Patterico's Pontifications

8/8/2017

Memo To Employees From Google’s CEO Seems A Bit Inconsistent

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:06 am

[guest post by Dana]

In a quick follow-up to last night’s post about the Google memo, I wanted to post Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s own memo of response sent to employees:

This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.

First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.

I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group—including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.

1. Google claims to strongly support the rights of employees to express themselves. And yet when one employee exercised those Google-given rights to express himself, he was fired.
2. How does the CEO know that the vast majority of employees disagree with Damore’s memo? Would they actually want to go on record agreeing and supporting Damore after seeing him be fired for exercising his Google-given rights?
3. It’s fair to debate what is in the memo per the CEO, and yet when Damore brought up what was fair to debate, he was fired.
4. It allegedly crossed the line by promoting harmful gender stereotypes, except that Damore simply suggested that innate differences between the sexes, to some degree, contribute to the low representation of women in tech, and then he provided options to work with that possibility to increase, or at least encourage a greater participation of women. He didn’t ridicule or threaten or harass anyone. This is what an intellectual challenge looks like.
5. James Damore, in exercising his Google-given rights to express himself, was directly attempting to “do his utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination”. He was attempting to open discussion, honestly and seemingly without fear of reprisal directly because of the words and assurances in Google’s own Code of Conduct.
6. In as much as some employees feel hurt and judged as a gender, it appeared that Damore was also feeling judged and possibly hurt for his non-leftist views and resistance to conforming to the prescribed political positions held by Google – even before he wrote the memo. Because his feelings of being judged were the result of the company’s political biases, and were in the minority, does that make them invalid?
7. While the CEO does not want employees to have to worry about opening their mouths, in retrospect, shouldn’t Damore have worried about opening his own mouth via a memo? Does that freedom from concern really extend to every employee and the positions and views they value and stand upon?
8. If employees holding minority views question whether they can really freely express their views (without fear of reprisal) because they already feel under threat, and they’ve just witnessed an employee holding similar minority views be fired for doing that very thing, why on earth would any concerned employees sharing similar views believe his claims?

The “author had a right express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions,” AND YET WE JUST TOOK MAJOR ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR EXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS WHEN HE EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS.

–Dana

63 Responses to “Memo To Employees From Google’s CEO Seems A Bit Inconsistent”

  1. Ridiculous.

    Dana (023079)

  2. “Numerous individuals alleged to be members of Google’s management team have been caught bragging about forming blacklists to impact the careers of colleagues with different political beliefs.
    In a series of screenshots from 2015 onwards provided to Breitbart News by a verified Google employee, individuals described as left-wing Google management employees can be seen discussing the ways they punish their colleagues both inside and out of the company.

    “While Google appears to be doing very little to quell the hostile voices that exists inside the company, I want those hostile voices to know: I will never, ever hire hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit of technically excellent or whatever,” declared former employee Adam Fletcher in a post on Google’s internal, staff-only Google+ network: “Internal Plus.” “I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up”…….

    ……”In another post, alleged Site Reliability Manager Paul Cowan warned to employees that “freedom of speech is the right to freely express an opinion. It is most assuredly not the right to express an opinion with freedom from the consequences.”

    Cowan continued to reference a post from Google dissidents, who were discussing the blacklists being created by an “SJW cabal” at the company, before defending the concept of punishing anti-SJW employees.

    “To be clear: this is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable,” he declared. “Quoting this as if it were some egregious abuse of power, or of your rights, is laughable… My life, happiness, and mental health, are worth too much to me to burn my precious happy-fu working with people I find contemptible, unpleasant, or even in some cases merely irritating.”

    Destroying the career of someone you find “merely irritating”…….AKA tolerance at Google.

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/

    harkin (536957)

  3. “Hey Google fascists…Trump won..Hillary lost..Trump won..Hillary lost…Trump won..Hillary lost…
    Transgender is a mental disorder…Transgender is a mental disorder… Obama was born in Kenya..
    Black lives splatter..Black guns matter…
    MAGA..MAGA..MAGA..
    Hope this triggers you into a mental hissy fit…
    Go snuggle up in your political correctness safe space..
    MAGA…”
    196

    #1 comment at breitfart link.

