Mediaboss Marketing

A A

NEW YORK The Google engineer who blamed biological differences for the paucity of women in tech had every right to express his views. And Google likely had every right to fire him, workplace experts and lawyers say.

Special circumstances from the countrys divisive political climate to Silicon Valleys broader problem with gender equity contributed to the outrage and subsequent firing. But the fallout should still serve as a warning to anyone in any industry expressing unpopular, fiery viewpoints.

Anyone who makes a statement like this and expects to stick around is foolish, said David Lewis, CEO of Operations Inc., a human resources consulting firm.

WHY HE LOST HIS JOB

The engineer, James Damore, wrote a memo criticizing Google for pushing mentoring and diversity programs and for alienating conservatives. The parts that drew the most outrage made such assertions as women prefer jobs in social and artistic areas and have a lower stress tolerance and harder time leading, while more men may like coding because it requires systemizing.

Googles code of conduct says workers are expected to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination. Googles CEO, Sundar Picahi, said Damore violated this code.

Yonatan Zunger, who recently left Google as a senior engineer, wrote in a Medium post that he would have had no choice but to fire Damore had he been his supervisor.

Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? he wrote. 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.

Though one might argue for a right to free speech, however unpopular, such protections are generally limited to government and other public employees and to unionized workers with rights to disciplinary hearings before any firing.

Broader protections are granted to comments about workplace conditions. Damore argues in a federal labor complaint that this applies to his case, but experts disagree.

By posting that memo, he forfeited his job, said Jennifer Lee Magas, public relations professor at Pace University and a former employment law attorney. He was fired for his words, but also for being daft enough to post these thoughts on an open workplace forum, where he was sure to be met with backlash and to offend his colleagues male and female alike.

UNIQUELY GOOGLE

The fallout comes as Silicon Valley faces a watershed moment over gender and ethnic diversity.

Blamed for years for not hiring enough women and minorities and not welcoming them once they are hired tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Uber have promised big changes. These have included diversity and mentoring programs and coding classes for groups underrepresented among the companies technical and leadership staff. Many tech companies also pledge to interview, though not necessarily hire, minority candidates.

These are the sorts of things Damores memo railed against.

As such, experts say Damore might not have been fired at a company that doesnt have such a clear message on diversity.

In addition, had Damore worked for a smaller, lesser-known company, an internal memo might not have created such a media storm, said Aimee Delaney, a Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney who represents companies on labor matters.

A DIFFERENT WORLD

Still, bringing so much public, negative attention would spell trouble for any worker. Thats especially so in this age of fast-spreading social media posts, when internal company documents can easily leak and go viral.

It didnt help that this was in the heart of Silicon Valley, where typing fingers are on 24/7 and people rarely disconnect from social media, even on a quiet August weekend. Or that Google is a brand consumers interact with all day and want to read about when memos go viral.

Perhaps the biggest lesson is this: Dont be so quick to post your angry thoughts for thousands, then millions, to see.

Michael Schmidt, vice chairman of labor and employment at the Cozen OConnor law firm, said that while workers might have refrained from such remarks around the physical watercooler, people treat electronic communications much more informally than face-to-face speech.

But the consequences are similar, if not more severe.

EXPLOSIVE CLIMATE

Initially shared on an internal Google network, the memo leaked out to the public over the weekend, first in bits and pieces and then in its 10-page entirety.

It took a life of its own as outsiders weighed in. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took to Twitter to offer Damore a job. One conservative group, Americans for Limited Government, criticized what it called Googles politically correct culture and left-wing bias. Others called for a Google boycott.

Known for its motto, dont be evil, Google is broadly seen as a liberal-leaning company, something Damore criticized in his manifesto. Liberals and tech industry leaders came to Googles defense and denounced Damores claims as baseless and harmful.

Its fair to say that whatever side of the political aisle you are on we are in a climate where we are dealing with very highly charged and emotional issues, Schmidt said. And those issues are spilling into the workplace.

