MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2017 9:24:14 GMT -5
I understand you and milee 's issue and completely sympathize. It isn't fair that you can be punished by individuals or a private entity for expressing your views, but that's the reality. It has ALWAYS been the reality and as long as humans are fallible, it will not change. The only difference is that social media and technology make it easier for people to be unwittingly exposed or spout their nonsense to more people. I'm actually not as bothered by the idea of fairness or even that he was fired. Google really had no option once there was a media firestorm which labeled this guy a sexist misogynist who wrote an anti-diversity screed (direct quotes from headlines.) My initial issue is with the media's ability to destroy someone's life through their labeling. The labeling increasingly does not seem to be based in fact - unnamed sources or undertones are enough - and given how powerfully unacceptable some of the labels are... it's horrifying how little scrutiny gets paid to the actual fact set before judgment and action happens on the part of the public at large. My secondary issue is with the trend towards making the mention of, much less discussion or debate on, certain topics completely forbidden. A person can want to examine and debate the merits of affirmative action without necessarily being a racist or sexist, but the current trend is to immediately label said person racist or sexist and then stop all discussion. This trend has been increasing at colleges and is increasingly present at places of employment and the public at large. re: your initial issue - yes, that is definitely a problem. Mostly because the news media is not impartial. But it has never been impartial. This stuff isn't new - it just happens on a larger scale and faster because of the evolution of social media and technology. Same thing really with the secondary issue. Universities should be places where everything and anything can be discussed. I don't feel that I was stifled at all in college, but I also knew my audience and what was good conversation and what wasn't. When my black acquaintances talked about things like how affirmative action is necessary and how things are still so tough for blacks today, I just listened, nodded, and smiled. I did have the discussion with one girl out of that group at a different time. We were on opposite ends of the pole, but we were able to have a healthy discussion/debate without being upset or slinging insults. I doubt that back in the days of segregation, lots of white students felt free to talk about how wonderful black people are and that they would love to have their school integrated. Or that they'd love to date XYZ black person. There has always been a majority opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:05:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 9:32:55 GMT -5
1970s: Beware or Big Brother will get you! 2017: Big Brother, how do I get to Charles street from here, and is there a good milkshake place on the way? Paraphrasing
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2017 9:39:10 GMT -5
oh, and I do think we need to know who leaked it. It was basically taking what was said in a private conversation and putting it on Facebook. I thought there was some sort of privacy rules in companies... not sure. But I wouldn't say something on a company platform that I wouldn't say in public or on social media.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 16, 2017 9:44:13 GMT -5
I think MJ makes a really good point. Personally, I have avoided talking about the fact I am an atheist in the workplace. Most of my board of directors are Christians and I don't want any backlash from the fact I don't believe as they do. They all seem to be open minded people and might accept it just fine but I figure it isn't any of their business anyway, and I would rather not take any chances. You know, I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to kill Christmas
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 16, 2017 10:36:57 GMT -5
Your opinions and thoughts are always welcome as long as they coincide with what the powers that be approve of. It's always been that way.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Aug 16, 2017 10:38:56 GMT -5
I absolutely think Google needed to fire this guy. The optics of keeping someone that has been labeled an anti-diversity sexist would be horrible. There are few companies who would want to have anything to do with this. No debate from me about whether a company should fire an employee who has been publicly labeled sexist or anti-diversity. What I'm trying to figure out is based on a read of the actual document, was it reasonable for him to be labeled an anti-diversity sexist? I'm not sure. It seems very easy for people to mislabel others and for those labels to stick. Especially in regards to lightning-rod issues like diversity. But shouldn't Google wait to actually find out if it was reasonable for him to be labeled before firing him? Don't we want companies to have loyalty to its employees and not just made decisions purely on optics? Especially since your last paragraph is so true. While many might not want to deal with the company that employs certain type of individuals, I wouldn't want to deal with one who throws their employees under the bus just so they don't "look bad"
