Looking at the very basic timeline of events, I'm really unsure this is true. Wikipedia says there was about a month between the initial memo and his removal and that Damore did add an addendum to the memo generally denouncing sexism (though, I think, not engaging with the critiques of his writings as "sexist")[1]. I suspect that if he had, in that addendum, retracted some or all of what he had said, he had a real opportunity to keep his job.
That said, I also want to question the idea that a just and fair resolution of a mis-step should necessarily include an opportunity to be perfectly restored to your previous situation. It's common, for instance, for a project to go in what turns out, in hindsight, to be the wrong direction. The people in charge of that project might be removed to let someone with fresh eyes come in - not because they're being punished, but because that's how humans work. People removed in that way are seen to have...performed suboptimally, but not failed exactly. I think it's totally possible that Damore writes a memo that is filled with sexist tropes and ignorant reifications of sexist hierarchies and is removed from his current position, but it's understood that his response enables him to go on to new positions. An older example of this is the standard of conduct for US judges, which says that even the appearance of impropriety is banned. I think Google is well within its rights to remove people for the appearance of sexism and those people who appeared sexist have the opportunity to demonstrate that they're not, in fact, sexist and go on to further positions.
Again, I don't believe Damore has tried very hard to prove that he doesn't actually hold sexist views.
>I don't think the analogy of Dan Harmon completely holds up.
I think you're quite right about the difference between their contexts. I thought Harmon's apology was just a great example of addressing serious misdeeds after the fact. Harmon's apology was positively received by his victim and, as far as I know, he's gone on to success in new ventures[3].
> I don't think someone can credibly call Damore a predator or dangerous.
I think I generally agree with what you're saying here but I think the word "dangerous" deserves more examination. One of the core tenants of the critique of Damore's work is that it supports a generally misogynistic world view. He's highlighting that women perform differently than men on certain measurements and that those measurements are also associated with being an effective engineer. This ignores the problem of how these terms come to be defined - if nearly all engineers are men, any measurement of the 'good' engineers will find they almost all test 'like men.' So saying that the weakness of female engineers is revealed by their failure to test 'like men' is ignoring the historical slant to the data. To me, that is dangerous. You can see this same problem in the Amazon AI that scored resumes from women more poorly because Amazon had previously hired few female engineers[4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
[2] https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-unit...
[3] It's worth saying that lots of people who have credibly been accused of sexual assault also go on to great success. The idea that accusations destroy someones career are overblown.
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...
Damore definitely hasn't backstepped on his memo in any way, although that doesn't necessarily mean that he couldn't have been given the option to begrudgingly disavow his position in order to remain at Google. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that was possible for him. I guess that's the point I was trying to make. Whether he failed to engage with critiques of his position really doesn't change whether his circumstance was fair or reasonable.
I don't think the analogy of Dan Harmon completely holds up.(though to be fair all analogies fall apart at some level) The two "mistakes" aren't really equivalent. Damore was solicited for his input, and provided a reasoned feedback with the intent of helping people(whether it was wrong or misguided is a separate issue), whereas Harmon was doing something that an average reasonable person would recognize as victimizing someone. I think most people have the capability to deserve a second chance, but Harmon's case is different in that he was shown to be predatory, however low-level it may have been. I don't think someone can credibly call Damore a predator or dangerous. If they can, then the very act of you and I talking about this could be seen by someone as potentially predatory. Of course, I find that idea absurd. In any case, I think it's possible that Harmon could also be allowed to recover from his mistake given enough time and displayed sincerity. And that's likely going to happen, if it hasn't already, since he's an entertainer. (I stopped following him and Rick and Morty, so I don't have a good idea) Damore will be ridiculed by a good number of people for the forseeable future.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding, because I don't think Google should be held to account. It's likely they were in their right to fire him at their will, even if I think the more optimal decision would have been to limit the damage of Damore(and treat him like a human) rather than ultimately make the issue more public than it needed to be. At the same time, Damore didn't seem to grasp what his peers, the company, and the public actually wanted. Perhaps he didn't care. This is why I get pissed internally when people claim that I think I believe Damore did nothing wrong.
Sorry if that was rambling and didn't have much of a point. I spent way more time replying to people this morning about "James Damore" than I thought I ever would, so my brain's scattered.