The point is: the employee had concerns about working conditions at Google and how Google was pursuing it's goals. He even offered (what he believed) were useful suggestions. Other employees had similar concerns.

Instead of answering his concerns, they fired him because they thought his suggestions were offensive (or rooted in offensive ideology).

> they thought his suggestions were offensive

Not only were they offensive, they had no grounding in reality and made it impossible for many people there to work with or trust him.

and here we go -- it wasnt an academic paper but it was completely based on facts. biologically, men and women are different, and they think differently and so no matter how much society and culture impacts you, that biology will ever so slightly bias every decision in your life and may be part of the mismatch in representation between genders.

the idea that females and males LIKE different things and its IN PART based on biology, is completely real and valid and not offensive in the slightest.

So you know that it's entirely possible to write something that's "based on facts" -- with nice diagrams and all! -- yet when we consider the whole cloth of what's being said, it turns out to be fatally flawed -- and basically a load of tripe?

That's what this "manifesto" was.

i summarized it right there, what part do you think is flawed?

if you're saying men/women think identically, then there is even no reason for gender diversity because it only becomes physical differences at that point, do you realize that?

There was way, way more to his "manifesto" than what's in your summary, actually.

Perhaps not, but what was Google responding to? The central concern of the employee (as stated in his memo) was the political behavior by Google.

See also: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...

Right, but I from what I understand the statutes that project against coercion on the basis of "political behavior" define it fairly narrow terms such as endorsing candidates, making donations and so forth. Which do not apply in this case.

And as to "organizing for better workplace conditions" - well yeah, there's some overlap, there. But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.

> Right, but I from what I understand the statutes that project against coercion on the basis of "political behavior" define it fairly narrow terms such as endorsing candidates, making donations and so forth. Which do not apply in this case.

Ah that makes sense. A fair point. Still, I think that "organizing around workplace conditions" and "calling attention to possible violations of anti-discrimination laws" (both of which were mentioned in the article I referenced) are possible grounds for a suit.

> But his campaign went quite a ways beyond that, as well.

Do you mean the claimed violation of Google code of conduct that was the basis for his firing? I don't know what their CoC is specifically, but if it's anything like the other CoC's I've seen, I think it's debatable whether he did actually violated it.

Many of the claims I have seen about hurtful things in the memo (such as that the women at Google don't deserve to be there) are unsubstantiated by the text of the memo itself. The topics he was trying to discuss, the topics which the CEO himself (and at least 60% of the employees) say should be discussed, are an emotional minefield. Despite claims to the contrary, Damore was very careful with his words.

Truth in account name...