Google engineer fired for "anti-diversity" memo

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo
James Damore’s sexist screed indicted all of Silicon Valley.

Google has fired the employee who authored a controversial 10-page memo arguing for less emphasis on gender diversity in the workplace, reports Bloomberg. The document was first posted to an internal company forum on Friday, August 4, and immediately went viral among Google employees; it was then leaked to the media over the weekend, setting off a firestorm of outrage and debate while highlighting the company’s ongoing struggles to meaningfully diversify its workforce.

Titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the memo argues that the reason women are underrepresented in the tech industry has to do with "biological causes" between men and women. Its author, James Damore, was a senior software engineer at Google (a mid-level position at the company); Damore, who holds a doctorate in systems biology from Harvard and had worked at Google since 2013, has confirmed to multiple outlets that he was terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

Damore’s memo specifically criticizes the company for its ongoing diversity and inclusion initiatives, which include encouraging its employees to take classes in unconscious bias. He uses primarily stereotyped misconceptions about men and women to argue that “gender gaps [do not always] imply sexism,” and declares that “discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech” is “misguided and biased” as well as “unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”

Notably, the memo complicates an already unflattering moment for Google: The company has pledged to improve its recently updated internal diversity metrics — which paint an unsympathetic picture of yet another tech company whose employees are predominantly white and male — while also facing wage discrimination scrutiny from the US Department of Labor for systematically underpaying its female employees.

Reactions from Google employees and the public at large have been wide-ranging. Many people are utterly appalled, and have expressed outrage not only over the memo’s dangerous anti-diversity sentiments and faulty logic, but the fact that Damore felt confident posting such a screed to an internal forum for all of his colleagues to see. He even used his own name, which was quickly leaked to the press.

But Damore’s memo has also generated some support — from both inside and outside the company — and thus has kicked off a larger discussion about how far “free speech” should go in workplace environments. It’s also highlighted Google’s lack of gender parity and the tech industry’s ongoing problems with fostering safe spaces for women.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/
By now, most of us have heard about Google’s so-called “anti-diversity” manifesto and how James Damore, the engineer who wrote it, has been fired from his job.

Titled Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, Mr. Damore called out the current PC culture, saying the gender gap in Google’s diversity was not due to discrimination, but inherent differences in what men and women find interesting. Danielle Brown, Google’s newly appointed vice-president for diversity, integrity and governance, accused the memo of advancing “incorrect assumptions about gender,” and Mr. Damore confirmed last night he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour.

As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men.

We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone.

As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it’s finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed.

Many people, including a former Google employee, have attempted to refute the memo’s points, alleging that they contradict the latest research.

I’d love to know what “research done […] for decades” he’s referring to, because thousands of studies would suggest otherwise. A single study, published in 2015, did claim that male and female brains existed along a “mosaic” and that it isn’t possible to differentiate them by sex, but this has been refuted by four – yes, fouracademic studies since.

This includes a study that analyzed the exact same brain data from the original study and found that the sex of a given brain could be correctly identified with 69-per-cent to 77-per-cent accuracy.

Of course, differences exist at the individual level, and this doesn’t mean environment plays no role in shaping us. But to claim that there are no differences between the sexes when looking at group averages, or that culture has greater influence than biology, simply isn’t true.

In fact, research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy.

As the memo suggests, seeking to fulfill a 50-per-cent quota of women in STEM is unrealistic. As gender equity continues to improve in developing societies, we should expect to see this gender gap widen.

This trend continues into the area of personality, as well. Contrary to what detractors would have you believe, women are, on average, higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, and lower in stress tolerance.

Some intentionally deny the science because they are afraid it will be used to justify keeping women out of STEM. But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them.

This is exactly what the mob of outrage should be mobilizing for, instead of denying biological reality and being content to spend a weekend doxxing a man so that he would lose his job. At this point, as foreshadowed in Mr. Damore’s manifesto, we should be more concerned about viewpoint diversity than diversity revolving around gender.

