Deleted
Joined: May 20, 2024 7:32:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 11:25:01 GMT -5
So milee, why in your estimation was he fired?
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 14, 2017 11:25:54 GMT -5
I read another forum discussion on this subject that provided the memo with his linked citations. The discussion moved to how the citations didn't provide support to what he was claiming, were opinion pieces, and discussed pop psychology subjects that were poorly regarded by consensus of the actual people in the field of psychology. (I did not bother to read these myself.) My gist from my general familiarity of the subjects is that he's making mountains out of molehills. These studies almost never reveal anything conclusive at all, are unable to account for confounding variables, and often are too small to generalize to larger populations. Perhaps if he made his argument utilizing a logical progression like the example I previously mentioned, I'd be more compelled to go on to examine the specific claims he makes. I just found it to be a mess, however, and not worth my time to bother with it. I'm not remotely putting forth the argument that his memo and views are correct or that it's well written. But there are many, many incorrect and poorly written memos in business. I'm not a Google employee, but I suspect if Google's internal message boards are anything like the internal corporate message boards I've seen, there are more poorly written memos with little to no research or incorrect research than there are well-written ones with incontrovertible research. Internal idea boards tend to be a mishmash of ideas, many of them in the preformative stages like ideas you'd hear at a brainstorming session where people are free thinking and calling out things that pop into their minds. Internal idea boards in many cases don't sport publication-ready pieces that are vetted and researched, so it wouldn't be a surprise that this memo (like many of the others) was not well written and/or contained little to no research. The surprise is that the discussion of affirmative action and whether there are differences between men and women itself appears to be the issue, not the quality of the memo. If the quality of the memo was the issue, that would have been a quick fix - send it back to the employee to correct or work with the employee to develop the ideas or provide better sources. If the company had actually done that - shown how the "support" was incorrect or engaged on dialogue such as "yes, in some ways affirmative action does "discriminate" against one class in favor of another but here is why we believe it is justified" - that would have been a reasonable way to handle it. The powers that be in the company have decided that increasing diversity in their workforce is one of their goals. Employees are employed specifically to accomplish a company's goals. I'm sure that how to accomplish this goal is welcomed discussion, but to go against the decision to pursue this goal itself is going against the very top decision makers. Someone has to be in charge and make the bigger strategic decisions. Somebody has to steer the ship. To have underlings encourage dissent within the ranks, well that can bring down the whole place. This memo writer should have tread extremely carefully in this, and obviously he didn't. Had he written it in such a way as to focus on how to improve diversity, he wouldn't have been canned. I think if anyone in just about any company had done this, they would have been canned, with a possible exception if the top people were already getting ready to move in a different direction.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 14, 2017 11:30:54 GMT -5
So milee, why in your estimation was he fired? I'm not Milee, but I'm pretty sure he got fired because the memo got leaked and there was a negative reaction. Google, like all large, successful corporations, want to keep their name as clean and controversy-free as possible.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 14, 2017 11:34:51 GMT -5
Is writing ten pages on a discussion board really inviting discussion? I mean, really, who the hell is going to read that and comment without having a lot of time on your hands because you'd have to write a paper just to respond! Just like the people here who write a wall of text, I just roll my eyes and scroll pass it assuming it's some type of diatribe again. 10 pages is NOT a memo! It's more like a manifesto. There's no way to find out, but if there were I would wager that this employee was having some issues at work prior to the posting of this and those were the real root cause of his firing. This may have been very clever on his part actually, if he was having performance issues.
Regarding the posting itself - poorly written, in many instances factually inaccurate, oozing of bias and containing of some of the most ridiculous "footnotes" I've ever seen. I feel like anyone who is shocked at his firing hasn't been in the workforce long. That said, if they had kept him I would not personally have been dismayed (I don't work at Google after all), but the decision not to keep him is entirely unsurprising.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 14, 2017 11:36:17 GMT -5
(To mj's post) And that's exactly why I would have fired him. I think Google HAD to fire him given the fact that they're under scrutiny for not having enough diversity. I'm not disagreeing with Google's decision to fire him. I think the media has mislabeled him, though, and that's part of what caused the controversy.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Aug 14, 2017 11:43:59 GMT -5
Every corporation has a corporate culture. Sure, sometimes they shift over time - but by and large if you really dislike your corporate culture it is best to just move on. There will be other companies where you are happier. If your corporate culture promotes illegal and discriminatory practices, by all means you should actively push back, employing legal representation as necessary. But if it's perfectly legal and basically everyone is happy but you, either figure a way to get happy in the workplace or leave.
