I simply repeated Jeff Dean's own words that he claims the paper "didn’t meet our bar", yet continued to be cited (even by Dean himself, though arguably he's citing it to disagree...but then that's the way academia should work!).

I didn't claim to know why exactly she was fired. I'm just claiming that Jeff's objection to her paper seems dubious.

And keep in mind her coauthor (Mitchell) was eventually fired. But yes, the question you ask is a good one, and I think the answer is revealing (the paper did in fact meet the bar for publication, and it was killed for political reasons, making Gebru's reactions quite reasonable!)

> she explicitly told her reports to stop the work they're doing,

No she didn't. She told them to refocus to be more effective. That's a completely reasonable! Quoting her email: "So if you would like to change things, I suggest focusing on leadership accountability and thinking through what types of pressures can also be applied from the outside."

That doesn't sound like "stop working on DEI" to me.

Does "What I want to say is stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference" sound like stop working on DEI to you? With the context that the documents are their work products about DEI...

With the full context of the letter, no not at all, unless you think that Documents are the ultimate work product of DEI and not like improvements in diversity, equity, and inclusion in the company.

It's very clearly a call to stop focusing on ineffective things and to focus on more effective methods.