Google Memo Author James Damore Sues Company For Discrimination Against White Males

So, what we have here is one white guy (and another?) Suing Google because of his "persecution complex".

Well, at least there are no minorities with a persecution complex, AMIRITE?!!!!


BWA-HAHHAHAHA

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42
...
This guy released a manifesto to the company about his beliefs and was fired for it. Buzzfeed, for their effort, seems to be trying to paint this guy as level headed but he just comes off as a kook who believes too much # he reads on the internet.

I can easily see him being intimidated and threatened by his coworkers for going against the grain.

That really isn't Google's problem though. If he didn't report the intimidation to the chain-of-command then it is on him to deal with it.

I don't believe he felt "threatened and intimidated" either. I think he was angry and insulted, but not "threatened and intimidated." His lawsuit attempts to use the same language that others fighting real oppression have used.

His behavior isn't that of someone threatened and intimidated - generally those people will go to HR more than once and will leave rather than write manifestos. He felt he could get away with a public screed and found out that he couldn't (as anyone who's been oppressed at work can tell you, public flailing without a lawyer is ineffective and stupid).

a reply to: Byrd

How do you know what he felt?

a reply to: Byrd

Yeah. If you read the events honestly it comes off like this guy is just fishing for support. Him or his lawyers probably contacted Buzzfeed in order to get on the right side of the public debate. Nothing written in the Buzzfeed article though pops out as discrimination.

Like part of the lawsuit is that he faced retaliation from his co-workers for writing that manifesto. Well that isn't Google's problem. Not if he didn't alert management to the abuse. So why was that even included in the article? To me it seems like it was added as an emotional appeal and to pile on the frivolous evidence to make it seem like the case is more solid than it actually is.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Byrd

How do you know what he felt?

because he was a conservative, ofcourse.



Cant wait for the shocking revelation and stance of the more Silly poster will take? LOL

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Byrd

Yeah. If you read the events honestly it comes off like this guy is just fishing for support. Him or his lawyers probably contacted Buzzfeed in order to get on the right side of the public debate. Nothing written in the Buzzfeed article though pops out as discrimination.

Like part of the lawsuit is that he faced retaliation from his co-workers for writing that manifesto. Well that isn't Google's problem. Not if he didn't alert management to the abuse. So why was that even included in the article? To me it seems like it was added as an emotional appeal and to pile on the frivolous evidence to make it seem like the case is more solid than it actually is.

hopefully Google can just make robots to work for them so that way they can just program their employees to not have opinions and fall in line.

hail Google hail Google hail Google

Well we've seen BuzzFeed's take on it. Here's HotAir's write up which lists some specific details of Damore's complaints.

On March 30, 2017, Damore attended a weekly company-wide meeting called a “TGIF meeting.” These weekly meetings were used as an avenue for employees to connect and discuss
certain topics involving Google.

The TGIF meeting on March 30, 2017 was entitled “Women’s History Month,” and Google brought in two presenters for this get-together: Ruth Porat (“Porat”), the Chief Financial
Officer of Google, and Eileen Naughton (“Naughton”), the Human Resources Director of Google.

During the March 30, 2017 TGIF meeting, either Porat or Naughton pointed out and shamed individual departments at Google in which women comprised less than 50% of the workforce. Alternatively, they applauded and praised departments, such as the sales department, where women comprised more than 50% of the workforce.

During the event, Porat and Naughton also discussed that when looking at groups of people for promotions or for leadership opportunities on new projects, Google would be taking into
account gender and ethnic demographics. They then mentioned that Google’s racial and gender preferences in hiring were not up for debate, because this was morally and economically the best thing to do for Google.

These are instances where Google brought in women who lauded and shamed entire departments based entirely on the gender and racial makeup of their employee base. They also outlined specifically how people should be hired based more on diversity checkboxes than qualification for reasons of morality and ethics.

