Google memo drama really is about free speech | Hacker News Reader

Google memo drama really is about free speech

usatoday.com

52 pointswyclif5 comments

Jonathan Rauch, for example, in the New Republic in 1997, wrote that "quietly, gradually, the workplace has become an exception" to the general rule that in America the law does not seek to restrain wrongful opinion and expression.

And Rauch explained the indirect mechanism by which this has come to pass: "What the government cannot do directly, it now requires employers to do in its stead: police 'discriminatory' speech."

Free speech doesn't mean that you are protected from the consequences of your speech. It means that the government cannot prosecute you for making speech that's inflammatory towards politicians or the state. It's not their job to protect you when you say something that others interpret as signs that they shouldn't keep you around.

Google was protecting itself by firing damore as his opinions are sign saying women aren't welcome at Google. As we have learned over years of history, workplace diversity and safety is important for a healthy work environment. It's rather unfortunate that this is up for debate and I hope that those that do not understand why it shouldn't be up for debate should really try to read and understand the difficulties that women have in tech. However, most likely the same people that don't understand why it's a problem also lack critical empathy skills which means their understanding is quite limited.

If only there was documentation for empathy! Then we could stop having this conversation and instead link out to it.

The problem with the "free speech is not consequence-free speech" meme is that, in principle, we're "free" to perform any action whatsoever. I mean, we're free to rob banks too. Sure, there are some pretty severe consequences for it, but nobody stops my going to a bank and passing a note that demands all the cash in the vault. We say we're not free to rob banks because the consequences of bank robbery are strong enough to deter the act.

Now let's look at speech. When speaking out means being targeted by hate mobs, losing your job, and having to pull your kids out of school to start a new life elsewhere, in what sense are you free to speak? In today's climate, the consequences of speech are severe enough to deter the act. It doesn't matter whether these consequences technically originate from the government or from powerful mega-corporations.

We have a no societal interest in bank robbery. We do have a strong societal interest in the free exchange of ideas, since free and vigorous debate is the only way known to separate good policies from ones ones that don't work. Free expression is the only way to truly understand what we profess to understand.

A minority of our society disagrees about speech. They see speech as a threat to be contained. They think uncomfortable ideas are just as injurious as physical violence and are willing to take extreme measures in what they see as self-defense. History is not kind to such people in the long run, but here we are. We should not allow this minority to create consequences for speech that are strong enough to shut down the engine of intellectual curiosity that's given us civilization.

I'm utterly confused by why folks think any business should subsidize the speech of employees. If we all believe in capitalism as the basis of our economy then all businesses have a right to protect themselves from their employees when they enter into situations that would leave them liable for that employees behavior or speech. Damore using a company mailing list of was clearly crossing the line. He's free to publish all he wants outside of his workplace. It's getting into a scary situation that we expand free speech to mean "freedom to have an audience or a guaranteed means to get one." And that's what Damore and other conservatives continue to push despite their claims to be advocate for free markets (which as a consequence makes them free to not subsidize or convey his speech).

I think there is a big fallacy with this statement: "What the government cannot do directly, it now requires employers to do in its stead: police 'discriminatory' speech."

Far from it. Avoiding discriminatory speech is very much in the best interest of the companies themselves: promoting a good work environment, keeping people focused on the work at task, minimizing the chance that people's personal biases impact their ability to work together effectively, avoiding bullying and harassment, etc. In fact, these policies work very well for all involved.

It certainly isn't some conspiracy theory about the government. Good laws increase productivity and improve working conditions for everyone as a whole.

Of course it can be argued - did this memo cross that line? The biological argument was not what offended me as a woman. I imagine if I worked there it'd be highly uncomfortable to know that a coworker feels that his fellow female coworkers are undeserving of their jobs, or in surplus as 10% of developers.

It simply breeds an unfriendly work environment so I think Google acted well.

As interesting as the biological argument is - it isn't really a good justification for changing policy. First off it's very hard to prove what is due to biology and what is due to social influence, thought patterns, expectations, woman gravitating toward comfort zones etc.

At my university on paper more woman were in the Biology major than men while I was in the 30% percent that was in computer science. Why? I did it on a whim because I like to try new things I don't know much about. What I found was that computer science was far from being more technically challenging or rigorous than Biology (or the medical field) but people's general assumptions about it were more deeply engrained. Anyway I could go on but basically it's a complicated topic. Companies should not alter policies due to biological arguments- they should continue to seek applicants which are qualified for the job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com