereof) of said HR department. It's hardly a relevant experiment.

Do you really doubt the HR profession's ability to cover ass?

"arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering" is very emphatically NOT "communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions".

Next you're going to argue that your inability to recognize blatant sexism means you should be entitled to collect disability pay and park in handicapped spaces.

That's not what he was arguing. It's about the distribution of aptitude, not that all women are less capable of engineering, but rather that the requisite aptitudes may not be distributed equally between the sexes.

The evidence of reality is sufficient to demonstrate that certainly some women are more than capable of being excellent engineers. Some are not. Plenty of men are also useless at being engineers too.

The implicit statement here is that, given a random sample of 1000 men and 1000 women, an equal number of them will have aptitude for (and possibly desire to) become engineers. The crux of his thesis is that this statement is false.

I mean, curiously you don't hear nearly the same clamour on the other end of the spectrum. Have a look around university campuses and try to find the support seminars, motivational conferences, and general cheerleading antics desperately trying to woo more men into occupations like Speech Language Pathology, Special Education, or Occupational Therapy.

Is it because society has somehow pressured men out of these jobs, or is it simply that they are jobs that few men have the right combination of interest and aptitude to do? Would you think someone was an asshole for suggesting that there are probably just actually fewer men than women who find this work rewarding or interesting?

Ask a male nurse about that. They get their pick of jobs.

...and yet the disparity remains. Why?

How many generations have we been at this? Maybe not quite two?

My point is that women have historically been subject to societal pressures that have formed active barriers to entry for certain professions. Getting taken seriously as a female engineer even forty years ago was a much harder deal than it is today.

The reverse is not true. Men, even having dominated the medical profession for years, are woefully under-represented in fields like Speech Language Pathology and Occupational Therapy - not crap jobs, but professional fields that require advanced medical degrees and professional registration; jobs with very low unemployment rates, very good pay, and high prestige. Why? I think we can agree that white men have never suffered from discrimination and barriers to entry in any career they so choose to enter, so why the lack of interest here? Is there something stopping men, or is it something else? Something more fundamental about men and women that, by simple statistics, the people with the right skills tend to be found more among women than among men? Is that really a crazy idea?

Even in blue collar work, why are men the garbage men and women the file clerks? Why do women use printers at work but men have the jobs to fix them? Why do men dominate gritty, dirty jobs like bricklaying, drywall, machining, plumbing, and why do women dominate clerical and information organization jobs? Why do women build clothes but men build houses? Is there some conspiracy that puts men and women in these jobs, or are they jobs that require aptitudes and interests that are not uniformly distributed in the sexes?

Is it really so wrong, or such a bad thing, that men and women have different interests? Is it really that surprising? Does it mean we are somehow broken as a species, or should we maybe just resign ourselves to the fact that this is who we are that there's nothing wrong to fix here?

This isn't to say that children should not be supported and encouraged to do whatever the hell they have a passion for. If Jill wants to become an electrician that should be fine, and if Jack wants to be a cosmetologist he should happily get a makeup kit for his 8th birthday if that's what he wants. Should they expect that, no matter what profession they choose, they should end up with a razor sharp and mathematically perfect 50/50 distribution of male and female co-workers when they grow up? Does that even make sense? Why the desperate need to erase any notion that boys and girls are different?

Different != inferior. Suggest you work on your reading comprehension. Women are more often better at that, it seems...

Chemistry is generally quite balanced today between the genders. Biology actually attracts more women than men and Physics goes the other way. Actually in STEM overall ST is generally more female dominated and EM more male.

Like I said, it's not about men or women being "better" than each other, it's observing that, statistically, more of one or the other end up pursuing careers in one field or another.

At best, for the moment, universities are graduating three men or more for every woman in software engineering. For Google to say that they should have 50/50 is blatantly at odds with reality - the talent pool they're hiring from isn't distributed that way, so why should their staff be?

I mean, in absence of any hiring bias, it would actually be interesting to see what the gender balance at Google would look like. It might actually still be more female weighted than the source pool. That could actually tell us something useful - like although there are fewer women than men graduating from software engineering, those women that do tend to appear in the upper percentiles in terms of their performance.