Original post:
Google debacle speaks to culture wars - The Columbian

WATCH FOX 7 NEWS LIVE

FOX 7 News streams at the following times (all times Central):

Monday - Friday

4:30 a.m. - 10 a.m.

12 p.m. - 12:30 p.m.

5 p.m. - 6 p.m.

9 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Saturday

6 a.m. - 8 a.m.

6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Sunday

6 a.m. - 8 a.m.

5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Schedule subject to change in the event of network sports coverage.

We also stream press conferences and other breaking news coverage from time to time. When we are not in a live newscast, you will see replays of the most recent broadcast.

To enter full screen Mode click the button.

For closed captioning, click on the button while in full screen mode.

Desktop/tablet users: To choose the stream's video quality, click on the button (while in full screen mode) and choose from 432p or 270p.

Please allow time for buffering. If the stream stalls, refresh your browser. Thanks for watching

Go here to read the rest:
Music in the Morning: Culture Wars - Story | KTBC - FOX 7 Austin - FOX 7 Austin

Last week, the Atlanta-based convention Dragon Con released its ballot of nominees for its second-ever Dragon Awards, a wide-ranging list of novels, comics, and games designed to be a true reflection of fan-favorite stories published in the last year. Now, two nominees, Alison Littlewood and John Scalzi, have said theyre withdrawing their names for consideration, over concerns that theyre being used as puppets in a larger fandom culture war.

This years nominees have been widely split between enormously popular authors such as N.K. Jemisin, James S.A. Corey, Scalzi, and some lesser-known authors propelled onto the ballot by blocs of voters looking to score victories for their side in the culture wars.

Unlike the Hugos and Nebulas, the other major speculative fiction awards, the Dragon Awards are open to popular vote. Anyone on the internet can provide a nomination and then vote for finalists. Thats led to concerns that the results will be gamed by the political factions within science-fiction and fantasy fandom, because its happened before. Scalzi has been pointedly outspoken about progressive issues in science-fiction fandom and writing, and has been frequently been attacked and trolled by conservative and alt-right members of the community over his views. One particular faction of these fans calls itself the Rabid Puppies, and has worked to game another award, the Hugo Award, by stacking the nominees with their own set of works.

When Dragon Con announced this years nominee ballot last week, Littlewood found shed earned a nomination for her horror novel The Hidden People. However, she wrote to the organizers and asked to be withdrawn after she learned it was selected by a voting bloc who are attempting, for reasons of their own, to influence the awards outcome. A couple of days later, Scalzi, who earned a nomination for his space opera novel The Collapsing Empire, also announced his intention to withdraw his nomination. Some other finalists are trying to use the book and me as a prop, he wrote, to advance a manufactured us vs. them vote-pumping narrative based on ideology or whatever.

Littlewood asked to be removed, only to be told she couldnt withdraw

Littlewood says she was informed that she wouldnt be allowed to withdraw her nomination. Pat Henry, the conventions president and founder, wrote to her and said he was refusing to remove her name from the ballot, and that while the convention was aware outside groups were manipulating the results, we believe that as we add voters, they will become irrelevant in the our awards.

When asked about their refusal to remove authors, Henry explained in a statement to The Verge that one of the goals was to provide a long list of recently released reading materials for fans, and that when an author any author asks to withdraw from the ballot, then the reading list becomes less. Its less broad, less balanced, and less about the fans. In 2016, Scalzi was nominated for his novel The End of All Things, and announced he would withdraw his nomination last year, and his wish to be removed wasnt honored. Henry also says Dragon Con wont release the raw voting figures for this years convention, in an effort to prevent vote-packing.

While this tactic does result in a long list of recommended books and games for fans and attendees, it potentially puts a number of authors into an untenable position of being associated with a group they vehemently disagree with, or becoming proxies for voters to vote against. Because the awards organizers arent permitting nominees to remove themselves, authors have no recourse or agency in the situation.

