Wow...you're dumber then I thought if you think 2 and 3.
Ironbite-like seriously you have no idea how that could affect a court case.
How so? Fundamentally, the memo give suggestions regarding how to be more inclusive to women.
Yeah while pointing to their genders supposed genetic shortcomings, in a company memo.
No way
that could go over badly in a
gender discrimination case!
Google bills itself as a company that values inclusivity, the US Department of Labor and several women have alleged otherwise. This dude is suggesting that too
much inclusivity could cost money.
Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google — with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences.
Said because he's alleging the women are all doing touchy-feely womany things and not putting in the hard yards like the dudes.
Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
Can't imagine how
that could have any baring on a pay dispute that's been festering
since 2015. Maybe giving women what they owe is just too costly?
Aside from the case itself it's downright embarrassing for a corporation describing itself as pro diversity to have an employee describing diversity policies as a commie plot.
The Harm of Google's biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google
That footnote, 7 being this:
[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."
This is just how detached from reality this Google broz is, he's stating that the "veiled left ideology" behind Google's diversity policies is Marxist-Leninism. In case it needs stating, a major multinational publicly traded company cannot be by any meaningful definition Marxist or Leninist. Neither Karl Marx nor Vladimir Lenin said diddly squat about diversity policies in publicly traded capitalist corporations. The idea that a capitalist behemoth like Google is pushing an ideology that ultimately seeks an overthrow of the ruling class and to install a dictatorship of the proletariat is fucking insane!
And that's the thing, if he had said Apple or Microsoft or even Linux were pushing diversity policies that were a third column for Marxist/Leninist communism it wouldn't have looked so bad. He did it for the company he works for without any evidence for this absurd claim. That Google's actual commitment to diversity was being challenged in court certainly didn't help but bottom line he was being insane on a company letterhead on his company's dime.
TL/DR he was sacked for saying idiotic things against his employer's anti discrimination policies in a company communication which was made worse by them facing lawsuits for discriminatory policies in court.