All that said, some women end up with successful STEM careers and other women do something else entirely. If you're to take my point to, erroneously, mean that I am somehow arguing that men are better than women, what does it say about women in STEM? Are they somehow "better" than their peers who end up as Phlebotomists, clerks, or tailors? Of course not. If anything, the real underlying problem here is societal perception of some careers as being somehow superior or more important or "better" than others.

I mean why don't we work at trying to get people to appreciate their garbageman as much as their doctors, or childcare workers who look after their kids during the day as much as the engineers who design the bridges they drive on? If you want an egalitarian society, that's the one that looks a lot better to me. Once you start respecting everyone equally then it becomes a lot less important what they end up choosing to do with their lives - you don't have to make women feel like a failure because she didn't end up breaking the mould and "succeeding" in a "man's" job. And you don't make a man feel like a loser for wanting to be a hairdresser or a nurse. It's just a job.

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

No, I'm pretty sure I know what blathering means.

It also doesn't sound like a political view, just an ignorant arsehole view.

Might be able to bring about a case but to actually win? What can and can't be couched as a political view? It feels similar to when you dress up bigotry with a cassock and collar to call it a religious view.

On a concrete level, he was a liability to the company. I don't have the lads CV on hand, but i wonder as to his level of authority on feminine neurobiology. What i did read in the memo seemed on the same level as phrenology or humorism.

His memo wasn't just the expression of a political view, it was a violation of the civil rights of women to work in a non-hostile environment. Telling your co-workers (and, thanks to the publicity, potential co-workers) "women suck at math" is every bit as offensive and oppressive as telling your co-workers "black people are lazy and dishonest". Had he simply said that he didn't believe in affirmative action he might have had a case.

Anything can be a political view if you have a political party pushing for it. Ditto for a religious belief. Hobby Lobby went to court and opted out of parts of obamacare. If this gets thrown out right out the gate ill be surprised. I doubt that he would prevail in court though, for the very reasons you stated.

Wasn't *just* a political view. Believing that women are inferior and that white males are the master race is certainly a political view. If he'd put up a Nazi flag on his door at work and emailed Mein Kampf to all his co-workers he would have gotten fired as well.

No kidding. Shit like this is testing the edges. Seeing what can and can't be insulated by claiming protective status. You hear a childish taunt "Well look who's actually intolerant of diversity!". Then demands of equal time and consideration for the belief that the jews secretly run the galaxy using the blacks and morlocks. Teach the controversy. Its bullshit. Certain things you can't cotton, one of them being that some people are less human than others.

Yeah, I haven't read the entire brief - a lot of it is "I'm a Nazi. Why isn't that cool?" But if they crossed the line into getting groups to boo being caucasian, etc and have evidence of that - that's pretty actionable. Also, I don't remember exactly, but I think the place he posted was a "controversial views" forum?

So, they probably have a defense that he was creating a hostile workplace - but if they didn't do a performance improvement plan or anything - again maybe he has a winnable case.

Also, he filed a complaint to a fair employment board and they fired him the next day - another bad sign.

But if they crossed the line into getting groups to boo being caucasian, etc and have evidence of that - that's pretty actionable.

Sure, absolutely. I'm pretty skeptical that anything like that actually took place - it's much more likely that people reacted negatively to news that Google isn't diverse enough, and Dilbert here interpreted that to mean that people hate white men. Saying "it's fucked up that all the Golden Globe nominees for best director were male" or "we need more and better parts for non-white actors" is not hate speech.

Silicon Valley companies are notoriously reluctant to actually fire anyone. It's possible that Google's HR dept jumped the gun and didn't follow correct procedure, but they were criticized at the time for not doing it sooner, and I'd bet that's because they were running it by their lawyers.

I suspect that's the case, yes.

Probably won't win, but he might. All it takes is like an email saying, "Let's fire this pasty Trump guy" or something. /shrug

Hopefully, he fails and quickly falls into obscurity again.

I can understand the anger directed at this guy but ironically that actually proves half his point.

Mischaracterizing what he wrote in the memo and demonizing him for things he didn't actually say pretty effectively ends the conversation.

Now, if you disagree with what he wrote, cool, help everyone understand why it doesn't hold up. Pick apart his evidence and point out where it's lacking.

