Yeah, so I think you have to understand what was wrong with the memo. For completeness though, I totally get what you’re saying about the education system, but my counter is that the biggest, most vocal critics, were those females inside Google that this disenfranchised.
For the record, I and others, went through it with a fine tooth comb, specifically linking to the science, and crucially, across the science that he, for whatever reason, missed. I similarly took GizModo to task over their lack of citations.
https://twitter.com/AngryNorthernUK/status/894153216883134464
I never infer anything without reading the information. Despite this, however the memo itself is presented, none of it stands up to a desktop analysis. After all, he attempted to present it as a factual document, not an opinion piece. So the words he used aren’t the important aspect. The facts and inferences are.
You can find parts 1, 2 and 3 of the dissection if you’re inclined to look, but the reality is that we absolutely have to ask the question of why his memo is full of non-sequitur argument, pseudo-science, unproven assertions and opinion, which would be bad enough, but the thing that I think he was right to be dismissed for was the fact he did this, with the problem solving skill he had (which calls into question his judgement) and presented his one opinion against 31% of Google’s workforce. As if his opinion, was truly fact. So he balanced a poorly thought out, uncorroborated opinion piece against 5,000 other people, all of whom and more have access to the same material he had. All can be corroborated through a Google search. None of which he did. Contrary to many speakers given platforms to speak, Damore was not a scientist of any of the subjects he claimed expertise within the memo.
Also note that the full text actually includes a “Reply to the Public Response and misrepresentation” at the front! So he’d already had a backlash by this point and addressed this at the point the memo was published and then republished in full.
So I definitely argue you’ve ascribed some of the right conclusions to the wrong person. Whilst some may argue that free speech is a right, it doesn’t trump human rights in any event, but in all case, it doesn’t entitle someone to be heard. That’s the key point behind the shout-downs. People can continue to speak as much as they want. If you deny the right to protest, you are similarly violating the right to protest.