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2017 10:42:01 GMT -5
I absolutely think Google needed to fire this guy. The optics of keeping someone that has been labeled an anti-diversity sexist would be horrible. There are few companies who would want to have anything to do with this. No debate from me about whether a company should fire an employee who has been publicly labeled sexist or anti-diversity. What I'm trying to figure out is based on a read of the actual document, was it reasonable for him to be labeled an anti-diversity sexist? I'm not sure. It seems very easy for people to mislabel others and for those labels to stick. Especially in regards to lightning-rod issues like diversity. But shouldn't Google wait to actually find out if it was reasonable for him to be labeled before firing him? Don't we want companies to have loyalty to its employees and not just made decisions purely on optics?Especially since your last paragraph is so true. While many might not want to deal with the company that employs certain type of individuals, I wouldn't want to deal with one who throws their employees under the bus just so they don't "look bad" sure we want that, but companies - especially big ones like Google - will not think twice about throwing an employee to the wolves to protect their image. Expecting any different is naive IMO.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 16, 2017 10:57:49 GMT -5
I absolutely think Google needed to fire this guy. The optics of keeping someone that has been labeled an anti-diversity sexist would be horrible. There are few companies who would want to have anything to do with this. No debate from me about whether a company should fire an employee who has been publicly labeled sexist or anti-diversity. What I'm trying to figure out is based on a read of the actual document, was it reasonable for him to be labeled an anti-diversity sexist? I'm not sure. It seems very easy for people to mislabel others and for those labels to stick. Especially in regards to lightning-rod issues like diversity. But shouldn't Google wait to actually find out if it was reasonable for him to be labeled before firing him? Don't we want companies to have loyalty to its employees and not just made decisions purely on optics? Especially since your last paragraph is so true. While many might not want to deal with the company that employs certain type of individuals, I wouldn't want to deal with one who throws their employees under the bus just so they don't "look bad" As far as Google specifically is concerned, IMO it's a matter of timing. Google is currently tussling with the Department of Labor over inquiries regarding pay disparity and diversity. Whether that inquiry has merit - who knows? In addition, there is growing public focus on the fact that VC and tech is generally a "bro" culture that is hostile to women and minorities; several prominent VCs and public company leaders have resigned recently in large part due to accusations of discrimination against and harassment of women. So there is a very high level of sensitivity regarding sexism, discrimination and diversity right now. Given that high level of sensitivity, most companies would be hesitant to take the very nuanced position that an employee had been mislabeled a sexist misogynist who wrote an anti-diversity screed and that although they don't agree with his analysis, simply the fact that he discussed the issue doesn't itself indicate he's a sexist misogynist. In another time, they could have indicated that they're going to use this opportunity to discuss diversity and whether company programs were appropriate and effective, but to do that in connection with someone that the media has labeled a sexist? No way.
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 16, 2017 11:00:16 GMT -5
Perhaps everyone can watch Silicon Valley and learn a few lessons .
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 17, 2017 8:25:45 GMT -5
I keep reading that we're supposed to be having a national conversation on race, inequality, and sexism, among other things.
But this whole thing just goes to show that if you say the wrong thing in the wrong setting bad stuff happens to you. Not exactly conducive to this "conversation" we're supposed to be having.
I guess the "conversation" is just a euphemism for replicating a ever narrowing liberal ideology.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 17, 2017 8:36:32 GMT -5
I am gessing 10 page manifestos of mean spirited rantings get a lot more attention than a few well crafted sentences introduced rationally into a conversation.
But yes, "talk about sexism" is code for you will listen to and accept the modern thought processes about equality.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 17, 2017 8:37:17 GMT -5
Sorry my fault for bringing universities into this. I did it because I think both them and this Google example are symptoms of a larger issue. Don't be sorry - I'm seeing the same trend and larger issue. It's an infectious disease
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 17, 2017 8:37:49 GMT -5
I keep reading that we're supposed to be having a national conversation on race, inequality, and sexism, among other things.
But this whole thing just goes to show that if you say the wrong thing in the wrong setting bad stuff happens to you. Not exactly conducive to this "conversation" we're supposed to be having.
I guess the "conversation" is just a euphemism for replicating a ever narrowing liberal ideology. Amen
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 10:46:31 GMT -5
either way, not something facilitating a dialogue. If only he had some of those weeny "soft skills" like communication...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 17, 2017 11:05:51 GMT -5
This is a tech company we're talking about. When you're dealing with a bunch of programmers, computer engineers and software developers, memos like this are about as "soft" as it gets. If anything, he's an example of a techie who has reasonable communication skills. Most of the time, it's a struggle to get them to speak in languages other than Klingon or the whistle/clicking language they developed to speak amongst themselves. Seriously, the memo is not out of line for what Google asked for not out of the range of reasonable for how many tech employees communicate. Plus, there's the small issue of the difference between clueless/whiny/poor writer and racist/sexist/misogynist. If everybody who was clueless, whiny, a poor writer or even "mean" were exposed to the media so they could be labeled racist/sexist/misogynist...there would be few employees left at many companies.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 11:09:30 GMT -5
This is a tech company we're talking about. When you're dealing with a bunch of programmers, computer engineers and software developers, memos like this are about as "soft" as it gets. If anything, he's an example of a techie who has reasonable communication skills. Most of the time, it's a struggle to get them to speak in languages other than Klingon or the whistle/clicking language they developed to speak amongst themselves.Seriously, the memo is not out of line for what Google asked for not out of the range of reasonable for how many tech employees communicate. Plus, there's the small issue of the difference between clueless/whiny/poor writer and racist/sexist/misogynist. If everybody who was clueless, whiny, a poor writer or even "mean" were exposed to the media so they could be labeled racist/sexist/misogynist...there would be few employees left at many companies. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 17, 2017 13:54:51 GMT -5
Perhaps if they employed a few more women, the bar could be set a little higher in this regard.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 17, 2017 14:16:40 GMT -5
I'm actually not as bothered by the idea of fairness or even that he was fired. Google really had no option once there was a media firestorm which labeled this guy a sexist misogynist who wrote an anti-diversity screed (direct quotes from headlines.) My initial issue is with the media's ability to destroy someone's life through their labeling. The labeling increasingly does not seem to be based in fact - unnamed sources or undertones are enough - and given how powerfully unacceptable some of the labels are... it's horrifying how little scrutiny gets paid to the actual fact set before judgment and action happens on the part of the public at large. My secondary issue is with the trend towards making the mention of, much less discussion or debate on, certain topics completely forbidden. A person can want to examine and debate the merits of affirmative action without necessarily being a racist or sexist, but the current trend is to immediately label said person racist or sexist and then stop all discussion. This trend has been increasing at colleges and is increasingly present at places of employment and the public at large. re: your initial issue - yes, that is definitely a problem. Mostly because the news media is not impartial. But it has never been impartial. This stuff isn't new - it just happens on a larger scale and faster because of the evolution of social media and technology. Same thing really with the secondary issue. Universities should be places where everything and anything can be discussed. I don't feel that I was stifled at all in college, but I also knew my audience and what was good conversation and what wasn't. When my black acquaintances talked about things like how affirmative action is necessary and how things are still so tough for blacks today, I just listened, nodded, and smiled. I did have the discussion with one girl out of that group at a different time. We were on opposite ends of the pole, but we were able to have a healthy discussion/debate without being upset or slinging insults. I doubt that back in the days of segregation, lots of white students felt free to talk about how wonderful black people are and that they would love to have their school integrated. Or that they'd love to date XYZ black person. There has always been a majority opinion. Good point. Could also add homosexuality. Coming out in the 50s was certainly a career killer and maybe even ostracized from your family. But now that some white guy could be censured for complaining that his heap of privilege might be getting a tad bit smaller ..... Oh, now let's get up in arms about personal freedoms. And even today large groups are fighting tooth and nail against equality for LGBT persons. Wanting to rescind rights, legalize discrimination broadly across these populations but people want to get all twisted up over this buffoon getting a hand slapped?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 14:23:14 GMT -5
