A recent alumnus of Google writes that this sort of thinking has no place in any organization except for purpose-defined hate groups.
What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful. You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas. And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?”...I notice that this last author opens by asserting that the views expressed are wrong, but declines to defend the proposition that they are: that belongs, he says, to someone with a different set of credentials than his own. What credentials would those be, I wonder? It sounds as if this proposition can only be studied from the perspective of disproving it, as it would be "fundamentally corrosive" to any organization to entertain them, such that any organization devoted to serious study would have to reject them outright. Certainly Harvard did.
Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.... Not all ideas are the same, and not all conversations about ideas even have basic legitimacy.
If you feel isolated by this, that your views are basically unwelcome in tech and can’t be spoken about… well, that’s a fair point. These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in. I’m afraid that’s likely to remain a serious problem for you for a long time to come.
The views expressed may well be wrong; perhaps it is even very likely that they are wrong. All the same, how much value should we put in the claim that 'all the studies' show X if not-X is a forbidden position that will cost you your career to entertain? Of course all the studies conducted by programs that refuse to consider the possibility of not-X support X. Of course all the people credentialed by programs that insist on X as a prerequisite for remaining in the program will assert X. That's not a significant finding in support of X being really true. Nor does the credential you get from this program, in which the hypothesis is required to be proven by the experiment, likely to inspire much confidence.
So there's a real problem. Assume for a moment that he's right that you can't even entertain the question -- can't even float the question -- without creating a hostile work environment. Maybe he is right about that: certainly both here and in the Harvard case, the reaction to the question was explosive. (NPR reports that female software engineers at Google skipped work today from upset.) So it can't be done if it'll create a hostile work environment, not under current American law. That's just it, then. It would cause too many problems to ask, and that's the end of it. We'll just have to assume the truth of the thing that we'd like to believe.
Haven't we tried that model before? Indeed, isn't that the very model that Progressives like to mock as pre-modern, benighted, backwards, anti-science?
28 comments:
Diversity is the modern weapon of tyrants.
I hate Diversity. Hate it I do, with a passion.
Google woman have butthurt because Men see the world differently as
then they do. These Social Justice Warrior Spoiled rotten narcistic brats have no problem robbing people of their first amendment rights. Diversity is a religion to these folks. I never will bow down to them or their religion.
I hope James Damore sues the crap out of Google and wins.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/google-fires-viewpoint-diversity-manifesto-author-james-damore/
The proponents of Diversity are the same as the proponents of Obamacare and they are all about "Punishment". Its all about control.
They will never stop a man from seeing the world differently than they do. Impossible.
Progressives are bringing about a Gulag Archipelagos of sorts.
They are working on creating future Alexander Solzhenitsyn as they continue their lies, quest for control, and punishing free thinkers
I think, as we read and talk about Google and their mistreatment and abuse of James Damore it is well worth re-reading
A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978
Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolzhenitsynHarvard.php
Solzhenitsyn saw us as we could not view ourselves.
-Mississippi
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/894924146823639041
This thread is wonderful, have a look.
-Mississippi
Ya know, if I'd stormed out of work every time one of my superiors at [flying job] insinuated or stated that girls can't fly, or can't fly as well as guys do, I'd have starved to death. I just gritted my teeth and did my job and proved them wrong. That's how you deal with it, not having a case of the vapors and staying home because of a single e-mail.
You argue facts and evidence with facts and evidence, not "the feelz." So the guy may have been wrong. He may have insulted his female coworkers. Show me the evidence that he's wrong. Show me the documentation that women do as well in abstract thinking and coding as guys do. Don't just claim that even discussing his claims is workplace-whatever. I've gotten exceedingly tired of argument based on emotion instead of evidence.
LittleRed1
I don't disagree, LR1, but I'm not as interested in the question of 'loudmouths around the office.' I'm interested in the claim that:
a) These claims can be proven wrong by credentialed experts, but,
b) It's impossible to raise the claims in any institution without creating a hostile work environment.
So that sounds like we're well beyond loudmouths; the argument is that no one can take this argument seriously enough to study it carefully without violating American laws on sexual harassment. What's the value of the credential of "Expert on X" if X cannot be considered?
It would be no problem to have an expert on the flat earth theory, for example, as you could seriously consider the possibility of a flat earth; you could ask what would be true if a flat earth were the case; and you could then go see if those things were true. It seems like that's not what we're talking about here.