At the Summit, Damore spoke with Meghana Rao (“Rao”) from Google’s Human Resources department (“Google HR”). Damore told Rao that he believed some of the positions taken
by Google were divisive and misguided. Specifically, Damore mentioned that it seemed like Google was elevating political correctness over merit.

Rao responded to Damore’s comment by stating “some of the political things at Google were a problem.” They discussed how some Google employees with conservative views and values did not feel included, and Rao mentioned how she, and other HR representatives, had received similar complaints in the past from employees with conservative views.

At a diversity summit session (which was not a punishment as has been discussed in this thread), Damore spoke with an HR rep about concerns and it was revealed to him that others had had the same concerns. In other words, the environment at Google was not inclusive and could constitute a hostile environment under some definitions.

Btw, the infamous memo was written in response to a call at the end of this summit for feedback.

At the in-person training, entitled “Bias Busting,” Google discussed how biases against women exist in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace. The training was run by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google, and there were approximately 20 Google employees present. Damore disagreed with this one-sided approach. When Damore verbalized his dissent and his concerns with the one-sided presentation, other employees, including managers, laughed at him derisively. They considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of disparagement.

This incident took place at a third training by a "Unbiasing Group" and took place in July. So his views were belittled and laughed at. So much for being unbiased, right? Again, this could be defined as hostile by some workplace definitions.

The Google Recognition Team allowed employees to give fellow employees “Peer Bonuses” for arguing against Damore’s political viewpoints. Peer Bonuses were typically reserved for
outstanding work performance or for going above and beyond an employee’s job duties. Defending the liberal agenda, or defending violations of California employment law, is not in any Google employee’s job description.

And after Damore was fired, the company allowed employees to recommend each other for bonuses usually reserved for work above and beyond for arguing against him which isn't in anyone's job description.

All of this can be found in the text of his lawsuit along with allegations that Google maintains a blacklist.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'd trust Buzzfeed's account over a conservative outlet like HotAir. Here's NPR on the suit.

As Wired has noted, Damore's factual assertions on sex differences range from the uncontroversial to the heavily disputed. Engineer and former Google employee Yonatan Zunger wrote that Damore "does not appear to understand engineering."

Google's efforts to achieve equal gender and race representation, by striving to hire from underrepresented groups and offering mentorships and classes for women and minorities, are discriminatory, Damore said in his memo.

"In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females," he wrote. "As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of 'grass being greener on the other side'; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn."

This guy seems to believe he was discriminated against because he believes that men are superior to women when it comes to engineering jobs. He goes on to suggest that men should be considered over women primarily because of this. Like I said to begin with, he is a nut who reads and believes too many things on the internet.

Why aren't any of you actually questioning the claims in his lawsuit or seeking out Google's side of the story?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

I'd trust Buzzfeed's account over a conservative outlet like HotAir. Here's NPR on the suit.

As Wired has noted, Damore's factual assertions on sex differences range from the uncontroversial to the heavily disputed. Engineer and former Google employee Yonatan Zunger wrote that Damore "does not appear to understand engineering."

Google's efforts to achieve equal gender and race representation, by striving to hire from underrepresented groups and offering mentorships and classes for women and minorities, are discriminatory, Damore said in his memo.

"In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females," he wrote. "As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of 'grass being greener on the other side'; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn."

This guy seems to believe he was discriminated against because he believes that men are superior to women when it comes to engineering jobs. He goes on to suggest that men should be considered over women primarily because of this. Like I said to begin with, he is a nut who reads and believes too many things on the internet.

Why aren't any of you actually questioning the claims in his lawsuit or seeking out Google's side of the story?

It’s obvious you haven’t read the memo yourself. He was illustrating the fact that Google’s outlook—“all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment”—is false, and uses evidence to support it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How about worrying about what YOU'VE personally read and not read? I know damn well what that memo says. I've read it across several different sources now. Clearly you seem to think that just because it is in the memo then it is true.

