[flagged]
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
This entire article is already engaging in political and ideological battle - René Mayrhofer is explicitly saying that he's unwilling to work at Google because he has a political problem with some of the decisions Google is making, namely abandoning earlier stated carbon-neutrality goals and being willing to make deals with the US military.
My contention is that if he considers this to constitute Google losing its moral compass but not the James Damore incident, which happened the same year he started working at Google; then there's no particular reason to think that his notion of a "moral compass" is any different from object-level agreement or disagreement (or simply not caring), about any particular decision that Google makes. Someone similar to Mayrhofer might well be willing to work for Google because they make a different judgement than he does about the political importance of AI model energy usage; and throwing terms like "moral compass" around is exactly equivalent to having an object-level disagreement about a political issue.
Hence we don't really want articles like this on HN, and checking the stats now, I see it only spent about two hours on the front page, which was more than enough.
Articles like this are bad for HN as they are mostly about the writer's own political grievances, and the discussion thread then becomes a vehicle for others to express their own alternative political grievances, many of which have nothing to do with the topic of the original post. So the whole thread just becomes a battle between people expressing their own conflicting political grievances, which is precisely what we don't want on a site whose primary reason for existing is to cultivate curious conversation.
As I wrote in my first comment above, the guidelines specifically ask us to avoid using HN this way. Your comment counts as a generic tangent, because it introduces an issue that's only very tenuously linked to the central topic of the article, then sets off a whole new subthread debating that topic, taking the thread further and further away from the original topic.
I understand this topic is important to you and I'm not telling you it shouldn't be. I'm upholding the HN guidelines and asking you to make the effort to observe them, because it's only by upholding the guidelines that we can have any hope of keeping this place from going up in flames.
But let's be honest, the guy was kind of unhinged. I would not have fired him, but neither would I have kept him in my team.
In response to a "let a thousand flowers bloom and speak your mind" request from Google management snakes. The problem is that some tech people take these requests seriously.
Google of course has identified itself as Trump sycophants and hypocrites by now. Maybe they should invite Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad and Elon Musk to give keynote speeches.
Python core people like Thomas Wouters and Gregory P. Smith, since fired from Google, canceled and libeled people like Tim Peters. All that matters is having a mob on your side and preventing the other side from responding.
Let’s be honest, though. That’s firing from your team.
Alas.
We had a mental health slack channel, and a racial politics one that rehashed Israel/Palestine daily.
We had one of those. Not slack, self hosted internal stuff. Some "senior by tenure but not title" people decided the only thing that could come of it was people running their mouths to everyone's detriment and start trolling it until nobody took it seriously and then it was quietly "collateral damage" in a migration that was also arranged.
I think they were afraid of touching what had started as an anti racism channel until the vibes had shifted a bit.
There were both Palestinian employees and an IDF veteran Israeli employee who were seemingly spending half the workday discussing October 7th and the Intifada.
One rarely stated thing I learned over time working there is that managers read eng-misc and will prevent you from transferring to their team if they didn't like what you said, or how you said it, or who you said it to.
Ive had them demand my pronouns. I really dont care, but saying that is absolutely not acceptable. Ill use your pronouns. I really do not care.
Ive been in meetings with 'land acknowledgements' with whatever former indians/native americans who were there. Its not like we're giving them the land back.
DEI and what it turned into was a big for-public-show that you knew the buzzwords and the antiwords. And if you didnt, or woukdnt play along, theyd ruin you.
The current MAGA MAHA meritocracy crap is also just the opposite, but the same games as DEI folks. They have their buzzwords and antiwords. Although, theyre a whole lot stupider and easier to manipulate and deal with.
The previous policies simply reflected the culture of employees and HR managers that had graduated from universities that openly practiced race-conscious admissions after Grutter v. Bollinger. The change in policy likely came not from the new administration, but the Supreme Court's SFFA decision in 2023 that reminded everyone the civil rights laws require race blindness.
Creating a distaste in people without like minds has been an intentional goal to cause exodus after exodus on various platforms, in companies and so on. If you let that get out of control, you can poison a culture almost unrecoverably. We can't let that happen to our critical tech companies for national security reasons.
The actual reason for the "corporate DEI" in tech was that since Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), EEOC could sue companies that had lower minority proportion than population norm for discrimination, and could could prove the discrimination in court using nothing but the racial makeup of the employees, and some policy at the company that could in theory have disparate impact. And under their standards, literally any policy has disparate impact.
