If you actually read the document I linked above (a memo, not a manifesto), you might find that James didn't actually right anything especially repugnant. He made fact-based arguments while citing his sources and said that he was willing to discuss any part of the document. He was simply saying that Google isn't considering all of its options and that by ignoring those options Google is hurting itself. As an employer, I would be grateful if an employee were to point that out even if I were to disagree with the options he brings up.

*write (not right)

tomato, tomahto. He is using pseudoscience to advocate for harmful gender stereotypes in the workplace (and by mentioning IQ scores one might argue also a dog whistle for racial stereotypes as well).

And while it is not formatted as a manifesto, it still reads as one.

I reject the idea that Google has not considered these ideas and rejected them. I also reject the idea that Google ignoring his 'facts' is hurting the company.

Finally Google needs to worry about public relations, and keeping this clown around causes more headaches than firing him.

Calling every study that challenges your preconceived notions "pseudoscience" doesn't make you right.

Google literally cannot consider these ideas when they are closed for debate. To close any debate while ignoring facts is hurtful.

Finally, firing James has caused far more headaches than keeping him could possibly have caused. In fact, even the CEO has been forced to prematurely terminate his vacation.

So I just looked at your profile, and from your quote I am unsure if you are troll or what is going on. If you don't mind I am going to see how others reply to this thread before I continue to engage.

If he genuinely believes that "Winston Churchill" quote is a real quote or even anything remotely resembling Winston Churchill, then he must be lmao

I'm not familiar with the tech industry so I don't really have much to contribute, that quote has just been bugging me for months.

I agree the quote is not likely from Winston Churchill, but laughing off that paper and the arguments in makes really just confirms the assertions it is making. Your refusal to even look at or merely acknowledge that what it says might be true is a great example of how you can your own 'echo chamber'. I hope jengamaster will show himself to be a bit more open-minded in the future.

No matter how 'right you think you might be / or actually might be - not professional to send out a memo like he did. Publicaly challenge the boss/company - expect repercussions

Ticonderoga, I believe that you are leaping to conclusions. I did look at it; I have simply heard these arguments before, read the evidence in support of them, and found them lacking. James has not brought anything new to the table.

To take things to an extreme, I do not feel the need to get into a nuanced debate every time someone presents an argument for why we should institute the enslavement of the population of Americans with African ancestry. I have heard those arguments before, found them lacking and have moved on. If you want to accuse me of creating an echo chamber because of this go right ahead.

I also find Leon's argument as an employer to be unlikely in certain circumstances. To take another extreme, if a memo one of his employees wrote was circulated to Leon's customers or clients, suggesting that the company should advocate for the extermination of the Jewish population because it would increase profits, I have trouble believing that Leon would calm his infuriated patrons by saying look I encourage diversity of opinion at this company so I will not be firing this guy. In fact, patrons, I am grateful that he pointed out this possible was to improve this business.

Now obviously these are extreme examples, and James's paper does not go as far. But his paper is using flawed science to perpetuate stereotypes that I feel Google is right to flatly reject. It is not that they are quashing debate so much as those debates have already happened. So by continuing to bring up the issue all you are doing is harming employee morale and hurting the company in the realm of public opinion.

To be fair, James does have a list of ways to get women MORE involved in tech.

Bladerunners, from what I have read he didn't send out the memo to everyone in the company. He shared it with a group of like-minded individuals, who then leaked it to a wider circle, which then leaked it to the media.

jengamaster if someone is able to present well-cited and well-argued points for slavery or how exterminating the Jewish population would increase company profits, then I would address those points rather than shoving my head in the ground. I have yet to see those points made.

James's paper is based in real science, and he in fact flatly states in the memo that he rejects using stereotypes in the hiring process. He is only arguing that an objective hiring process would naturally result in a gender split that is not 50/50. No one argues that coal miners should have more "diversity" but somehow all the good jobs must.

By your logic the "debate" on abortion, immigration, etc. have all occurred already. That doesn't mean that further debate on the subjects should be closed. You say that his opinion hurts company morale and image, but you don't consider that the company's far left bias (which James seeks to address) is also hurting morale among the company's conservative employees and image among conservative users.

Really, Leon? You would tell your clients and customers that, "My company welcomes debates on whether to reinstitute slavery, because it might increase profitability. Any public relations fallout is fine because I am trying to welcome all ideas to improve my business." That is what you are telling me?

It is not called shoving your head in the ground when you have heard these arguments over and over again, and have found them without merit ever time. It is just spending your time is a more productive manner.

Now as a gentleman of leisure, I can spend my days arguing on the internet, but I can understand why other individuals or corporations might have better uses for their time them rehearsing debunked arguments. Time is our most precious commodity.

