How Exactly Do You Define “Liberal?”
Is the Google memo writer, James Damore, right or wrong? I’m not sure that those who have condemned him know with any certainty. As in so many political questions, faith, not reason, seems to be the criterion for judgement.
First, what was Damore’s purpose in writing his infamous memo? It seems to have been to initiate a discussion on Google’s hiring and internal promotion policy. It appears that he is unhappy with the alleged disproportionate allocation of resources to the hiring, training, and support of female employees. Right or wrong, it’s a classic inefficiency argument, but also an unequal treatment argument. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with it because I have absolutely no insight into Google’s personnel or HR dynamics.
The most actionable allegation — implicit but definitely present — is that Google’s policy is unfair and may violate constitutional or civil law. This may not be a strong claim since only 20% of Google’s employees are women. But his point was more on the exploratory and speculative level and not on a litigational level.
Google has answered Damore’s claims by showing him the door. If he is wrong then it’s not clear that justice has been served; that depends on whether he should be viewed as completely irredeemable. That’s not clear. We do occasionally fall into traps of our own making and sometimes need the help of others to get out. I’m not sure though if this case fits that profile.
If Damore is right Google has shut down a potential unofficial investigation by one of its employees. Why take chances on a whistle blower with sophisticated computer skills? Who knows where his dissatisfaction might lead?
Not every whistle blower who claims unfairness deserves their day in court; some claims can be summarily dismissed.
What is clear at this stage is that most people who have strongly come out for and against Damore do not know if his claims of unequal treatment are valid.
Further, I don’t know what anyone can do in the short term to investigate.
Google may now be exposed to a legitimate civil tort. It has seemingly retaliated against an employee for raising a civil rights concern. (Ironically, that concern was not expressed litigiously; but it has now taken on that weight — due to the very fact of Damore’s ouster.)
Granted, Damore did not go through the normal channels for voicing his complaint. But that’s not important; he did not it seems intend to voice an official complaint. However, he was floating a critique of company policy. Yet again, that critique seems to be in good faith and unmalicious and addresses issues that touch upon civil rights.
Disregarding the hubub over Damore’s socio-biological thesis, the true issue is whether Damore has identified a civil rights problem at Google.
This article, authored by four scientists in the relevant fields, discusses the merit of the socio-biological thesis better than I could — in short, it validates that thesis:
Claims about creating a hostile work environment (Zunger) are nonsense. Suppressing and censuring dissenting voices provoke more hostility than they cure. We cannot intimidate away people’s beliefs; education — and that goes for everyone — is the best remedy. It’s the liberal way.
What works for civil society should also work within a corporation. If Google’s policies are respectful of the full set of civil rights every unincarcerated American is entitled to, then we are talking about a tempest in a teapot. Damore then may simply be in need of further enlightenment.
What is troubling is the rush to condemn Damore’s claims of unequal treatment as mere reactionary, privileged rhetoric. The average person knows absolutely nothing about the political dynamic inside Google, and Damore’s detractors take on faith the proposition that he is wrong because of his own set of biomarkers.
To be a liberal does not mean unquestioningly denouncing every white man who makes a claim about being affected by unfair hiring practices or unfair policies related to gender or some other biological feature, and assuming that the white man’s complaint is simply a function of a privileged perspective. That is pure dogmatism and nothing more and is to be condemned as much as any blind and irrational response to a claimed social problem.
To be a liberal means concern for everyone’s humanity. But it also means suspending judgement until there is a full set of facts. Anything short of that borders on religious fundamentalism. At this stage, I’m not siding with anyone — until I see evidence. I’m a rational liberal — not a faith-based one.
However, in this case, short of a law suit, we may never have access to the alleged facts that caused Damore to write his memo.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
As an addendum, this piece by ethicist, Peter Singer, should be read:
