Daily Archives: August 9, 2017

The Googleplex in Menlo Park, California, on Nov. 4.

Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

James Damore, the Google employee fired for circulating an internal memo decrying the companys gender diversity efforts, is well on his way to becoming a right-wing martyr. Julian Assange has offered him a job with WikiLeaks. The right-wing social media platform Gab has offered him a job as well. As of this writing, WeSearchr, the alt-right crowdfunding tool, has raised more than $8,000 for him. A National Review piece equates the hapless engineer with Martin Luther, saying hes nailed 95 theses to the door of the Church of PC. Some people are tweeting the hashtag #JeSuisJamesDamore.

Michelle Goldberg is a columnist for Slate and the author, most recently, of The Goddess Pose.

I groaned when I read that Damore had lost his job, as much as he probably deserved it, because this reaction was inevitable. There are few things the right loves more than basking in its own sense of victimization, especially when it can claim the mantle of free speech while doing so. Indeed, one of Steve Bannons great political innovations lay in realizing that the rage of atomized men who live online could be harnessed for political ends. As Bannons biographer, Joshua Green, writes in his best-selling Devils Bargain: He envisioned a great fusion between the masses of alienated gamers, so powerful in the online world, and the right-wing outsiders drawn to Breitbart by its radical politics and fuck-you attitude. Damores firing is the sort of thing that cements this squalid alliance. Its a gift to the troll armies.

Thats true even though Damores firing doesnt mean what the right says it does. As conservatives see it, Damore lost his job for a thought crime. He opposed Googles politically correct monoculture and articulated, in a nonconfrontational way, what a lot of people probably believe: that at least some occupational gender differences are biologically based. Im simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we dont see equal representation of women in tech and leadership, Damore wrote, adding, Many of these differences are small and theres significant overlap between men and women, so you cant say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

That sounds, if not right, then at least not unreasonable. One could describe the tone of this memo as cooperative, writes Michael Brendan Dougherty in the National Review. The author doesnt make any claims that he is victimized. He doesnt accuse anyone in particular of being unqualified. But the response it received wasnt argument, it was anathematization. This isnt quite true; Damore laments that the shaming of conservative views creates a psychologically unsafe environment, an ironic complaint from a critic of political correctness. But Dougherty is correct that Damore repeatedly nods to the value of diversity. He presents himself as an open-minded sort who is just trying to be helpful, though he seems to think that rational conversation begins with everyone accepting his premises. Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems, Damore writes.

Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the weeks biggest political news.

He is a familiar typeone who postures as a brave truth-teller passing around sexism like samizdat.

To his supporters, it appears as if Damore was fired for refusing to take the position that all gender differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination. Silicon Valley has a very peculiar definition of diversity that requires proportional representation from every gender and race, all of whom must think exactly alike, writes Elaine Ou in Bloomberg View. But this is a red herring. Damore wasnt fired for harboring stereotyped views about women. He was fired for putting those views into a memo and disseminating it throughout the company in a way that calls his colleagues competence into question. Damore describes women as having more [o]penness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Noting that women suffer, on average, more neuroticism than men, he suggests, This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Damore has every right to believe this. He should have a right to express these beliefs outside work; there are countless online communities where men are welcome to discuss womens inherent shortcomings at length. Whether Damore has a right to express his views about women internally, and then expect women to be willing to work with him, is another question.

This incident put Google in a difficult position. Fire Damore, and it seems to affirm his complaints about the companys intolerance for conservative ideas. Keep him, and deal with the internal effects on morale, cohesion, and recruitment. As Yonatan Zunger, who until recently had a senior role at Google, wrote in an open letter to Damore, Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldnt assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them.

Getting rid of Damore thus might have been the right thing for Google. But the fact that he will now be a reactionary culture hero is bad for the rest of us. He is a familiar typeone who postures as a brave truth-teller passing around sexism like samizdat. These men draw power from being censored. We flatter them when we treat them as dangers rather than fools.

Continued here:
Of Course James Damore Is Now a Free Speech Martyr - Slate Magazine

When I talk about free speech, I often ask the audience two questions. First, did you know that the Supreme Court has been steadily expanding free-speech rights? Second, do you feel freer to speak now than you did five years ago? The answers are always the same some variation of no and heck, no.

The first assertion is undoubtedly true. Federal courts have consistently protected free speech from government interference and have been relentless in shutting down viewpoint discrimination. When government officials target speech because of a speakers views, they lose time and again.

At the same time, millions of Americans are extraordinarily reluctant to express even the most mainstream of (particularly) social conservative views. Theyre convinced that if they do that, theyll be publicly humiliated, investigated, and perhaps even lose their jobs. Theyre convinced that outspoken liberals enjoy greater opportunity in key sectors of the economy, and if conservatives want to thrive, they best keep their opinions to themselves.

Two recent incidents highlight this concern. The first comes courtesy of actress Lena Dunham, the paradigm of the celebrity social-justice warrior. Early last Thursday morning, she tweeted at American Airlines that shed heard two of its employees engaged in transphobic talk. Specifically, she said she heard two flight attendants talk about how they thought transgenderism was gross, and theyd never accept a trans kid. She did not see them harassing anyone. She was simply eavesdropping on a conversation.

How did American Airlines respond? By launching an investigation into the offending employees (they couldnt substantiate Dunhams claims). Is that now the standard? Will American Airlines investigate employees without any allegation that theyve actually mistreated a single customer merely on the grounds that their employees private conversation offended a leftist?

The second incident comes courtesy of Google, one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. An anonymous employee penned a multi-page memo addressing why there are fewer women than men in key fields in the tech industry. In the memo, he noted that Google values gender and racial diversity but has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. This means that Google responds to gender imbalances with extreme and authoritarian measures. At the extreme, it views all gender disparities as due to oppression. Its authoritarian response is to discriminate to correct this oppression.

The writer than explores at length cultural and biological differences between men and women and then proposes some measures to increase female representation in the field without resorting to discrimination.

And how did his colleagues respond? How did Google respond? Employees demanded that he be fired. Google then penned a response that contained this ominous paragraph:

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

That was a thinly veiled warning. Speak your mind, but know that HR is looking over your shoulder. And late Monday, Google lowered the boom. It fired software engineer James Damore for perpetuating gender stereotypes. He wrote a memo describing how Google was intolerant of dissenting voices. Google proved his point.

Its important to note that Google and American Airlines are both private corporations. They have enormous latitude to advance their own corporate viewpoints and to regulate the speech of their employees. There is no First Amendment violation here. Theres nothing illegal about fellow employees or corporate employers attempting to squelch the speech of employees who quite literally dissent from the company line.

But just because something is legal does not mean its right, and the result is a crisis in the culture of free speech in the United States. As the politicization of everything proceeds apace, the company line has increasingly moved well beyond promoting its own products to promoting a particular kind of politics. Major corporations and virtually every university in the nation are now political entities just as much as theyre commercial entities, and they wear their progressivism on their sleeves.

The primary victims of this new culture of groupthink are social conservatives and other dissenters from identity politics. In field after field and company after company, conservatives understand that the price of their employment is silence. Double standards abound, and companies intentionally try to keep work environments safe from disagreement. Radical sexual and racial politics are given free rein. Disagree and lose your job.

It takes a person of rare constitution and moral courage to speak up. And thats precisely how the far Left likes it. After all, what value is there in disagreement? Theyve figured out that elusive path to racial, gender, and sexual justice, and disagreement only distracts. It does worse than distract. It wounds.

But take heart, conservatives. Its not all bleak. After all, the government is highly unlikely to persecute you for your speech. And if you want to succeed in cutting-edge businesses or enjoy equal opportunityin the academy, you do have one good option. You can shut your mouth.

