“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

hatrickpatrick · 08-08-2017 9:42pm

He should have left "abilities" out of it. Implying that one's gender fundamentally affects one's potential technological prowess or business acumen is a dick move. Had he restricted his memo to things like different choices, it would probably have been fine, but instead he had to throw in a subtle "also, women just aren't as good at STEM work as men are", which is bullsh!t and unnecessarily inflammatory.

JRant · 08-08-2017 9:47pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He should have left "abilities" out of it. Implying that one's gender fundamentally affects one's potential technological prowess or business acumen is a dick move. Had he restricted his memo to things like different choices, it would probably have been fine, but instead he had to throw in a subtle "also, women just aren't as good at STEM work as men are", which is bullsh!t and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Sorry HP but he didn't say that either directly or subtly. He argued that men are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, which is true, and then proposes ways to improve female participation that doesn't include discrimination.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 9:54pm

JRant wrote: »

Sorry HP but he didn't say that either directly or subtly. He argued that men are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, which is true, and then proposes ways to improve female participation that doesn't include discrimination.

That's the crazy thing here: people can't even agree on what he did or did not say (I also don't see any clear pledge against diversity or insinuations that women are inferior, but clearly some people do though I don't believe that have quoted what exact statements they have a problem with).

Not even agreeing in what the message is kind of prevents from having any productive discussion about wether it was appropriate or not :-s

hatrickpatrick · 08-08-2017 9:58pm

JRant wrote: »

Sorry HP but he didn't say that either directly or subtly.

He did actually make reference to ability and to innate personality traits being correlated to gender. That's a stupid comment to make - " I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes" - implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality, which it doesn't.

He argued that men are more likely to pursue STEM subjects, which is true, and then proposes ways to improve female participation that doesn't include discrimination.

And I agree with that part, entirely. That's why it's a pity that he included the above-cited bit.

wes · 08-08-2017 10:00pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Unless you have seen the CV he provided to Google before being hired to confirm it mentioned a PhD, and have final confirmation about the fact that he doesn't have one (the Reuters articule is inconclusive), you are jumping horse.

What is written on his LinkedIn profile is irrelevant in terms of misleading Google about his qualifications unless this is how he advertised his CV to them.

Doesn't actually matter, as again attacks on his character will be used against him. If he lied to Google, when he got the job, it will be especially bad, and if lied after gaining employment, any lawyer worth there salt will still use to attack the guys character.

Then, we have the court of public opinion, where it will again be used to attack him. Will also make anyone thinking of hiring him in the future think twice, if he lieing about qualifications.

Bob24 wrote: »

You are showing personal biais against the guy. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever that he "lied through his teeth".

What personal bias? I don't know this guy. Also, the evidence was in the article you posted. He lied on his LinkedIn profile and claimed to have a Harvard Phd, when it was a Masters. That counts as lieing through your teeth.

Bob24 wrote: »

Maybe he did lie, but once again even if he did a court will not not entertain this is it came to the picture at a later stage and was therefore not part of the dismissal decision. All that will be reviewed to decide if the dismissal was unfair is the original motives given. Google could start another lawsuit if they felt they were mislead and wanted it to be brought to a court- but it would be a separate case.

Again, a persons character can be used against them in any court case. This one won't be any different.

Bob24 wrote: »

Edit: I looked-up his name out of curiosity and he is indeed listed on the Alumni section for the Harvard "System Biology PhD program": http://sysbiophd.harvard.edu/people/alumni/james-damore

Wouldn't take it as 100% meaning he actually completed the programme, but it is more of a positive than a negative hint. Isn't it bit premature to conclusively say he lied through his teeth???

He doesn't even have a dissertation title. If he was finished, I would think there would be a title. I see no evidence that what Harvard told Reuters is untrue.

I based what I am saying off the article you posted. Did you read the article you posted?

Here is the relevant portion of the article you posted.

Fired Google memo writer draws jeers, cheers and a job offer

--SNIP--
The LinkedIn page also says Damore received a PhD in systems biology from Harvard University in 2013. Harvard said on Tuesday he completed a master's degree in the subject, not a PhD. He could not immediately be reached on Tuesday.
--SNIP--

So unless Harvard or Reuters got things very wrong, and the lack of a dissertation title on the Alumni page, I think it safe to say, that he is telling porkies until we see evidence to the contrary.

