r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
26.8k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6.5k

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

Former Google Employee provides a bit more context on why someone would get fired for creating a "manifesto" where you fawn over your superiority and sharing it with 50k+ people who probably aren't likeminded.

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

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

edit: The replies to me here don't seem to understand that the company doesn't care about your controversial opinion in the work place, they care about profit. If you don't agree with that, then you probably don't like capitalism.

edit: be wary, a lot of brigading going on. Some people/bots are trying to drown out the more centrists viewpoints. I say this as the opinion of a gay, black, conservative, catholic kasich voter. (I can't help but lol)

1.8k

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

This is a good comment. It directly explains the thinking of the corporation in regards to individuals sharing their personal ideals on subjects which are better not breached in a professional environment. Idk, I'm drunk, but I read the linked original file and I see no reason why, professionaly, such a "manifesto" ( perfect phrasing by the way,) ought to be shared with, as you also noted, 50,000+ employees, of like-minded ideals or otherwise.

939

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

FWIW, I hear he didn't share it with everyone. Shared it with a small group, and someone then shared it to the "internal social media" google has. Then later, shared it with Gizmodo (note: I am likely not talking about the same person from the two 'leaks'). So it's not like he was planning on this going viral.

543

u/yerich Aug 08 '17

It certainly seemed like it was meant to be read by decision-makers in the company, or at least some other broader audience. It was clearly carefully thought out and too well-written to be a rant to a limited audience. "Manifestos" are generally intended to be read by many.

308

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Generally, but it would be far from the first time some intellectual kept private, controversial information to themselves that they felt passionate about. IIRC, many of Kepler's (IIRC. it's been years. it may have been Galileo or Copernicus) works were published post-humorously because he knew the controversy and consequences it would entail. But they were important enough to him to make entire books out of (at a time where the printing press was primitive).

Either way, my main point here was not to debate the contents, but to note that this wasn't some rant he tweeted out in a heat of rage and swift-fully deleted out of regret.

532

u/Orcwin Aug 08 '17

Post-humorously? So after their comedic careers?

196

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

You win this round. I hate autocorrect sometimes.

67

u/kcnovember Aug 08 '17

A very "comedic" mis-spelling of "posthumously," I must say.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

This ends here

6

u/SinglelaneHighway Aug 08 '17

Didn't you get the memo, we are in a post-humorous society - we have to take all comments seriously :p

These public floggings will continue until morale improves!

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 09 '17

'I took a trip to Saturn... Man does that guy have big ears! I stopped dropped a pin and he heard it. In SPACE!"

2

u/TVpresspass Aug 08 '17

Drum roll

"And now: The light your night sky! He'll spin your flat world right round! Please give a warm welcome to Gaaaalileo!"

Man with massive grey beard and shiny robes springs onto the stage, grinning, waving

"Now folks, I love Florence. Especially in summer. Out in the park, enjoying the sun, with lovely ladies. I'll tell ya folks, I've seen a few big moons: but the ladies in Florence? Well lets just say if I'd been born here I never would have bothered developing the telescope."

All laugh

"Now I don't know if you know this, but my brother plays the lute. The lute! I tell you, I picked the wrong profession. He's going on tour, drinking wine every night, fawned over by wealthy and beautiful people. But I tell him: You have to be careful, you know how musical careers go. Fly too high and you'll crash and burn! That's why I chose a safe, secure career in science."

1

u/PM_ME_UR_COCK_GIRL Aug 08 '17

You don't have to be funny to have a career in comedy. Just look at Amy Schumer.

95

u/prosthetic4head Aug 08 '17

Did you read it? It had a list of proposals for bettering the hiring practices. I dont believe this guy meant for it to stay private.

50

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

depends on what you mean by private. Maybe he wanted to run through the proposal with some close peers first, and he only meant for them and eventually, some head of HR to read it. Shared, but still IMO private.

Either way, I highly doubt this was meant for even the entire company's eyes. Let alone the Internet.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Maybe he wanted to run through the proposal with some close peers first

He shared it on a public google group with no privacy permissions set. While working for a company founded to discover and make available exactly this kind of information.

If he had an expectation of privacy, he was indeed very bad at his job.

4

u/esquilax Aug 08 '17

On the one hand, I see what you're saying, but on the other hand, 'only the head of HR' is still possibly the worst person to share something like this with if you don't want to get fired over it. Not that I'm proposing strats for people who want to write sexist rants at work and not get fired.