There wasn't a ton he wrote that I agreed with but I do think it's important that people are able to discuss diversity issues honestly, in good faith, without risking serious repercussions for inducing unintended offence.

If the whole topic is completely fraught with pitfalls and people get shit-canned simply for bringing it up and voicing unpopular opinions, it's going to stifle discussion. If you're trying to make things work feedback and criticism are really important. This could easily lead to a lot of diversity efforts failing, if no one is willing to stick their necks out and be critical.

Should we offer the same to holocaust or climate deniers? Of course not; the matter is settled, it isn't up for discussion, and we shouldn't give them recognition of debating them.

There's a difference between topics that are factual in nature and indisputable and those where the truth of the matter is uncertain or the facts are open to interpretation.

Maintaining an opinion in direct opposition to facts is foolish at best and at worst malicious and mendacious.

If Damore was in fact proposing that all Women are incapable of being engineers, this would be in direct opposition to facts (there are and have been many successful female scientists and engineers).
That is not what he's claiming.

The main things he seems to be talking about are the causes for demographic inequalities/biases within google, and the measures being taken to improve diversity.

While it's clear that there are such demographic inequalities within google (facts) the reasons for these inequalities are in dispute (opinions). Similarly, there are currently incomplete facts about what measures will prove best at increasing diversity and improving the work environment of those belonging to minority groups. All of these things can and should be discussed if we want to makes advances.

Well, in a thousand years when people like Damore are unthinkable, maybe we can have that debate. For now it's off limits.

Google had to fire him because they would have looked bad if they didn't. Besides, California is an at-will-employment state.

While it is an at-will-employment state California is also somewhat unique in that it has Labor Code Section 1102:

"No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity."

Was his speech political? Ostensibly, yes. That will be the focus of the ruling.

Liability of Employers. In view of the common law theory of respondent superior and its codification in California Civil Code section 2338, an employer or other covered entity shall be liable for the discriminatory actions of its supervisors, managers or agents committed within the scope of their employment or relationship with the covered entity or, as defined in section 11019(b), for the discriminatory actions of its employees where it is demonstrated that, as a result of any such discriminatory action, the applicant or employee has suffered a loss of or has been denied an employment benefit.

- California Code of Regulations, Section 11009

Had he done this on his own time, with his own resources you might be able to argue the point. Doing it on company time, hardware and as a company agent makes it illegal to retain him.

I'm not sure if it still applies but for a long time Google had a "20% time" policy as noted in their 2004 IPO letter:

"We encourage our employees, in addition to their regular projects, to spend 20% of their time working on what they think will most benefit Google,"

I don't know if this is written in employment contracts or still the norm but the frame of Damore's letter was to improve the company as he concluded the memo with a list of suggestions.

As far as if the memo was discriminatory in intent... someone has already invoked Godwin's Law so I don't think we're going to make any positive headway in that direction.

That doesn't dispute that he was performing his discriminatory acts as an agent of the company.

He's entitled to believe whatever backwards hateful bullshit he wants, and he's entitled to express those beliefs in his own personal communications on his own personal time. But the people he works with are not obligated to be subjected to his abusive behavior.

Memos.

The height of workplace abuse.

Downmod is for post title.

I wonder if the irony escapes you.

It doesn't. Guy is a grade A Asshat, but I don't see how goading his supporters is gonna help anything.

It makes me feel all warm and tingly inside to see numbers triggered.

It is an inflammatory title. Something neutral would be better.

I can't help but wonder what triggered the timing. I expected the lawsuit as an extension of the initial sociopathic ploy, why now?

His EI ran out?

"...arguing that women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering."

I didn't follow the whole kurfuffle too closely, but it was my understanding that his claim is that women are biologically less inclined toward engineering, not that they are any less capable.

That was my, also not closely following, understanding as well.

As the only person who actually read the memo, this is what he actually said. Additionally, less likely to be inclined to Google style engineering. Moreover, he said that the way to improve hiring is to change the culture to make Google more desirable by emphasis on teamwork not hiring more women, but making culture better so more would apply.

One of the claims here is that men at google are "ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males.""