**EDIT**
Further confirmation from wired, who also contacted Harvard:

THE GUY WHO WROTE THE 'GOOGLE MEMO' JUST MIGHT SUE

--SNIP--
On his LinkedIn profile, Damore lists a “PhD, Systems Biology” from Harvard in 2013. However, a representative from Harvard tells WIRED that Damore did not complete a PhD. He completed a master’s degree in systems biology in 2013.
--SNIP--

So Harvard have told both Reuters and Wired that he did not complete his PhD. So unless we see evidence that Harvard got it wrong, its safe to come the conclusion that the guy lied, based on the current available information.

I am perfectly willing to change that conclusion, if new information surfaces, but I think that unlikely at this point.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 10:04pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He did actually make reference to ability and to innate personality traits being correlated to gender. That's a stupid comment to make - " I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes" - implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality, which it doesn't.

"Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

I'm quoting the full section as I think the part in bold is important because he very clearly states he is talking about high level averages and not saying his points should be applied to draw conclusions about a specific individual.

So I don't think he is "implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality".

JRant · 08-08-2017 10:08pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He did actually make reference to ability and to innate personality traits being correlated to gender. That's a stupid comment to make - " I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes" - implying that one's gender fundamentally dictates one's personality, which it doesn't.

And I agree with that part, entirely. That's why it's a pity that he included the above-cited bit.

Not at all, he clear states there are differences 'on average' between the sexes and uses the big 5 personality traits to explain these. This is not some basement dweller spouting about d'wimmins. His is citing we'll established findings that there are indeed differences between the sexes ' on average'.

The mistake he made was thinking Google was diverse enough to tolerate anything that goes against the group-think mentality

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 10:10pm

wes wrote: »

Also, the evidence was in the article you posted.

I based what I am saying off the article you posted. Did you read the article you posted?

Here is the relevant portion of the article you posted.

Pretty irrelevant and obsessive comments as I obviously read the article and specified in my previous posts that the section in question is inconclusive. If everyone posting an article has to agree with everything in it even when the journalist themselves don't make a definite statement, we can stop posting any links.

The simple questions is: what's your evidence that he "lied through his teeth" to Google when applying for the job?

wes · 08-08-2017 10:21pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Pretty irrelevant and obsessive comments as I obviously read the article and specified in my previous posts that the passage in question is inconclusive. If everyone posting an article has to agree with everything in it even when the journalist themselves don't make a definite statement, we can stop posting any links.

The simple questions is: what's your evidence that he "lied through his teeth" to Google when applying for the job?

The articles aren't inconclusive, and I provided a 2nd one as well, and emphasis isn't the same as obsession

. You seem perfectly willing to accept Reuters information, when it suits you, and call it inconclusive, when it doesn't.

You seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse, and ignore direct evidence like you know Harvard clearly saying to 2 different news organisations that he doesn't have a PhD. Your own link to the alumni page, shows he doesn't have a dissertation title, which if he had completed it, would surely be on that page.

There is nothing inconclusive here at all, the current available facts, make it pretty clear the guy lied, and unless you can dispute Harvard or prove that Wired and Reuters got things completely wrong, its a perfectly valid conclusion. You have been completely unable justify you claims of things being inconclusive in any way shape or form. At this point, your basically claiming to be right on your say so alone, and refuse to address the available facts.

Gyalist · 08-08-2017 10:26pm

Bob24 wrote: »

All to be confirmed but yes. On the other hand throwing this in at this stage would clearly look like they are trying to find valid arguments to fire him after the fact because they feel the original decision was not justified.

You appear to be viewing his termination through the prism of Irish employment law. US employment law is a different beast. "At-will" employment is what usually applies in private companies, and the tech sector in particular.

Conservatives are always in favour of at-will employment until they fall foul of it.

JRant · 08-08-2017 10:26pm

wes wrote: »

The articles aren't inconclusive, and I provided a 2nd one as well, and emphasis isn't the same as obsession . You seem perfectly willing to accept Reuters information, when it suits you, and call it inconclusive, when it doesn't.

You seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse, and ignore direct evidence like you know Harvard clearly saying to 2 different news organisations that he doesn't have a PhD. Your own link to the alumni page, shows he doesn't have a dissertation title, which if he had completed it, would surely be on that page.

There is nothing inconclusive here at all, the current available facts, make it pretty clear the guy lied, and unless you can dispute Harvard or prove that Wired and Reuters got things completely wrong, its a perfectly valid conclusion. You have been completely unable justify you claims of things being inconclusive in any way shape or form. At this point, your basically claiming to be right on your say so alone, and refuse to address the available facts.

Jaysus, they are clearly saying it's inconclusive because we don't know what he put on his CV.

Dyr · 08-08-2017 10:29pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Google is a wealthy corporation, a massive centre of power in the West. It is just pushing the current (most popular) creed/ideology that is espoused by the "masters" (the way the people in charge used to be god fearing Christians once upon a time); they can't have one of their minions going and rubbishing the holy faith in a document that comes out in public.
I suppose the theories and scholarship behind these ideas came out of the left but f-me I just have a very very hard time accepting it when I see the likes of Google (or MS, or Apple or any other of these massive tax clever tech MNCs) described as "left wing"!

It's yer classic entryist tactic. You find a polarizing issue that has traction and use that as a trojan horse for your own agenda. The workers party and the socialist party both have used this in Ireland in the past. Bannon and Breitbart use it too.

The whole feminism/minority cause is as close as you'll get to an article of faith across the liberal middle class so it was perfect for this. It also has the benefit that the university radicals who espouse it are absolved of their own privilege (wealth) through this issue.

Companies are absolutely terrified of being accused of discrimination against women and minorities. The media are guaranteed to run with it. That's why you saw a concerted effort to push the idea (regardless of the reality) that there is a lack of diversity in the technology sector as the tech demograph are so sensitive about it. As a result you now you have entire depts of social justice warrior types across the sector dictating policy. Anyone who questions the bat **** craziness at the heart of their ideology can be witch hunted like this schmuck

The thing is ordinary people eventually cop onto these loons

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 10:29pm

wes wrote: »

emphasis isn't the same as obsession

Obsession leads to over-emphasis ...

wes wrote: »

The articles aren't inconclusive, and I provided a 2nd one as well, and emphasis isn't the same as obsession . You seem perfectly willing to accept Reuters information, when it suits you, and call it inconclusive, when it doesn't.

The whole article (including that section) is information, which can be conclusive or not. Can you give an exemple of what in your opinion I considered conclusive because it suits me?

And does the last bit honestly sound very conclusive to you on the journalists' part?

"The LinkedIn page also says Damore received a PhD in systems biology from Harvard University in 2013. Harvard said on Tuesday he completed a master's degree in the subject, not a PhD. He could not immediately be reached on Tuesday."

Also you ignored a few times a question I asked: have you seen the CV he provided to Google to confirmed he told them he had a PhD?

wes · 08-08-2017 10:32pm

JRant wrote: »

Jaysus, they are clearly saying it's inconclusive because we don't know what he put on his CV.

I am clearly saying that he lied on his LinkedIn, and I already said we don't know what he put on his CV:

wes wrote: »

If he lied to Google, when he got the job, it will be especially bad, and if lied after gaining employment, any lawyer worth there salt will still use to attack the guys character.

I already admitted we don't know if he lied to Google.......

Dyr · 08-08-2017 10:34pm

wes wrote: »

What personal bias? I don't know this guy. Also, the evidence was in the article you posted. He lied on his LinkedIn profile and claimed to have a Harvard Phd, when it was a Masters. That counts as lieing through your teeth.

Did he? that's shocking stuff. If he did that it would disprove everything he wrote... obviously.

I'm assuming you've seen his linkedin profile and will throw the relevant section up here

I mean otherwise, you might just be playing the man instead of the ball. As is now standard in these situations

wes · 08-08-2017 10:37pm

Bob24 wrote: »

I would say obsession is not emphasis.

You can believe whatever you want, but if you can't tell the difference between emphasis and obsession, then you clearly have some issues.

Bob24 wrote: »

The whole article (including that section) is information, which can be conclusive or not. Can you give an exemple of what in your opinion I considered conclusive because it suits me?

