Gebru was an ethicist who was willing to resign over some deep concerns. Presumably ethical concerns.
We don't know much more about Gebru's situation, but they're different enough that it's not a useful comparison.
As recently as last week, while she was still a Google employee, Gebru publicly accused her “privileged White men” bosses of racial bias:
>Nothing like a bunch of privileged White men trying to squash research by marginalized communities for marginalized communities by ordering them to STOP with ZERO conversation. The amount of disrespect is incredible. Every time I think about it my blood starts boiling again.
https://mobile.twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/13317576299961...
>But they are doing exactly the job of squashing marginalized people's voices which is their job. I at least hope no one tries to talk DEI and other things
https://mobile.twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/13317729006936...
“Opinions my own” in her Twitter bio or not, as a manager, she should know better than to publicly accuse coworkers of bias against members of a protected class, particularly if she’s unwilling to make those same accusations in court. Public statements like that can lead to serious legal consequences for the company, not to mention repetutational damage for the accused, and should not be made lightly or without evidence.
Really? I never heard this, and I followed the Damore drama very closely at the time. It's an interesting detail; do you have a source?
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/02/22/lawsuit-...
Just look at how she immediately starts jumping to more sinister conclusions just because "white man":
> whose continued employment would open the company up to a risk of lawsuit
If protecting google from a lawsuit is your main concern, aren't you for firing her? The memo of James isn't as much a threat to bottom line or a lawsuit as unveiling some unethical practices (which she allegedly is up to due to her ethical concerns).
My point is precisely you can't have it both ways and be consistent.