In another comment, you say it's the mention that women tend to have on average more neuroticism although you seem to acknowledge in that comment that it has basis in research [1]. If, as you say, it's a fact, then how can it be harassment?
You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. There could be factors that could cause a statistical difference between genders due to physiology or due to culture (I disagree with the memo's author in his dismissal of cultural and parenting influences on gender behaviors) and any discussion of diversity would need to take those into account.
Now, the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence but the leaked copies do not have that.
[1] For the record, I haven't found the research on that and I'm rather skeptical of that result.
The citation for higher neuroticism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#..., this in turn cites http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.81..., which confirms the claims.
> ... gender differences are small relative to individual variation within genders; differences are replicated across cultures for both college-age and adult samples, and differences are broadly consistent with gender stereotypes: Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas.
Many employees felt intimidated and that they now had to prove in a work setting that they are not "more neurotic on average than men". This is about human relationships. If enough people say they felt intimidated, how can anyone dispute that? Can you prove they didn't feel intimidated? Can I prove they did feel intimidated? No to both questions. It's not in the domain of science or facts. It's in the domain of human relationships and emotions.
> If, as you say, it's a fact,
I said it was a fact? Where? I actually don't care if it's a fact or not. It just doesn't mean a lot to me either way.
> then how can it be harassment?
Easy. There is zero relationship between facts and harassment. I can tell the truth and harass you. I can also lie and harass you.
If I pass your workspace every day and say "You have a smaller penis than the average man and some people here are better at programming than you" does it matter whether both of those are facts? It's still clearly harassment. Unless we have an inside joke.... human relationships are far more complex than science. No wonder so many of us would like to shoehorn everything into black and white scientific facts!
> You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment.
Of course you can. A reasonable discussion around your penis size at work wouldn't include facts about your penis size. The reasonable discussion would be "that's inappropriate and if you don't leave me alone I'll report you to HR for harassment."
You are confusing "facts" with "appropriateness". One is a scientific concept, the other is a social concept. The two have almost nothing to do with each other.
> the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence
It might be interesting, but it doesn't matter in the least in this case. The domain isn't science. Per the Google code of conduct, it expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination."
Do you see anything about science in the code of conduct? Or is it talking about culture and human relationships?
Since we can't read minds, we don't know how they felt. We only know that they said they felt that way. When you believe it is for a higher cause - like fighting the patriarchy - lying about your feelings is a minor consideration.
Witness how many of these identity activists lie about being pushed, lie about having their space invaded to accomplish their ends:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o
Not a single one of them says "Hey, no, lying isn't right." The collective values of that massive group of identity activists has no regard for truth, on this level.
We can't deny that there is cultural overlap between the identity activists in this video, and the identity activists currently working at Google.
If you don't want to get fired for harassing folks, and you don't have great people skills, you should probably keep your controversial opinions at home. YMMV.
It's open, but you'll be fired.
> Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees?
If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment, which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017, then yes I consider it unreasonable.
All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is.
If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment then people will not talk about it and the 30% or so who agree with that memo will continue agreeing with it in private and maybe talk about it in echo chambers like redpill on reddit but will not talk about it publicly.
So, they will not be able to see the other side point of view, they will not be able to evolve their thinking.
The problem is that this phenomena is not limited to Google, it's also in campuses and it means that while Americans have "free speech", they need to self-censor if they do not want to compromise their careers. And I don't believe that people who are hiding their opinion can be convinced and can change their mind. This, I believe is why Trump ended up winning (which to me is a catastrophe for all of the things I care about).
A gross mischaracterization. Open never means anyone can just say whatever comes to mind.
"Open discussion??? Oh goody!!! Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews! Wait, what??? You're firing me? Whaaaaaaa, look at me tears, you promised open discussion!!! I'm suing, all woe is me!"
I'm confident you're not that naive, and I hope you can see the point of my exaggeration. Everything, even open discussion, has limits.
The CEO made it clear which parts of the memo were ok (almost every part of it). And which parts violated the code of conduct.
Violate the code of conduct, and you're fired. Sed lex, dura lex. Everything has limits. So the discussion then is about what those limits should be.
> If talking about something is considered intimidation or harassment,
It's not. There are almost endless things you can talk about at work that aren't considered harassment or intimidation. There isn't a little rule book to guide you. It's up to you as an adult to to have adult relationships with your co-workers and to figure out for yourself what other people are comfortable hearing and what they consider harassment. I'm sure you already know that you can't tell a female employee she has bigger than average tits, no matter how factual it is or even if it's just "talking about something". But the more subtle points are up to you to work out with your co-workers. Be enough of an jerk to enough people by just "talking about something", and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
This has been the reality since humans have had emotions. Every adult with an ounce of understanding about human relationships knows that there is a lot of stuff you can't talk about at work.
> which is the reality of the situation in USA 2017
Where did you get this idea that you ever had some kind of right at some point in history to talk about whatever you want to talk about at work - with no care towards how it makes your fellow employees feel? For most of America's business history you could get your butt thrown out the door just for saying something the boss doesn't like. You're actually slightly more protected in USA 2017, but a smart boss will find a way if he doesn't like what you say. So will your co-workers.
I guess at one point in USA history you could more easily get away with sexually harassing female employees. Safe to say that's not the point in history you're trying to return to? If I'm right, can you describe the point in history you are trying to return to and why it was better? What was ok then that isn't ok now? Specific examples please?
> All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is.