The whole part were you ignore Harvard clearly stating he didn't complete his PhD

Bob24 wrote: »

And does the last bit honestly sound very conclusive to you on the journalists' part?

"The LinkedIn page also says Damore received a PhD in systems biology from Harvard University in 2013. Harvard said on Tuesday he completed a master's degree in the subject, not a PhD. He could not immediately be reached on Tuesday."

Perfect example of ignoring facts that you don't like. You have literally just quote Harvard clearly stating he didn't complete a PhD. The depths of denial at this point are really rather astonishing.

Bob24 wrote: »

Also you ignored a few times a question I asked: have you seen the CV he provided to Google to confirmed he told them he had a PhD?

I didn't ignore you:

wes wrote: »

If he lied to Google, when he got the job, it will be especially bad, and if lied after gaining employment, any lawyer worth there salt will still use to attack the guys character.

I already admitted that I don't know if he lied to Google. You need to learn to actually read what is posted.

Grayson · 08-08-2017 10:39pm

Bob24 wrote: »

That's precisely censoring. Most organisations do it indeed. Hypocrites call it code of conduct when it applies to their policy but censorship when what's being flagged as unacceptable doesn't suit their views, but it's the same thing.

The question is what views are being censored and does it make sense.

You think it should be acceptable to walk into work and state that someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race? You think a company should be ok with it?

wes · 08-08-2017 10:44pm

Bambi wrote: »

Did he? that's shocking stuff. If he did that it would disprove everything he wrote... obviously.

I made no such claim, in fact I could care less what he wrote, and have said as much several times. The work place is no place for political manifestos. Do keep up now

.

Bambi wrote: »

I'm assuming you've seen his linkedin profile and will throw the relevant section up here

Reuters and Wired not good enough for you? I take it you can disprove what both those news organisations have said? I look forward to you providing evidence to how there both wrong.

Bambi wrote: »

I mean otherwise, you might just be playing the man instead of the ball. As is now standard in these situations

You mean like ignoring the fact that I backed up my claims, and that you chose to ignore that I did so. One could think your are purposefully pretending that I didn't clearly provide links to what I was basing my information on. Now, I am sure that can't possible be the case.........

I look forward to your evidence disproving Reuters and Wired, oh and Harvard who told them he doesn't have PhD.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 10:46pm

Grayson wrote: »

You think it should be acceptable to walk into work and state that someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race? You think a company should be ok with it?

Did I say that? Did the guy say that?

pumpkin4life · 08-08-2017 10:49pm

Grayson wrote: »

You think it should be acceptable to walk into work and state that someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race? You think a company should be ok with it?

Grayson · 08-08-2017 10:50pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Did I say that? Did the guy say that?

Yes, he did and you're defending him.

wes · 08-08-2017 10:51pm

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Whats with your picture from the 4chan convention :P.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 10:52pm

wes wrote: »

The whole part were you ignore Harvard clearly stating he didn't complete his PhD

Perfect example of ignoring facts that you don't like. You have literally just quote Harvard clearly stating he didn't complete a PhD. The depths of denial at this point are really rather astonishing.

I wouldn't have quoted it if wanted ignored it. However if the journalist had wanted to be conclusive they won't have added the following sentence which you are not considering.

wes wrote: »

I didn't ignore you:

I already admitted that I don't know if he lied to Google. You need to learn to actually read what is posted.

Very well I indeed missed that. So basically nothing they can seriously use against him to wight in a potential unfair dismissal court case.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 10:53pm

Grayson wrote: »

Yes, he did and you're defending him.

Quote? If he did that there's no way I'll defend his position that but we need to be clear on what we are talking about.

Asside from hatrickpatrick I don't think anyone has clearly quoted parts of his memo and explained why they are unhappy with them so it's a bit pointless have an argument about whether what he said was acceptable or not if we are not even clear what we are talking about.

Anyone will agree that saying "someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race" is not acceptable but the questions are: did he actually say that and what is the appropriate reaction?

For a starter there is nothing about race in the document. I can see he is saying than on average men and women can have different affinities about the type of work they are interested in or different qualities. But:
1) saying they are different is not saying qualities more prominent within a gender are useful while the ones more prominent within the other are worthless. There is no hierarchy I can see.
2) he is clearly saying he's looking at averages but this shouldn't be used to draw conclusions about a specific individual.