This hit other sectors first, to which they responded by hiring more minorities. But tech had the problem that schools were consistently producing fewer minority engineering grads than the population proportion, and in a world where approximately every engineer got employed, some US tech companies would have to have lower minority representation than the population no matter what they did. And because the disparity between engineering grads and racial population proportion was so high, in fact most large companies would fail to meet the necessary minority proportions.
But EEOC would not instantly file suit against every offender, instead they would file ~40 such suits per year, targeting large companies that they considered particularly bad. And so companies that felt they might get hit soon started doing DEI programs, at first to attract more minority engineers (from other companies in the same sector, which would then fall under the limit, making it zero-sum), but then they realized that the EEOC didn't really sue the companies that were the loudest at touting their DEI credentials, and it all became extremely performative, no longer trying to attract minority talent but to be the loudest company talking about the subject. Iterate over that for a few decades and it got really weird.
It ended because Trump named 3 SC justices on his first term, and in a few important cases between 2023 and today, the new SC tore the whole thing down, and suing a company for disparate impact is now considered unconstitutional.
The support of war efforts is clearly a change in moral compass that is much more fascinating though.
I find it is a deeply cynical move, to be asked to place the James Damore "was it employer overreach-or-not?" episode in similar proportion to critiquing a company's actions regarding issues such as mass surveillance and/or assisting war efforts, especially when the accusations about those broader issues are tied to complicity in the 2020s resurgence in fascist politics. It is so cynical that I can't believe it isn't intentional.
and the other is "gender essentialism"[3] which has also been rejected by mainstream scholars across fields from biology to medicine to sociology to gender studies, and which acts in culture as a similarly pseudoscientific popular rationale for organizing society in ways that harm women and gender minorities.
The study of the field of racism is absolutely fascinating in that very quickly, the simple, obvious "commonsense" theories like "race exists as a meaningful biological category" turn out to be quite false.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism#Racial,_cultural_...
Soh will of course try to dress that horrific construction from her article up in professional-sounding language, but our duty is in fact to address the thrust of her argument, not whether she attempts to frame it in polite language. You might also recognize Soh from her work in the atrocious Matt Walsh "documentary" that pretends to be about women but is entirely about invalidating trans people.
To make this more clear: Soh's need to provide an explanation for femininity in a person who is assigned male at birth while denying the validity of trans people is only necessary for a person operating from a bioessentialist lens. The need in Soh is so strong that it leads her to make totally unfounded and ridiculous claims in that article, and it also drove her promotion of the discredited (and retracted!) pseudoscientific 'Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria)' invented by Lisa Littman.
Surely you'd agree that if a natal male says he is a boy and when asked why he replies "because I'm attracted to boys", then the responsible reply is "it's okay to be a gay boy", and not "yes, because you're attracted to boys you are a girl." It's certainly possible that a child will persist in expressing and opposite-sex gender even after exploring identity as a gay boy and will follow through with transition. But surely the responsible thing to do is to make sure that the child first understands that there's nothing wrong with being a boy attracted to other boys. First, eliminate the possibility that the boy is identifying as a girl out of a gender-essentialist belief that boys are only attracted to girls and he has to be a girl to attract boys. If after that, if the child still expresses a cross-sex gender identity then explore transitioning.
I don't think Singal has ever said that all - or even a majority - of children expressing a cross-sex gender identity are actually just same-sex attracted cis people. He only takes issue with legislation in some jurisdictions effectively prohibit medical professionals from exploring a gay male identity in this scenario, and effectively mandate social affirmation the moment a patients expressed a cross sex gender identity.
Even if you disagree with the above, surely at least you understand why I'm confused about the allegation that Singal is promoting gender essentialism. His concern is that gender essentialism is being misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria, and people aren't doing enough to accept boys wearing dresses, being attracted to other boys, and behaving in "feminine" ways, and being too quick to say "well, you're a girl". Even if you don't agree with his claims about misdiagnoses, it's abundantly clear he is against gender essentialism.
1. https://resources.healthgrades.com/right-care/childrens-heal...
