He didn't circulate one. He sent it to a mailing list which purported to be a safe place for open, honest sharing of opinions regarding diversity and hiring.
That's part of the problem.
Lots of people associate Google with research and discourse akin to a college campus without realizing that, unlike a college campus, they and their free discourse are not protected in any meaningful way.
"Let's be open and transparent and have an open and transparent culture... but don't say things that might hurt our shareholders."
Google is beginning to remind me a bit too much of the 'Bright & Shinys" from the movie 'Bubble Boy'[0]. Happy go lucky do-gooder cult that holds that image until you cross them. Things get darker after that point. That initial positive image is all that matters.
I agree with your broader point though. Different companies are more or less tolerant of free-wheeling discussion that may not reflect an official company position. But, at the end of the day, if you cause embarrassment (especially as a non-exec, non-critical employee) at most companies, you're expendable.
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds and why a university could not in good faith legitimize the proponents of that theory? Now I'm not saying all issues are as black and white as that, but it's clear to me that there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. Any particular issue probably has differing opinions on whether it crosses the lines. But anything that is abusive towards women, minorities, trans people, etc. as people is dangerous ground and I can't argue with not supporting that.
Words are not going to hurt anyone, actions will. Students (and all people) should absolutely be protected from harmful actions but we cannot stop discourse just because it sounds offensive to someone, no matter the subject.
Even the conservatives and alt-righters admin this, which is why they're so upset about people using politically correct language, even by their own free choice. "Happy Holidays" anyone?
I, for one, would find it pretty disadvantageous in my studies to attend classes at an institution that endorses (even silently) a viewpoint that questions my right to the pursuit of happiness, to marry who I want, to be the correct gender, or even to exist. Organizations can and do limit that speech in certain environments that they are responsible for.
That said, the first amendment is hugely important, but limited in scope in the consequences that it protects you from.
Of course, it _is_ important to not simply refuse to hear or allow speech that you disagree with. There is a balance to be struck there.
Who cares if I'm a minority or conservative? Who cares what speech I'm upset by? That's the point, being upset is not something we need to defend against.
Speech is speech, if you don't like it then ignore it. And yes, there are consequences. Most of the time it's the other side yelling back which is fine. Only when it turns into (harmful) action should be people be defended but until then it's paramount that anyone can say what they want.
I understand that only the government has protected speech. Private groups and institutions are free to invite or exclude at will and I support that as well, however public spaces and institutions should absolutely not be closed to anyone who wants to speak their mind and protecting people's feelings will never end well.
So I don't think it's quite as simple as protecting people's feelings over all else. Frankly, I even have mixed feelings and unease about the fact that I think limiting speech is warranted sometimes. But there it is.
This article from 2013 is an example
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/...
“What we try to do is bring the same level of rigor to people decisions that we do to engineering decisions. Our mission is to have all people decisions be informed by data.”
Damore's memo may look idiotic to people who work in "normal" workplaces, but it is consistent with Google's previous rhetoric on what sort of company it wants to be: namely, one that isn't normal.