re: your initial issue - yes, that is definitely a problem. Mostly because the news media is not impartial. But it has never been impartial. This stuff isn't new - it just happens on a larger scale and faster because of the evolution of social media and technology. Same thing really with the secondary issue. Universities should be places where everything and anything can be discussed. I don't feel that I was stifled at all in college, but I also knew my audience and what was good conversation and what wasn't. When my black acquaintances talked about things like how affirmative action is necessary and how things are still so tough for blacks today, I just listened, nodded, and smiled. I did have the discussion with one girl out of that group at a different time. We were on opposite ends of the pole, but we were able to have a healthy discussion/debate without being upset or slinging insults. I doubt that back in the days of segregation, lots of white students felt free to talk about how wonderful black people are and that they would love to have their school integrated. Or that they'd love to date XYZ black person. There has always been a majority opinion. Good point. Could also add homosexuality. Coming out in the 50s was certainly a career killer and maybe even ostracized from your family. But now that some white guy could be censured for complaining that his heap of privilege might be getting a tad bit smaller ..... Oh, now let's get up in arms about personal freedoms. And even today large groups are fighting tooth and nail against equality for LGBT persons. Wanting to rescind rights, legalize discrimination broadly across these populations but people want to get all twisted up over this buffoon getting a hand slapped? I wonder if the people getting up in arms now about the swaying of the majority opinion would have gotten up in arms about women's suffrage, the demise of Jim Crow laws, and the relative acceptance of gays in society. I mean I do understand some of the noise, and I think we have gotten overly sensitive in some aspects. But you have NEVER been able to voice your personal opinions at work without consequences. I am confused about how all of a sudden it's an issue. It's always been an issue.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Aug 17, 2017 14:25:08 GMT -5
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Aug 17, 2017 14:27:34 GMT -5
either way, not something facilitating a dialogue. If only he had some of those weeny "soft skills" like communication... You know, that women have. because we're all emotional.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 17, 2017 14:38:46 GMT -5
Good point. Could also add homosexuality. Coming out in the 50s was certainly a career killer and maybe even ostracized from your family. But now that some white guy could be censured for complaining that his heap of privilege might be getting a tad bit smaller ..... Oh, now let's get up in arms about personal freedoms. And even today large groups are fighting tooth and nail against equality for LGBT persons. Wanting to rescind rights, legalize discrimination broadly across these populations but people want to get all twisted up over this buffoon getting a hand slapped? I wonder if the people getting up in arms now about the swaying of the majority opinion would have gotten up in arms about women's suffrage, the demise of Jim Crow laws, and the relative acceptance of gays in society. I mean I do understand some of the noise, and I think we have gotten overly sensitive in some aspects. But you have NEVER been able to voice your personal opinions at work without consequences. I am confused about how all of a sudden it's an issue. It's always been an issue. I think in this case it is because the company invited it, and then tossed him when he participated. He took them at their word they wanted an open honest discussion. He should have known that is not what they were asking. I do wonder what question they posed. Was it "Why don't we have more women here?" Or was it "What can we do to get more women here?"
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 14:39:47 GMT -5
it can also be difficult to hear someone's opinion on an ethnic group/gender/sexual orientation/program if they have little to no experience with said group. If I have never encountered a man, I don't really have a legitimate perspective on men IMO.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 14:41:49 GMT -5
I wonder if the people getting up in arms now about the swaying of the majority opinion would have gotten up in arms about women's suffrage, the demise of Jim Crow laws, and the relative acceptance of gays in society. I mean I do understand some of the noise, and I think we have gotten overly sensitive in some aspects. But you have NEVER been able to voice your personal opinions at work without consequences. I am confused about how all of a sudden it's an issue. It's always been an issue. I think in this case it is because the company invited it, and then tossed him when he participated. He took them at their word they wanted an open honest discussion. He should have known that is not what they were asking. I do wonder what question they posed. Was it "Why don't we have more women here?" Or was it "What can we do to get more women here?" That would definitely help me understand. I'd also like to see what other responses - if any - Google got to this phantom question. If it was one of those general "what suggestions do you have to improve diversity in our hiring process" or even just a basic suggestion box, then I'm sorry but he's an idiot.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 17, 2017 14:50:44 GMT -5