It sounds like the fired author has a relevant credential, even: he has a Ph.D. in systems biology. So apparently that's not the credential that would entitle you to study this issue with an eye towards considering whether the hypothesis is or is not really true.
Grim,
Point taken, I was venting a little. And to say that even discussing relative abilities of the general population, while citing studies from both sides of the argument, is sexual harassment, suggests that 1) everything is harassment or 2) the legal definitions have been stretched so far that they are about to snap. A bit as if someone were to claim that discussing the physiological differences in female vs. male upper body strength and citing physiology papers and the records of maximum weight lifted at the Olympics is "sexual harassment."
The very fact that someone claims the topic cannot be discussed suggests that there IS indeed a difference between how men and women think, and that IN GENERAL more males than females have whatever it takes to code and manage computer systems.
Yes, its Britebart, but: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/the-google-rebels-diversity-first-technology-second/
LittleRed1
I think it may have been planned. IF, what I read was correct, the guy in question already made a complaint to the NLRB. He's now going to sue, the lawyers will want each and every piece of email about this, Google has to comply, he'll make millions.
And, at the same time, he's gone and demonstrated his point about group characteristics (the women in question allegedly taking off work in a huff over this, just proving his point), and how in general the Emperor has no clothes.
Another twitter commentator has noticed how this push for 'diversity' seems only to have pushed people into hard-core tribal groups.
Pretty amazing piece of work, really.
As a woman in tech, may I state:
If I meet the author of the article you linked ("I certainly couldn't assign any women to deal with this") I will be very strongly tempted to punch him in the face. I will try to control myself and use logical argument instead. No guarantees.
It's not hard enough to learn and practice programming. It's not bad enough that since sometime in the 90s, people have looked askance at me as a potential legal risk because I'm female. No, fools like this have to make it EVEN WORSE. If some woman doesn't punch him he'll be getting off easy.
Jaed Punch em in the face. Thus proving the point.
Actually, My best boss ever was a woman. She died suddenly. She was the exception. So sad. Miss her still.
What followed after this wonderful boss was the dictatorship of women.
In most cases, In the work world, when woman get into positions of power, they make men;s lives fucking miserable.
I will never ever ever work in a company again for a woman boss. Hell on earth, I kid you not.
NEVER AGAIN.
I believe in freedom of association. Most Woman dont.
Why do woman always invade all male clubs? Can't they leave us alone?
Why can't I work for an all male company?
Why can't I buy health insurance from a company run by Just males?
Sold only to males in need of minimal health insurance where I don't have to pay for woman killing their own seed?
Being part of a insurance pool of only clean living, morally straight drug free single men?
It would be at a fourth of the cost that we currently pay, and I would not be an accessory to child murder, & Birth Control moral abomination.
At this point in my life, I don't want to marry them, live with them or spend time with them
and I especially don't want to pay for them.
I want freedom to do my own thing.
If I want to buy, work, drive, hike or contemplate the tree of woe,
I will do it my terms and not with restrictions imposed by woman.
No woman or or corporate prick or govt prick will choose my doctor.
I am not asking permission, I'm saying get the hell out of the way,
and stop pushing your woman problems on everyone else
I don't care anymore.
Punch away, you will not like the response.
Never again.
- Mississippi
I think "stop pushing your woman problems on everyone else" is on the edge of the Hall rules on comments. The relevant dictum came from The Texas Mercury, a highly politically incorrect and quite interesting journal of opinion that ceased to exist some years ago now. It goes:
"Be nice to your neighbors. Be hell on their ideas."
The "your" is pushing that out of the realm of ideas, and into the realm of insulting a neighbor. Check your fire, Mississippi (and everyone else).
If I meet the author of the article you linked ("I certainly couldn't assign any women to deal with this") I will be very strongly tempted to punch him in the face. I will try to control myself and use logical argument instead.
Don't be sexist. I'd punch him out, too. The logic of thunder and lightning is just as valid.
Eric Hines
okay, here is a fantastic idea..
for dealing with American feminist.
Just hire all the woman in a low-cost country like India or VietNam.
Give h1b visas and import, no families, just single woman.
Keep all the US employees male.
That is how you create gender balance on the cheap.
Remember, this is a company-wide mandate.