Debra Soh writes about the science of human sexuality and holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University.


The memo: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
For the most part I'll stay out of this discussion, but the engineer they fired had a Master's degree in systems biology. The author of the second article has a PhD in sexual neuroscience.

I also linked Vox because I want to be fair to the regressives here.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
I'm not overly familiar with Vox. Are they low quality news or something?
They are basically like Salon.

While I agree with some points, there's also a lot I don't agree with.
Which parts do you agree or disagree with?

Eh. Don't really care. Some guy wrote some stuff, his employer fired him for it. Oh well.
So would the content of what he wrote matter to you? Or do you just think an employer has the right to choose whom he employs?
 
Last edited:

Requiem

Well-Known Member
Member
I haven't read what he wrote and don't really plan to. And yeah, an employer has the right to just fire people. The employee should have the right to challenge the decision, especially in a company as big as Google, but overall if you do something your employer fires you for, that's on you.
 

Firedemon

Well-Known Member
Member
Eh, if you're interested in passing judgement on him you should read what he wrote. I read the first two pages (was busy) and his premise is not inherently sexist or racist. How he goes about making the argument is what would determine if he's sexist, racist, or what have you. The real problem is that he seems to be trying to argue that diversity is bad (in this particular case) and... I really don't think you can argue that. There is no practical negative to diversity, unless your employees are all xenophobic/misogynistic or you genuinely are turning down more qualified individuals to make it happen. I haven't finished the read, but I very much doubt he's claiming the former or has proof of the latter.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
I haven't read what he wrote and don't really plan to. And yeah, an employer has the right to just fire people. The employee should have the right to challenge the decision, especially in a company as big as Google, but overall if you do something your employer fires you for, that's on you.
This view is actually a more extreme version than the person who wrote the memo took. The memo, along with the general issues of diversity at Google, is about the gender gap and why women might, fully of their own free will, not be striving for high paying tech jobs. That striving for gender equity might actually be hurting Google as a company.

Mainly just the part about hiring someone just for the sake of diversity. Everything after that I don't really agree with. I think it's stupid to hire a woman just because there are more men, or hire a man just because there are more women in a company. This might be a naive view, but I think you should hire people based on how qualified they are for a job, and for their merit. It's discrimination to give some people an easier chance to get a position just because they're in a minority.

I feel kind of bad for the guy who got fired though. If this didn't get leaked he wouldn't have gotten fired.
This is more or less what the memo asserts. Radical liberals that work at Google leaked it to have him shamed and fired, and others in the tech industry have gone on a Twitter campaign to blacklist all open supporters of the memo from the tech industry.

It also suggests that Google has classes and programs segregated by race. i.e. classes exclusively for training white people or men proper work place behaviour.

Eh, if you're interested in passing judgement on him you should read what he wrote. I read the first two pages (was busy) and his premise is not inherently sexist or racist. How he goes about making the argument is what would determine if he's sexist, racist, or what have you. The real problem is that he seems to be trying to argue that diversity is bad (in this particular case) and... I really don't think you can argue that. There is no practical negative to diversity, unless your employees are all xenophobic/misogynistic or you genuinely are turning down more qualified individuals to make it happen. I haven't finished the read, but I very much doubt he's claiming the former or has proof of the latter.
"I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."

His hope for the memo was basically that people can have an honest discussion about diversity in the work place, of all types, without fear of being reprimanded or fired for wrong-think. It was actually a pro-ideological diversity memo. Suggesting that people shouldn't be punished for not having some particular idea divinely placed in their head without talking it through with their peers. And that if that idea isn't divined into their head right off the bat, the idea should be explained and discussed so all viewpoints could be mutually understood, rather than charging the person as evil.

And then Google fired him.
 
Last edited:

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
Gonna separate post this one. For those of you who don't know who Jordan Peterson is, just ignore this.

