> Damore was asked for his feedback on Google's diversity policies, and that's exactly what he provided.
> Most of Damore's critics haven't actually read his memo[1], but rather formed an opinion based on the character assassination campaign against him, a campaign his employer publicly sided with.
I completely agree, but in a corporate setting one can be truthful, accurate, have good intent, and yet still be tone deaf and insensitive. The bar for insensitive is very low in this context.
I think with a fair and honest reading of his letter & the context that it came up in, its clear that he was trying to contribute in a positive way to the discussion & effort.
This is why the inconsistency between these two cases is so remarkable. Antisemitism, even if from years ago, and not related to company business, is pretty damning (esp for someone leading D&I efforts).
Meanwhile, an attempt, albeit executed in a politically naive way, to positively contribute to a discussion led to a firing & character assassination.
> I completely agree, but in a corporate setting one can be truthful, accurate, have good intent, and yet still be tone deaf and insensitive. The bar for insensitive is very low in this context.
If a fair and honest reading of his memo reveals that he had good intent, and the memo was scientifically accurate - and yet he was fired and publicly vilified for it, then isn't describing it as "tone deaf and insensitive" a form of victim-blaming?
It seems similar to pointing out that the victim of a sexual assault was dressed provocatively.
> Most of Damore's critics haven't actually read his memo[1], but rather formed an opinion based on the character assassination campaign against him, a campaign his employer publicly sided with.
I completely agree, but in a corporate setting one can be truthful, accurate, have good intent, and yet still be tone deaf and insensitive. The bar for insensitive is very low in this context.
I think with a fair and honest reading of his letter & the context that it came up in, its clear that he was trying to contribute in a positive way to the discussion & effort.
This is why the inconsistency between these two cases is so remarkable. Antisemitism, even if from years ago, and not related to company business, is pretty damning (esp for someone leading D&I efforts). Meanwhile, an attempt, albeit executed in a politically naive way, to positively contribute to a discussion led to a firing & character assassination.