Problem solved!
-Mississippi
Don't be sexist. I'd punch him out, too. The logic of thunder and lightning is just as valid.
It's a point.
However, a woman being angry at him might get something across to him while a man's anger, he could dismiss as "sexism" or "angry white male" or something. "Wait! Wait! You're mad at me? But how can that be? I'm an ally! I'm defending you!"
Oh no you're not, Mr. Zunger.
a woman being angry at him might get something across to him while a man's anger, he could dismiss as "sexism" or "angry white male" or something. "Wait! Wait! You're mad at me? But how can that be? I'm an ally! I'm defending you!"
Maybe not. The virtue signaler wouldn't understand your anger and would just curl up in confusion. Regarding "angry white male:" second punch out. Yewbetcha. I'm angry, and I happen to be male, and I happen to be white. Lose your two-fold bigotry or face a third punch out. After all, you said it, Ace: some opinions cannot and may not be spoken. You're offending me, and you're creating a sexist, hostile work environment.
Eric Hines
1. Getting Angry at a man achieves nothing but makes him tune out.
2. Punching him, if he is any man at all, builds his resolve.
3. Punishing him, secretly getting him fired, makes an enemy for life.
Sure its fun, & certainly it adds to the Drama that woman crave, but do you really want an enemy for life?
There are far too many men who are sick and tired of the femine Overseers in the Locker Room, Read this, from the book "Male Space"
and read the 179 comments that are increasing.
https://therationalmale.com/2017/08/08/the-feminine-imperative-in-corporate-culture/
-Mississippi
I read the link, but he's talking to the converted -- a lot of what he has to say is in-joke code, which isn't clear to someone who hasn't been reading him all along.
He is right that including a woman, even one woman, changes an all-male space irrevocably. I saw that happen in Iraq, where we got a female medic in a small space where we were running a fusion cell. The 'boys' had wallpapered the place with half-nude "morale" pictures of women. All of those had to go, of course.
Now, the female sergeant said gamely that she wasn't the least bit bothered by them, and maybe she wasn't. But what else could she have said?
So the light colonel who said they had to go was doing the right thing. Right? After all, the half-naked pictures weren't doing anything to improve the mission. The female medic certainly was: in a relatively conservative Muslim culture like tribal Iraq (which is not nearly as conservative as many), a female can accomplish things that no male medic can in terms of counterinsurgency goals. She also brings you access to the intelligence that comes from listening to the women talk, in the female parts of the house.
Yes, then: adding her meant giving up something, and that something was a thing that the men in the space valued. But at the same time also, no: she didn't supplant the main mission of the environment by changing the space. She added to it in a way that the other thing, however pleasant, did not.
Not that I'm completely unsympathetic. I find myself living as I do in part because I can't stand many other things. I don't like cities, I don't like crowds, and I don't like the crap that comes with corporate culture.
So, I do what I do in a way that lets me live as I want. That may well mean missing out on a better paying job somewhere like Google, but that's a cost I gladly absorb. Freedom matters more.
Mississippi: It does not seem to me that the man who wrote the piece we're talking about is "sick and tired of the femine Overseers in the Locker Room" at all.
On the contrary: he says explicitly that "All of these traits which the manifesto described as 'female' are the core traits which make someone successful at engineering", and he denigrates technical skill in order to elevate management skills ("engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy") which he sees as quintessentially feminine.
Grim: I agree—and part of being an adult is recognizing and accepting these tradeoffs. You give up some things in your life to have other things that you value more highly.
Still, I think the walls are closing in entirely too tightly.
OK, another 'woman in tech' here. The following comments are more in reaction to some comments than to Grim's post.
1. NPR reports (on Twitter, for Pete's sake) that "some" female s/w engineers skipped work. What the heck does "some" even mean? What is the supposed evidence behind this "report"?
...a FORMER Google employee says....
Isn't this exactly the kind of unsubstantiated "news" we usually make fun of the media for producing? A source who left Google 3 years ago, with a grievance against the company? If this really happened (maybe it did, I have no idea) shouldn't it have been easy to find an *actual* female employee - whether or not she skipped work - to confirm it? And what does "some" even mean? If it's only a few, who cares? How many employees stayed home? 1? 2? 5? 50? What percentage of women who work at Google stayed home?