If you are sharing your political views at your workplace, expect to be ridiculed and challenged for them, regardless of whatever they might be. No one gets a free pass on that one. That covers ostracization and belittlement.

Punishment? Well, that's another animal all together. Google did not, at least to my understanding, punish him for his political views in total. They punished him because he said that women are inherently at disadvantage in engineering due to the nature of their gender.

That is not a punishment for having different politics, that is basically racialism repackaged for women. Of course he was fired. He was attempting to have google officially recognize such psuedo-scientific drivel with intention of it having major effect on company policy.

And it's not hard to show that it was in fact drivel. Soviet Russia, bitches. They trained women and men for STEM without a thought to such things. And shockingly enough, women are entirely capable of doing such.

They are not biologically less capable in this regard. It's a question of culture.

So, his firing was certainly justified.

Now, it seems he is moving to say that google is against white men in general. Except that can't be the case, because 3 of 4 google's insider members of the board are white men. White men make up the majority of it's work force.

So he has to specify: White men, with certain politics.

An extreme example, but should we say that a company can't fire a nazi for expressing nazi views at the office?

Right then.

Now, if this allegation that people boo white men at weekly meetings is true... then yes, lets go ahead and throw a massive god damn fine their way. However, I suspect he means "specific white men."

Which is not the same thing at all, is it?

Way to ignore the very next paragraph.

The next paragraph makes it even worse.

Punishment? Well, that's another animal all together. Google did not, at least to my understanding, punish him for his political views in total. They punished him because he said that women are inherently at disadvantage in engineering due to the nature of their gender.

Please set aside your PC ideas of race and gender and appreciate that there are differences between the sexes outside of body parts.

I do appreciate that fact. Could we maybe stick to the point at hand?, Fish?

However that paragraph address exactly what you said above. That is, that there is a case of discrimination. That case must pend on official punishment, because being ridiculed for a view in par for the course for having shared it. People can say "well that a stupid idea, and frankly, I think you're stupid to have it."

However, if it's outright punishment for those views, and it's from official channels, you might have a case.

As far as what you'd like to turn this conversation into, fine: His entire thesis can be disproved simply by looking at Soviet Era Russia.

There is this funny thing, where if you keep reading, I address this. So far, you keep commenting about shit I already addressed for you. Do you have maybe, something to say or ask for clarification on? Cause if I have to tell you to read the next paragraph, AGAIN, I am just going to assume you're an obtuse jackass.

Huh?

I am telling you that you seem to be going a paragraph a time, and I have to keep telling you to go back and continue reading. Your first comment was answered by the very next paragraph that you didn't read.

And then your statement again, is also fucking answered already. You wished to have a non-sequitor about how there are differences between men and women, which was never refuted by at all. However, I think I know what is you're failing to get at, and is refuted as well. Women have no issue with STEM fields what-so-ever when you remove the question of cultural bias. Soviet Russia did this, it's extremely well documented that a time when we had 5% female representation in STEM fields, they were pushing 40-50% across all relevant fields.

So again, either read the whole thing and ask for clarification if you need it, but so far every counter point you've tried to throw out has been addressed. Do you have one that I didn't cover? Cause if not, I already told you what I think of it, and I am not going to keep repeating myself in a different way for you.

If you need someone to spoon feed you, either talk to your mother or your nurse.

Your opinion means a lot.

I am sure, maybe if you feel that way you should stop asking me for it, bit by bit.

Just saying.

You're projecting again.

Don't listen to the voices in your head. Take the meds.

Read and understand things you disagree with.

He will lose.
1) His claim that Google went out of their way to hire woman and non-whites is ludicrous and impossible to prove.
2) his views that women don't have the right aptitude to be software engineers is irrelevant. Most men don't have the right aptitude either... luckily for Google, their recruitment process doesn't focus on most men or most women, it focuses on software engineers. If someone has the aptitude to be a software engineer, the gender is irrelevant.
3) Google has a written policy on diversity. The first stated objective is:

*Google should be a place where people from different backgrounds and experiences come to do their best work–a place where every Googler feels they belong. *

A Google employee who publicly objects to the corporation's goal has no place at the corporation where s/he will be expected to work alongside and to respect their peers and their superiors.

Case dismissed.