The document argued, among many things, that “we need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.”

This is, of course, simple logic. One of the first rhetorical things the baby debater learns is that correlation does not prove causation.

That the company was mistaken in its efforts to encourage a more diverse workforce by funding early STEM outreach efforts based on gender and race.

Well, that’s just a matter of opinion. Shouldn’t bother anyone one way or the other. In any group of people, there will be different opinions on what sort of non-business initiatives a company should engage in. And if a person doesn’t believe a company should invest in this sort of program, it does not prove nor imply that they have aught against either gender or race.

That, biologically, women tend to be more neurotic and less assertive, and they prefer jobs in social and artistic areas.

Hmmm. The first point is not arguable.

The second point…..I think is backed up by a simple analysis of the majors chosen by women graduates:

That men, based on the same logic, have “a higher drive for status” and find themselves in a gender role that “is currently inflexible.”

Well, that’s vague enough so as to not mean anything.

He concluded his advice with a simple solution: Google should prioritize diverse ideas and make sure its employees feel comfortable sharing their opinions at work. “We should focus on psychological safety,” he wrote, “which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.”

Sounds like a good thought.

“The fact that colleagues are calling for him to be fired — on very public forums — proves his point that there is an ideological silo and that dissenting opinions want to be silenced,” an anonymous Google employee told Motherboard. “Why don’t they debate him on his argument? Because it’s easier to virtue signal by mentioning on a social network how angry and offended you are. Debate and discussion takes time.”

Good point.

Whoever these people are, they are actively constructing a narrative — one in which a conglomerate refuses to allow its employees to speak out against what they believe; one in which a tech company that preaches creative thinking actually forces intellectual sameness.

Well, is it true? It certainly seems to be.

It’s a sneaky way of trying to make a few people with bad beliefs look like victims of a ruthless corporation, when that corporation is aiming to ensure a basic level of human respect.

Well, you really haven’t shown he has “bad beliefs”. Some of the things he mentioned were factual. Uncomfortably so, perhaps, but factual.

Demanding “psychological safety” for inherently sexist beliefs at work is akin to a white nationalist demanding “ideological diversity” as a conduit to share his hateful ideas on a university campus. Both purposefully conflate the importance of learning through discourse with the notion that we must debate all viewpoints.

True….but you haven’t shown that he was very far off base. The only “inherently sexist” beliefs he expressed were actually factual in nature. :-)

The idea that women aren’t biologically inclined to be engineers isn’t far off from the late-19th-century Darwinism that said men were more evolved than women in both intellect and skill. That incorrect armchair logic was and is still used to deny women sought-after, powerful positions.

Nobody supports this sort of “denial of position.” If you can do the job, you should get the job.

We do not need to debate this idea because history has proved it to be a hegemonic tool, and it presents a diminutive and offensive idea of the female gender. Any company that allowed employees to do that would be granting legitimacy to a hurtful viewpoint that runs opposite to its outward-facing goals of inclusion.

That’s a counterintellectual thought. Just because “Idea X”was used in the past as a bludgeon to keep women down does NOT mean that “Idea X” does not have merit debate; it just means that it should not be used to prevent somebody who is qualified for a job from obtaining it.

But demanding that a company offer respect and space for every rambling, offensive email an employee sends out on a listserv is childish and unrealistic.

Well, nobody’s *demanding* anything. All people are saying is that in their opinion (which differs from yours) is that Google’s goal of having an inclusive culture has just been proven false by their own actions.

Pretty simple, actually.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.