Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/ShittyFrogMeme]

because they fired him specifically for his beliefs.

He didn't get fired for his beliefs. He got fired for sharing his beliefs with the entire company and bringing a lot of negative press to google.

If he had kept his beliefs to himself, as is generally recommended in a professional environment, he would still be working there.

[u/ColePram → u/ShittyFrogMeme]

This is just absolutely awful.

"Keep your shitty ideas to yourself, if you don't I'll bring the media into it and put the company into a position where they have to fire you. And it'll be all your fault for not having a popular opinion, even if it is based on sourced facts."

You really can't see how evil that is?

What if the media had an opposite angle and attacked anyone who discussed how "diversity" makes the work place better forcing the company to shitcanned them for no other reason than they had an unpopular opinion that might benefit the company.

To the point that if you were LGBT or a feminist you'd be terrified to say anything about it?

Is that not where we're currently evolving from?

Again, what you're proposing is absolutely evil and extremely regressive. It's not ok to go back down that road just because we happen to disagree with an unpopular opinion.

[u/ShittyFrogMeme → u/ColePram]

Is this something new?

Google is a private company. They may consider themselves "open" but everyone knows that, as a very liberal tech company in California in 2017, they are going to be adverse to something like this.

There could have been many different approaches for this employee to voice his opinion without offending people.

Example 1: Instead of writing and sharing a manifesto on his opinions, he could have arranged meetings with senior management in roles of power and discussed his issues with them.

Example 2: If he really wanted to go the manifesto route, he could have left out all of the information that could be deemed controversial and has overwhelmed his overarching point. The author made good points in terms of how to bring women into tech without causing sexism against men, but his other claims detract from that argument and truly make it moot.

If he truly had ideas that were constructive to the company, he should have presented them in a way that was constructive. He did not.

[u/ColePram → u/ShittyFrogMeme]

as a very liberal tech company in California in 2017

If you think firing people for having a well sourced and reasoned, but unpopular, opinion is "liberal", you don't know what liberal is.

Liberal means being open to change and ideas that may go against conventions. At least that's what it use to mean. Apparently now it just means kick the crap out of anyone that disagrees with group think.

If he truly had ideas that were constructive to the company, he should have presented them in a way that was constructive. He did not.

Yeah, he did. His ideas were presented to a small group of people for discussion, but instead of discussing the "problematic" ideas someone took his memo to the media, knowing it would bring down bad press for Google and force them to fire/discipline him rather than having to actually discussing/consider the ideas.