0 Comments

  1. First, I can’t see how Google is legally free to terminate his employment due to ideological differences. Or are we now free to fire due to religious differences also? All he has done is express an opinion in a very even-handed and non-threatening way.

    Second, as with much of the far left, you seem to fail to see the great irony in this story. Skin colour diversity and genital diversity are meaningless to a company. What they should value is high-quality intellectual diversity, where ever it comes from, i.e. diversity of thought. But Google has demonstrated that is the one type of diversity they do not respect.

    Third, he goes out of his way to assert that he is speaking of average differences (i.e. in a population) and that these may not reflect traits of an individual of that group. Nowhere did he say ‘all women are…’ or ‘all women can’t…’.

    Fourth, the second great irony was that his mention of average women’s traits, including lower stress tolerance, led several women to take a sick day due to the stress they experienced from the memo!

    Fifth, the purpose of his memo was to help the company and to suggest more efficacious ways of approaching and encouraging diversity of all kinds, rather than hiring people who might be less capable or less enthusiastic simply to fulfill Visual Diversity quotas. Of course, if you can convince me that you favour hiring quotas for female garbage collectors and male primary school teachers, then I may not think you’re virtue signaling.

    • He circulated an anonymous memo at work using junk science to — falsely — accuse his female coworkers of being biologically less capable of doing their jobs, creating (or contributing to) a toxic workplace environment toward women. Employers, including Google, have a legal responsibility to effectively address allegations of sexual discrimination and harassment; otherwise, they can be held legally liable. Does that explanation help?

      • Diversity of thought is always attacked from the left. Where are the rights of the employee to voice their divergent views. They are shamed to silence and repressed. They have no first amendment rights or freedoms that others disagree with.

        • There are intolerant people everywhere on the political spectrum. Diversity of thought — as a general rule — makes entities stronger. But, there are limits. Someone claiming that women, or African-Americans, or Jews, or some other group, are biologically inferior should expect to be shamed. A person making such a shameful, bigoted, allegation is shaming him or herself. The First Amendment doesn’t really apply in the case of private sector employment. No one’s claiming Damore didn’t have a First Amendment right to say what he did. However, no one has a First Amendment right to retain a job with a private employer after violating that employer’s code of conduct.

          • Gee, thanks! 🙂

          • I guess we cannot discus the Bell Curve since it is not the narrative of the left.

          • Discuss all you want; no one’s stopping you. The Bell Curve was probably first theorized by someone on “the left,” since it was by a social scientist, and “the right” is now trending “anti-science.” However, if one attempts to impose a Bell Curve on a very small group of people, that’s a per se invalid application of that model, something that Damore — dabbling in pseudo-science — failed to recognize.

    • “Second, as with much of the far left, you seem to fail to see the great
      irony in this story. Skin colour diversity and genital diversity are
      meaningless to a company. What they should value is high-quality
      intellectual diversity, where ever it comes from, i.e. diversity of
      thought.”

      Except for the fact that you have made this into an EITHER/XOR statement, like that you must have “skin color diversity and ‘genital diversity'” *XOR* “intellectual diversity”. In fact that is a false position to take, one that is a form of error: You are wrong. The first big problem with it is that you assume that “skin color diversity and ‘genital diversity'” as you call it is solely about skin color and genitals – which IGNORES all the other numerous facets including the different social and cultural experiences that go with being in those different groups which YES, influence THOUGHT, and therefore by using that type of diversity you are adding thought diversity, and by restricting that type of diversity you are restricting thought diversity. In other words to seek out thought diversity you must *BOTH* seek it out directly *AND* seek out the other types as well, as much as possible. *BOTH/AND*. Not *EITHER/XOR*. And in fact if the guy who was fired was right then there’d actually be even _another type of_ diversity(!!! you would NOT see this if you’re stuck on EITHER set of partisans alone!) – biological brain wiring diversity which definitely means diverse thoughts.

  2. Google can probably legally get away with firing the memo writer, under a 9th Circuit Court decision on similar issues. However, firing one person does not give them moral immunity from addressing some of the issues the writer raised, such as the allegation that the company is running programs exclusively for women and people of color, which would be illegal if true.


Leave a Reply to mbrenman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website