By the way, you pretend to be someone who seeks out both sides of an argument. Why aren't you seeking out Google's side of that argument in this case?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How about worrying about what YOU'VE personally read and not read? I know damn well what that memo says. I've read it across several different sources now. Clearly you seem to think that just because it is in the memo then it is true.

Since you read it several times, did he or did he not suggest men should be considered over women because men are superior to women when it comes to engineering jobs?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I put up the HotAir account because there are indeed two sides to every story.

BuzzFeed did not use actual text from the complaint. Instead, they wrote their interpretation of it. So I posted HotAir's take and only quoted direct quotes from the text of the complaint itself. None of that was HotAir's analysis.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

he believes that men are superior to women when it comes to engineering jobs

You sure its NOT google that believes that?

It appears that google is also getting sued for not paying their female employees equivalently as their male counter parts? Is it because google thinks males are superior , hence the higher pay?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The problem with the memo is that he makes a lot of claims and doesn't source them. He keeps talking about averages and how women behave but never any studies or information backing up what he is saying. I'm not going to sit here and say that women and men think the same, but using science to discriminate is the sign of a bigot. What's even more concerning is that he attributes all this to a liberal bias in social sciences. IE social sciences don't agree with him because they are liberal. At one point, I noticed subscripts and thought maybe I was wrong. Then when I scrolled to the bottom of the document I found that they were just a bunch of conservative talking points.

He makes suggestions about restructuring the workplace effectively creating men only and women only jobs. That's absurd. Not to mention he utterly dismisses the concept that gender bias plays any role in the lack of female representation in tech. It's not because men dominate the industry with huge egos but because women are different and a simple restructuring of the way the industry works will fix these problems.

This guy comes off as an attention whore of the worst kind. A men's rights activist. He poked the bear, got fired and now he is seeking national validation for his actions. I hope Google takes every penny he owns and doesn't settle out of court to shut him up. Though I expect that is what they'll do anyways.

ETA: The memo and Google's response to the memo

a reply to: Krazysh0t

but using science to discriminate is the sign of a bigot.

I see. So according to this, even if he had used science to back up his claims, then he would still be a bigot? Even if there was verifiable scientific evidence of gender difference ...

Children prefer toys linked to their own gender ....

From an early age, most children choose to play with toys typed to their own gender. In order to identify variables that predict toy preference, we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies of the free selection of toys by boys and girls aged between 1 and 8 years. From an initial pool of 1788 papers, 16 studies (787 boys and 813 girls) met our inclusion criteria. We found that boys played with male-typed toys more than girls did (Cohen's d = 1.03, p < .0001) and girls played with female-typed toys more than boys did (Cohen's d = −0.91, p < .0001).

Uh-oh ... Science to back up a statement that boys and girls are different and do have gender preferences that are not cultural constructs ... is that bigotry? Science to back bigotry or is science bigotry now if it shows something you prefer not to believe?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It’s a memo, not a scientific paper. Besides, you read the censored version. Here is a copy of the real one.

He’s arguing against, nor for, discrimination.

2 Jews make a company and get all self-righteous about race and wages.

So why is it OK for them to be actively trying to replace white people, but if someone calls them out on it then they are attacked and it's called a hate crime??

These sad-sack MRA types would be far happier if they found a cool little hideout where they could be like Spanky & the Gang & have their He Man Woman Haters Club.

The guys goes on a public tear of how woman & minorities are "less than" & he cries because he gets reprimanded.

I swear, between the Tiki torch march, the crying klanazis & morons like this, their whole argument for their version of social justice is to be able to be the worst butt-hole they can be & not face any social repercussions.

"Waaa I'm a white man, everyone has to cater to me!"

K~

a reply to: aethertek

If you dont like getting boo'ed everyday at work for what you were born as that makes you a part of the "He Man Woman Haters Club"?

Talk about deluded.

a reply to: ketsuko

Wait you are posting actual details of his lawsuit?

Well, you must have your tinfoil hat on too tight!!!!

We dont want the actual details, we want a left wing outlets interpretation of them without reading them ourselves!

You must be an evil MRA!!!!