Is that what is considered as describing women as inferior or is there something else I have missed?

LionelNashe · 08-08-2017 10:56pm

Grayson wrote: »

You think it should be acceptable to walk into work and state that someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race? You think a company should be ok with it?

The question is, do you respond by arguing against the person, and providing evidence/refuting his evidence, or do you just shut him down by shaming him and firing him. The point that he made in the manifesto about left & right politics being based on deep moral biases, I thought, was a very good one, and one I hadn't heard before. If he had sent around an email saying that the company should switch from using HP printers to using Dell printers because HP were better, it wouldn't be seen as a moral issue. People would argue for or against, or agree to disagree. However if he says that men are better at X, and women are better than Y, discussion is shut down because it's seen as morally wrong to go against the diversity policy.

Similarly, if a policy in Europe is called 'socialist', it's just a descriptive term, with no moral judgment. However in the US it can be used as an insult, because there's a moral judgment associated with it (I presume a hangover from McCarthyism or the cold war), and then the policy gets shot down without debate.

Dyr · 08-08-2017 10:59pm

wes wrote: »

You actually think that Google didn't consult there army of lawyers, when firing this guy? He doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially when he is based in a "at will" state. I don't need to be an expert, to understand that a big company wouldn't take a decision like this without consulting there lawyers. Its common practice.

Again read up on at will employment:

I don't need to be an expert to understand the above, and you have yet to provide on what grounds what Google did was illegal. Just vague stuff about "clever legal" teams.
.

lol, remember what phrase I used when I said the guy has a case: Discussion of terms of employment. Guess what kiddo?

The benefit of having a few miles on the clock is that you've been around the employment law block a bit so you can spot the spoofers like your good self

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html?recirc=taboolainternal

"First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised.

In a reply to the initial outcry over his memo, the engineer added to his memo: "Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired." The law protects that kind of "concerted activity."

Second, the engineer's memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.
Danielle Brown, Google's newly installed vice president of Diversity, Integrity, & Governance, made it clear that the engineer's memo does not reflect "a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages."
An employee does not have free reign to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."

Third, the engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws. Those policies include support programs limited by race or gender and promotional and hiring scoring policies that consider race and gender. It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws. In other words, the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are.
Brown is correct that an employee has no right to engage in workplace discourse that offends anti-discrimination laws; employees may not engage in unlawful harassment under the guise of protected concerted activity or political grievances.
The lawful response to this software engineer's memo, however, appears to be continuation of the dialogue he started rather than termination of his employment."

Commentary by Dan Eaton, a partner with the San Diego law firm of Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, where his practice focuses on defending and advising employers. He also is a professor at the San Diego State University Fowler College of Business where he teaches classes in business ethics and employment law. Follow him on Twitter @DanEatonlaw.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:01pm

Bob24 wrote: »

I wouldn't have quoted it if wanted ignored it. However if the journalist had wanted to be conclusive they won't have added the following sentence which you are not considering.

Harvard were very clear to both wired and reuters. Sorry, but its pretty conclusive, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and what line are you talking about:

Fired Google memo writer draws jeers, cheers and a job offer

--SNIP--
The LinkedIn page also says Damore received a PhD in systems biology from Harvard University in 2013. Harvard said on Tuesday he completed a master's degree in the subject, not a PhD. He could not immediately be reached on Tuesday.
--SNIP--

BTW, do you mean the line where he couldn't be reached? How does that cast doubt on what Harvard said exactly? The whole thing seems pretty straight forward, unless new information to the contrary surfaces, the whole thing is pretty clear.

Bob24 wrote: »

Very well I indeed missed that. So basically nothing they can seriously use against him to wight in a potential unfair dismissal court case.

Except assault his character, and your know the whole working in an "at will" state thing, which will make extremely difficult for him to win. Best case for him is to get Google to settle, to make the whole thing go away.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 11:05pm

wes wrote: »

Except assault his character, and your know the whole working in an "at will" state thing, which will make extremely difficult for him to win. Best case for him is to get Google to settle, to make the whole thing go away.

See what a poster shared just above your post. He might have a case and what can easily be described as a mistake on his linkedin profile (if it is inaccurate) won't affect that.

