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
I’m sorry. How so?
I would hate to be one of your adolescent children Boss…..
Will wonders never cease? Even David Brooks is a voice of sanity on this issue.
What can I say? The guy could turn a phrase ;)
Google figuratively put the crate on the corner with a sign that says “please stand on this and give your honest opinions” when they created the internal forum for this exact purpose. This is not the first time this point has been made in this thread, this is not the first time I’ve made this point in this thread. I can only assume you are being willfully obtuse.
It’s not analogous to the breakroom. The forum Google created was not meant to be a place of relaxation and relief. The better analogy is to a bulletin board— it has an express purpose, Mr. Damore used it for that very purpose, others do not have to read it if they do not want to.
And the progressives have been redefining those taboos as fast as they can. Remember when it was okay to discuss the gender binary on a college campus? Taboo now. You’re only facilitating this soft cultural coup by gaslighting the rest of us with notions of “conservative victimhood”. I wish I knew what insular bubble you spend most of your days in, because the concerns raised are not imagined.
Now I know you are being willfully ignorant. Remember this debacle?
Puhleeze. If this were a university or a soap box you’d have a point but this is Google. A private (publicly traded) company. Framing this as some sort of existential threat to free speech completely ignores How Things Are: if you don’t like the political climate of your employer and it bothers you that much then find some other place to work. Are the suits at Google complete dorfuses for dreaming up this hairballed idea and then crucifying anyone who dares express a viewpoint that doesn’t toe the PC line? Of course. But it’s their company and while they may have violated civil laws How Things Are is that they decide who to hire/fire.
You’re right, no one is being forced to work at Google and any employee who feels their speech is being unduly curtailed could find some place else to work. However, as consumers (scanning the comments thread, it looks like many of us are paying customers) it’s well within our rights to complain about the way Google handled this. Google is a very large and influential company and many of us have the reasonable fear that if a spotlight is not shown on this particular malpractice then this sort of censorship becomes an acceptable norm.
Completely agree. What I was reacting to is the “those evil lefties are oppressing as poor conservatives.” There’s no shortage of conservative expression in the *public* sphere. To further beat this decrepit old nag: the workplace has never been a free speech zone. That’s the reality and acknowledging reality is something conservatives like to bang on about, at least when it serves their viewpoint.
The right to free speech is not granted by the government. It is the government’s role to ensure that our freedom of speech is not infringed upon. That means that infringements on our first amendment rights (guaranteed, not granted by, the Constitution) are not limited to only public entities.
To say, Google has a right to fire him and you can always go work somewhere else misses the point entirely.
We face a threat that many have been warning about for years. But I think we have a situation where the kettle is nearing the boiling point, and the frogs are telling us “this is fine.”
Yes, that is how Fred keeps characterizing it. He’s missing the point entirely, too.
Has already become an acceptable norm.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
From Václav Havel: The Power of the Powerless
Cont. from above
This by Eugene Volokh:
“Of course, employee speech can always be restricted by private employers, who are not bound by the First Amendment. This cannot, however, authorize greater restrictions by the government. A householder is entitled to kick out dinner guests who say certain things. A commercial landlord can refuse to rent to tenants who put up certain posters. A newspaper publisher can refuse to publish articles with which he disagrees. A private university may restrict what its faculty say in class, or even what its students say on campus. Speech on private property can generally be controlled by the private property owner. But this in no way increases the power of the government to restrict speech in private homes, private shopping centers, private newspapers, private universities, or private workplaces.”
Sonny,
For this, he was not only fired, he was defamed. They said he promoted gender stereotypes. Anyone who has seriously read his memo knows that the charge is false. He didn’t out the memo to the public or even try to circulate it inside of Google. Google publicly announced he was fired and gave out the gender stereotype excuse publicly. He has a case against them and should pursue it.
Regards,
Jim
Again, I think you’re missing the point. We’ve just become inured to the reflexive response: “not the government therefore not an issue.” But the fact that Google is not the government is not the issue anyway.
I agree with you, but I didn’t take that to be Fred’s point in this post. For the record I have no problem with the commenters discussing the Google scandal – I just wanted to throw in my two cents.
I hate it when I’m right.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/google-and-facebook-co-sponsoring-protest-of-pro-life-womens-heath-care-clinic/
And then there’s this:
https://officechai.com/stories/google-becomes-laughing-stock-academic-world-firing-engineer-stating-facts/#sthash.M62fyvMo.dpbs
Ah, they’ll be alright.
I encourage everyone to read this article in WIRED…and then most especially read the comments section beneath it. It’s a very hopeful sign that there is a vocal contingent of people in technology who are not happy about Google’s HR policies and the company’s action against Damore.
Given other articles today on the cancellation of Google’s company-wide meeting, it’s clear that Google’s CEO wasn’t prepared for some of the blowback that was awaiting him from supporters of Damore. Kind of warms my heart.
As of this morning, Wired has removed all articles pertaining to the Google memo matter off of their home page. There is a video of women software engineers venting about the rampant sexism in Silicon Valley tech firms (of course) but there is no way to offer comments on the video (which is very convenient). Are we not entertained?
I have to admit to shock that a comments section on a mainstream website isn’t just a jungle of thuggish groupthink! In the 200 or so comments I perused, each PC comment or claim was answered, effectively and generally politely, by a number of respondents. In most comment areas, it seems the PCers run rampant, without opposition.
The lesson may be to make sure they’re outnumbered.
Okay. So explain it to me.
Right?
It’s like when Tom shows up at the rally and Larry says “Hey, Tom, where’s your sheet?” and Tom says “Aw, I thought maybe we could skip the sheets and the crosses and all that today and just, you know, sit around and drink a couple beers.”
Sure, it might make a lot of sense and actually be worth saying. But it isn’t going to make you popular.