    Ben burn (12ab2c)

  4. I can’t imagine anyone ever getting fired over suggesting “innate differences” between men and women.

    Lawrence Summers (1044d2)

  5. Greetings:

    Me, I’m thinking back to when liberals loves Orwell.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  6. High schools and colleges are going out of their way to attract women into scientific and technical courses; it seems that, when given the freedom to choose what courses they will take, females seem less likely than males to choose STEM courses. If they are less likely to choose STEM courses, then of course there will be fewer of them in the STEM fields when they join the workforce.

    Maybe the reaction to the memo ought to be to ask why, when given the freedom to choose women are choosing STEM courses less frequently than men.

    The inquisitive Dana (1044d2)

  7. 5 – Well, he certainly triggered you.

    Here’s a comment from the NYTimes article on same:

    “You can’t really blame Google. I mean, what could be more American? Trample customer privacy rights while funneling profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, all the while virtue signaling and pandering to mass media. Ironic really, that they never considered the possibility of an engineer writing a cogent, pointed memo highlighting social problems at the company.”

    harkin (536957)

  8. When the opposition is making a really stupid mistake, do not discourage them. Google stepped in it this time. Google 2001 Motto: Don’t be evil. 2017 Define evil

    Bar Sinister (f5ce19)

  9. Here is a list of the most “shocking” quotes from the manifesto, as listed by a horrified CNBC hack:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/shocking-quotes-from-the-viral-google-manifesto.html

    I find myself nodding in agreement. I guess the shock is that someone would actually dare to speak this kind of Truth to Power.

    —————

    1. “Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50 percent representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”

    2. The author says Google leans toward liberal and that “political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases.” He breaks down those “prejudices” as follows: “Left Biases: Compassion for the weak, Disparities are due to injustices, Humans are inherently cooperative, Change is good (unstable), Open, Idealist. Right Biases: Respect for the strong/authority, Disparities are natural and just, Humans are inherently competitive, Change is dangerous (stable), Closed, Pragmatic.”

    3. “On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: They’re universal across human cultures, they often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone, biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males.”

    4. “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.”

    5. “Women, on average, have more: Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.”

    6. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.”

    7. “Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things.”

    8. “Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average. Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.”

    9. “I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race, a high priority queue and special treatment for ‘diversity’ candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for ‘diversity’ candidates by decreasing the false negative rate.”

    10. “We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.”

    11. “My concrete suggestions are to: De-moralize diversity. As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the ‘victims.'”

    12. The author runs through several other suggestions on how to solve the current culture of, as he sees it, intolerance to conservative ways of thinking about gender dynamics at the Google: “Be open about the science of human nature. Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.”

    HOW DARE HE!!!

    Especially #6 & 11. I suspect that #9 is what got him fired though.

    The only thing that seems pulled out of his ass is #5.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  10. Leftists showing once again that diversity is only skin deep and that they believe 1984 and Animal Farm are instruction guides.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  11. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.

    … so long as they don’t make anyone uncomfortable when they do this, or suggest that the programs are based on faulty assumptions.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  12. some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender

    What putrid language to use about grownups!

    I’d like to ask the CEO why he hasn’t achieved peak diversity yet, given that he just knows these gender “stereotypes” are so wrong. How many decades has Google been working on it?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  13. What putrid language to use about grownups!

    It’s what the committee chose. I think it works well with Millennials.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  14. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work

    This was never suggested in the memo. People who say this are lying, or cannot read.

    The memo never stated, suggested, or implied that anyone working at Google was biologically less suited to be there. He was talking about the populations from which Google employees are drawn, which may have fewer proportions of well-suited people due in part to biological factors, and suggested this might be why the proportions employed at Google and in tech are not representative of the proportions of the general population.

    If you were choosing sides for a pick-up game of basketball, and Sally is seven feet tall, would you refuse to pick her because women average shorter than men? Does the existence of Sally, who is taller than the vast majority of men, mean that women do NOT average shorter than men? Should we expect fifty percent of basketball’s 7 foot and above players to be women because 50% of the general population is women.

