No Right To Immunity: Why You Can’t Blame Google

Enxhi Dylgjeri
Aug 9, 2017 · 3 min read

“Amendment I — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of speech is a quintessential American liberty, chosen as the very first amendment by America’s forefathers. It prohibits the state and federal governments from making any laws restricting the exercise of free speech. That is, it protects citizens from being silenced and/or penalized for an expression.

Fast forward to August 7th, 2017 — James Damore, a former Snr. Engineer at Google, made several headlines (presently — an impressive feat) pushing back on Google’s “right” to terminate his employment. The decision was sparked by the impact of Damore’s widely circulated ten page memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” The memo intended to join a company wide conversation on how Google can best approach inclusion and diversity and critics of Google’s decision point to that very intention. While Damore had several interesting thoughts, much of which could have made for a lively discussion on inclusiveness in the workplace, his puzzling execution debases any valuable contribution to the industry wide conversation. The gravity of Damore’s mistakes come from his responsibilities as a Google employee and coworker.

Damore’s first couple of footnotes read:

1. This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
2. Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations

Immediately, I picture HR managers everywhere bulging their eyes. Though Damore has been in tech and media longer than myself, I can say with confidence that speaking in an internal staff memo on behalf of an entire “Campus” of a globally recognized company such as Google is bold and out of line. Damore blatantly states that the memo represents the perspective of Google’s Mountain View Campus — implying the Campus takes this point of view in some official capacity. His title and role as a Snr. Director brings even more weight to this statement, ironically silencing members of his team or his peers whom the memo applies to but who may disagree. While confidence and extroversion are often rewarded, the content of Damore’s memo highlights concerning viewpoints in line with stereotypes of women workers that he is actively applying in the workplace.

Demore’s memo is particularly alarming for Google’s CEO, whose main concern is maintaining an environment where employees are comfortable, internationally, to express dissent while still respecting the company’s Code of Conduct (voluntarily signed by each employee). Google promises this respect to its employees, with any and all members of the organization carrying this responsibility on a personal level. Dynamics are constructed, and each person plays their part. Just as we strive daily to be respectful community members and citizens, the workplace calls for active participation by all parties. In fact, as is the case with employees of most organizations, they are contractually obligated to.

James Damore is not being silenced or reprimanded by any state or federal government. His liberty to speak freely was legally protected. His insistence of the opposite derives from a false interpretation of our First Amendment: immunity from the social repercussions of our speech. Claiming that women prefer less stressful work places because of some biological low stress tolerance defies Google’s Code to reject any form of intimidation or bias. Further, is not conducive to maintaining employee morale or encouraging team members to ask questions and take creative risks. This environment would be unsustainable for Google, one of the world’s leading cutting edge tech companies, as it relies on the comfort to be curious and take risks. It isn’t surprising, then, that Google as an entity (not a government) and it’s leadership would chose to prevent this hostile working environment by firing Damore. It reassures employees that Google will continue to strive for inclusivity and expects their employees to conduct themselves just the same.

Enxhi Dylgjeri

Written by

make policy public (& read more poetry)

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade