Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

"Google's Ideological Echo Chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion", commonly referred to as the Google memo, is an internal memo, dated July 2017, by US-based Google engineer James Damore about Google's culture and diversity policies.[1] The memo and Google's subsequent firing of Damore in August 2017 became a subject of interest for the media. Damore's arguments received both praise and criticism from media outlets, scientists, academics and others.

The company fired Damore for violation of the company's code of conduct.[2] Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, but later withdrew this complaint. A lawyer with the NLRB wrote that his firing did not violate Federal employment laws,[3][4][5][6] as most employees in the United States can be fired at the employer's discretion. After withdrawing this complaint, Damore filed a class action lawsuit, retaining the services of attorney Harmeet Dhillon,[7][8] alleging that Google was discriminating against conservatives, Whites, Asians, and men.

Course of events

James Damore wrote the memo after a Google diversity program he attended solicited feedback.[2] The memo was written on a flight to China.[11][12] Calling the culture at Google an "ideological echo chamber", the memo states that, although discrimination exists, it is extreme to ascribe all disparities to oppression, and it is authoritarian to try to correct disparities through reverse discrimination. Instead, the memo argues that male to female disparities can be partly explained by biological differences.[1][13] Alluding to the work of Simon Baron-Cohen,[14] Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people than in things

Reactions on the science

Some commentators in the academic community said Damore had understood the science correctly, such as Debra W. Soh, a columnist and psychologist;[55] Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University;[56] and Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico.[57]

Others said that he had got the science wrong and relied on data that was suspect, outdated, irrelevant, or otherwise flawed; these included Gina Rippon, chair of cognitive brain imaging at Aston University;[58] evolutionary biologist Suzanne Sadedin;[59][60]

Impact on Google

Prior to his interview with Damore, Steve Kovach interviewed a female Google employee for Business Insider who said she objected to the memo, saying it lumped all women together, and that it came across as a personal attack.[71] Business Insider also reported that several women were preparing to leave Google by interviewing for other jobs.[72] Within Google, the memo sparked discussions among staff, some of whom believe they were disciplined or fired for their comments supporting diversity or for criticizing Damore's beliefs.[73][74]

Concerns about sexism

In addition to Sheryl Sandberg, who linked to scientific counterarguments, a number of other women in technology condemned the memorandum, including Megan Smith, a former Google vice president.[75] Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, wrote an editorial in which she described feeling devastated about the potential effect of the memo on young women.[76] Laurie Leshin, president of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, said that she was heartened by the backlash against the memo, which gave her hope that things were changing.[77] Kara Swisher of Recode criticized the memo as sexist;[78] Cynthia B. Lee, a computer science lecturer at Stanford University stated that there is ample evidence for bias in tech and that correcting this was more important than whether biological differences might account for a proportion of the numerical imbalances in Google and in technology.

Employment law and free speech concerns

Yuki Noguchi, a reporter for NPR (National Public Radio), said that Damore's firing has raised questions regarding the limits of free speech in the workplace. First Amendment free speech protections usually do not extend into the workplace, as the First Amendment restricts government action but not the actions of private employers, and employers have a duty to protect their employees against a hostile work environment.[83] Several employment law experts interviewed by CNBC said that while Damore could challenge his firing in court, his potential case would be weak and Google would arguably have several defensible reasons for firing him; had Google not made a substantive response to his memo, that could have been cited as evidence of a "hostile work environment" in lawsuits against Google. Additionally, they argued that the memo could indicate that Damore would be unable to fairly assess or supervise the work of female colleagues.[84]

Cultural commentary

Google's reaction to the memo and its firing of Damore were criticized by several cultural commentators, including Margaret Wente of The Globe and Mail,[85] Erick Erickson, a conservative writer for RedState,[86] David Brooks of The New York Times,[87][88] Clive Crook of Bloomberg View,[89] and moral philosopher Peter Singer, writing in New York Daily News.[90]

See also

• Biological determinism
• Cancel culture
• Criticism of Google
• Gender disparity in computing
• Neuroscience of sex differences
• Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations
• Sex differences in psychology
• Sexism in the technology industry
• Women in computing
• Women in STEM

Further reading

External links

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

• PDF of the memo, also hosted here
• Fired for Truth - James Damore's official website
• Google Video on Unconscious Bias - Making the Unconscious Conscious by Life at Google (YouTube, 4 minutes)