We have no idea. Yet all sorts of folks in the right are crowing, "This *proves* the author's point".
Actually, it doesn't prove anything. I would never accept such weak 'evidence' as "proof" of anything (but then we women are notoriously bad with logic and evidence and numbers...).
*rim shot* :)
2. I always have a problem with these stories where folks conflate what private firms do with the First Amendment.
If we want private firms who are Christian to be able to fire employees for voicing anti-Christian or grossly immoral views, then shouldn't we support (in principle) ANY private firm firing at-will employees who don't support the firm's stated values?
What else does freedom of association mean? Isn't it the right of private citizens (or groups of citizens) not to associate with people whose values offend them? Isn't it the right of private citizens (or groups of citizens) to organize and work to promote their values -- just as it is the right of other private citizens or groups to do the same, in opposition?
Isn't it the right of employers to say, essentially, "Talk about X all you want outside work, but don't bring X into the workplace?" Does an employer have to tolerate employees yammering on about how much men suck and Teh Patriarchy, or about gay S&M with transgendered Arctic wolverines, or about [insert topic you have very strong negative feelings about here]? Do employers have the right to set the tone of the workplace?
We can't have this both ways. Like the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights only protects citizens against government infringement on the right of free association. But if we think this is an important right (in cases where we want to support a speaker who agrees with us), then what's the justification for
2. I didn't have any problems with the memo, and it didn't make me angry at all. But watching people on BOTH sides distort what the author actually said is making me question whether the average citizen is capable of setting aside their biases long enough to dispassionately evaluate *any* argument. The ones who agree with the author grossly exaggerate what he actually said (basically, that gender differences are real and men and women - on average - have different preferences that explain the dominance of both sexes in various fields), and the ones who disagree cherry pick studies and grossly exaggerate what he actually said.
Not as much daylight between the two camps as I'd like there to be :p I want to think of "my side" as "the side of light and reason and goodness" but jeez, the older I get the more I see an awful lot of this as people being human in ways that alarm and often disappoint me.
One more observation: isn't it funny how both sexes defend to the death their right to issue broad generalizations about "how men are" or "how women are", but get all offended when the opposite sex makes the same kind of generalizations?
And people of both sexes cherry pick extreme examples of obnoxious, childish behavior and then try to paint the opposite sex with the same, monochromatic broad brush.
Pun fully intended :p
Gee - maybe we're more alike (though not identical) than we thought we were.
Google's rights to set the tone of the workplace, and to freely associate only with liberals or progressives, are not I think the ground of the dispute. The ground of the dispute is the argument that these views are both (a) wrong, and also (b) impossible to voice without creating a hostile work environment. So, not only do they assert that X is wrong, but no one is allowed to examine the question of whether or not X is wrong.
It's the sort of thing that drove Socrates to his death, really: "How do you know?" he kept asking until they finally killed him for it. But it's an important question, just as important today as in ancient Athens.
Google got up to some bad behavior quite apart from this, of course. The memo was floated in a space that Google had allegedly provided for 'anonymous criticism.' That anonymity was a lie, and not only did they out him and fire him, they leaked his identity to the press. Now people are digging up his past to try to make sure he loses not just this job, but his whole career.
But the issue isn't Google specifically. As you well remember, the same thing happened at Harvard over an even gentler suggestion that this might be explanatory (though, Summers rushed to add, he certainly hoped it was not actually the case). Harvard is a private entity too, of course. They're just as free to fire whomever they want, for whatever reason.
Nevertheless, one can challenge the coherence of the thought behind this kind of firing without disputing their right to fire people. Socrates, for that matter, didn't dispute Athens' right to execute him. The question of whether they were right to do it is separate from the question of whether they had a right to do it.
The question of whether they were right to do it is separate from the question of whether they had a right to do it.
That's not the question I raised, though. I will happily admit I didn't make my point effectively here:
If we want private firms who are Christian to be able to fire employees for voicing anti-Christian or grossly immoral views, then shouldn't we support (in principle) ANY private firm firing at-will employees who don't support the firm's stated values?
I've seen folks on the right argue that not only do firms have the legal right to fire employees whose values are (rightly or wrongly) viewed as inconsistent with their mission or corporate values, but that they are morally right to do so as well. And there's some merit to this argument. I don't think the Boy Scouts should be required to employ someone who openly advocates for NAMBLA. I don't see how hiring evangelical atheists helps the Church promote faith in God.