If anyone here actually knows who he is. He had his Google account temporarily suspended recently. He spent a day frantically trying to get his videos back online with no explanation from Google as to why he was suspended, and eventually Gad Saad, a Canadian intellectual, tweeted him saying he contacted a "friend" at Google and Peterson's account was back up within the day. Less than a week later, this memo pops up, and Peterson almost immediately announces he will be having the writer on his podcast.

I don't know entirely what connections exist there, but that's just a bit of background on what may have led up to this.
 

Requiem

Well-Known Member
Member
Eh, like I said, I think employers have the right to fire whoever they want to fire. I also still think employees deserve the chance to challenge it if they get fired. If it was unfair, they deserve to have that sorted out.

On the topic of what the guy wrote, I don't have much of an opinion. I'm not for or against it, I just don't personally have much to say on it.

The guy deserves to have a chance at explaining himself to the company and then the proper people at Google who handle this sort of thing can make the decision on whether to keep him, pay him severance, whatever the case may be.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
Supposedly, the reason he was given for his firing was "enforcing gender stereotypes", and he was definitely guilty of doing so when he brought up their biological differences and the fact that countries with less gender equality have more gender equity and vice versa, so that's pretty much it for him.

I didn't know you were this much of a free-market guy Req but i'm liking it.
 

Requiem

Well-Known Member
Member
It just comes down to honesty for me like it does with almost everything. The guy did something the company didn't like, they fired him.

When it comes to employment, you don't shit where you eat, that's all.
 

AndyM03

Well-Known Member
Member
Something that's been bugging me for awhile Lumpy is how you only come to this forum to talk politics. Talking politics with mates is already a troublesome thing and can cause tension in relationships. But you don't engage with any other section of this forum anymore, and I know you've been here awhile and people seem to like you when you do sit down for a chat, but that just doesn't seem to happen anymore. I don't really even know you.

While I might be the only one, i'm pretty much going to stop posting or looking at any thread you make. The regressive left that you hate so much, in real life tend to be people who are obsessed with politics and are people I don't like to talk to, even though I lean to the left myself. If you're just a moving political opinion stream instead of a person, I don't see the point in discussing anything with you. The bridge between people of different political leanings is that we're people. You may as well be a political chat bot at this point. I hope this doesn't come off as a personal attack, because it's really more saying you should engage with the forum more if you're still so eager to post about things.
 

Requiem

Well-Known Member
Member
What Andy said. I like talking politics, but I'm liking it less and less as time goes by. I just want to chat with people about anything, but it does seem like all you wanna talk about is politics, Lumpy. There's more to the members of this forum than that. *shrug*
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
1. Rude
2.Confirmation bias. You just don't like me.

I only log in every few months for a couple days and talk in a few different threads when I do. I check the forumer chat thread and post there if I care about the topic. I posted in the Game of Thrones thread before even making this one. I had no intention of even making this thread when I came to the forum.
3. Off-topic. Seems more like PM material.
 

AndyM03

Well-Known Member
Member
1. Rude
I posted in the Game of Thrones thread before even making this one.
Yeah thought about deleting my comment cause I just saw your Thrones post then, (I had even liked it before, my bad). Idk dude, keep doing more of that. That's all i've got to say. Sorry for derailing your thread boss, hope to see you around a bit more.
 

Requiem

Well-Known Member
Member
Just to make it clear, Lumpy can talk about whatever he wants to talk about, especially if that gets him here more often. That said, the political stuff is just not interesting me as much as it used to. Hope to see you around more though, Lumpy.
 

Firedemon

Well-Known Member
Member
"I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."

His hope for the memo was basically that people can have an honest discussion about diversity in the work place, of all types, without fear of being reprimanded or fired for wrong-think. It was actually a pro-ideological diversity memo. Suggesting that people shouldn't be punished for not having some particular idea divinely placed in their head without talking it through with their peers. And that if that idea isn't divined into their head right off the bat, the idea should be explained and discussed so all viewpoints could be mutually understood, rather than charging the person as evil.

And then Google fired him.
Clearly I didn't read enough (or commit to memory adequately). But yeah, this is part of why I intend to read the rest. Probably later this week.
 
Top Bottom