READ MORE: The Anti-Diversity Screed That Wasnt Google Receives 95 Theses of Diversity and Inclusion Justifying Exclusion through Diversity

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

View post:
Lena Dunham & Google Demonstrate Eroding Free Speech Culture ... - National Review

The American Civil Liberties Union considers the proposed Israeli Anti-Boycott Act, which is working its way through Congress, a serious threat to free speech. We agree.

The act targets an international effort to boycott businesses in Israel and occupied Palestinian territories to pressure Israel to comply with international law and to stop the further construction of settlements on occupied Palestinian lands.

The bill would threaten large fines and prison time for businesses and individuals who dont buy from Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and who make statements, including social media posts, saying that they are doing so in order to boycott.

The bill would make it a felony to support the international boycott. Those found in violation would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison, according to the ACLUs analysis.

The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, began after Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005 called for a boycott to pressure Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. Among the movements goals: ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights; equality under Israeli law for Arab citizens; and stopping the expansion of almost exclusively Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied territories, which the United Nations says is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Detractors say that BDS unfairly targets Israel, with the Anti-Defamation League going so far as to say it is the most prominent effort to undermine Israels existence. Supporters, however, say its a nonviolent movement inspired in part by similar actions taken against the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s.

In Massachusetts, U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, is one of 237 members of the House to co-sponsor the bill.

Neal explained his sponsorship recently by saying, I am opposed to international efforts that attempt to isolate, boycott and delegitimize the State of Israel. If peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, it will only come about through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians I take the views of the ACLU seriously, but remain deeply concerned about a movement that demonizes our close ally and rejects a two-state solution.

While we support Israels right to exist and our countrys historic alliance with Israel against its enemies, we should not let that trump the right of our citizens to express their political views through boycott without fear of retribution from a government that disagrees with their political stance. Today Israel, tomorrow what?

The ACLU is right to dig in on this. Its the edge of the proverbial slippery slope.

If members of Congress want to lend their support to Israel, then let them lend their voices, but not try to stifle the voices of their fellow citizens.

Other countries including France and Britain have enacted similar anti-boycott measures, but that doesnt make it right or mean we should follow suit. For more than 200 years America has seen itself as the champion of personal freedom and democracy, and we shouldnt now abandon that leadership role in the world.

As the ACLU has argued, individuals, not the government, should have the right to decide whether to support boycotts against practices they oppose.

The civil liberties organization has pointed to the 1982 Supreme Court case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., in which the court ruled that nonviolent advocacy of politically motivated boycotts is protected as free speech.

Meanwhile, a somewhat similar bill is moving through the state Legislature and would prevent those who have contracts with the state from refusing, failing or ceasing to do business with anybody based on their race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation. But some of the bills backers have explicitly stated that the goal is to target the anti-Israel boycott as a movement.

Joseph Levine, a philosophy professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a member of Western Mass. Jewish Voice for Peace, testified against the state bill recently for the same reason he thinks the federal proposal is bad policy.

As a Jewish American growing up in the generation right after the Holocaust, I am well aware of the frightening consequences that attend social toleration for racism in all its forms, particularly anti-Semitism, Levine said in his testimony. But I strongly oppose this act because I believe it actually fosters, rather than combats, discrimination.

I think the bill is horrible. It is a clear violation of peoples right to express their opinion It represents a frightening kind of authoritarianism that would be absolutely horrible and a terrible precedent if it passed.

The anti-boycott act is a rare bipartisan effort in 2017, with 31 Republican and 14 Democrat co-sponsors, and a similar House bill has 117 Republican and 63 Democrat co-sponsors.

Normally, we would applaud such bipartisanship, that would see the likes of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, joining the likes of Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to cosponsor the bill. But as the ACLU presses its arguments, some are having second thoughts.

Gillibrands office said she had a different understanding of the bill than the ACLU, but she expressed a desire to change it.

We were relieved to hear that after the ACLU raised the alarm some federal legislators were reviewing their support of the bill and hope that Congressman Neal will do the same.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: Anti-boycott bill threatens free speech - The Recorder - The Recorder