Yes I was referring to the journalist saying the guys was not being reachable. They are saying they only heard one side of the story and since there could be mistakes/misunderstandings they don't want to just print "he didn't complete a PhD" in a conclusive style.

JRant · 08-08-2017 11:11pm

wes wrote: »

I am clearly saying that he lied on his LinkedIn, and I already said we don't know what he put on his CV:

I already admitted we don't know if he lied to Google.......

That's fair enough. I missed that in your reply.

Lying on LinkedIn is nothing, it's by far the worst social media platform full of blow-hard arse-lickers posing as "professional's".

wes · 08-08-2017 11:13pm

Bambi wrote: »

lol, remember what phrase I used when I said the guy has a case: Discussion of terms of employment. Guess what kiddo?

Wow, you reply to my post, after several pages and replying to my later posts. How much time did you spend on this

.

Bambi wrote: »

The benefit of having a few miles on the clock is that you've been around the employment law block a bit so you can spot the spoofers like your good self

Quoting someone else doesn't make you an expert on employment law. Its funny that you actually think that.

Bambi wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html?recirc=taboolainternal

Well, we will see how well the whole thing holds up in court. My money is on Googles lawyers with that one.

Also, note the qualifiers in the title of the article you linked:

Why it may be illegal for Google to punish that engineer over his now viral anti-diversity memo

Interesting how you left out the title of the linked article. A lot caveats and if and buts. Its certainly an interesting contrary opinion, but its hardly the smoking gun you present. Nice try however.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:15pm

Bob24 wrote: »

See what a poster shared just above your post. He might have a case and what can easily be described as a mistake on his linkedin profile (if it is inaccurate) won't affect that.

Yeah, he might have a case, but I don't fancy his chances, and if he did lie to Google on his CV, it won't help his cause.

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes I was referring to the journalist saying the guys was not being reachable. They are saying they only heard one side of the story and since there could be mistakes/misunderstandings they don't want to just print "he didn't complete a PhD" in a conclusive style.

That is certainly possible, and hence why I found a 2nd source, with Wired. Its very unlikely, that both would be wrong.

JRant · 08-08-2017 11:19pm

wes wrote: »

Yeah, he might have a case, but I don't fancy his chances, and if he did lie to Google on his CV, it won't help his cause.

That is certainly possible, and hence why I found a 2nd source, with Wired. Its very unlikely, that both would be wrong.

Here's the thing Wes, when you go for a job with Google they go through your CV with a fine tooth comb. They will go to your University to actually see your records. They don't leave anything to chance, especially not when they are going to be paying you a 6 figure salary.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:20pm

JRant wrote: »

That's fair enough. I missed that in your reply.

Lying on LinkedIn is nothing, it's by far the worst social media platform full of blow-hard arse-lickers posing as "professional's".

True enough, it will probably be used against him, but if he did lie to Google, it will look very bad in any kind of court room setting.

08-08-2017 11:23pm

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

wes · 08-08-2017 11:24pm

JRant wrote: »

Here's the thing Wes, when you go for a job with Google they go through your CV with a fine tooth comb. They will go to your University to actually see your records. They don't leave anything to chance, especially not when they are going to be paying you a 6 figure salary.

Yes, and I don't think Harvard are in the business of telling lies about Alumni to 2 separate news organisations, on a high profile news story.

Also, plenty of high profile people have gotten away with lieing on there CVs:

17 successful executives who have lied on their résumés

Big companies like Walmart and Yahoo are on that list, and we not talking about lowly bottom of the rung employees, but the guys at the very top, getting away with lieing.

JRant · 08-08-2017 11:26pm

wes wrote: »

True enough, it will probably be used against him, but if he did lie to Google, it will look very bad in any kind of court room setting.

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 11:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

If he did, the timing on his linkedin profile indicates that it was probably because Google hired him before he finished.

Pretty common for Google to hire people who are about to finish their PhD. They are supposed to finish it in the first few months after taking up the job but often don't find the time/motivation to do so. I personally know 2 people to whom it happened.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:30pm

JRant wrote: »

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Yeah, that will be the likely outcome, unless someone gets greedy.

JRant · 08-08-2017 11:31pm

wes wrote: »

Yes, and I don't think Harvard are in the business of telling lies about Alumni to 2 separate news organisations, on a high profile news story.

