Leaked Internal Messages Reveal Co-Worker Support For Fired Google Engineer's Controversial Memo

James Damore, now a former Google employee, caused outrage when he circulated a manifesto on Friday, complaining about Google’s “ideological echo chamber” alleging women have lower tolerance for stress and that conservatives are more conscientious. The chess master, who studied at Harvard, Princeton and MIT and worked at Google's Mountain View HQ, was fired on Monday after the search giant’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of Damore’s 10-page memo “violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes” despite saying in the same memo that Google employees shouldn't be afraid of speaking their minds.

But, according to screenshots obtained by Wired, internal discussions that followed Damore's memo and its fallout show Google employees both embracing and advancing its views. Damore himself indicated in the following message that his former coworkers had reached out privately to express "their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues." Others chimed in publicly as well.


As an example, the following Google employee blasted the inability of some people to understand and/or acknowlege "how distribution differences aren’t stereotypes and can’t be applied to individuals...it’s basic statistical logic." 

I put almost agree on go/pc-considered-harmful-poll. I thought it needed way more citations. Also, I would have left off anything about “marxism”. You could have made the same points about diversity/psychological safety without them. Adding them in just made the doc seem political. Although, I don’t think either would have changed the reaction.


My biggest concern is the number of people who don’t understand how distribution differences aren’t stereotypes and can’t be applied to individuals. It’s basic statistical logic. Regardless of wether [sic] or not there are differences and if they are biological or cultural, this is just a blatant logical fallacy.


For example, men’s average height is higher than women’s average height. You would never just assume a woman can’t be taller than 5’9”, but you would expect more men to be above 5’9”.

Of course, intellectual honesty isn't the point of the 'progressive' movement, is it?  The talking heads of the Left are all too eager to put on their science hats when discussing climate change but are less eager to entertain scientific facts when they're deemed 'inconvenient.'


Meanwhile, the following Googler tied the whole Damore controversy back to the 2016 Presidential election.

For example, there is broad consensus in all American companies that everyone should be treated the same regardless of race and gender and that sexual harassment or other mistreatment of employees should not be tolerated. But I do not think there is consensus on the following things, which are treated as obvious and noncontroversial at Google.


  1. Different recruitment/hiring process for employees on color of their skin
  2. Open stereotyping of employees by race and gender on internal sites without public outcry that makes such instances rare over time
  3. Weekly public (though thankfully anonymous) shaming of employees for misdeeds as slight as anachronistic use of “guys” for a mixed gender group
  4. Frequent references to documents that stigmatize open disagreement with a a rage [sic] of positions
  5. Call for employees to give each other hugs at an all hands meeting because the wrong candidate won a presidential election in the country, following by a mass mailing on how to help your kids deal with grief due to the same occurrence


We could go on, or start a centithread on any of these subjects. I understand that these things feel normal and necessary to many holding strong progressive values, especially coming from colleges which are largely run along these norms today. Many feel that the country suffered a huge setback in 2016 and sick to use [sic] other venues, including workspaces with largely sympathetic employee base, to advance their values forward. Google as shining light in the sea of darkness right?


But then, what do you propose to do about Googlers who are well within general norms of the country, and many other businesses like IBM, Oracle or whatever - but who do not agree with progressive consensus which is currently in effect in our internal discourse? This consensus, while pretty strong, is also often overstated. During the election season, progressives have been very active at Google, including (sadly I think) draconian responses to anyone who disagreed with their core ideas. Now that passions are subsiding, we can see from polls like the recent one that Googlers have widely varying opinions on go/pc-considered-harmful.


Of course, we can only assume these supportive Googlers will soon find themselves unemployed.