    There are many people who engage in crimestop* and refuse to understand the actual logic involved, and mislead others about what it really is.

    *“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

    Frederick (64d4e1)

  15. Greetings:

    Me, I’m thinking that separate sports teams and leagues for the XX types must be human rights violations.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  16. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

    The bold must have caused as much of the tantrum as anything. They absolutely refuse to even discuss science if it does not agree with the dogma. He’s saying the indoctrination they rely on for groupthink is harmful…..can’t have any of that.

    harkin (9803a7)

  17. This kid is brilliant and has a great future. Everybody in tech knows his name now.

    Somebody said he should have started his own company instead of working for Google.

    I predict he will now unless Brenden Eich wants to get into biological systems.

    There are probably venture capitalists lining up to talk to him.

    Mike K (b3dd19)

  18. 18 – EDIT – 1st paragraph should have been in quotes (from the memo).

    harkin (9803a7)

  19. I just heard on NPR that the only people defending this memo and the employee are “far right” outlets. Y’all are Nazis. Only Mazis believe in gender stereotypes.

    Dejectedhead (789ca6)

  20. This was never suggested in the memo. People who say this are lying, or cannot read.

    It’s a lot easier to dispute someone if first you twist their words to something more objectionable, then demonize them. After that you can dismiss their thoughts (and them) with infinite sadness.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  21. are “far right” outlets.

    I.e. anything to the right of Hubert Humphrey.

    And I suspect NO ONE at NPR has actually read the manifesto, just the filtered version they might hear at Pacifica Radio.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  22. I wonder, if a female Google employee posted something about putting all men in re-education camps, whether the CEO would proceed the same way. Because in the last few days, some employees pretty much said that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  23. Hearing the NPR coverage of this story just seemed like a normal NPR story. They bring on an “expert” that speaks interpreted truths (aka opinions) and it is assumed as fact.

    Dejectedhead (0c7c2f)

  24. Personally, I happen to agree w/ much of the discussion and complaints raised here w/ respect to the original memo and the corporate response thereto. Inter alia, “the Media” has overall done a particularly poor job in reporting this story.

    In this vein, I recommend this article from the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf.

    Q! (267694)

  25. No one should read any opinion article on that memo until they read the actual memo first.

    Dejectedhead (0c7c2f)

  26. 26 – Great link. One can never tell where CF will come down on an issue but he nails it here.

    “To object to a means of achieving x is not to be anti-x.”

    Indeed.

    He calls out Gizmodo, Slate, BBC, NPR, Fox News etc. all for their horrible reporting skills on this. Good for him.

    harkin (9803a7)

  27. God say, “You can do what you want, Abe, but
    The next time you see me comin’, you better run”

    Mr. D (f76d05)

  28. Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai has vakues taht contradicts themselves.

    He says anyone can express dissent but at the same time he doesn’t seem to accept dissent when the dissent is that some harmful gender sterotyoes are true.

    Now in fact yhe original memo is not actually saying that. First it is not an ABSOLUTE STEROTYPE that he says is true, and second he doesn’t intend for this to be harmful, or that traits more common among women should be viewed invidiously.

    He’s not even saying that women should be left to rise or fall as they are and wouldn’t argue that women shouldn’t be encouraged to tell what they think (because women are more cautious, and want to be certain of what they say if it is novel or could be disputed.)

    He’s just saying their whole theory is wrong, and the fact you have different results for men and women are not the result of sexism, and also that there is no reason for things to be arranged so that staff consists of equal numbers of men and women. And that their training should be much more general and he says stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  29. Seems to me Google’s CEO just validated Damore’s observations. Pachai foolishly fired an employee who cared enough about Google’s future to raise important topics the unresricted leftist corporate culture suppressed acknowledgement of as taboo.

    Perhaps Damore’s actual crime was showing up management by thinking like a real CEO.

    ropelight (072508)

  30. Kevin M (752a26) — 8/8/2017 @ 8:23 am

    The only thing that seems pulled out of his ass is #5.

    Number 5:

    5. “Women, on average, have more: Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.”

