@h4rmony Re: @Kristian Walsh
(I'm male, by the way - I know it's an ambiguous name in some countries)
Yes, I'd urge anyone to definitely read the memo before making a comment - it's not very long. Don't go by my reading of it - make up your own minds. I posted in response to those who appear to be supporting Damore on the basis of a skim-read of the introduction to this document, or hearsay based. Search "Damore memo" and you'll find any number of links to this document.
Before going any further, though, I will say that I find it very hard to believe that he was fired just for writing this document. Dismissing a permanent employee is not something that any company (even an American one) does lightly - it often, as in this case, ends up with both the employer and employee in court. This document is one part of a bigger story, and none of us know the whole story yet, but my suspicions are that it's a story in which Damore may not be the hero.
... and as this is highly likely to be settled out-of-court, I don't think we'll ever know the facts.
I didn't make any comment one way or the other on gender representation, but Damore's point about never achieving a 50/50 balance is a straw-man argument: everyone knows that's not practical with the current pool of available talent, but we all (he included) know that that's not what "diversity" policies are about.
These policies aren't looking to pass over men and replace them with women - that's an example of the "zero-sum" thinking I criticised; they're about making changes to the workplace that make it easier to attract and then retain male and female staff of a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. I believe he is deliberately misrepresenting a policy of preferring minority candidates who meet the requirements for a position, as one where such candidates get the job without meeting the requirements.
At the end of the document, he has his list of "recommendations": this is where he makes his pitch for what the ideal solution will be. And when you look at it, it's just a rollback of measures Google has taken to stop its workplaces being so hostile to people who aren't nerdy white men. If someone is unwilling to see the changes as necessary, what does that say about their opinion of the current situation?
Now, I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that Google's inclusiveness programmes are as cack-handed, insensitive and blunt-edged as you'd expect from a company that truly believes that algorithms can replace human judgement in pretty much all situations. But that doesn't stop this memo being a poorly argued whinge about having to share the the office with people who see the world differently to him.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
