To the editor: How ironic that an ardent defender of free speech — Google — fires an worker for talking out and circulating a place on Google’s company employment practices totally different from the company mannequin.
(Re “Sexist memo a brand new blemish on variety in tech, “ Aug. eight, “Free speech restrict seen in Google case, ’’ Enterprise, Aug. 9 and “How efficient is variety and bias coaching?” Enterprise, Aug. 10)
The truth is, I strongly suspect that the worker’s memo may have a really useful impact on ladies’s rights within the office by beginning an lively and public debate on the problems the worker has raised.
I’m positive many, like me, strongly disagree with the point of view of the memo author. However, because the saying goes: “I don’t agree with what it’s a must to say, however I’ll defend to the dying your proper to say it.”
Ken Goldman, Beverly Hills
To the editor: Clearly, Google’s concept of variety does not embrace permitting an opinion numerous from its personal.
This isn’t variety. It’s censorship, and this specific act of censorship is giving the writer’s views extra consideration.
Google ought to permit the opinion to reside or die by itself. Assume outdoors the field? I assume they meant any person else’s field.
Don Tonty, Los Angeles
To the editor: I do not need to get caught up within the debate about variety in know-how a lot as to remark about how debates are carried out today. This one follows a really acquainted sample.
Somebody publishes opinions that differ from some orthodoxy or one other, in order that they’re subjected to a firestorm in each social and common media with the outcome that they are pressured out of their job. A lot without spending a dime speech.
I truly learn James Damore’s paper when it first appeared. I do not essentially agree together with his conclusions, however I can not complain about the best way they’re introduced — the paper was nicely thought out and respectfully introduced.
Martin Usher, Thousand Oaks
To the editor: If feminine “weaknesses” resembling compassion and generosity have been universally thought-about extra invaluable than the power to intimidate, the world can be a a lot totally different place.
An inclusive query that a feminine supervisor may ask resembling “what do you assume we should always do?” elevates the caliber of a piece surroundings to certainly one of mutual respect, versus a male-dominated area during which “rivals” are thought-about a menace whose efforts have to be sabotaged.
Elbowing others out of the best way and masking for underperforming buddies (moderately than specializing in excellence) are parts of a dysfunctional male tradition, as evidenced by our present administration.
Jennifer Rabuchin, Burbank
To the editor: So an worker writes that Google imposes groupthink and doesn’t welcome dissenting viewpoints. Google fires him. Level proved.
Mitchell Keiter, Beverly Hills
To the editor: Google worker James Damore apparently makes use of firm time and belongings to publish a manifesto claiming ladies are an inferior species that don’t belong in his work area after which complains about being fired for expressing his ideas. That is chutzpah on steroids.
He simply informed his firm that would not belief the work product of co-staff in the event that they occur to be feminine. Does he consider that Google’s response to his conduct can be any totally different if stated he couldn’t be suitable with black or Jewish co-staff?
Frank Ferrone, El Cajon
To the editor: Most assuredly, James Damore’s memo was replete with bias and displayed a obvious lack of judgment, particularly in 2017.
However is Google any much less culpable in its firing of Damore? Our world is imperfect, peopled by insensitive and imply-spirited people. As an individual of shade, I used to be subjected to racial barbs, slurs and silly feedback.
The good majority of the tech world’s hires are a few of our nation’s greatest and brightest, and hopefully, they’re able to winnowing the chaff from the grain. We can’t stay in glass bubbles. Do we actually anticipate that we may be protected, insulated and sanitized from each phrase that hurts us?
If Damore had been allowed to remain on his job, he would most assuredly be a pariah and naturally would have been ostracized and excluded by his co-staff. Let him endure no matter social penalties his actions precipitated.
Google was positioned in a very troublesome state of affairs; no matter plan of action it selected can be condemned.
The content material of Damore’s memo is ugly and reprehensible, however does expression of an unpopular thought mechanically violate a code of conduct?
Steve Sato, Torrance