    Well, it’s trie taht women have more neuroticism, or at east seek therapy. But that doesn’t mean there’s ahigh epercentage of women that have it, It is probably not the explanation for complaints which might have more to do with ideology or being encouraged to make certain kinds of complaints. The poster was trying to make the complaints out to be all genuine.

    As for avoiding, or not being interdsted in high stress jobs, that could ebe related to a lot of other things than the ease of getting anxious. To start off which, there’s what starts number 8, where by the way, he offers a reasonable suggestion:

    8. “Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average. Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  31. The VP for “Diversity” was a big Hilalry supporter last fall.

    Anyone surprised ?

    Mike K (b3dd19)

  32. Welllll . . .

    You gonna believe: (a) the highfalutin’ words ?

    Or: (b) management’s actions ?

    If I were a working stiff, with a family, a mortgage, kids who need braces, etc … I know which side I’d line up on. (That’s if I wanted to keep supporting said family and paying said bills.)

    Ooo-Scray Oogle-Gay.

    Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah (356f48)

  33. Kevin M:

    I suspect that #9 is what got him fired though.

    Which goes:

    9. “I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race, a high priority queue and special treatment for ‘diversity’ candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for ‘diversity’ candidates by decreasing the false negative rate.”

    Because he’s challenging corprate policy? It’s probably nothing taht specific.

    I think #10 and #11, especially #10, are more important:

    10. “We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.”

    11. “My concrete suggestions are to: De-moralize diversity. As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the ‘victims.

    he was arguing that what they said was right, was wrong, or at least that it could be disputed.

    This went to a basic question of right and wrong, and they can’t take any disssenters on that.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  34. Pichai’s Rogering; so Sterling-Cooper.

    “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss…” – The Who, ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ 1971

    _______

    Today’s Beldar the Bitter ‘Watergate, Watergate, Watergate’ Words of Wonder; Finale:

    The Big Dick screws the pooch, 43 years ago this very day, August 8, 1974.

    Remember then for now; history often rhymes:

    “Good evening.

    This is the 37th time I have spoken to you from this office, where so many decisions have been made that shaped the history of this Nation. Each time I have done so to discuss with you some matter that I believe affected the national interest.

    In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me.

    In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future.

    But with the disappearance of that base, I now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served, and there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged.

    I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations.

    From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

    I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.

    To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.

    Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.

    As I recall the high hopes for America with which we began this second term, I feel a great sadness that I will not be here in this office working on your behalf to achieve those hopes in the next 21/2 years. But in turning over direction of the Government to Vice President Ford, I know, as I told the Nation when I nominated him for that office 10 months ago, that the leadership of America will be in good hands.

    In passing this office to the Vice President, I also do so with the profound sense of the weight of responsibility that will fall on his shoulders tomorrow and, therefore, of the understanding, the patience, the cooperation he will need from all Americans.

    As he assumes that responsibility, he will deserve the help and the support of all of us. As we look to the future, the first essential is to begin healing the wounds of this Nation, to put the bitterness and divisions of the recent past behind us, and to rediscover those shared ideals that lie at the heart of our strength and unity as a great and as a free people.

    By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.

    I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of the events that led to this decision. I would say only that if some of my Judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the Nation.

    To those who have stood with me during these past difficult months, to my family, my friends, to many others who joined in supporting my cause because they believed it was right, I will be eternally grateful for your support.

    And to those who have not felt able to give me your support, let me say I leave with no bitterness toward those who have opposed me, because all of us, in the final analysis, have been concerned with the good of the country, however our judgments might differ.

    So, let us all now join together in affirming that common commitment and in helping our new President succeed for the benefit of all Americans.

    I shall leave this office with regret at not completing my term, but with gratitude for the privilege of serving as your President for the past 51/2 years. These years have been a momentous time in the history of our Nation and the world. They have been a time of achievement in which we can all be proud, achievements that represent the shared efforts of the Administration, the Congress, and the people.

    But the challenges ahead are equally great, and they, too, will require the support and the efforts of the Congress and the people working in cooperation with the new Administration.

    We have ended America’s longest war, but in the work of securing a lasting peace in the world, the goals ahead are even more far-reaching and more difficult. We must complete a structure of peace so that it will be said of this generation, our generation of Americans, by the people of all nations, not only that we ended one war but that we prevented future wars.