Good point. Could also add homosexuality. Coming out in the 50s was certainly a career killer and maybe even ostracized from your family. But now that some white guy could be censured for complaining that his heap of privilege might be getting a tad bit smaller ..... Oh, now let's get up in arms about personal freedoms. And even today large groups are fighting tooth and nail against equality for LGBT persons. Wanting to rescind rights, legalize discrimination broadly across these populations but people want to get all twisted up over this buffoon getting a hand slapped? I wonder if the people getting up in arms now about the swaying of the majority opinion would have gotten up in arms about women's suffrage, the demise of Jim Crow laws, and the relative acceptance of gays in society. I mean I do understand some of the noise, and I think we have gotten overly sensitive in some aspects. But you have NEVER been able to voice your personal opinions at work without consequences. I am confused about how all of a sudden it's an issue. It's always been an issue. If this is directed at me - since I wrote the OP - I can only answer for me. I've always been up in arms about women's rights, minority rights, immigration rights and gay rights (I'm old, we didn't have the phrase "LGBTQ", it was just old school "gay" rights when I first started protesting and supporting them). Because those rights are all about the same basic thing - equality and fair treatment. And again, the point of the thread wasn't to object to a company firing a person who had been labeled a sexist who wrote an anti-diversity screed. The point was about how the media created this issue and the power media has to ruin a life by mislabeling. But none of that really matters if all this comes down to is... you seem to think it's OK to screw people we don't like, who do not agree with us, who we suspect may have done something. If you want to justify that as fighting for justice or whining oppressors being punished or whatever you want to label it, maybe it will help you justify it to yourself but it's crappy just like the discrimination you mention was crappy. You ruin your credibility when you only care about equality or fair treatment when it's applied to people you personally approve of.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 17, 2017 15:01:18 GMT -5
Ah yes, the evil liberal media--the source of all society's current ills.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 15:03:55 GMT -5
I wonder if the people getting up in arms now about the swaying of the majority opinion would have gotten up in arms about women's suffrage, the demise of Jim Crow laws, and the relative acceptance of gays in society. I mean I do understand some of the noise, and I think we have gotten overly sensitive in some aspects. But you have NEVER been able to voice your personal opinions at work without consequences. I am confused about how all of a sudden it's an issue. It's always been an issue. If this is directed at me - since I wrote the OP - I can only answer for me. I've always been up in arms about women's rights, minority rights, immigration rights and gay rights (I'm old, we didn't have the phrase "LGBTQ", it was just old school "gay" rights when I first started protesting and supporting them). Because those rights are all about the same basic thing - equality and fair treatment. And again, the point of the thread wasn't to object to a company firing a person who had been labeled a sexist who wrote an anti-diversity screed. The point was about how the media created this issue and the power media has to ruin a life by mislabeling. But none of that really matters if all this comes down to is... you seem to think it's OK to screw people we don't like, who do not agree with us, who we suspect may have done something. If you want to justify that as fighting for justice or whining oppressors being punished or whatever you want to label it, maybe it will help you justify it to yourself but it's crappy just like the discrimination you mention was crappy.
You ruin your credibility when you only care about equality or fair treatment when it's applied to people you personally approve of. um, okay.... I DO recall saying that I actually agreed with some of his points... that is not in line with the majority view on this subject. I DO recall saying - a few times - that you have NEVER been free to say what you want at work, so I don't know why we are suddenly upset about it. I DO recall agreeing that the media ostracizing is an issue, but again, it's not a new thing. But keep reaching. Oh, and it wasn't directed at you specifically, but I guess you thought the shoe fit.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 17, 2017 15:04:54 GMT -5
and also, I don't even have credibility on here so... I don't know... can you have negative credibility?
|
|
yogiii
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 19:38:00 GMT -5
Posts: 5,377
|
Post by yogiii on Aug 17, 2017 15:07:51 GMT -5
and also, I don't even have credibility on here so... I don't know... can you have negative credibility? Mathematically, yes.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,030
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 17, 2017 15:12:44 GMT -5
I wonder if the people getting up in arms now about the swaying of the majority opinion would have gotten up in arms about women's suffrage, the demise of Jim Crow laws, and the relative acceptance of gays in society. I mean I do understand some of the noise, and I think we have gotten overly sensitive in some aspects. But you have NEVER been able to voice your personal opinions at work without consequences. I am confused about how all of a sudden it's an issue. It's always been an issue. I think in this case it is because the company invited it, and then tossed him when he participated. He took them at their word they wanted an open honest discussion. He should have known that is not what they were asking. I do wonder what question they posed. Was it "Why don't we have more women here?" Or was it "What can we do to get more women here?" Yeah, what was the discussion supposed to be? If it was "what does diversity mean to you?" Maybe he had some idea this would fly. If it was supposed to be an "honest and open discussion on why there was so little diversity at google " then his diatribe could be seen as deliberately provoking.
|
|