Hacker News Reader

Comment by cdubzzz | Hacker News Reader

A strong message about breaking the code of conduct, yes.

The message here seems abundantly clear and I have trouble understanding how it can miscontrued to be anything other than reacting to a clear violation. I can't even think of how to restate what is so clearly laid out in the note.

I wouldn't rule out the potential that there is uneven enforcement of such violations, and that would make this action look questionable. But I don't know enough about Google's internal operations to get to that conclusion.

View on HN

This is some ridiculous shit right here.

When a murderer is sentenced for murder... there are 2 levels of understanding the sentencing. One is that he broke the "code of conduct"/law, the deeper is why we consider that to be unlawful (societal harm).

Saying he clearly broke the code of conduct just shifts the question to how useful the code of conduct is.. its not some fucking holy unbreakable scripture from the sky, its man made, just as the firing is.

> there are 2 levels of understanding the sentencing. One is that he broke the "code of conduct"/law, the deeper is why we consider that to be unlawful (societal harm).

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'll even stick with your example in asking - is murdering someone a good way to start debating the "why" of the law against murder?

There are certainly examples where breaking the law proves to be a powerful and effective way to start the conversation. But how often does this hold true when breaking the law causes real harm to others? I doubt the answer is "never", but I can't come up with any argument for how this applies to the current situation.

The employee in question tried to start a conversation by posting a memo on email to other people - so starting a conversation the way they are usually started. It was abruptly ended.

Anyways my main point was the breach of code of conduct is just the technical reason he was fired. If you read the line item he was fired for, its clear its vague enough to be used many many different ways. I don't think its productive to focus on whether he broke some rule somewhere when the whole situation that led to the firing is known to us.

When calling it a "code of conduct" does it refer to concrete actions, or just expressing opinions? Other than speech, what was the violation here? Restricting free speech by threat of firing is the solution everyone is applauding? Apparently Google is declaring an attitude in opposition to what they did: "many points raised in the memo ... are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics...". But got fired as a result.

Speech is action and just as capable of breaking any rule or code as physical action. Free speech is also not really relevant here as it has to do with the government's inability to restrict speech.

I think it is certainly a very fine line to walk and people (including Google employees) will definitely see it in a lot of different ways. But, reading this as an outsider, the note appears to me to address the situation very directly and conveys a real sense of urgency (more so than I have ever seen from any of my employers, at least).

Expressing opinions that make employees feel less adequate due to their gender is a violation of the CoC. I applaud restricting that kind of speech, as do most companies. At some companies the motivation might be strictly legal, but regardless of the motivation you're going to get fired if you open the company up to future gender discrimination lawsuits.

"many points raised in the memo ... are important topics."

So what? Other points were a violation of the CoC. Goodbye, good luck, see you around the campus!

So I'd expect every employee posting "The Future is Female" or "#YesAllMen" or something on Memegen/Eng-Misc to be fired as well...but that is not going to happen.

> but that is not going to happen.

At every company in the world. You aren't seriously expecting a company code of conduct to be applied fairly in some sort of scientifically measurable way? The code of conduct is there to protect against the worst types of behavior, and plenty of bad behavior will slip under the radar. So what? It's not meant to create some sort of utopian workplace. It's meant to create a better workplace for those who have historically been discriminated against. So far, it looks like it has come in handy at least once in a very public way.

Every instance of censorship is justified by saying the offender broke a code of conduct. The Sedition Act, ban of Huck Finn in school libraries, and even preventing sex education are justified this way. Equating a well meaning discussion to harassment is a dangerous precedent to set. Anything can be construed as breaking Google's code of conduct. If I compliment a coworker's new haircut, and they interpret it as an inappropriate sexual advance, should I be fired for making the coworker uncomfortable?

Not sure whether a management decision to remove the author is helping or hurting the goal to create an environment that isn't intimidating. ..because - compared to what was written in the memo - this is a very intimidating thing to do.

This is a tough one. I think it effectively does both (help and hurt), including all the positive and negative fall out of each decision.

Intimidating is a strong word for this, I think. I would call it intimidating if the original memo was a challenge to the code of conduct, as opposed to a violation of it.

Either way, I agree that other employees could see this as intimidation and that makes the whole situation much more complex. I suppose that ultimately I would not stand 100% in defense of the course of action, but I am also not grabbing my pitchfork over it.

> this is a very intimidating thing to do.

It should be. If violating the CoC has no consequences then there should be no CoC in the first place.

The CoC makes it clear that some actions and some types of speech are entirely unwelcome at the company.

The memo also makes it clear that if you have a minority viewpoint that does not violate the CoC, then you should be encouraged to express those viewpoints. It even gave specific examples of the parts of the original memo that do not violate the CoC.

I do not know their full code of conduct. However, the part referenced by Pichai did not help to decrease uncertainty at all.

This is problematic since the toxic effect of uncertainty and ideological supression at the work place is not mitigated by it being produced through arbitrary executives or an executives arbitrary interpretation of some given code of conduct.

edit: If the purpose of the code of conduct is to create this uncertainty, than that alone should be reason enough for the code to be improved.

edit2: And of course, this specific code of conduct did not generate the legitimicy it should have created, which is why we are talking about this incidence.

'...our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”'

What's confusing or unclear about that? It's crystal clear to me that Google prioritizes a workplace free of harassment over your individual ideology. If your ideology makes other employees feel harassed or intimidated, you'll have to leave your ideology at home.

And if you're not clever enough to understand that a statement in a widespread memo like "women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)" could cause one gender to feel intimidated or harassed, then perhaps you're not clever enough to work at Google.

It could not be much more unclear and I can assure you that this has nothing to do with some googlerian "cleverness".

Science is not an ideology or opinion; in a diverse environment, reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play.

Exercising an executive bias to intimidate the employees into subscribing to a specific ideology is nothing this code of conduct were able to prevent. The coc could not perform worse measured by it's own goal.

It's no service to any code of conduct intention if a code of conduct is treated as some chilling orthodoxy that is used to prevent a communities open dialogue and self awareness.

> reasonable positions are disputed by arguments, not power play.

"Women, on average, have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." isn't a reasonable position at Google, or any other big company. If for no other reason, to protect the company from being sued for gender discrimination.

Neither are any of the following statements reasonable:

"Blacks on average are... [insert some negative]".

"Jews on average are... [insert some negative]".

If an employee can't figure that out, you should fire them with zero hesitation. Open dialogue at a place of employment has many limits, and it will never be the top priority. If you say something that offends enough other employees, you're going to get fired, and that's not going to change no matter who you work for.

> reacting to a clear violation.

If it's so clear, then could you specify exactly which parts of the memo were "fair to debate" (as Pichai says) and which part were "clear violation?"

Pichai does in the note.

Where?

>So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

Sorry I should have been clearer: which parts were the clear violation?

Banning free speech is unconstitutional. Any "Code of Conduct" or other self proclaiming binding clauses on your contract that try to go against your constitutional rights should be void.

Banning free speech is absolutely not unconstitutional. I think the Wikipedia article[0] sums it up best (emphasis mine): In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com