    We have unlocked the doors that for a quarter of a century stood between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

    We must now ensure that the one quarter of the world’s people who live in the People’s Republic of China will be and remain not our enemies but our friends.

    In the Middle East, 100 million people in the Arab countries, many of whom have considered us their enemy for nearly 20 years, now look on us as their friends. We must continue to build on that friendship so that peace can settle at last over the Middle East and so that the cradle of civilization will not become its grave.

    Together with the Soviet Union we have made the crucial breakthroughs that have begun the process of limiting nuclear arms. But we must set as our goal not just limiting but reducing and finally destroying these terrible weapons so that they cannot destroy civilization and so that the threat of nuclear war will no longer hang over the world and the people.

    We have opened the new relation with the Soviet Union. We must continue to develop and expand that new relationship so that the two strongest nations of the world will live together in cooperation rather than confrontation.

    Around the world, in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, in the Middle East, there are millions of people who live in terrible poverty, even starvation. We must keep as our goal turning away from production for war and expanding production for peace so that people everywhere on this earth can at last look forward in their children’s time, if not in our own time, to having the necessities for a decent life.

    Here in America, we are fortunate that most of our people have not only the blessings of liberty but also the means to live full and good and, by the world’s standards, even abundant lives. We must press on, however, toward a goal of not only more and better jobs but of full opportunity for every American and of what we are striving so hard right now to achieve, prosperity without inflation.

    For more than a quarter of a century in public life I have shared in the turbulent history of this era. I have fought for what I believed in. I have tried to the best of my ability to discharge those duties and meet those responsibilities that were entrusted to me.

    Sometimes I have succeeded and sometimes I have failed, but always I have taken heart from what Theodore Roosevelt once said about the man in the arena, “whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again because there is not effort without error and shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deed, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumphs of high achievements and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.”

    I pledge to you tonight that as long as I have a breath of life in my body, I shall continue in that spirit. I shall continue to work for the great causes to which I have been dedicated throughout my years as a Congressman, a Senator, a Vice President, and President, the cause of peace not just for America but among all nations, prosperity, justice, and opportunity for all of our people.

    There is one cause above all to which I have been devoted and to which I shall always be devoted for as long as I live.

    When I first took the oath of office as President 51/2 years ago, I made this sacred commitment, to “consecrate my office, my energies, and all the wisdom I can summon to the cause of peace among nations.”

    I have done my very best in all the days since to be true to that pledge. As a result of these efforts, I am confident that the world is a safer place today, not only for the people of America but for the people of all nations, and that all of our children have a better chance than before of living in peace rather than dying in war.

    This, more than anything, is what I hoped to achieve when I sought the Presidency. This, more than anything, is what I hope will be my legacy to you, to our country, as I leave the Presidency.

    To have served in this office is to have felt a very personal sense of kinship with each and every American. In leaving it, I do so with this prayer: May God’s grace be with you in all the days ahead.”

    http://watergate.info/1974/08/08/nixon-resignation-speech.html

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. “He calls out Gizmodo, Slate, BBC, NPR, Fox News etc. all for their horrible reporting skills on this.”

    Minitru is actually handling this horrendous thoughtcrime rather gently. The offender obviously belongs in Room 101.

    Rick Ballard (5f52bd)

  36. For grins: The same diversity goals that face tech companies should be applied to the NBA and NFL.

    It’s obvious that the diversity mantra is content free. It’s a con game. Exposing it to the light of day brings the expect cries of racism, sexism, etc… Hiring people predicated on race/religion/sex/age is against the law except when it’s covered by expanding diversity…REALLY??

    jason stewart (9a334a)

  37. 36. Nixon was treating this like a vote of no confidence. But we don’t have a Parliamentary system.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  38. @ 36 – That was one heckuvan address, eh? Thanks for posting it on its anniversary.

    As far as Remember then for now; history often rhymes, from your lips to God’s ear, but I’m not holding my breath. And if we do get into rhyming territory, I find it impossible to conceive of any address from His Greatness which might – in the very remotest respect – approach the rhetorical grace or the (nods to) humility found in the Nixon address (e.g., I would say only that if some of my Judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the Nation. ).

