Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Closed Mouth Gathers No Foot
Last night while playing cards, a friend of mine asked me my opinion of the whole “Google memo” affair. I told him the truth: I had no opinion.
In order to have any kind of reasonable, intelligent opinion, I’d need to look into the details, not just the headlines or what other people are saying about it. We’ve already crossed the line into this being “a thing,” and anyone writing about it at this point will emphasize some details and obscure others, to push their particular narrative or agenda.
So I’d have to read the memo myself, all 10 pages of it, examine the charts, follow the citations, and so forth, as well as details about the author, the circumstances of his termination, and what he did in the aftermath. And to be honest, I just don’t care enough about it. I got the slightest gist of the story and ran the other way. But I told my friend, who did do all that, and whose intelligence and opinion I respect, to please share his opinion with me. And he did.
And while I said I had no opinion, I do have one thing to say:
Any memo of that sort, no matter the merits of his argument, is a dicey proposition at best. The tone would need to be perfectly correct to communicate his point without causing a backlash, and that is incredibly difficult to do. That’s not a statement on political correctness, or victimhood, or “social justice warriors,” or anything of that sort. It has to do with basic prudence and communicating with other people, especially within a large organization.
Setting aside all the other stuff people bring to this issue, there’s a virtue to keeping one’s yap shut on certain issues in a workplace. I’m a person of … strong opinions. I’m also a talker. I like to share ideas, I like to explain things. But there are things that I choose not to talk about at work. It’s not because I’ll be repressed or because I’ll be burned as a heretic, but because they’re dicey to talk about. Nobody needs to hear my opinion about them, no good would come from it. It would negatively affect the work environment and my relationships with people. And relationships between people are essential to the functioning of an organization.
So let’s paint the best-case scenario for this guy: Say he’s doing this for benevolent purposes and that his argument is 100 percent correct on the merits. Even then, the memo is still all but guaranteed to upset people. No matter how correct a statement or a piece of information may be, it needs to be presented correctly in order for it to be received by the audience. If it’s something like “the sky is blue,” it’s simple. But depending on the complexity of information and the subjection matter, it may be more difficult. Considering the spectacular failure of his memo, the author clearly wasn’t up to the task.
I already see this guy being turned into some kind of political correctness martyr by people on the right. Color me unsympathetic. I’m not moved by anti-PC grievance mongering. As far as I see it, this guy’s crime wasn’t having the “wrong” opinion on gender differences (or whatever it was), it’s that he created a massive disruption in the work environment for no appreciable benefit.
Even if his goal was entirely benevolent and it was to improve the organization, unless he got the tone absolutely perfect, it was all but guaranteed to fail. He either knew that or was oblivious to that fact. If it was the latter, it means he didn’t understand the organization that he was a part of, its corporate culture, or how to relate to other humans.
Published in General
My daughter did an internship with Google and works in the tech industry as a programmer. I asked her opinion on the shenanigans and she wrote, “I haven’t read it, I’ll admit. I think I’ve gotten to the point where, unless I interface with someone personally… It’s time and energy that’s better spent elsewhere.” So we spent time and energy in a more profitable way, speculating on the outcome of Game of Thrones.
Fred,
In the case you’ve described, the memo could only upset people if they were motivated by pro-PC grievance mongering. The fact that Google over-reacted and actually fired an employee that was evaluated 100% in performance makes it even more absurd.
I don’t think this is a case of anti-PC grievance mongering from the right. I think the reaction is part of a collective exhaustion with the absurdities of PC generally.
Regards,
Jim
It’s a big mess because human interaction is like that. If the guy didn’t understand that 10 pages of opinion, no matter how thoughtful and well documented, might earn him attention and get him fired, then he isn’t “emotionally intelligent” enough to rise very far in any organization anyway. I hope, for his sake, he finds a nice little corner somewhere to keep up with his rent and groceries and doesn’t get much more attention.
I find it interesting that in the aftermath, we have Google employees bragging about keeping lists of any other Google employees who agreed with Damore, so that they, too, can be silenced. Every action like this empowers the left to continue punishing people for wrong-think. We are quickly becoming — perhaps have already become — a snitch culture, and it should be alarming to everyone.