I once had a CEO who responded to someone at a company meeting by telling them that we worked on the FIFO method at our company. He asked if anyone knew what that was. All the finance folks are "duh....First In, First Out". He said "no, Fit In or Fuck Off". Not the most kind or PC statement for sure, but also not inaccurate.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Aug 14, 2017 11:48:41 GMT -5
Every corporation has a corporate culture. Sure, sometimes they shift over time - but by and large if you really dislike your corporate culture it is best to just move on. There will be other companies where you are happier. If your corporate culture promotes illegal and discriminatory practices, by all means you should actively push back, employing legal representation as necessary. But if it's perfectly legal and basically everyone is happy but you, either figure a way to get happy in the workplace or leave.
I once had a CEO who responded to someone at a company meeting by telling them that we worked on the FIFO method at our company. He asked if anyone knew what that was. All the finance folks are "duh....First In, First Out". He said "no, Fit In or Fuck Off". Not the most kind or PC statement for sure, but also not inaccurate.
Did you clutch your pearls, swoon, and succumb to the vapors like women do when faced with hostile comments?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Aug 15, 2017 9:22:28 GMT -5
I agree with some points, particularly about viewpoint diversity and the public shaming of those who don't agree with certain viewpoints. The shaming culture has gotten really bad over the past few years, and it's ripe with hypocrisy. The idea that you not only can, but should be fired for expressing a certain viewpoint reeks of authoritarianism.
There is definitely some group think and echo chambers on the coasts. I think that's why there was so much shock when Donald Trump won.
I disagree with others. While I think women do tend to have a predisposition towards motherhood and family, and tend to want more work/life balance, I don't think that precludes them from succeeding that tech or leadership, if they have the aptitude for it.
Whether he should have been fired or not, I lean towards no. While it may have been publicly embarrassing for the company, it just reinforces the idea that there is a liberal bias and groupthink in the tech industry.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,447
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 15, 2017 12:31:15 GMT -5
Fwiw, I read his words last week, didn't agree with him, but didn't think he would get fired or that his words were something he should be fired over. I knew instantly that he'd be fired and blackballed out of tech forever. I've been telling all y'all for years that there is groupthink on the coasts that you will lose your livelihood, family and friends if you don't say the right words and phrases at the right time. American society is not free, and we will try to elect people to push back on and break our oppressors suppression of us There is a lot of shit I can't say in my job in a firm red state. If I wrote a 10 page memo on how Christians were unfit for business and distributed it to my coworkers, I would be fired. If I wrote a 10 page memo on how people who eat gluten free are idiots I would probably be fired, too.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,447
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 15, 2017 12:40:30 GMT -5
I'm not remotely putting forth the argument that his memo and views are correct or that it's well written. But there are many, many incorrect and poorly written memos in business. I'm not a Google employee, but I suspect if Google's internal message boards are anything like the internal corporate message boards I've seen, there are more poorly written memos with little to no research or incorrect research than there are well-written ones with incontrovertible research. Internal idea boards tend to be a mishmash of ideas, many of them in the preformative stages like ideas you'd hear at a brainstorming session where people are free thinking and calling out things that pop into their minds. Internal idea boards in many cases don't sport publication-ready pieces that are vetted and researched, so it wouldn't be a surprise that this memo (like many of the others) was not well written and/or contained little to no research. The surprise is that the discussion of affirmative action and whether there are differences between men and women itself appears to be the issue, not the quality of the memo. If the quality of the memo was the issue, that would have been a quick fix - send it back to the employee to correct or work with the employee to develop the ideas or provide better sources. If the company had actually done that - shown how the "support" was incorrect or engaged on dialogue such as "yes, in some ways affirmative action does "discriminate" against one class in favor of another but here is why we believe it is justified" - that would have been a reasonable way to handle it. The powers that be in the company have decided that increasing diversity in their workforce is one of their goals. Employees are employed specifically to accomplish a company's goals. I'm sure that how to accomplish this goal is welcomed discussion, but to go against the decision to pursue this goal itself is going against the very top decision makers. Someone has to be in charge and make the bigger strategic decisions. Somebody has to steer the ship. To have underlings encourage dissent within the ranks, well that can bring down the whole place. This memo writer should have tread extremely carefully in this, and obviously he didn't. Had he written it in such a way as to focus on how to improve diversity, he wouldn't have been canned. I think if anyone in just about any company had done this, they would have been canned, with a possible exception if the top people were already getting ready to move in a different direction. Perfect!!!