In an email to The Verge, Littlewood explained that she was never contacted by Rabid Puppy founder Theodore Beale (who goes by the name Vox Day online), who put her on his slate. She didnt know shed been nominated until after the fact. I had heard [about] the controversy around the Hugos and the Rabid Puppies, she explained. I have no wish to benefit from any interference in the awards and do not wish to be associated with the Puppies, so I wrote to the organizers with a polite request to withdraw. While she doesnt have access to the numbers that put her on the ballot, she certainly gained the impression that undue influence was at play.

Its unusual for speculative-fiction nominees to not be informed about their pending nomination, which makes this situation even more awkward. Other genre awards, such as the Hugo and Nebulas, notify authors in advance before nominations are published, to give them the opportunity to bow out for a range of reasons. Some might not feel a given story deserves to be nominated, like when Ted Chiang withdrew his story Liking What You See: A Documentary from the Hugos in 2003. Others might not want to be associated with a political faction, such as Marko Kloos, who learned his novel was put on the Hugo ballot by a Rabid Puppy slate. A Dragon Con spokesperson explained that voting began with the release of the nominations, which means that the authors didnt have an opportunity to exit before the ballot was finalized.

If the Dragon Awards wants to prevent its award from being used, allowing authors to remove themselves is an essential step

While Dragon Con claims to have taken steps to contend with ballot-stuffing, not allowing creators to remove themselves from consideration seems like a counterintuitive step. While the convention organizers say theyre trying to avoid the drama, this seems like a step designed to protect the reputation of the fledgling awards, rather than that of the authors it claims are the genres favorites.

All of this speaks to a larger issue, which the Hugos, Nebulas, Dragons, and many other awards seem to be facing: rather than celebrations of the best the genre has to offer, theyre pushed into becoming battlegrounds for hostile factions that wish to plant a flag on a particular bit of popular culture. Fans have already begun working on ways to change how voting works for The Hugo Awards to avoid these issues. If the organizers behind the Dragon Awards truly want their award to reflect the genres fans, they will need to take some of the authors concerns into consideration.

Meanwhile, voting for the awards has opened, and the winners will be announced at Dragon Con on September 3rd.

Update August 10th, 10:30AM ET: Alison Littlewood and John Scalzi have each informed The Verge that the awards organizers have since been in touch with them to address their concerns, and they will now be able to withdraw if they so wish. Littlewood told The Verge she will withdraw her name from the ballot (although at present, her name still appears on the list of nominees), while Scalzi issued the following statement:

After I contacted the Dragon Award administrators regarding my intention to withdraw, the administrators got back to me and asked if I would consider staying on the ballot. They were hearing the community's feedback and criticism and were acting on it. Their decision to honor Ms. Littlewood's request to withdraw is a first example of what I see as their willingness to listen and learn, and is an action I applaud. To honor that action, and in sincere appreciation of the readers and fans who placed me on the Dragon Awards finalist list, I have agreed to remain on the ballot this year. I encourage everyone to vote for their own favorite works on the Dragon Awards finalist list.

DragonCon has issued a statement of its own, saying that it will remove Ms. Littlewoods book from the 2017 Dragon Awards ballot and re-issue ballots to those people who voted for her book. We believe that fans who voted for The Hidden People should have a second chance to vote for a favorite horror work. No new title will be added to the ballot.

Original post:
Two science-fiction authors say they're being used as proxies in a ... - The Verge

NEW YORK Call it the anti-diversity administration.

President Donald Trump is on course to reverse decades-old efforts to empower and protect minorities. Affirmative action policies at colleges and universities are being reviewed by the Justice Department. Trump supports curbs on immigration of non-English speakers and proposed a ban on transgender people in the military. He says its time to stop political correctness.

But civil rights advocates promise him a fight at every turn and a philosophically divided Supreme Court will likely be the final arbiter on the most contentious issues.

Trumps backers say the change in tone is welcome. Diversity is a way of justifying discrimination hiring people based on their race, and thats a violation of federal law, said Hans von Spakovsky, a lawyer at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Thats what the prior administration wanted to ignore.

