[s73ver]

"No. His firing confirmed part of Demore's thesis; that Google has monoculture issues and sits in some sort of bubble."

Google had to decide which they value more: Demore's manifesto, or the contributions of a third of their workforce.

[Caveman_Coder]

> "Google had to decide which they value more: Demore's manifesto, or the contributions of a third of their workforce."

False dichotomy...

[s73ver]

No, it isn't. Not when many of their female employees were willing to leave the company, and when the existence of that manifesto would make their recruiting efforts much, much harder.

[cookiecaper]

Let me fix that for you:

Google had to decide which they value more: Damore's memo, or their legal defense against inevitable discrimination suits.

---

nb. Large companies are a constant target for litigants of all stripes. There are suits of all types filed against them regularly. They must be careful or, under current law, a bitter employee who was not in actuality discriminated against can successfully claim discrimination and pilfer millions of dollars from the company, inviting follow-on after follow-on. Because the current law is based upon reading in/assuming specific motives to otherwise-valid actions, companies are forced to assume a defensive legal position, such that the other side's lawyer will have a large amount of difficulty convincing a judge and/or jury that such motives were allowed or tolerated.