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,087
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Aug 15, 2017 12:57:59 GMT -5
Fwiw, I read his words last week, didn't agree with him, but didn't think he would get fired or that his words were something he should be fired over. I knew instantly that he'd be fired and blackballed out of tech forever. I've been telling all y'all for years that there is groupthink on the coasts that you will lose your livelihood, family and friends if you don't say the right words and phrases at the right time. American society is not free, and we will try to elect people to push back on and break our oppressors suppression of us Are you sure you aren't biased in your interpretation because he's using the label of conservative here?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2017 13:36:35 GMT -5
can I also please point out YET AGAIN that the 1st amendment applies to the government's actions against an individual or group? It does NOT mean you can say whatever you want at your workplace and face no consequences.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2017 14:22:13 GMT -5
that, or if you really think there is a serious issue relating to hiring or infrastructure, just go directly to the people in charge of that instead of posting it on an internal message board.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on Aug 15, 2017 15:02:30 GMT -5
Wow, this guy has a lot of time on his hands...
This appears to be nothing but an opinion piece. I fall on the liberal side on a lot of issues but I would not have fired someone over this dribble. Like milee I think I would definitely have a discussion with him. He threw out a bunch of nonsense with no statistics/research supporting his opinions. I am a bit uncomfortable firing someone because they have a different opinion than myself. Had his statements been flat out racist or sexist then I would have sent him packing.
Personally, he is kind of stupid though to post this on a Google discussion board when he knows Google is a company that lives in the public eye. It makes me wonder if he wanted to be fired...
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 15, 2017 15:10:53 GMT -5
Well it's a little disingenuous to invite discussion and then fire someone for it. That's my issue with it. This is a company that constantly pushes its employees to innovate, to "disrupt", to re-think... everything. Creativity and coming up with new ways to do things is highly prized and encouraged. There has historically even been a policy of allowing employees to spend 20% of their time doing whatever random project (other than their assigned work) they think will benefit the company the most. In other words - they encourage autonomy, creativity and disruption. It is known for being an innovation specialist and the way they achieve that innovation is hiring talented, creative employees and then doing whatever they can to foster those employees' ability to innovate. Encouraging employees to question and innovate everything is at the core of this company's culture. This is not similar to a story of an employee in a typical company randomly posting a criticism of a company to Facebook. This is a story of a company that is built on, centered around and which actively solicits employees to examine and innovate on every aspect of the business specifically seeking employees to share ideas to spark creation/redesign and then being upset when an employee actually does that on an internal message board built specifically to spark creative discussion. Google even makes a huge deal of how they can't succeed if they don't fail sometimes and that if the employees don't sometimes fail, they're not trying hard enough. Again, I don't agree with the employee's conclusions, but I don't think his work was outside what the company culture specifically fosters (or says it fosters), I don't believe it was an anti-diversity screed and I think given the goals and policies of the company it wasn't outside the types of things Google asks employees to do and examine.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 15, 2017 15:48:59 GMT -5
Not to get too far off topic, but this is the same phenomenon that is being felt at college campuses. I'm not even talking about big name controversial speakers, but students in classrooms and assignments are being told that certain topics are verboten. Which is crazy, since college is supposed to be that place where students explore topics and learn to counter opposite views. My oldest son is in the process of applying for college so this is a topic we're acutely aware of and talk about often. It is a huge issue right now and I can't tell if we're at the outside of the extreme pendulum swing in this area (the idea that divergent views are not acceptable and "conservative" ideas are not acceptable even for discussion purposes) or if this trend is still developing and will be around for a while. It's not a coincidence that son's dream college is University of Chicago. But that's probably a topic for another thread. And right now I'm busy enough that I don't think I have the energy to want to deal with the discussion (rather the labeling and accusations) that a new thread on that would prompt.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2017 16:54:35 GMT -5
