Considering how all sixteen of my female teammates were pissed off about it, I'm going to go ahead and say you are demonstrably wrong.
Yes, it would be wrong of you to do that. You remember how in the Big Lebowski, Walter asks The Dude "Well, am I wrong?" and The Dude replies "You're not wrong, Walter. You're an asshole."
You don't want to be Walter.
Suggest that a piece of code is un-maintainable and that the group should rebuild it and there is a good chance someone will think that makes you an asshole.
You can't go around firing everyone because some idiot gets triggered.
I'm saying that as some who has actually worked with young Earth creationists before.
Where I contend with evolutionists is the typical narrative that the existence of natural selection implies a process that creates said (structured, positive) genetic diversity from which to select. This latter process is disputed, not the former.
I would be curious to hear your colleagues perspective.
Someone taking offense is not demonstration of anything, other than someone taking offense.
If you think he did mean to offend people, the firing makes more sense.
I don't think "he should have known better" is very fair when neck deep in a discussion about diversity. Sometimes diversity looks like someone not knowing cultural rules.
I also don't think Damore's totally naive when it comes to diversity issues. He did a lot of research and evidently even discussed his concerns with HR. I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into.
So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter?
> I think it's pretty clear he knew what he was getting into.
I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.
> So it's objective and fair? Or it is too fickle but it doesn't matter?
Whatever the ideological or scientific opposite of Damore's memo is, I would never publish it to anyone -- not even a single person -- at work. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that discussing race or gender issues at work is out of bounds, regardless of your position.
> I think he would have hired a publicist and lawyer before publishing the memo if he knew what was coming.
Aha that's probably true but I'm not talking about the backlash. I'm saying he knew he wasn't just asking to be proven wrong about migratory patterns of ducks. He's aware diversity is a sensitive topic.
But most tech employers already broach the subject in many ways. It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions, including during work hours, but employees do not.
Things like this need to be addressed if we want corporate power to be moderated.
What controversial opinions are you talking about?
To be clear, I don't think all those things are necessarily bad. But I think letting corporations and corporate leadership have free reign and a big microphone while expecting employees to censor themselves is inconsistent to say the least.
> It's not right that employers get to have controversial opinions
They tend to be offended if you criticize Trump.
Therefore, you are not allowed to criticize Trump.
> Are you trying to claim that causing offense to a large group is not creating a hostile working environment?
What is truth when you have a gun to your head.
To substantiate that comment:
http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/
What powers should define truth? Sensory / populist / ability to take life.
This is absolutely false I do get to tell the group how to receive the message. When a group is intolerant the problem is with the group. When people were against interracial marriage and intolerant of other opinions the problem was with the group. When people were against African Americans riding in the front of the bus, the problem was with the intolerant group.
No candy coating, sensitivity training, or messaging was required to tell the angry, intolerant mob that they were wrong, just like they are here.
I only hope for your sake that you learn otherwise before you put your foot in your mouth in a very big way someday, rather than after.
If you're worried about an angry mob firing you, start communicating with care.
Additionally people are not protected from offense in the workplace. They're protected from harassment and an abstract memo that doesn't single out individuals is not harassment.
No one wrote a memo claiming that Google hires too many Jews who don't meet the same quality bar due to diversity efforts.
No one wrote a memo claiming Google needs to have mandatory anti-terrorist training because they've recruited a lot of Muslims lately (putting aside the fact that white christian terrorists are far more likely to be your cause of death in the USA).
>Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together.
Yeah and the way this works is not to bring up potentially offensive or sensitive topics except with coworkers you know really well. When you do bring it up acknowledge other people's viewpoints and ask lots of questions instead of making grand pronouncements.
All workplaces are political. Software development is about working with people and that is inherently a political activity. Took me a very long time to realize that but it is 100% true. The quicker you accept it the further you will go in your career.
>The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster.
What if his memo was arguing that black people aren't suited to be engineers period?
What if his memo argued that black people should be sent back to Africa and that the USA should be for white people only? What if he said he only believes this should be the law but so long as it isn't the law we must respect that and treat people equally until the law is changed?
Should Google "tolerate" someone being openly racist simply because they haven't called for violence?
Let's make this even more abstract: what if an employee openly states they think the company is evil and they disagree with the entire mission and direction of the company? Do you really think they won't spread cynicism and negativity? Do you really think they can be effective? Is there really no risk to morale?
Even if he were completely correct (he wasn't) by doing such a sorry ham-fisted job he made himself a liability. Even if he only angered or offended 10 other engineers that alone is reason enough to get rid of him. Hiring and training engineers is expensive.
Corporations are not free speech zones. If you become a liability the company will drop you like a hot-potato and don't you ever forget it.
This is not true. Even ignoring the 3,000 people killed in the twin towers, the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting alone killed more people than all right-wing attacks since 9/11/2001 combined. And that includes non-Christian attackers. And such things as neo-Nazis killing pedophiles in prison.
Basically, in any other context we expect people who have vastly differing views to be able to put them aside and work together. The only exception to this rule seems to be around leftist issues, where if you disagree you are out of luck.
You would expect, for example, the Jewish people and the Islamic people at a company to work together.
The idea that toleration for one memo form a nobody employee marks an entire company as unwelcome is insane. This zero tolerance attitude is a recipe for disaster.