Posted on 08/08/2017 7:02:00 AM PDT by Mafe
When I talk about free speech, I often ask the audience two questions. First, did you know that the Supreme Court has been steadily expanding free-speech rights? Second, do you feel freer to speak now than you did five years ago? The answers are always the same — some variation of “no” and “heck, no.”
The first assertion is undoubtedly true. Federal courts have consistently protected free speech from government interference and have been relentless in shutting down viewpoint discrimination. When government officials target speech because of a speaker’s views, they lose time and again.
At the same time, millions of Americans are extraordinarily reluctant to express even the most mainstream of (particularly) social conservative views. They’re convinced that if they do that, they’ll be publicly humiliated, investigated, and perhaps even lose their jobs. They’re convinced that outspoken liberals enjoy greater opportunity in key sectors of the economy, and if conservatives want to thrive, they best keep their opinions to themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Don't let the b@stards win. Fight back at every chance.
I can’t speak for Dunham, but any time an employee takes a public stand that disparages a large part of his company’s workforce and places the company in a negative light then that person should expect to be fired. Free speech has nothing to do with it.
If I recall correctly, this was an internal email at Google that someone ELSE made public.
If he is fired for that I hope he sues their asses off.
He posted it on an employee forum so he certainly did not mean for it to be a secret. If he thought that it wouldn't be leaked to the outside then he's an even bigger idiot than I first imagined.
If he is fired for that I hope he sues their asses off.
He has been fired but California, like most states, is an At-Will Employment state. Employers can fire you for any reason or for no reason at all so long as they don't violate anti-discrimination laws. And I don't see where that could conceivably be the case here.
French is a founding “never-Trumper” and a spineless RINO
He may be right about Dunham but he’s the kind of treacherous “ally” you don’t want
I agree that free speech -- in the constitutional/legal sense -- has nothing to do with this case. And I agree that as an "At Will" employee, the company has the legal right to fire him for any, or no, reason.
However, there are a few things that make this different from some random employee shooting off his mouth and getting fired for it.
** Was any of the content of his screed demonstrably factually false? I doubt it.
** Was any of the content of his screed libel in a legal sense? I doubt it.
** Is there a published company rule that prohibits criticizing the company (policies, culture, procedures)? I doubt it, since that would prohibit things like a "suggestion box" as well. So criticism of the company, per se, isn't the issue.
So really, what was he fired for? HAVING POLITICALLY INCORRECT BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS.
So unless the Google Employee Handbook, or employment contract, has a statement requiring that all employees must have Politically Correct Beliefs and Thoughts, then I think the fellow can try to make a case.
Of course, he'll still lose, because Google has more lawyers, and At Will. But he should try to make the case on principle anyway, and raise some folks' consciousness. Somebody has to start fighting back at this stuff.
Winston Churchill said something relevant here, and although he was speaking of physical warfare, cultural warfare has the same basic form:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."Decades ago, we missed the opportunity to fight for the right when we could have easily won. And in the past decade we missed the opportunity to fight with the odds against us. We are now at the point where we have to fight because even though there may be little or no chance of winning, because otherwise we are all toast, and no longer can be called free.
If what he stated about company policy was true ,, that advancement was dictated by race and sex and that classes necessary for advancement are restricted by sex and race then there is a damn good discrimination suit, posting a factual document meant to improve the atmosphere at Google is an excellent start for a suit based on an hostile work environment.
Make them live up to their standards.
Trumps DOJ should step in. This company needs to become an example.
Having read the memo, most of it was his opinion so true and false is not a black and white issue. Plus he does not lean on statistics or demographics but rather on his view of the biological differences between men and women and how those account for differences in hiring. He constantly says "women, on average,..." without providing anything to back the claim up. Had he quoted studies indicating women do not pursue tech careers due to cultural or societal issues, had he provided statistics showing that women in software development comprise X percent of the workforce and therefore diversity programs may not do much to change that, then he would be making valid points. But claiming "biological differences" as a reason why such programs are futile then he goes off the deep end and shows no indication that he knows what he is talking about.
** Was any of the content of his screed libel in a legal sense? I doubt it.
Insulting? Yes. Libelous? No. Since he did not single out any individual for criticism there is no damage to reputation.
Is there a published company rule that prohibits criticizing the company (policies, culture, procedures)? I doubt it, since that would prohibit things like a "suggestion box" as well. So criticism of the company, per se, isn't the issue.
That's a grey area. You enter into the realm of constructive criticism vs. non-constructive. If I suggest that my company look into improving their benefit package then that's constructive criticism. If I suggest my boss is an idiot then that's non-constructive.
So really, what was he fired for? HAVING POLITICALLY INCORRECT BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS.
Be that as it may, being fired for that is not illegal under California law.
So unless the Google Employee Handbook, or employment contract, has a statement requiring that all employees must have Politically Correct Beliefs and Thoughts, then I think the fellow can try to make a case.
Even if he wants to toddle down that particular path, I'm sure that the employee handbook has some sort of verbiage about treating co-workers with respect and Google can argue he violated that.
any time an employee takes a public stand that disparages a large part of his company’s workforce and places the company in a negative light then that person should expect to be fired
a ‘negative light’ according to whom...? so two individuals having a conversation that has nothing to do with their particular job requirements should expect to be fired, if some third party overhears and feels it to be in a’negative light’, and you are seriously proposing this as appropriate...?
French is a founding “never-Trumper” and a spineless RINO
and if some solid, always Trumper had written this, the premise would be any more true...?
who cares who wrote it? it’s the truth of it that matters...
The employer. Their opinion is the only one that counts in matters like this.
so two individuals having a conversation that has nothing to do with their particular job requirements should expect to be fired, if some third party overhears and feels it to be in a’negative light’, and you are seriously proposing this as appropriate...?
Ever hear of Lindsey Stone? Google her.
And see Feminist War On Love & Reason
The employer. Their opinion is the only one that counts in matters like this.
come now...in the scenario I proposed, the employer was neither involved, nor even aware of the so called indiscretion, except through the allegation of an unrelated third party...you still hold the employees should’expect to be fired’...?
Ever hear of Lindsey Stone?
yes...and apparently her treatment is precisely what you’re describing as appropriate...
I might agree, if that was what he was doing. He was expressing his opinions on why women were biologically unsuited for careers in tech and offering virtually nothing but his own opinions to support it.
Outstanding post, especially the quote from Churchill.
The news is full of people who have been fired for posting something on Facebook or tweeting something. Companies take a dim view of actions that can possibly reflect badly on them. As a multitude of careless individuals have found out.
yes...and apparently her treatment is precisely what you’re describing as appropriate...
Her company certainly thought it was.
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who do dumb things and suffer the consequences.
Since he was working in tech, his observations would certainly be relevant, as would analysis based on those observations; as would the respective numbers of men & women deeply engaged in the field and related fields.
Also relevant is the clear demonstration of the contemporary form of "flat earthism," which so clearly inhibits actual studies of human differences. (See Footnote On Egalitarian Absurdity.)
But again, how is his perspective in anyway an insult to his fellow employees? If he is right, it only makes the gals that have made it into the field more exceptional in a sense that has to be positive to those in that field. Those who take exception are simply "grievance" seekers.
The Columbia Bugle @ColumbiaBugle · 8m8 minutes ago
Meanwhile, at Google HQ, the Ministry of Diversity, Inclusion, and Truth arrives to remove the last remnants of the offensive #GoogleMemo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.