unless he believes no one should get welfare, cops are always right, abortion is never justified, or minorities need to be exterminated (and he goes around proclaiming one or all of these views), I can't imagine what views he holds that are so controversial that it factors into which school he wants to attend.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 15, 2017 16:57:42 GMT -5
there are things I believe that I know would cause a lot of people to make noise. What I do is know where and when I can discuss them. Otherwise I STFU. Learning to STFU is a valuable skill.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 15, 2017 17:02:50 GMT -5
unless he believes no one should get welfare, cops are always right, abortion is never justified, or minorities need to be exterminated (and he goes around proclaiming one or all of these views), I can't imagine what views he holds that are so controversial that it factors into which school he wants to attend. He doesn't believe any of those things. But then again, I don't believe the Google guy's writing was misogynist or an anti-diversity screed. It's very easy in these times to be slapped with a label that sticks, even if the label doesn't reflect what you actually said. As for the idea "there are things I believe that I know would cause a lot of people to make noise. What I do is know where and when I can discuss them. Otherwise I STFU. Learning to STFU is a valuable skill." STFU is a valuable skill. But the idea that even bringing up the topic of whether a diversity initiative is reasonable gets a person labeled a racist or misogynist is shutting down discussion at college. College is generally considered to be a place to explore ideas, not a place where you need to STFU or risk having the PC police brand you with a scarlet "R" and light up the torches to run you out of town. If you want to alienate people and harden them in their ideas (which may be based on errors that you'll never know about or be able to explore with them), the best way to do that is to tell them to STFU that they can't even ask questions or mention controversial topics. So that would seem counterproductive to getting people to support the topic.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 15, 2017 17:26:45 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-led-to-a-campus-firestorm--and-a-troubling-lesson-about-self-censorship/2016/10/28/70e55732-9b97-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.15e3333e9457You don't have to hold or express extreme views to fall victim to the trend of purging dissent on college campuses. This professor was run out of Yale after she wrote an email suggesting Halloween costume guidelines had gone too far. Here are excerpts of the article written by the professor who received death threats: But none of these examples captures the more worrying trend of self-censorship on campuses. For seven years I lived and worked on two college campuses, and a growing number of students report avoiding controversial topics — such as the limits of religious tolerance or transgender rights — for fear of uttering “unacceptable” language or otherwise stepping out of line. As a student observed in the Yale Daily News, the concept of campus civility now requires adherence to specific ideology — not only commitment to respectful dialogue. The irony is that this culture of protection may ultimately harm those it purports to protect. The Yale imbroglio became a merciless punchline, leaving no one unscathed, because the lack of a candid internal reckoning emboldened partisan outsiders to hijack the story. In reality, these debates don’t fit neat ideological categories. I am a registered Democrat, and I applaud Yale’s mission to better support underrepresented students. But I also recognize the dizzying irrationality of some supposedly liberal discourse in academia these days. I didn’t leave a rewarding job and campus home on a whim. But I lost confidence that I could continue to teach about vulnerable children in an environment where full discussion of certain topics — such as absent fathers — has become almost taboo. It’s never easy to foster dialogue about race, class, gender and culture, but it will only become more difficult for faculty in disciplines concerned with the human condition if universities won’t declare that ideas and feelings aren’t interchangeable. Without more explicit commitment to this principle, students are denied an essential condition for intellectual and moral growth: the ability to practice, and sometimes fail at, the art of thinking out loud. Certain members of the community used me and my family as tinder for a mass emotional conflagration by refusing to state the obvious: that the content of my albeit imperfect message fell squarely within the parameters of normal discourse and might even have been worth considering on its merits as an adjunct to prevailing campus orthodoxy. There was no official recognition that the calls to have us fired could be seen as illiberal or censorious. By affirming only the narrow right to air my views, rather than helping the community to grapple with its intense response, an unfortunate message was made plain: Certain ideas are too dangerous to be heard at Yale.