More commonly, this happens the other way around. For example, in Monica Helms' autobiography, he writes:
> Shortly after one of the training sessions had finished, I held back from leaving the training room and watched all the women make their way to the third-floor restroom. I had to pee too, so I went into the restroom I had become accustomed to using. The other women made it immediately clear they didn't want me there. Some gave me the evil eye while others rushed out when they saw me. I did my best to ignore them, stepped into a stall and did my thing. Then I went back to my desk to carry on with my work. Twenty minutes later, HR called me into their office.
> The new head of HR told me, "Some of the women have complained that you went into the third-floor restroom after today's training session."
Showing no empathy whatsoever for the women he imposed his presence on, he then goes on to explain how the company caved to his demands to use the female restroom, and that women who complained were given short shrift.
Clearly, this approach creates a hostile workplace environment for female employees.
They lost their moral compass a while ago, but it had nothing to do with Damore.
But that “critique” of gender diversity efforts said that the lack of women in CS was due to some innate difference in women (rather than a social division that is neither innate nor universal across time or cultures) While also decrying the lack of affirmative action for conservatives.
It’s neither the tipping point for Google, nor is it a hill worth dying on
https://web.archive.org/web/20170813080340/https://www.theat...
We must also look at the effect of his memo, which was to alienate many, and which caused a backlash that led to his firing. The company did not make a big deal of it just to fire him, it was individuals who were personally impacted and offended by it who made it what it was.
Damore's thesis amounted to "maybe women are 20% of software developers not because they're being discriminated against, but because they're exercising their own agency and choosing other fields."
Given that about 20% of CS grads are women, it seems like a pretty reasonable stance.
Taken alongside the rest of the content, it's a rejection of the idea that there is systemic bias, and much of his memo is dedicated to ways in which that bias can be propagated and solidified.
At best, the memo paints Damore as someone who is radically uninformed and parroting old and invalid talking points that others have given to him. At worst it implies that he knows what he's doing and is trying to dismantle processes and culture that are improving women's access to the workplace.
Hn discussion of the paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25069644
That's not what the memo was. It ignored the evidence we have that there is systemic bias, it relied on tired and debunked tropes, and has explicit goals about preserving and elevating the privilege that perpetuates that systemic bias. That done in front of a large company filled with people personally affected by it is just a terrible idea. I'm open to discussion about this, but from the right people (those affected, with the experience) in the right context. James Damore was neither.
But honestly, if you read the memo and think it sounds reasonable, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. These biases are deeply rooted and take decades of introspection to overcome. I've been on that journey for probably 15 years and I've still got blind spots.
The experiment I linked above sent monitored the callback rates of applicants sent out to Bay Area tech companies for technical roles, and saw higher callback rates for women. This is the sort of prototypical evidence we use as an example of systemic anti-Black bias where Black applicants are called back less frequently than white applicants.
Is Google, specifically, systemically biased against women? Cross-referencing the diversity reports they publish [1], with employment statistics [2] does not show an underrepresentation of women. Google has also taken controversial steps, such as tying executive performance reviews to the representation of "underrepresented groups" - that term has included women at every company I've worked at, but if that's not the case at Google please correct me. When Google conducted an investigation into whether women were underpaid, they discovered that the disparity leaned the other way [3].
Perhaps maybe some introspection is warranted on your part, and revisit the assumptions you have about gender bias at Google and in the tech industry in general.
1. https://kstatic.googleusercontent.com/files/819bcce604bf5ff7...
2. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
3. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-fi...
The gender bias is clear in individual experience and data, all it takes is talking to women (or people of colour, or whatever under represented group you want) to see it.
I think Google does pretty well on this, largely due to the diversity programs that Damore was calling to have abolished.
Data could definitely change my mind: what percentage of applicants to software developer roles at Google are women, and what percentage of offers extended for those roles go to women? If the former is substantially smaller than the latter, that would definitely sway me.
Nonwhites are not actually underrepresented at tech companies like Google, and the fact that you casually claim they are in an aside should cast serious doubts on other arguments you make as well.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4380791-NLRB-Advice-...
> statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.
I'm sure either of us could quickly find a bunch of people who would like to one or several of those acceptable again, yet us finding that such people exist would not tell us a damned thing about whether dismantling those protections is a good idea. Or supposing it does, then one might even make the case that those people existing is an excellent reason for having such a law in the first place.
What statistical argument did Damore make?