1) If you ask me, this is a story about an influential technology company, one whose approach to business has an outsized influence on the entire industry, has unethically fired an employee while making mis-statements to cover it up.
2) Others will say: this is about a ethicist being unfairly treated with different standards because of her gender and race, a microcosm of what it is like to be a minority race and/or female in the tech industry.
3) Still others will say: This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism.
4) Another line of thought that is a variant of #1: This is about an employee who did not follow company rules and processes. She was fired as a result. The statements privately and publicly about "resignation" were an attempt to not publicly disparage her
Did I miss any others? With a nod to the Rashomon Principle, your interpretation of these events depends on your perspective.
My take: Google and the researcher had some issues around internal review of a paper that could be perceived as criticism of Google. Google ordered her to withdraw the paper from review at an external event. The researcher demanded to know names of the internal Google reviewers. The researcher said she will resign on a later date if her demands are not fulfilled. Google did not reveal the internal reviewers and let her go immediately.
I feel strongly that it was one particular option that you listed, but I think this is a fair assessment. Wonder why it's being downvoted (maybe I'm missing something from this story too).
This is a very charged subject, akin to a political discussion. I am not surprised if it gets more downvotes. That is why I made an anonymous account. Pick the "wrong" side and now all your opinions are suspect.
5) A variant of 4. She gave notice. Google must have put her on gardening leave. Firing her would just give her a chance to sue. Google wouldn't make that mistake.
> This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism.
Sounds like a perfect fit for Google's new Chief Legal Officer. Or maybe SVP Social!
1) If you ask me, this is a story about an influential technology company, one whose approach to business has an outsized influence on the entire industry, has unethically fired an employee while making mis-statements to cover it up.
2) Others will say: this is about a ethicist being unfairly treated with different standards because of her gender and race, a microcosm of what it is like to be a minority race and/or female in the tech industry.
3) Still others will say: This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism.
4) Another line of thought that is a variant of #1: This is about an employee who did not follow company rules and processes. She was fired as a result. The statements privately and publicly about "resignation" were an attempt to not publicly disparage her
Did I miss any others? With a nod to the Rashomon Principle, your interpretation of these events depends on your perspective.