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on Aug 15, 2017 17:49:49 GMT -5
We are no longer free if we are told to stifle discourse about controversial topics.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 15, 2017 18:37:46 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 15, 2017 18:51:15 GMT -5
That's my issue with it. This is a company that constantly pushes its employees to innovate, to "disrupt", to re-think... everything. Creativity and coming up with new ways to do things is highly prized and encouraged. There has historically even been a policy of allowing employees to spend 20% of their time doing whatever random project (other than their assigned work) they think will benefit the company the most. In other words - they encourage autonomy, creativity and disruption. It is known for being an innovation specialist and the way they achieve that innovation is hiring talented, creative employees and then doing whatever they can to foster those employees' ability to innovate. Encouraging employees to question and innovate everything is at the core of this company's culture. This is not similar to a story of an employee in a typical company randomly posting a criticism of a company to Facebook. This is a story of a company that is built on, centered around and which actively solicits employees to examine and innovate on every aspect of the business specifically seeking employees to share ideas to spark creation/redesign and then being upset when an employee actually does that on an internal message board built specifically to spark creative discussion. Google even makes a huge deal of how they can't succeed if they don't fail sometimes and that if the employees don't sometimes fail, they're not trying hard enough. Again, I don't agree with the employee's conclusions, but I don't think his work was outside what the company culture specifically fosters (or says it fosters), I don't believe it was an anti-diversity screed and I think given the goals and policies of the company it wasn't outside the types of things Google asks employees to do and examine. I think it was a ham-handed way for the employee to challenge what he felt was the company not fostering diversity (if that makes sense). I read as much of it as I could (ubboy that was some randomness in manifesto form) and I think it could have sparked some interesting discussions (as it now has all over the world) but focused on the Google community. To be honest I couldn't read too much of the original writing so none of my comments are either for or against what he said. I think this is an example of where there is growing resentment out there in the world. Google missed a great opportunity here, they could have used this as a platform to counter this employees thoughts, found out how he came to some of his beliefs, challenged what he thought he knew. Instead, they fired him. So now, the next person who may have something unpopular to say, won't say it out loud. And there won't be even the chance to address concerns. Not to mention they just outed themselves as hypocrites. How can they even pretend they want to hear what their employees are thinking when they know if it fails the public popularity contest they will fire the person. Not to get too far off topic, but this is the same phenomenon that is being felt at college campuses. I'm not even talking about big name controversial speakers, but students in classrooms and assignments are being told that certain topics are verboten. Which is crazy, since college is supposed to be that place where students explore topics and learn to counter opposite views. OH you can express your views, as long as they're PC for the climate you're in.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 15, 2017 19:10:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure why colleges are being conflated with this. Colleges should be teaching their students how to reason and develop good judgment. That means meeting controversial subjects head on and not avoiding them. I am also disturbed at this trend towards avoidance of the topics altogether, though I think peaceful protests on campuses are fine. Better reason than rioting after a big football game. (I'm looking at you, MSU. ;-p)
My state is at at will state. Private companies could fire my ass for doing something they don't like, on my own time. Not a private company, but teachers have gotten fired for being in photos holding a beer on Facebook. I am expected to uphold the values of the organization in public, or at the very least, not to appear to counter those values. That's the price you pay for being a part of that organization. I'm not fond of it, but it's far from being a leftist conspiracy. In fact, in my experience, it seems to come more from the right than the left, but it is everywhere.
