He made it quite plain that he thought he'd done nothing wrong. At that point, Google is either retaining one employee or facing a class action lawsuit risk. And he wasn't nearly 10x enough to justify retaining him. ;)
He also probably could have avoided being fired if he apologized and clarified that he did not realize that his musings on the subject could create a hostile work environment. He instead chose to double down that he'd done nothing wrong.
Would the worker be happy if their boss tells them how to speak, what to speak, and what they can't speak about?
Honestly, Googlers work very hard. This isn't as big of an issue as people are making it out to be.
How do you want foster freedom and lessen control/restrictions? Seriously.
The idea that we should limit speech...is a very dangerous path to even think about. All thoughtful points are moot compared to how those policies can be abused and destroy an entire civilization. Nazi Germany wasn't too long ago. China restricted a doctor's speech about sounding the alarm on Covid19 (so it's more recent too).
If society (a collection of individuals) continue to think that it's "okay" to restrict someone's opinions (for any justification), they make society weaker. Truth wins out. Not authoritarianism.
But...back to my main point of responding to you. Googler (and other tech companies) aren't a DC think tank. They're building and shipping things. They work hard. And those that are highly skilled, want the autonomy in work. If you restrict that autonomy, you restrict your talent pool of workers. Maybe you think that's a good choice (Coinbase would agree) but...in the long-term, IMHO, freedom is more powerful than control.
I think that's a great philosophy for structuring a democratic republic form of government, but trying to apply that philosophy universally to all circumstances and all human interaction leaves it a giant untested hypothesis.
It would be nice if truth always won out. That would be cool. Insufficient data to say for sure that it does.
Consider this quote from a recent NY Times article[1]
"These scholars argue something that may seem unsettling to Americans: that perhaps our way of thinking about free speech is not the best way. At the very least, we should understand that it isn’t the only way. Other democracies, in Europe and elsewhere, have taken a different approach. Despite more regulations on speech, these countries remain democratic; in fact, they have created better conditions for their citizenry to sort what’s true from what’s not and to make informed decisions about what they want their societies to be. Here in the United States, meanwhile, we’re drowning in lies."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html
If Googlers feel that strong about inequality, why not give away your fortune to social causes?
Yes but with enough people whom build tools that amplify signal. Then the people will learn. I'm hopeful we'll shorten this delay as we age.
Indeed, people in this forum often seem to call attempts to discern signal from noise "censorship."
Edit: turns out I didn't have to wait long for a concrete example of that to come up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24782944
I have no idea what the answer is, and wouldn’t want my employees engaged in such a discussion as it could potentially come back as a lawsuit.
In that same context, I wouldn’t want James Damore writing his memo. Equally, the reason he was writing his memo was possibly because there were other conversations happening around race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If those conversations were encouraging the advancement of the disadvantaged members of one of those classes, you could argue that is a violation of Title VII.