Fred,
For once I agree with you. At best he should have taken his concerns to his immediate supervisor and left it there. He may have known full well that they would go nowhere further but that is where he should have stopped.
I think the guy is grandstanding. he’s not necessarily wrong in his opinion but he’s still grandstanding. that takes away from his narrative.
Let’s be fair here; the guy did not leak the existence of the memo. The memo was posted on an internal message board which was intended to discuss working conditions at the company. Other people in Google leaked it and that’s when the guy became famous. It’s not grandstanding when other people call the media on you as part of a campaign to shame you for your opinion first.
The first two “well documented” notes I clicked on were links to Wikipedia pages, so I’m a little skeptical about how well-documented any of his claims were. I think everyone probably overreacted – him in writing the memo in the first place, Google in freaking out in response to it.
To be frank, I had almost exactly the same reaction. Who writes such a memo in the first place, and for what purpose? Honestly, I’d have assumed that the whole thing was *designed* to draw the foul, except that that is more usually a tactic of the Left.
Having said that, like you, I haven’t been willing to invest the time in further research.
Much like when discussions turn to 702 of the Patriot Act, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t be afraid to let the government know your every thought and move. We have already become.
Sometimes things are simpler than we recognize. Google needed him, not the other way around, which is more common. He’s a genius.
His memo is only ten pages; simply read it and tell me what is controversial vis-à-vis reality.
He joins a distinguished list of those on the wrong side of “diversity”, unfortunately. On top of this list is Larry Summers, guilty of a similar “crime”, because of his visibility and the value of his scalp.
Overreaction? Or just enamored with his own opinion?
People love to hear themselves talk, love to share their opinions without interruption. Seriously, WHO WRITES TEN PAGES on such things? Just to share? He wasn’t asked to prepare a report, wasn’t asked for a study. He just wanted to share TEN PAGES of his own thinking. He could have just kept the 10 pages to himself and then presented his concerns more judiciously if he really wanted to persuade.
Yes, of course, he musn’t speak freely in a private company forum concerning employment policy and his take on it. That would compound his thought crime, eh?
From D’sousa’s book “The Big Lie” (regarding Marcuse, one of the founders of the Frankfort school:
What specifically did Marcuse seek to repress?
He cited “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, Social Security, medical care, etc.”
Moreover, Marcuse added, his approach “may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teaching,” including the suppression of certain types of “scientific research.”
Marcuse bluntly calls for “intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of movements from the left.” He admits his goal is one of “shifting the balance between left and right by restraining the liberty of the right,” and in this way “strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors.”
Marcuse’s argument has been summed up in the phrase: No toleration of the intolerant. In the 1960s, Marcuse acolytes used a similar chant, “No free speech for fascists.”
Yes he should have secretly and privately tendered his thoughts for vetting in accordance with the wishes of the Google commissar of communications/feelings.
This is a short thread so far and I’ve seen three examples already of how his speech was ill-considered, non-conforming, or in violation of something, such as ineffectively persuading. I hate the phrase slippery slope, but this time that over-used adage is perfect.
“When the truth meets your lies in a memo surprise, that’s Damore.”
…credit to “Jimbino” at Althouse blog comments. Too good not to spread. Channel your inner Dean Martin.
I know the pronunciation is likely wrong, but hey – we make concessions for art…
Maybe he felt the Google HR practices were discriminatory, invasive and based on pseudo-scientific, identity politics claptrap. Maybe as a white-privileged male who harbors unconscious bias thoughts about women and probably other oppressed groups he felt that he might be a potential target for re-education. Maybe he was bored. Maybe he wanted to show that he was more intelligent than the Google executive team and Google HR on matters involving workforce dynamics and human nature. I could write ten more pages on this but I wouldn’t want to be considered a freak.
I agree, Fred. We don’t know the guy’s motives. But we do know that the likelihood of this not causing a brou-haha were small. It is Google, after all.
My understanding is that the employees were invited by management to give their input on this issue. If that’s correct, it’s not fair to say “he created a massive disruption in the work environment for no appreciable benefit.”
As the WSJ notable and quotable today says:
[The Google position] relies on two core assumptions:
• The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;
• The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.
The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed.
So Fred I guess I would agree with you to this extent: When you’re dealing with people capable of such Double-think, and those people have the ability to fire you, you should probably lay low.