So, not only do they assert that X is wrong, but no one is allowed to examine the question of whether or not X is wrong.
That's not accurate, though. They didn't actually say no one (inside or outside of Google) should be allowed to discuss these topics. I don't think it's helpful to distort Damore said, OR what various spokestwits who represent Google have said. The latest from their CEO says exactly the opposite, here:
...much (what??? Not all???) of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it.
I see no blanket statement that no one may discuss these topics in that. Here's the part I think is problematic (both logically and legally):
...portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. ... To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
Having read their code of conduct, I don't see any violation. Damore did not advocate or engage in (or even tacitly encourage) harassment, intimidation, bias, or unlawful discrimination. And as this author points out, in firing Damore, Google may well have violated federal and state law. Author of that piece is female, by the way. So obviously one can generalize from her to all women :p
What I am objecting to is the conflation of, "you can't talk about X in the workplace" with "no one can discuss X anywhere". The two simply are not the same, and IMO it's just as bad to distort what they say as it is for various people to distort what Damore said.
Harvard's stance (though I vehemently disagreed with it on the merits) was more defensible, in that Summers actually did say there were fewer women with *aptitude", not just that fewer women were interested in STEM. Nevermind that "fewer women with aptitude" <> "female scientists are less capable than male ones"! Or even, "I don't want women in science at all".
When the guy in charge says something like that, it would not be unreasonable for female employees to suspect anti-female bias, any more than male employees would be justified in suspecting anti-male bias if their CEO went around ranting about Teh Patriarchy and how much better the world would be if women were in charge.
I think Google was wrong to do this - legally, morally, and as a matter of practical efficacy (your means should achieve your desired ends). But it does seem to me that both sides are attacking straw persons and exaggerating the opposing position, at least somewhat.
What I am objecting to is the conflation of, "you can't talk about X in the workplace" with "no one can discuss X anywhere". The two simply are not the same, and IMO it's just as bad to distort what they say as it is for various people to distort what Damore said.
That was said, however, by the former Google manager who was cited in the original piece. He explicitly says that these ideas can't be expressed because they'll lead people to ask "wait, is that right?" and that -- he argues later -- is the definition of a hostile work environment. No organization not explicitly devoted to the principles, he goes on to say, could possibly welcome them.
I've seen folks on the right argue that not only do firms have the legal right to fire employees whose values are (rightly or wrongly) viewed as inconsistent with their mission or corporate values, but that they are morally right to do so as well.
I take these to be different cases. The Boy Scouts case is not analogous to the case of Socrates in exactly the same way that this Google case is. The Boy Scouts aren't pursuing knowledge of whether or not homosexuality is wrong/damaging/destructive or not; they're merely asserting that it is (or they were at one time).
To be analogous, the Boy Scouts would have had to have fired someone for writing a memo questioning whether the existing doctrine against homosexuality was well-grounded, and citing biological reasons to think it was not. He might not himself be gay at all, but he would be fired for questioning the ethos based on reasonable scientific arguments.
So I don't think that the free association argument is wrong in either case: both institutions have the right to fire someone who differs on their internal ethos. There is nevertheless a moral issue at stake in the Google case that is not present in the Boy Scout case.
Maybe I'm missing something (almost certainly I am), but in what sense does a former Google manager speak for Google? This seems like the former Google employee being cited as "proof" that "some" women stayed home from work b/c they didn't feel safe - more than a bit tenuous. But maybe that's not what you're saying - maybe you're just taking issue with the argument itself (which is weak). But even then it seems germane to me that the CEO of Google isn't making that argument (and in fact said the opposite).
I'm also a bit puzzled about saying that merely mentioning a theory "cost Lawrence Summers his job". I'm sure that was a big factor, but there were several controversies during his tenure (accusing Cornel West of grade inflation, a 26 million settlement with DoJ, etc.) and the timing's also inconvenient.
Summers made those remarks in January of 2005. In March of 2005, the faculty gave him a vote of no confidence. That vote was symbolic, as they had no power to fire him, and indeed he stayed on for another year ...after getting a statement of support from the Harvard board and a pay raise! Finally, it's not clear the gender flap was the cause of the no confidence vote (at least according to a WSJ article written at the time):
Yesterday's no-confidence motion was proposed by J. Lorand Matory, a professor of anthropology and African and African-American studies. Mr. Matory said the vote of no confidence in Mr. Summers was "largely about his management style, which has been dictatorial and autocratic."