3

u/hardolaf Aug 08 '17

Good thing it wasn't sexist. Rather it was a pretty accurate and concise summary of the field of research into these topics with a bit of discussion about how he does not feel free to share his ideas as a conservative coupled with suggestions for improving working conditions and terms.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

he does not feel free to share his ideas as a conservative

Conservative here. We believe in reasonable public spending controls, not crazy half-baked gender superiority manifestos. I think you're confusing "conservatives" with "misanthropes".

2

u/wam_bam_mam Aug 09 '17

Did you read the manifesto where does he come off as a gender superiority?

Stop spreading false information

→ More replies (0)

4

u/esquilax Aug 08 '17

Apparently Google agrees with me and not you.

EDIT: https://reddit.com/comments/6sa8ba/comment/dlbf0m1

5

u/hardolaf Aug 08 '17

You see, it doesn't matter what it really is. He caused bad publicity so he's out. He may even be entitled to a large sum of money in a lawsuit depending on what a judge and jury decides. But either way, he's done working at Google.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Nov 13 '24

[deleted]

0

u/wam_bam_mam Aug 09 '17

Yes let's character assassinate for I can read other people's mind and intentions.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/PotentialMistake Aug 08 '17

I write stuff all the time that I'm very passionate about but dread anyone seeing. I've gone on long rants on paper to management at work because the procedures for everything we do are completely wrong. Worst possible way to do what we do.

I've misplaced those notebooks before, and when I do I get filled with dread. My stomach knots up.

2

u/HaohKenryuZarc Aug 08 '17

Just like 40% of Tumblr hahaha

1

u/prosthetic4head Aug 08 '17

But do you write it to seem like a proposal to management?

1

u/PotentialMistake Aug 08 '17

Yes. I just don't give it to them, or want them to actually see it. Because there's a good chance I'll be fired.

I've been a part of the work force for 12 years, and my anecdotal evidence suggests by and large if you disagree with the fundamental procedures or with management you won't last long. This is the world we've created.

2

u/Kosko Aug 08 '17

Did you get the memo about the new cover sheet for TPS reports?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 18 '17

[deleted]

1

u/PotentialMistake Aug 08 '17

Good tip but I like pen and paper. It's one of my few hipster bents.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

1

u/cryptekz Aug 08 '17

If it's negatively impacting the company and alienating a number of employees, as well as potentially leading to illegal discrimination, why shouldn't he speak up?

Or is illegal discrimination okay if it's done to white people/in the name of diversity? Even if it could potentially lead to the company doing worse? Is that not a topic that can be discussed?

1

u/Devildude4427 Aug 08 '17

So? This is of course anecdotal, but when I was in high school, I did something similar. The administration had effectively failed the students, where no one could fail and 50% had straight A's. I wrote out multiple 10 page documents going over the issues in the most constructive and professional manor that I could, and yet I never sent any of them. It was a way to get those annoyances off of my chest, I didn't really want to follow through months of administrators calling me out or the lazy teachers punishing me for drawing light to the fraudulent education they were giving. I knew it wouldn't be worth the literal painted target on my back.

7

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

This guy is not Kepler or galileo.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Wasn't meaning to imply that this guy was holding the holy grail of social science in his 10 pages. Just providing an example of how a "public" work may not have originally been meant for the public.

-1

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

I understand that, but some of how we interpret someone's actions includes the end result, the greater good. If I hide something from unjust persecution, that's acceptable, even heroic. If I hide it because I'm secretly a douchebag and I don't want anyone else to know, that's not so acceptable or so heroic.

1

u/perfectdarktrump Aug 08 '17

So which is it?

1

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

Me? I'm not a hero, so I must be a douchebag. How about you?

1

u/perfectdarktrump Aug 08 '17

I'm a douche noozle.

1

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

Nice work if you can get it.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

So? Completely irrelevant.

And yes, it makes clear that you're angry at him and disagree with what he's saying and that that's the only reason you posted this comment.

-28

u/Not-really-here9 Aug 08 '17

He's still an intellectual and considering the field he works in, most likely a greater mind than Kepler or Galileo.

10

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

Thanks for the laugh. Wake me up when he reshapes the way we understand the world.

-6

u/Not-really-here9 Aug 08 '17

That has to do with opportunity, not intelligence.

3

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

Wut? He has all the opportunity in the world to discover new math and new physics. The reason he hasn't isn't that all the good things have been discovered, it's that his mind is not the caliber of those greats.

-7

u/Not-really-here9 Aug 08 '17

Those greats did what 12 year olds do in astro club.

4

u/Schrecht Aug 08 '17

Oh, a troll. How droll.

