When you do/say/write something that has the potential to cause problems for your employer, you should be aware of and prepared for the possible consequences.

I certainly would not write a multi-page screed criticizing the policies and practices of my employer, distribute it at work, and then expect to keep my job or have no repercussions.

God forbid a monolithic, trillion dollar corporation have an employee saying things they don't like.

When it's a widely circulated internal document criticising the hiring practices behind 40% of the company's workforce, it's hardly surprising.

He put them in a difficult position. The brand and employee-esteem damage caused by tacitly condoning his manifesto by not firing him, vs just getting rid of one engineer. Easy maths. He's gone.

Edit: backwards words not now.

True, but what's troubling isn't that he was fired, it's that the memo got leaked, caused a bunch of controversy and basically forced Google to take a position on whether they want to discuss this stuff. Yes, one guy getting fired for sending out something inflammatory and critical isn't a huge deal (although I would have expected Google to be more tolerant), it's the fact that it went public and then when Google had to make a public statement deciding whether to fire him or not they chose "we don't think these ideas should be discussed".

How do you think companies work through their own policies or change direction?

Employees write strategy memos all the time.

I would be curious to know at which point in history one could circulate a memo around the office which embarrassed the company and insulted half the workforce without repercussion.

I find it so bizarre people get this interpretation - it's completely nonsensical. Point: "Chinese tend to be short so not many of them go into basketball". Counterpoint: "I'm Chinese and 6'5" are you saying I'm short and bad at basketball?"

No one seems to understand that he is talking about the aggregate.

Well not half, only about what, 30%? /s

I would argue that it's more akin to picking a fight in a bar— you're liable to get kicked out just for making trouble.

All Googleers .. need to watch what they say, watch what they do. - paraphrasing Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary, after 9/11.

Good. People should be thinking twice.

Freedom of Speech is not the same thing as Freedom from Consequences. Unless we decide that being "aggressively antisocial" should be a protected class, private companies should have every right to fire employees who they deem toxic for their culture.

This comment, forgive the pun, makes me very sad. I’m all for doing something to fight the ideas in this guy’s paper, but to advocate for personal censorship as apparently some sort of ideal is beyond my support.

I appreciate the pun. ;-)

Anyway, I think self censorship is an expected behavior in a peaceful society. For example: you don't bring up recently deceased significant others, comment on awkward physical characteristics of strangers, or mock the suffering of others, without expecting repercussions. People learn at a very young age that certain topics should be avoided for the sake of "keeping the peace".

50 years ago you could use the n-word in business meetings. Now, not so much, but for a long time many people were "self-censoring" themselves to keep the peace in their workplaces. Some still are, but I imagine that most people these days are happy to be in a workplace where n-words are not tolerated. Not just for their own "sensibilities", but also the knowledge that their black coworkers/friends can be in an environment that is actively less hostile.

What we're seeing is the continuing shift in standards for peaceful society. So far I think the track record on these shifts is pretty good, so I'm inclined to let this ride for a while, even if some people have to keep "self-censoring" some of the time.

This is the real world, people. Of course a company that needs its employees to be effective has to censor employees whose outspoken views make their teams less effective. The army kicks people out for all sorts of reasons. Coaches cut players who poison the locker room. I personally would hope people could talk and deal with it, but if it's a bunch of other people quit or this guy quit, an effective company has to act.

Google also has a right to not be associated with his speech. He is free to work somewhere else and pen hateful missives.

This clearly fails to grasp the concept of operability. If we were to adopt this line of reasoning, constitutional rights go from being something that is clearly established and to be universally respected by all to a concept that is at the mercy of whichever angry mob would master the numbers big enough to topple all who oppose them. By this line of reasoning, ethics and morality are just something based on strength in numbers rather than any other principle.

I guess mob mentality does rule after all.

Will they fire every Trump voter and every hardcore feminist now too?

If they put 'make america great again' or 'death to white men' posters up on the bulletin boards at work in the break room, yeah, they'll fire them too. It's against the agreements they signed when they got hired.

If you don't like it don't sign and go work somewhere else.

> "If they put 'make america great again' or 'death to white men' posters up on the bulletin boards at work in the break room, yeah, they'll fire them too."

Are you saying that supporting a presidential candidate is tantamount to "death to white men"? Yes, the candidate in question is abhorrent, but come on. Those statements absolutely don't carry equal weight.

> Will they fire every Trump voter and every hardcore feminist now too?

If you read the post I was replying to, it would be obvious why I chose those two examples.

My point was, it's not a good set of examples, since they are so unlike each other. Unless you mean certain organizations actually consider them equivalent.

I'll eat my hat if they fired everyone who posted "I'm With Her" on the internal G+ back in November

I think you would agree that your example is different in both scope and visibility than my (extreme) hypothetical examples, and the real example of this manifesto. Plenty of Google employees have expressed opinions similar to Mr. Damore's on memegen or G+ without being terminated.

I agree that people with the wrong political opinions should not be allowed to work, and that it's up to corporations to be the ultimate arbitrator of what is acceptable political discourse.

We ban accounts that post uncivil, unsubstantive flamebait like this. Please stop.

Will do.

Voltaire is rolling in his grave.

He puts his employer in a very difficult situation, however Google reacts, it is going to be trigger half of the internet population.

He is hired to be a programmer, not a social activist and Google surely could stand up and say they don't want be part of that.

You don't think the generalizations against women were scary?

Not really. A lot of people have weird views. Based on this Google can't hire any conservative Christians either.

I just don't think this should be a firing offense.

They can hire Christians as long as the hires are intelligent enough to realize that (for example) leaving Chick Tracts on their coworkers' desks is probably not acceptable workplace behavior.

Plenty of Google employees are christians and none of them have been fired for it (it's legally protected, for one thing)

I don't think you've thought this through.

Maybe read the article and other informed commentary such as this ex-Googler: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

I found this to be a pretty good rebuttal to that

https://medium.com/@silverstrike/i-like-how-you-portray-the-...

The summary at the end of

"Get over yourself. You are not as special as you believe yourself to be.

At that point, I gave up on your pathetic and emotional diatribe. Your piece is devoid of any logic, reason, or sense and serves as a way for you to virtue-signal to the rest of the world how much of a “stand-up guy” you are."

Is spot on how I read that Medium post.

I found nothing of value in the Ex Googler's commentary.

I think he's thought it through enough to see the implications. And that ex-Googler has a fairly draconian, authoritarian view of groupthink.

I don't think that ex-Googler read the document. Nothing he attacks him on seems to be in it.