I am not saying debate on any issue should be closed; one of the reasons that I fully support the first amendment. But I am saying that a person or a company is well within their rights to close debates on certain subjects, when having that debate causes a net negative.

Were you a big fan of The Bell Curve when it was released? Because, science.

@jengamaster "I have simply heard these arguments before, read the evidence in support of them, and found them lacking" I did realize after replying that this may have be the case in this instance; in which case I encourage you to refrain from the debate. On the contrary to your statement, however, you have engaged quite lengthily (perhaps to defend your person, which is reasonable and good) so please do not use Motte and Bailey reasoning to justify your approach to this argument.

I am confused by your statements regarding "the enslavement of the population of Americans with African ancestry" and re-instituting slavery. Care to explain that? Your sure you read the original memo? I don't recall slavery being discussed by James.

I also do not recall slavery being discussed by James, and so I think it is fair to say that it was not. And I apologize if my line of reasoning led any to believe James was talking about instituting slavery.

I used that argument to hopefully find common ground on an issue for which one side is so thoroughly agreed with that even having the debate is a generally considered a waste of time. To show a circumstance where the debate, for all intents and purposes, has been settled.

Now I understand with the arguments that James is putting forth, there are many who do not consider the debate settled. But I do, and I believe Google does as well.

Ahh... I understand that now. Just try to remain open to arguments opposing your views even if you see the debate as settled. Years ago there were a group of Americans who thought the debate on African slavery was closed and settled and went to war when others insisted it was not.

This is a cleaned up version of what he originally wrote to make it more acceptable to the general population. It's a modern version of Social Darwinism trying to pretend it isn't biased.

Of course non-diveristy hiring will result in an almost all white male hiring, because that is the largest population of applicants in the US from colleges. If you followed the old Microsoft's practice of hiring from India than there would be a large number that are Indians.

The complaint for decades is that people going into hard sciences and engineering in college are primarily males and to have more women graduate you have to actively recruit and encourage them to finish.

To say men actively want status is to prove that they are trained to seek it from sports to academics when growing up. Don't tell me that no man here was never encouraged to be number one and that participating is good enough.

You also have the gender issue that women need to leave their jobs to have and raise children whereas men can have children without having to leave their jobs except in rare instances to do the raising.

jengamaster, I would not tolerate memos on political debate in my company. However, this particular memo is a suggestion to improve the company rather than some unrelated topic. A memo on legalizing slavery would have nothing to do with company policy. I have not read The Bell Curve and was not alive when it was published.

Randomizer, I am unaware of there being another version of this memo. Do you have a link to what you are talking about?

Sorry, I'm confused. Is this James chap a Webdipper?

If not, unless any of us work for Google, why should we bothered about what he says?

He was not fired for writing the memo. He was fired because the content of his memo was contributing to a hostile work environment.

I don't have access to internal Google documents. The original was only for Google employees. From the first page you can see this is referencing another document because it refers to information that would not have been in the original.

For those asking for a rebuttal, here it is:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

Actually, the pseudo science cited has been comprehensively trashed by actual scientists and statisticians. I'm a little surprised he didn't also argue that blacks are genetically inferior and so shouldn't be hired. So, citing a bunch of junk science to promote your biases will get your ass fired. That's the right message to send. Kudos to Google for the zero tolerance.

"Calling every study that challenges your preconceived notions "pseudoscience" doesn't make you right."

Believing ANY study that confirms your preconceived notions is also pseudoscience.

Conservatives love fake science even more than fake news.

You mean to tell us that Google is not a Chinese hoax ?

@ Randomizer. I'm not sure that the gender bias towards males dominating engineering and science degrees still holds. Women are out performing men in engineering in Australian universities in recent years. Men probably still dominate in Scientology, but I'm not sure about new Science graduates.
Besides, isn't Science a Chinese hoax ?.. Scientology is an American hoax. LoL

Jeff Kuta, I don't see how he was contributing to a hostile work environment. If anything, he was trying to alleviate what he perceived as a hostile work environment. He wrote a single memo which stated that we should judge people as individuals rather than as a group. He didn't go up to anyone and insult them or force them to read the memo. The memo was intellectually written.

Randomizer, he added the first part after the media firestorm, but there's no indication that he changed any other part of the document. The memo was leaked to the media by other employees, and I'm sure if he had changed it subsequently, the media would have noticed.

A_Tin_Can and Ogion, Actually, his arguments have been backed up by plenty of scientists.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
\
Jeff Kuta, So if I were to read a study that says humans are causing global warming, and that happens to confirm my preconceived notions, would you also call that pseudoscience?

The notion that men are genetically and inherently more status-driven is a false premise.

Also IQ isn't a worthwhile measure.

Yeah, anything that doesn't back up your preconceived politically correct notions isn't a worthwhile measure. And it's pretty clear throughout history that men are more material-oriented, while women are more socially oriented.