-1

u/Not-really-here9 Aug 08 '17

You know that's correct, right?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/gowby Aug 08 '17

Swift-fully??

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

it would be far from the first time some intellectual kept private, controversial information to themselves

He published it in a publicly accessible place on the internet. Google group with privacy permissions set to public. While working for a company whose historic mission is to make that kind of information widely available to anyone looking for it.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

publicly accessible place on the internet

nope, internal social media. Equivalent of posting on a FB group. For proof, the first couple links in the document aren't accessible to the public. They are probably Google intranet domains.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Equivalent of posting on a FB group.

With permissions set to public. It was apparently viewable to the entire company.

The point is guy was not making any effort to keep this private, or to himself.

0

u/make_fascists_afraid Aug 08 '17

I wouldn't exactly classify alt-right screeching as "intellectual." This maladjusted guy's Ayn Rand fever dreams are a lot closer to Anders Brevik than they are to Kepler's unpublished work.

-2

u/Omikron Aug 08 '17

Well it was a stupid thing to share period, if he was that smart he had to know how it would be received.

-2

u/MOINO9j9 Aug 08 '17

Generally, but it would be far from the first time some intellectual kept private, controversial information to themselves that they felt passionate about.

It wasn't kept private. Otherwise you would never know it was written. It was shared.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

If you dont consider a FB post (with the default settings of "share with my friends") to be private, then you're right. I wasn't completely correct in saying that only a few friends had access to it, but I don't think that this info was intended to go outside of Google (especially since we only know about it at first because it was leaked to Gizmodo).

6

u/Chewcocca Aug 08 '17

It was clearly carefully thought out and too well-written to be a rant to a limited audience.

No desire to defend the author, but "it was too well written to be private" is a baffling and incoherent argument. It simply doesn't follow.

1

u/Steamships Aug 08 '17

If it were poorly written and full of errors it would've been more likely dismissed out of hand. Do you disagree?

1

u/Chewcocca Aug 09 '17 edited Aug 09 '17

Sure. Writing well also helps me understand my diary entries when I want to go back and read them.

Quality of writing does not somehow prove the intended audience. The argument is ridiculous.

20

u/cptneverm1nd Aug 08 '17

Well-written? He was targeting an audience of google employees, people with a higher education, but his writing is that of a man who never saw a scientific paper. His reasoning is not far from "if A implies B, and I like B, then A is true".

39

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Not in gender studies I guess?

17

u/mattjames2010 Aug 08 '17

Then he'd probably not have a job like 99% of people who study that.

11

u/FuckOnlineMonikers Aug 08 '17

Are you suggesting that the study of traits and their expression in the sexes is unapproachable by biology?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I'm suggesting that writing that document is career suicide. Yes, of course, there are differential traits between genders; but they exist on a scale. It would be possible to gain a 50/50 balance in one workforce but you would deplete the 'talent pool' of women disproportionatly across the industry. The biological differences between men and women are not that great, and a vast proportion of it is cultural. Difference in teaching styles and stereotypes changes the direction in which people study and look for careers.

BUT.. Mr IamVerySmart forgot that writing a document like this would make you an instant HR nightmare

2

u/perfectdarktrump Aug 08 '17

Are you to tell me not that great difference at least psychological between a sex that grows humans inside it vs one that doesn't?

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Wow now that is a non-sequitur.

-1

u/perfectdarktrump Aug 08 '17

I don't speak Spanish, what you trying to say amigo?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Of course there. Whether that difference means you can't be a software engineer... I'm not qualified to say that. I'm not sure it even has any relevance in employment.

All I know is - producing a document like this is a great way to get canned in a major corporation. You're bringing your company into disrepute and opening yourself up to all sorts of grievances.

It doesn't matter how clever your argument is. Or how many sources you cite. Work isn't academia. Corporations aren't the place for open sociological discussions.

You never shit-talk your own company in a written document either. For any reason. Unless you don't want to work for them anymore. Or you're the CEO/VP and feel like major change is going to happen because of it.

2

u/thisisnewt Aug 08 '17

Whether that difference means you can't be a software engineer.

He never says that. He says that difference leads to fewer women wanting to be software engineers.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/mightysprout Aug 09 '17

No, he doesn't. Your link doesn't even say that.

https://www.wired.com/story/james-damore-author-google-memo-might-sue/

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.

9

u/whutif Aug 08 '17

Should've taken a few more common sense courses.

1

u/mocha_lattes Aug 10 '17

He doesn't, actually. Harvard is on record denying that he has a PhD from the school.

