The Google Memo

The actual text of the memo: diversitymemo.com

I don't believe he should have been fired. He was expressing his views in a logical, thought out, mature manner, and clearly explained the larger problem he was trying to address. Obviously, his viewpoints do bring up some issues that may have affected his work in the company, but I think the solution would have been to respond in a similarly mature, logical manner instead of making a media spectacle out of the issue. The company should have seen to it that his ideology did not affect his work, not kicked him out altogether.

I agree with that, Bhavana. "Open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document," strikes me as quite true in the memo.

I personally found this document very interesting, offering a new approach as to how to address inequality in the STEM workforce. However, many people brought the concern that perhaps he shouldn't have been using company property and that was why he got fired. I think that it is a pretty bad excuse for firing someone, especially since Google already provides lots of leisure time for its employers. I know plenty of people who work for Google (Bay Area perks!), and they are allowed to use company property designated for them when they are taking breaks.

Also, many people pointed out that the Google employee thought a large fraction of people in the workplace (women) were inept at their jobs. I personally didn't get that at all. He literally said that genetic and inherent differences between the broad populations of men and women could not account for individual differences. I think he was mostly talking about hiring practices and their preference for women, which I think is reasonable. Instead of using discriminatory practices to bring women into these jobs, let's mix up some of our jobs to be more cooperative and allow for part-time work so that women (generally) can feel like they belong in there.

I agree with you, Bhavana and Rachna. Open discussion should be encouraged, as it is a great way to see from a different POV! The author exercised his right of free speech, but I don't think he fully accounted for the fact that there are repercussions to actions.

Also, I cannot say that I am supportive of the ideas discussed in his memo. As a girl excited about STEM, I'm not sure how I feel about hearing that I am genetically destined to pale in comparison to men.

Well, no one is saying that, and I would like to know where the author of the memo said that, because if he did, then I would in complete agreement with you. All of his arguments were backed by research and I found them very substantive and worth considering.

No one is saying that women shouldn't pursue STEM. In fact, in most fields in science have equal or near equal amounts of men and women. 70% of people pursuing psychiatry are women! It doesn't mean that men pale in comparison to female psychiatrists, but rather that most men choose to pursue other fields. In a free society, this is completely okay because they CHOSE to do so themselves. In a free society, it is okay if women choose not to pursue STEM also long as the choose so on their volition. More latino women go to college than white men, so it isn't that women aren't getting educated. They ARE getting educated, but they simply choose different fields.

In fact, the ONLY major fields of STEM that do NOT have equal, near equal, or over-represented populations of women are geo-sciences and computer engineering. Now, if you want to pursue these underrepresented fields, then you go, girl! However, studies universally show that women tend prefer working with living subjects, thus why more and more women are moving towards psychiatry and bio-sciences. The majority of men, on the other hand, prefer working with objects as opposed to living things (this is supported by scientific studies), and thus tend to dominate computer engineering fields. These are generalizations, so obviously there will be many exceptions.

My point is that women are clearly capable of doing well in STEM fields traditionally dominated by men, and they should not be hindered, bullied, or shamed for pursuing careers in such fields. But women also should not be ashamed if their interests differ from men’s. They also should not be given preference over men simply to fulfill some diversity quota. If the majority of women find certain careers more intrinsically rewarding than the majority of men do (biosciences or psychiatry vs computer engineering), that does not mean we have been brainwashed by society or herded into menial fields of labor. It just means that we (thankfully) live in a free society where anyone can choose whichever fields they want, and that doesn't always mean there will be equality. Freedom is NOT equality.

I apologize - I may not have been clear trying to express my concern in limited characters. Damore tries to argue that women are not drawn to tech because it is "thing-oriented", rather than people-oriented (apparently, a product of gendered biological traits). My issue is with Damore exaggerating and cherry-picking his data, as well as not considering where social factors play into the gender gap.

I found an interesting article by Wired that thoroughly researched Damore's claims and evidence. A bit long, but I highly recommend checking it out: https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/