Recall the now ex-employee who wrote a lengthy and thought-out memo for internal distribution via one of what Google is pleased to call its open communication channels. A summary of the ex-employee’s case is in the Sunday Wall Street Journal; my comments on the situation, based on that summary, are below.
…critics saying the company squelched free speech by firing a male employee who wrote a divisive memo denouncing its diversity push, while others said his views showed that the company’s diversity policies were needed.
Both the critics and “others” are right: the incident clearly demonstrates need for open debate and discussion, not the need to suppress discussion and debate by firing the one who raised the question.
Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said…to suggest “colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”
Commenters here, in the WSJ comment thread, and elsewhere can offer data on either side of that claim. Pichai’s decision to provide none is beyond arrogant; it’s dishonest. As is Danielle Brown’s decision to speak solely ex Cathedra ab umbilico in her responding memo, similarly without the first minim of actual data. We’re just supposed to accept the bald statements of these august personages.
Indeed, here’s a Google spokesman responding to a WSJ request for comment/elaboration:
He violated our Code of Conduct, period.
Not gonna discuss it. Sit down, and shut up.
As an aside, there is this much in the WSJ piece [emphasis added]:
…[the ex-employee] wrote that biological differences explain some of the gap between male and female tech workers….
Indeed. The more mendacious NLMSM is carefully omitting that qualifier.
The memo can be seen on Gizmodo here, along with Google’s vapid response.
What a way to go, indeed.