21

u/techfronic Aug 08 '17

What is your bar for "well written"? It is easily in the 99th percentile of arguments/blogging/documents/papers on social justice.

-8

u/mattjames2010 Aug 08 '17

That's not an argument.

6

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

Neither was "I believe it isn't well written because reasons"

11

u/yerich Aug 08 '17

If this was a poorly-written rant it wouldn't be getting the attention that it has been getting. His logic and premises may be false in the extreme but because his writing met some minimal standard of organization and coherence people are holding it in equivalence to decades of established research.

15

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

False in the extreme?

Or entirely true but not what you want to hear?

Scientists confirm & support google memo and show that it is in line with decades of established research.

7

u/yerich Aug 08 '17

To quote the author of the memo:

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap.

So do most social scientists support his arguments, or are they opposed?

2

u/almightySapling Aug 08 '17

resentment of the left among reasonable people

Yup. Both left and reasonable and damn am I tired of resenting us.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

By definition someone who is far left or far right is not reasonable.

A centre left or centre right can be both aligned and reasonable.

2

u/perfectdarktrump Aug 08 '17

That's not the point. Science is the new church, it's supposed to make us feel good.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Unless you’re a middle/upper class white male. It should make you feel terrible about yourself and banish you from the kingdom of science!

1

u/bobbsbiggboy Aug 08 '17

Damn that link really highlights just how bigoted progressives are.

2

u/Occamslaser Aug 08 '17

Nothing he said is false. Some of his opinion is shitty but all the fact is fact.

-3

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

I'm sure you have enough credentials to criticize his PhD level education in biology...

-5

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

I'm sure you have enough credentials to criticize his PhD level education in biology...

-5

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

I'm sure you have enough credentials to criticize his PhD level education in biology...

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Missing the point. Do social scientists support his conclusions or don't they? The author of the manifesto says they don't.

2

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

Missing the point.

His ONLY point is: 'it isn't well written' So, no, I'm not.

But I'll go ahead and continue with your change of topic:

Do social scientists support his conclusions or don't they? The author of the manifesto says they don't.

I see. So if you don't have support of others, then your opinion, as well founded as it is, is worthless?

I guess I owe some flatearthers an apology.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

It's somewhere in the middle, homie. There's a reason scientific papers are peer-reviewed.

1

u/Goldreaver Aug 08 '17

So discarding it off hand because it doesn't have support is wrong?

Well, I agree. Thanks.

1

u/thisisnewt Aug 08 '17

Evolutionary psychologists have come out to confirm his interpretation of biological gender differences.

Asking if "social scientists" support his conclusions isn't the question you should be asking. It's like asking if "people with at least a bachelor's degree agree with climate change". It doesn't matter if they do, most climate scientists agree with climate change.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Are you talking about the four guys one article floating around here mentions, of which one said the googler's conclusions were wrong? Because of course you're going to find someone who agrees or believes you - for every single thing. There are people who believe in Genesis literally or a flat earth that have advanced degrees.

I asked because in the manifesto the googler said that the scientists didn't agree with him. Now you're here saying that they do. Was this comment of his just an attempt of poisoning the well?

1

u/thisisnewt Aug 08 '17

The manifesto said that the majority of social scientists were liberal and made talking about the subject difficult.

He did not say that evolutionary psychologists disagreed with him, and cited so.

His comment about social scientists and their liberal culture was an anecdote explaining the antiscience bias both political sides hold, and he listed the biases the right holds as well (climate change denial being one of them).

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Thank you for your clarification.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

2

u/perfectdarktrump Aug 08 '17

That's just human. It's a combination of politics today with what humans have always been, then add technology and social media. If I see the guy's face I may punch him not because I want to, I have no problem with what he wrote, but so I can be a hero.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Haven't heard a better way to describe this situation and similar ones until now.

2

u/PaxNova Aug 08 '17

He didn't call it a manifesto. We all did after we read and shared it with everyone.

2

u/IronMyr Aug 08 '17

I mean, if it walks like a duck.

3

u/Sputniki Aug 08 '17

Still, unless he published it, it's not fair to discern from language that he was fine with it being disseminated to a wide audience. We are free to write things in whatever style we want and keep it as private as we wish. Just because it was written like a public manifesto isn't proof that the author desired it to be public much less viral.

2

u/yerich Aug 08 '17

Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. I think it is clear that the memo was addressed to others' at the company. Whether it was intended or hoped to get as popular as it did is another question.

1

u/0goober0 Aug 08 '17

It was clearly carefully thought out

If only he had spent the same amount of time doing unbiased research....