Now, as far as this ex-Google guy is concerned, IMO he is exhibited some think veiled sexism in his rant. He's too interested in the neuroticism of women not to be. Just because he says some women are different, doesn't mean he is not. My dad was embarrassingly (to me) racist, yet he worked with an African American woman who was "very nice". (Note the small exception he made. Look familiar?)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 15, 2017 19:14:19 GMT -5
He had to know the repurcussions . It's the same everywhere. Free speech and open opinions are welcome, as long as they reflect the views of the board, forum, organization, system, campus, whatever.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 15, 2017 19:48:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure why colleges are being conflated with this. .... 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.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Aug 15, 2017 21:36:46 GMT -5
Do you think the memo was harmful or that his views represented sexism for which he should be fired? The memo was harmful to Google's public presence. As a teacher, I am constantly reminded that I am a representative of the school 24/7. There is no real line of separation. Any action that I take that is harmful to the school district is a fireable offense. We don't have unions in Alabama, remember, although the politicians like to call our professional organization a union. It only has the power to lobby, not negotiate. We are not allowed to talk to the press since anything we say may be taken as an official statement. We were chastised for posting on FB how happy we were about a snow day because that implied to our parents that we didn't enjoy teaching their darlings. If it is acceptable to place those parameters on teachers, then I assume most employees check their freedom of speech rights at the door when it comes to their companies. I don't necessarily agree, but he made Google look bad. If a teacher did that in our district, he/she would be fired. May I point out, this guy didn't leak his memo to the press or post it on Facebook. Somebody else did that, probably to force Google to fire this guy. Google employees were asked to give their opinions on Google's diversity programs, and he did, on an internal site. If somebody secretly taped a teacher's meeting and then broadcasted you saying something unflattering about the parents or school district, would you think it was fair for the school district to fire you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 20, 2024 7:32:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 21:55:30 GMT -5
The memo was harmful to Google's public presence. As a teacher, I am constantly reminded that I am a representative of the school 24/7. There is no real line of separation. Any action that I take that is harmful to the school district is a fireable offense. We don't have unions in Alabama, remember, although the politicians like to call our professional organization a union. It only has the power to lobby, not negotiate. We are not allowed to talk to the press since anything we say may be taken as an official statement. We were chastised for posting on FB how happy we were about a snow day because that implied to our parents that we didn't enjoy teaching their darlings. If it is acceptable to place those parameters on teachers, then I assume most employees check their freedom of speech rights at the door when it comes to their companies. I don't necessarily agree, but he made Google look bad. If a teacher did that in our district, he/she would be fired. May I point out, this guy didn't leak his memo to the press or post it on Facebook. Somebody else did that, probably to force Google to fire this guy. Google employees were asked to give their opinions on Google's diversity programs, and he did, on an internal site. If somebody secretly taped a teacher's meeting and then broadcasted you saying something unflattering about the parents or school district, would you think it was fair for the school district to fire you? Fair? No. Likely? Yes. I am sorry, but I've learned not to put things in writing that that I don't want others to see. This wasn't a secret taping although I wouldn't speak publicly at a faculty meeting if I wanted to say something unflattering about the school district or our parents. I don't even press like when some of my colleagues go out on a limb on Facebook. I leave questions that I disagree with blank on district surveys. My SIL is a state legislator and asks me about education sometimes. I smile sweetly and say pass the gravy or whatever. I am a wage slave, pure and simple. I depend on my job to pay my bills. I do what I am told. The powers that be don't REALLY want your opinion. At least in my profession, they don't. I am not saying the person who wrote the memo did anything "wrong." He was just stupid and rather arrogant. He should have expected repercussions even if it hadn't reached the point of firing. It did, though. But for what it's worth, if they find the person who leaked it, he/she should also be fired.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 16, 2017 8:52:50 GMT -5
We are no longer free if we are told to stifle discourse about controversial topics. I think that's the point that is missing in the overall discussion. The argument always comes out, that Freedom of speech doesn't apply to x, y, and z. But if people aren't free to say what they mean for fear of reprisals for their livelihood isn't that just as harmful as government reprisal? So instead of saying it's dangerous that the government has too much control, what happens when society views shift (and they do) and 'your' views are the ones shunned? 'Your' being the global you... 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.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 16, 2017 9:09:09 GMT -5
I think that's the point that is missing in the overall discussion. The argument always comes out, that Freedom of speech doesn't apply to x, y, and z. But if people aren't free to say what they mean for fear of reprisals for their livelihood isn't that just as harmful as government reprisal? So instead of saying it's dangerous that the government has too much control, what happens when society views shift (and they do) and 'your' views are the ones shunned? 'Your' being the global you... 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.
|
|