> ... Google had absolutely no option but to fire Mr. Damore once this blew up into a firestorm ...
That's a bold statement. Care to explain? Why were all other options unacceptable?
That's a bold statement. Care to explain? Why were all other options unacceptable?
Let's enumerate your options:
1. Support him and try to foster a dialog. Untenable: everyone's riled up, you can't be seen to support a sexist white male, and "let's talk about it" is naive.
2. Do nothing. Probably the worst option, as it makes you look spineless and wil piss both sides off.
3. Reprimand him. What does that buy you? You still piss off the alt-right, and the left thinks you're "forgiving" it by letting him off with a slap on the wrist.
4. Fire him. Literally all you can do. The left is happy. The right expects it. It optimizes happiness, shows decisive action, appeases the status quo.
There really isn't an option once it got this far.
> Explicit protections against ... sexually hostile work environments, ... discrimination against unlawful sex stereotypes
From https://www.workplacefairness.org/sexual-gender-discriminati....
I would love to see a response from a lawyer. My understanding as a layperson is:
1. He is saying that biological differences explain why fewer women go into tech. That is not true, here is the best point-by-point analysis I've seen on it: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
2. If you are a manager, and you ignore this analysis and agree that there is a biological difference, you can use that to explain why you aren't hiring/promoting women: it's not you, it's biology!
But that is pretty crappy analysis, throwing your conclusion into doubt.
> it's not you, it's biology!
What if that is literally true somewhere in the causal chain? Is it good to put managers into terror at having to justify hiring Top Men?