That sounds more like payback for the Cornel West thingie to me! Summers finally *resigned* in March of 2006, and was given a 1 year paid sabbatical and a $1 million subsidized loan.
I'm really not trying to be argumentative, Grim. I initially reacted more to some of the comments than to what you wrote (as I mentioned earlier). But in general, I do think a lot of things are being conflated here. I just don't see Google's actual statements or actions as being particularly alarming or surprising. Companies monitor Facebook and fire employees all the time for statements on social media. There are consequences for our words and actions, whether we like them or not.
Google did manage to irritate me to the point where I'm considering changing my default search engine, though.
I find myself agreeing with Grim more than with Cass. Cass puts it this way:
shouldn't we support (in principle) ANY private firm firing at-will employees who don't support the firm's stated values?
to which I would say that you can acknowledge the theoretical right of Google to fire someone for questioning SJW dogma without supporting their decision to do so.
(I say "theoretical" because it seems to me that they have violated his contract of employment in firing him. So they may not have had the legal right to do this. However, they would have the right to make all new hires take a blood oath to support whatever fool dogma they see fit. I would acknowledge that right, but wouldn't support their doing it.)
There's another issue, which is illustrated by a story Instapundit has told a few times: A boy complains to his mother that his little sister keeps pulling his hair, and she tells him, "She's so young, she doesn't understand that it hurts." Shortly thereafter, a shriek is heard. The mother rushes into the room and the boy explains: "She understands now."
I don't like this line of reasoning, because it violates my principles to use the law to punish someone for doing something vile which they have a right to do.
But I don't think anything short of holding them to their own standards will work to explain why we don't violate people's freedom of conscience even when we disagree profoundly with what they think, say, or do. Standing on principle hasn't done it. Letting them target conservatives (while knowing full well that similar targeting of progressives is prohibited) is teaching them precisely the wrong lesson: that they can enforce their ideology with impunity and that conservatives won't stand up to them. It has brought us to a situation in which companies are afraid to fire progressives and afraid not to fire conservatives, in which Christian (but not Muslim) cake designers are ruined for refusing to serve a same-sex wedding, but have no problems refusing to decorate a Donald Trump cake for a little boy's birthday or to put a cross on a cake for a baby's baptism.
I struggle with this. I'm not sure of the right thing to do. But refusing to hold progressives to account is leading us to dystopia fast. Holding them to their own rules may be the only way to make them understand.
But maybe that's not what you're saying - maybe you're just taking issue with the argument itself (which is weak).
That's right. I'm taking issue with a bad argument that's being fielded by someone who clearly was recently in the place to exercise power in this way at Google. This is how he conceptualizes what was done, why it was done, and the nature of the problem.
It may seem like a small thing, given that he's left Google and the company's official statements point another way (although their actions are more in line with their alumnus' statements than their own, I notice).
It isn't small to me, though. It may be a philosophical point, but worlds turn on those in many hidden ways. That is why I mentioned the example of Socrates, and its analogy to this case.
That sounds more like payback for the Cornel West thingie to me! Summers finally *resigned* in March of 2006, and was given a 1 year paid sabbatical and a $1 million subsidized loan.
It may be that you are right about the Harvard example. I remember Professor Hopkins claim that she felt she would 'either faint or throw up' as a result of hearing his talk (even though he said he hoped to be proven wrong about the issue he was raising). It may be I remember it as a bigger influence on his loss of position than it was. It has been a while.
I support Google's right to fire the guy for voicing unpopular opinions. What I don't support is Google's right to be free of the inherent consequences of having been seen to do that. Everyone who works for Google now knows (if it wasn't clear before) that there will be no respect for freedom of conscience. Employees who value such a thing will be considering other options, as will customers. If the memo-writer is correct that the best code is written by people like himself, Google is chasing away its profits, which suits me fine. Other companies can run themselves another way and see how that works out.
In an ideal world, all the companies would hire the individuals who do the required work best. As long as new companies can form themselves and try new approaches, anyone whose crazy sociological convictions are wrong will lose the competition.
Post a Comment