Of course, one can find examples of anti-Damore screeds which mischaracterize what he wrote. And one can also find examples of more-or-less “pro-Damore” writing that contributes to a thoughtful and productive debate.
But, though I initially agreed with you that Damore had generally gotten a bad rap, I have come around to the point of view that the criticism of his memo, and the response to it, were on the whole fair.
Yes, he was careful not to actually state anything about different ability levels, and to include appropriate statistical caveats about averages and distributions. But carefully reading his manifesto, I find it impossible not to think that these caveats are somewhat disingenuous, and that on key points the manifesto has the predictable effect of obscuring rather than elucidating the issues.
Why do I think he’s being disingenuous? He is careful never to overtly state that he thinks that, statistically speaking, there is a biological gender gap in programming ability, only one in interest in programming. But when I look at the prescriptions he puts forward, and his language throughout, I can’t help but conclude that he believes in an ability gap. For instance, why else would he respond to an applicant gap by suggesting that Google should “de-emphasize empathy”?
And overall, his arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny. If the main problem were a gender gap in interest, an elite company like Google, with other factors to attract applicants, should see better gender balance than lesser companies; if the main problem were a gap in ability, the more elite company like Google should see worse gender balance. In fact, the gender balance of Google’s employees and applicants is pretty much the same as the industry average, suggesting problems with the pipeline are the main factor, not innate differences in interest or ability. Furthermore, even if there are innate differences, Damore’s failure to acknowledge the well-documented indicia that there is also anti-woman bias in the field makes his prescriptions completely wrongheaded.
The facts remain:
- Women in computing face serious bias at all levels, from education to employment.
- Cross-country and cross-time differences in gender balance make a mockery of arguments that any specific balance is due to innate factors. Such factors may be some small part of the issue, but until the overt bias is corrected, they’re merely a red herring in practical terms.
- Implicitly questioning the value of a specific group of coworkers, and whether the process by which they were hired was fair, does real damage to the working environment. It could hypothetically nevertheless be empirically justified, but the responsibility would still be on the person raising the issue to demonstrate skepticism and sensitivity; Damore, on the other hand, demonstrated aggressive and careless contrarianism.
So no. I don’t stand with Damore.