I guess we should be afraid... of.... something? Your revenge? Back up your vague threat with what you predict will actually happen or with what you plan on doing.
"many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions."
and:
"each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination."
Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"?
I think anyone interested in not having a note placed into their HR file now knows it is perhaps not a good idea to ask such questions.
> Everything, even open discussion, has limits.
Exactly - the author of the manifesto is free to discuss these concerns with his manager and have them ignored, or leave. They shall not be discussed publicly, or else.
Anyone that said "Kike, kike, kike, kike, the bosses are cheap Jews!" wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false. The content of this manifesto cannot be dismissed so easily, if it could I suspect someone would have done it and intellectually humiliated this person using superior ideas. The problem is, that's not possible in this case. Hence, in the spirit of equality and harmony, there's really only one practical approach, the one that was taken.
I'd rebut some of your other specific points, but as much fun as these arguments are, they don't really serve any purpose.
For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not.
By talking to people and using your people skills.
> Is there a definition for what constitutes "harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination"?
Yes. It's not a written definition. It's a living and changing definition created by the people who work there and how YOU make them feel. You need to use your people skills in order to extract the definition from your co-workers.
> wouldn't be taken seriously, because such ideas are obviously false.
This is the core of your misunderstanding. The scientific merit of ideas has zero relationship to whether or not you are harassing someone. Anyone who said the offensive things I wrote wouldn't be taken seriously and would be fired because they are offensive. True or not. Obviously true or not. And for all you know, whoever said the above does work for cheap Jews (my apologies if I've offended anyone with this language - I love Jews like everyone else and I hope you can understand I'm using this for illustration purposes only).
> For me, it comes down to whether we want to live in a society where we acknowledge reality, or not. Where people debate ideas, or not.
Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society!
Don't confuse "Google" (an employer) with "society". No one is forcing you to work at Google nor for your employment status to be determined by their code of conduct.
Even HN has a code of conduct, and yet you seem to be ok debating things here.
Agreed, but that's my very complaint! As they say, the pendulum has swung too far! (In my opinion, of course.)
> Look Mom! We are freely debating something right here, right in society! Don't confuse "Google" (an employer) with "society". No one is forcing you to work at Google nor for your employment status to be determined by their code of conduct.
What bothers me is the trajectory we are on. You can debate things "in society", but "freely"? Have you not read news articles on the increasing suppression of free speech on campuses, or people being physically attacked for what they believe in? And of course, Google is free to do whatever it wants, that is true, but please don't simultaneously say that it is indisputable that they have a culture of free speech, or that their messaging is somewhat out of line with their actions.
I'm not unsympathetic to the other side of this debate, how people (myself included) perceive the world makes it extremely difficult to appreciate different points of view, and I often think people are far off the mark, for example the commentary on the intentions of the author of this manifesto.
These conversations agitate me because it can seem like people think you are completely wrong, even though I doubt (or hope not) that is your intent or belief.
EDIT:
I imagine you've seen this: http://huyenchip.com/2017/08/09/sexism-in-silicon-valley.htm...
"We need to be careful when encouraging affirmative action in tech to ensure it doesn’t reinforce the philosophy of treating women differently."
This is one of the things I had in mind when I said "All these do-gooders are going to reap what they sow in the long run, and it sure as heck isn't what they think it is." Yes, women may be getting hired, but for what reason matters.
I'm glad we're finally getting to some sort of consensus that this is firmly in the realm of human relationships and has little to do with facts and more to do with opinions. Your co-workers' opinions of you are very important. Like it or not, fair or not, that is never going away. Fortunately you have some freedom in where you choose to work and can try to find a good cultural fit to your own values.
> What bothers me is the trajectory we are on.
Newspapers need clickable headlines to stay in business. I'm not worried. There was never a guarantee in the USA that you will have a public forum for whatever nonsense (or genius) you want to spew. It has always been up to the public, or your co-workers, if they want to give you a forum. As long as the government isn't interfering with my speech, I can handle company policy, co-workers, friends and family, and the general public, all with just by using my people skills.
> please don't simultaneously say that it is indisputable that they have a culture of free speech, or that their messaging is somewhat out of line with their actions.
No one, not me, not even Google, is claiming their primary goal is free speech. Per their CoC, a primary goal is a workplace free of harassment. Which by definition limits your speech. In fact they fired someone for what he said, no apologies. So I don't see any inconsistency. Your speech is indeed limited at work if you work for Google or any big company in the world.
Now if conservatives at Google, as a minority, are being harassed or silenced just because of their political views, then I do agree that is a problem, and one I hope they fix. Not in the name of free speech, but in the name of another stated goal they have: diversity.
> I imagine you've seen this
She also admits that sometime the best way to have women feel comfortable in tech is to just first get a lot of women into tech. Chicken and egg problem. I encourage aggressive affirmative action once you've already identified existing bias against any minority. Sexism and racism are problems in the tech world. When they aren't problems anymore, the affirmative action will go away due to market forces. No company will bear the cost of affirmative action if there is no risk of lawsuits from minorities currently being excluded.
Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees?
> be afraid to express.
They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of conduct. The code of conduct values some things over others, and a workplace free of harassment and intimidation is more important to Google than making sure no one is ever afraid of expressing an opinion. It might well be the opinion of some engineer in Google that all blacks should be called niggers. That engineer should rightly be afraid of expressing that opinion no matter how deeply held that opinion is, and no matter how many other employees share that opinion.
> the people holding them will be further radicalized.
Source?