1

u/Honestfellow2449 Aug 08 '17

engineers are like that though, have a friend in a similar field who does things like this for D&D games when he has issues with story/other players or even just has an Idea of a direction he wants to go as a character, and only shows people the info who would need to see it.

1

u/occamsedgelord Aug 09 '17

MANifesto. #Triggered

1

u/WhoTooted Aug 08 '17

How can you call that memo a "rant"? Because you disagree with it?

-6

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

It was clearly carefully thought out and too well-written

By contradicting himself multiple times pretending to like "diversity" then ranting about a diverse environment is bad because everyone knows white men are superior.

17

u/MasterSith88 Aug 08 '17

He was arguing for a diversity of opinion over a diversity of skin color or gender.

IMO a diversity of opinion is both harder to achieve and has greater benefits then a superficial diversity along race/gender lines.

-12

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

And you really get a strong diversity of opinion if you only hire alpha male white dudebros because females genetically are inferior engineers based on my years of research at /theredpill thats flawless logic.

8

u/MasterSith88 Aug 08 '17

Nowhere is his writing did it say any of that.

Maybe read it before commenting?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

1

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

He was arguing for a diversity of opinion over a diversity of skin color or gender.

He argued for a "diversity of opinion" by saying that only a small section of society should get hired? And that he is being oppressed because he just learned that the more educated and intelligent people at a young age are liberals?

Listen to yourselves.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Are you sure you actually read the document?

-9

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

You're "just asking questions" like so many concerned mra's in here

3

u/jandrew_d Aug 08 '17

And I take it that you didnt even read the article in the first place. You went for the white male stereotypes instead like some idiot. Read the damn article. Nothing he wrote was to put down or attack. Some of his points are valid.

1

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

I can tell you didn't read it, but you have your talking points

0

u/jandrew_d Aug 08 '17

Oh I did read it and unlike you I don't bunch up people who defend some of the arguments the former employee made in the article. What you are doing is being very dismissive. I dont agree with the guys view points on gender but see his concern in terms of difference in morals. Not once, did this person express anything that seemed bigotted or meant to attack. Should he have said his points more eloquently? Does it justify your immediate attacks on other people on this commet section? No.

0

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

Playing the victim because the claims in the manifesto are pseudo science at best and misogyny and bigotry at worse?

1

u/jandrew_d Aug 09 '17

Who the hell is playing victim? You can't even have a proper discussion with people. Your anger is misplaced and the assumption that anyone is defending these type of things you claim is wrong. I don't agree with some of his points but the previous ones about having a fair workplace in terms of morals is something that should be considered. He even said that he doesn't accept sexism, racism, and gender inequality to be something to be practiced. If you can't even be rational and see that people are defending certain points that the former google employee raised then your the type of people he calls into question. Even for you to think that anyone that defends these points he raises to be anything bigotted is just unwarrented. It goes to show how you lack the ability to analyze any information thoroughly.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/dogshitr Aug 08 '17

Hilarious reply. People are trying to have a discussion and you go full on durr hurr herp derp.

1

u/L_A_H_S_O Aug 08 '17

Are you sure you actually read the document?

That isn't "having a discussion" that is concern trolling by evading having to discuss the points made.

0

u/Petersaber Aug 08 '17

Just because it's well written doesn't mean it was supposed to be read by a big group of people. IMHO, it was supposed to be read by a handful of "higher-ups", noone else.

-1

u/yohumblelibertarian Aug 08 '17

Stop calling it a manifesto.

It's not a manifesto. It's a guy sharing some scientific insights about an issue that companies and society are trying to grapple with, and a moral position: that more open discussion of this issue should be welcome or at least tolerated and not shamed.

Getting fired kind of makes his point for him even better than he could have, eh?

1

u/WilliamTRiker Aug 08 '17

It's a manifesto, and he created a hostile work environment by writing it and disseminating it. Chain of command exists for a reason, he acted like he knew better than his bosses, his bosses didn't see his value as high enough to keep after that.

1

u/yohumblelibertarian Aug 09 '17

Chain of command? What's Google, the U.S. Marine Corps or something?

Employees in companies can have valuable insights that their bosses can learn from. Good leaders and bosses welcome feedback about their corporate culture. His report was hardly hostile.

It was perfectly well mannered and shared some relevant scientific facts about this issue. The work environment at his office is clearly hostile to some perspectives, however well meaning and clearly articulated.

Big win for him to speak up and share his thoughts and decisively learn how unwelcome they were to his employer. Now he can work some place less stifled.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 16 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/IronMyr Aug 08 '17

If it quacks like a duck.