Well, heck, Fred told us right up front that he had no opinion at all, and that he’d have to take time to read beyond the headlines and inform himself and he just didn’t care enough about it.
Yet he still wrote 630 words on an issue he claimed to have no opinion about.
So compared to that, on an issue that actually has an effect on your working environment, ten pages seems reasonable.
Dry as a bone humor. Thank you!
The KnowNothings who are uninformed on this subject should follow the implicit advice of the OP’s title: If you know nothing, say nothing.* Anyone who is interested actually in learning something would do well to follow the links below the interview of the heretic conducted by Jordan Peterson. I’ve haven’t read them all but none so far are links to Wikipedia. On the contrary, they are links to articles in peer-reviewed journals. No need to watch the interview itself unless you have some spare time.
If even that is too much effort, you can take the word of Prof. Peterson that the heretic’s memo was fully in line with current psychrometric, as well as other psychological and related research. As Peterson points out, it is not all necessarily correct but it is consonant with our current understanding.
Alternatively, you can go full SPLC and declare Peterson, the heretic, and Charles Murray as hateful bigots with no redeeming value. It’s a big tent here at Ricochet.
*See what I did there? It’s an inversion of the If you see something, say something.
I read half of James Damore’s report, and I am impressed by it. Much of what he says in this ten-page memo is important for the business world to read and absorb. He has put some impressive research into it, and he has documented his assertions credibly.
I can understand why Google fired him, but the business world, including Google, would be making a huge mistake to ignore his report. He has done a good job analyzing the current situation for women in the tech industry.
I think he will have a great time sifting through all the offers that are already lining up from Venture Capitalists. He is definitely a nerdy young guy but he was correct and Google made a huge error firing him. The fact that they hired a Hillary campaigner as “VP of Diversity” is a “tell.” Have you seen the video of him and Peterson ? I rarely watch hour long videos. This is worth watching.
This is a mischaracterization of the memo, presumably based on not actually having read it. It was not at all “…his own thinking.” Quite the opposite, it was a summary of scientific literature he had read over the years in this area. His academic background is in biological science.
Possibly, an intellectually curious person who has something interesting to say. Herrnstein and Murray wrote an 800-page book that touched on related matters. I guess those guys must have really loved to hear themselves talk, eh?
Richard Epstein on The Libertarian podcast seems to feel that Google’s assertion in their statement to explain the termination of Damore’s employment that he had violated the company’s Code of Conduct by “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace” is grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Sounds reasonable to me.
My reaction precisely. In the time it took him to create this post, he could have skimmed the ten page document and been that much more informed. Instead, he expended effort making a post on a topic he claims isn’t worth the trouble. To what end?
There are two ways to analyze the events in question. Practically speaking, the poor fellow would have been better off had he kept his mouth shut (well, he’d still be employed at Google, if that’s well off). On principle, however, I can’t fault him whatsoever for pushing back against encroaching dogma—particularly when he did so on an internal forum with the express purpose of collecting the thoughts of employees.
It is disheartening to read the comments on this post and see how many Ricochetti find Mr. Damore in the wrong. There is absolutely no glory, nobility, or virtue to be found in slow digestion in the belly of the beast.
To generate clicks, baby!
I’m not sure this has to be the case. Communication is a two-way street; and if one side isn’t open to hearing what’s being said, they’re not going to hear it – no matter how correctly it’s being presented. You’ll even have people argue over whether or not the sky is blue, if they’re so inclined.
In other words, the guy could have presented everything in the right way (and from the little I’ve read/heard, he certainly made a strong attempt to do so) and still been strung up by those he works/worked with simply because they didn’t want to hear what he was saying.
The version I saw was the one at https://diversitymemo.com
Look at the section “Personality Differences.” The link for “Women, on average, have more” and “empathizing vs. systemizing” are both to Wikipedia articles. I just happened to click on those two first.
Sure, Google can fire Damore, but keep an eye out for this: One of these days, Google is going to be hit with a class action sex discrimination suit for not hiring/promoting/retaining enough female engineers. When that happens, Google, to defend itself, will pay millions to its lawyers to make the very same not-as-many-women-want-to-be-engineers arguments it fired Damore for airing.