Anyone who is willing to bet their job on a controversial posting about company policy to a broad company mailing list staying internal either doesn't mind being fired or is an idiot.

>Anyone who is willing to bet their job on a controversial posting

That's part of the problem.

Lots of people associate Google with research and discourse akin to a college campus without realizing that, unlike a college campus, they and their free discourse are not protected in any meaningful way.

"Let's be open and transparent and have an open and transparent culture... but don't say things that might hurt our shareholders."

Google is beginning to remind me a bit too much of the 'Bright & Shinys" from the movie 'Bubble Boy'[0]. Happy go lucky do-gooder cult that holds that image until you cross them. Things get darker after that point. That initial positive image is all that matters.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIYRfNjHSzA

Unfortunately college campuses don't protect free discourse for certain stripes of political opinion very well these days either.

I agree with your broader point though. Different companies are more or less tolerant of free-wheeling discussion that may not reflect an official company position. But, at the end of the day, if you cause embarrassment (especially as a non-exec, non-critical employee) at most companies, you're expendable.

I don't think they necessarily can, in the interest of fostering a welcoming and safe environment for students to learn. Example: "Let's not be scared of having an open, honest, and frank discussion of how Jews have caused the decline of the country."

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds and why a university could not in good faith legitimize the proponents of that theory? Now I'm not saying all issues are as black and white as that, but it's clear to me that there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. Any particular issue probably has differing opinions on whether it crosses the lines. But anything that is abusive towards women, minorities, trans people, etc. as people is dangerous ground and I can't argue with not supporting that.

> welcoming and safe environment

Words are not going to hurt anyone, actions will. Students (and all people) should absolutely be protected from harmful actions but we cannot stop discourse just because it sounds offensive to someone, no matter the subject.

Words and actions are inextricably linked in complicated ways. I don't know anything about who you are or your situation, but I will say that the "sticks and stones" attitude is much easier to believe in if you've never been in a minority group. I used to buy into it, in fact, until a big bag of empathy hit me like a truck as I got older.

Even the conservatives and alt-righters admin this, which is why they're so upset about people using politically correct language, even by their own free choice. "Happy Holidays" anyone?

I, for one, would find it pretty disadvantageous in my studies to attend classes at an institution that endorses (even silently) a viewpoint that questions my right to the pursuit of happiness, to marry who I want, to be the correct gender, or even to exist. Organizations can and do limit that speech in certain environments that they are responsible for.

That said, the first amendment is hugely important, but limited in scope in the consequences that it protects you from.

Of course, it _is_ important to not simply refuse to hear or allow speech that you disagree with. There is a balance to be struck there.

Respectfully, that's exactly how things go wrong.

Who cares if I'm a minority or conservative? Who cares what speech I'm upset by? That's the point, being upset is not something we need to defend against.

Speech is speech, if you don't like it then ignore it. And yes, there are consequences. Most of the time it's the other side yelling back which is fine. Only when it turns into (harmful) action should be people be defended but until then it's paramount that anyone can say what they want.

I understand that only the government has protected speech. Private groups and institutions are free to invite or exclude at will and I support that as well, however public spaces and institutions should absolutely not be closed to anyone who wants to speak their mind and protecting people's feelings will never end well.

I do see your point as well. It's a very tough balance to sort out. But I don't think it's clear cut since some speech essentially _is_ a harmful action. For instance, consider a potential law that would actively discriminate against a group (think segregation, bathroom bill, whatever). Advocating for the passage of the law essentially is "just speech" but it then leads to the passage of the law. Once the law is passed the harmful action takes place, but it's too late to counter it.

So I don't think it's quite as simple as protecting people's feelings over all else. Frankly, I even have mixed feelings and unease about the fact that I think limiting speech is warranted sometimes. But there it is.

By and large, I do think that college students do need to be able to deal with viewpoints that hurt or offend them. That doesn't include signs on their dorm doors or people getting in their faces but it does include speakers who they may not like.

I generally agree, but there is a line. See my comment above for a longer take on that.

Google always used to make a big song and dance about how scientific and data driven it is. They even wrote about how data driven their hiring processes and HR operations are.

This article from 2013 is an example

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/...

“What we try to do is bring the same level of rigor to people decisions that we do to engineering decisions. Our mission is to have all people decisions be informed by data.”

Damore's memo may look idiotic to people who work in "normal" workplaces, but it is consistent with Google's previous rhetoric on what sort of company it wants to be: namely, one that isn't normal.

No question about that. But he's being internet lynched for 'circulating a manifesto'.

There are no safe spaces in the real world

If you are informed that you are safe to openly express your opinion, you should have a reasonable expectation that you do.