Also, plenty of high profile people have gotten away with lieing on there CVs:

17 successful executives who have lied on their résumés

Big companies like Walmart and Yahoo are on that list, and we not talking about lowly bottom of the rung employees, but the guys at the very top, getting away with lieing.

Oh I'm sure it's happened at other companies before. I'm just outlining how incredibly throughout Google are in their hiring process. You need to do at least 9 interviews, pass the background check and give permission to your University to hand over your records. They are incredibly paranoid when it comes to hiring and it would be extremely difficult to get anything past them.

LionelNashe · 08-08-2017 11:33pm

JRant wrote: »

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Maybe he won't accept a settlement though. Some more publicity might be more useful. He has enough intelligence and enough writing ability, and now he has the exposure, to write a book, contribute to blogs/media, set up a youtube channel, or all of the above. Some of those youtubers are making silly money. He should get himself an agent and some advisors and he'll make 10X more money just being a public figure than he would as an engineer.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:34pm

JRant wrote: »

Oh I'm sure it's happened at other companies before. I'm just outlining how incredibly throughout Google are in their hiring process. You need to do at least 9 interviews, pass the background check and give permission to your University to hand over your records. They are incredibly paranoid when it comes to hiring and it would be extremely difficult to get anything past them.

Yes, I know about there process, but again its not impossible that they screwed up, for any number of reasons. We don't know what he said to Google, but we do know that Harvard dispute the claims on his LinkedIn page.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:35pm

LionelNashe wrote: »

Maybe he won't accept a settlement though. Some more publicity might be more useful. He has enough intelligence and enough writing ability, and now he has the exposure, to write a book, contribute to blogs/media, set up a youtube channel, or all of the above. Some of those youtubers are making silly money. He should get himself an agent and some advisors and he'll make 10X more money just being a public figure than he would as an engineer.

Google owns Youtube...........

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 11:35pm

wes wrote: »

Yeah, that will be the likely outcome, unless someone gets greedy.

Or unless he decides he want to make a point out of it and is interested in politics more than immediate cash gains.

But clearly if it comes o that and if I was him I would take the money. The quality of legal advice he could get is way below what Google can afford so going to court would be at his disadvantage.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:40pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Or unless he decides he want to make a point out of it.

Google can easily drag things out for years and years out of spite if they want. Its a bad idea to go up against Google, unless you have iron clad case, which I don't think this guy does.

Its very likely that Google will clamp down on political speech (as will other companies) after this mess. Rightly so imo, this whole thing has caused nothing but trouble for Google, and its certainly not worth the bother.

Dyr · 08-08-2017 11:46pm

JRant wrote: »

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Absolutely, google do not want to be shown up to have done wrong in this case. he will most likely be paid off handsomely to f**k off quietly into the sunset

Not a bad move if he planned it that way

Bob24 · 08-08-2017 11:47pm

wes wrote: »

Google can easily drag things out for years and years out of spite if they want. Its a bad idea to go up against Google, unless you have iron clad case, which I don't think this guy does.

Yes agreed there's not point in going to court if what you're after is cash.

But if you want regular media coverage to be able to make get your points accross and become known to a specific audience, a long judicial process might be your preferred choice.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:49pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes agreed there's not point in going to court if what you're after is cash.

But if you want regular media coverage to be able to make your points and become known to a specific audience, a long judicial process might be your preferred choice.

Sure, he may try that, but a long process like you describe, will result in his life being turned upside down. Its been a few days, and we already have people questioning his educational claims. Dragging this out, may not work all that well for him as he may think.

08-08-2017 11:52pm

wes wrote: »

Sure, he may try that, but a long process like you describe, will result in his life being turned upside down. Its been a few days, and we already have people questioning his educational claims. Dragging this out, may not work all that well for him as he may think.

Also

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

LionelNashe · 08-08-2017 11:54pm

wes wrote: »

Google owns Youtube...........

So what? Just because Google fired the guy doesn't mean that they can or will block him from using their platform to make himself a few hundred grand a year. Even that Inforwars guy has a youtube channel that hasn't been shut down.

wes · 08-08-2017 11:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Also

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

I don't have that info.

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Comments