    Thanks again, DCSCA.

    Q! (267694)

  39. @40. FYI, it was written by Nixon speechwriter Ray Price.

    Stephen Miller is no Ray Price.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  40. The tech industry is a gender discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen, given the male-ness of the industry. Memos like the Googler’s would be an important exhibit 1 in demonstrating a climate that causes discrimination. How do you the damage out of that particular memo? Fire the author.

    Also, can you imagine any woman wanting to work with this guy, knowing what he starts out thinking about her? Sometimes, it’s best to keep your gender politics to yourself. And yes, I would feel the same way if some female wrote a memo blasting the testosterone fueled aggressiveness of men in the work place.

    Sorry, I have a real outrage deficit on this one.

    Appalled (0119d8)

  41. Stephen Miller is no Ray Price.

    DCSCA

    Goebbels?

    Ben burn (12ab2c)

  42. @43- Or Chuckles…. the clown.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. DCSCA: ixnay on the eldar-Bay.

    ” Beldar the Bitter”

    Unnecessary and provocative, given recent events.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  44. @45. Inxnay on Nixon day?

    Pshaw.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. Fine. Keep it up.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  46. @47. You’re two months behind the curve, Jester.

    Or more likely simply ’round the bend.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. @47. Postscript- for a ‘teacher,’ you don’t read very well. Your assignment tonight is to define the term ‘finale’ and write it 100 times on your blackboard.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. I wonder, if a female Google employee posted something about putting all men in re-education camps, whether the CEO would proceed the same way. Because in the last few days, some employees pretty much said that.

    Kevin M

    I agree with this point.

    I’ve seen people talk about refusing to do their jobs if they have to be around this guy’s conservative point of view, I’ve seen that lady talk about assaulting him, and I’ve seen a fair amount of simple bigotry.

    Is Google expecting the world to take seriously this claim they are just concerned with a workplace culture free of harassment when they go to this length for a very polite letter, but do nothing about the actual nuts (who happen to share their politics)?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  49. http://heavy.com/tech/2017/08/james-damore-google-diversity-memo/

    4. Damore, a Chess Champion as a Child

    Then he’s probably familiar with the argument as to why almost all top level chess grandmatsers are male. You can’t argue anyone is discriminating. That could reduce it somewhat but not that much. He might kow this argument from when it comes to chess.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  50. Google claims to strongly support the rights of employees to express themselves

    But they must not contradict certain things. To express certain ideas may violate their code of conduct.

    However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects ‘each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.’

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  51. Speaking of Presidential speeches that echo down the corridors of time:

    “This U.S.-North Korean agreement will help to achieve a long-standing and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.”President Bill Clinton -1994

    harkin (aca8cf)

  52. Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/media-outlets-blatantly-lying-google-memo/

    harkin (aca8cf)

  53. Another article of interest & pushback on the notion that “The Manifesto” is base, unworthy of consideration & civil debate, and fit only to be trampled underfoot.

    Q! (267694)

  54. Today I learned a lot from your website. thank you.

    Epson Customer Support (cfcb2f)

  55. UPDATE:
    If your company’s policy is to say that the only reason for gender disparity in the workplace is sexism, misogyny and discrimination and to disagree is to commit “violence” well……..

    “…..at least 60 women, current and former employees at the tech giant, have banded together to weigh the merits of suing the company [Google] for sexism and discrimination.”

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/19506/lawyering-more-60-women-mull-class-action-sexism-joseph-curl

    harkin (aca8cf)

  56. May they reap what they have sown

    NJRob (2bf949)

  57. @59 Much obliged for the link.

    Q! (267694)

  58. Well … here’s the thing. Are the so-called men in IT all that manly? My impression is that they’re too flabby, ill-groomed, and unsanitary to pass for lipstick lesbians, and too effeminate to pass for bull dykes. Is this a Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King scenario, really? And when all is said and done, wouldn’t a real man prevail over any woman in any manly endeavor under any set of rules?

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3330 secs.