Conservative commentators like Bill OReilly and Glenn Beck, and websites including the Drudge Report and Breitbart have railed against political correctness for years. Whats new is that the culture warriors now have a backer in the highest office in the land against rights advocates.

We must stop being politically correct, Trump wrote on Twitter in June, criticizing the mayor of Londons response to a terror attack attributed to radical Islamists that left seven dead. If we dont get smart it will only get worse.

Trumps stance appeals to his mostly white base, which has felt left behind in a country where it will be a minority by midcentury. His policies are also a sharp rebuke to predecessor Barack Obama, the first black president, and a vocal advocate for diversity.

Although the majority of Americans say an increasingly diverse population is positive the percentage of whites has fallen from 84 percent in 1965 to 62 percent in 2015, according to the Pew Research Center there is a deep political divide. According to a Pew poll last year, 78 percent of Democrats agreed that immigrants strengthened the country compared with 35 percent of Republicans.

From executive orders to early-morning tweets, Trump has used every means to get his anti-diversity message across. His administration is a reflection of his attitudes. Eighteen of the 24 Cabinet members are white males. Thats a break from the trends of earlier presidents, who had increasingly surrounded themselves with more women advisers and people of different races. About a third of Obamas Cabinet was composed of white men.

The administration will have to fend off legal challenges to the presidents anti-diversity policies. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have sued to overturn Trumps actions, often with the support of coalitions of Democratic state attorneys generals.

The administration is also looking to the courts to further its agenda. The Justice Department intervened in an employment lawsuit, arguing that federal gender-discrimination laws shouldnt apply to sexual orientation, reversing course from the past decade of court rulings.

The U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are divided between conservatives and liberals, is already set to decide in October whether Trumps travel ban is constitutional. The make up of the court may change to become more conservative if members of the liberal wing retire in the next two years, as the challenges to Trumps policies wind through lower courts.

Even if some or all of these efforts fail to get off the ground or crumble in court, they send a message to Trumps base that the embrace of diverse groups that was a signature of the Obama administration is no longer a go.

Here is the original post:
Trump's anti-diversity stance sparks culture wars - The Recorder

The Google engineer who blamed biological differences for the paucity of women in tech had every right to express his views. And Google likely had every right to fire him, workplace experts and lawyers say.

Special circumstances from the country's divisive political climate to Silicon Valley's broader problem with gender equity contributed to the outrage and subsequent firing. But the fallout should still serve as a warning to anyone in any industry expressing unpopular, fiery viewpoints.

"Anyone who makes a statement like this and expects to stick around ... is foolish," said David Lewis, CEO of Operations Inc., a human resources consulting firm.

WHY HE LOST HIS JOB

The engineer, James Damore, wrote a memo criticizing Google for pushing mentoring and diversity programs and for "alienating conservatives." The parts that drew the most outrage made such assertions as women "prefer jobs in social and artistic areas" and have a "lower stress tolerance" and "harder time" leading, while more men "may like coding because it requires systemizing."

Google's code of conduct says workers "are expected to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination." Google's CEO, Sundar Picahi, said Damore violated this code.

Yonatan Zunger, who recently left Google as a senior engineer, wrote in a Medium post that he would have had no choice but to fire Damore had he been his supervisor.

"Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you?" he wrote . "I certainly couldn't 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."

Though one might argue for a right to free speech, however unpopular, such protections are generally limited to government and other public employees and to unionized workers with rights to disciplinary hearings before any firing.

Broader protections are granted to comments about workplace conditions. Damore argues in a federal labor complaint that this applies to his case, but experts disagree.

"By posting that memo, he forfeited his job," said Jennifer Lee Magas, public relations professor at Pace University and a former employment law attorney. "He was fired for his words, but also for being daft enough to post these thoughts on an open workplace forum, where he was sure to be met with backlash and to offend his colleagues male and female alike."

UNIQUELY GOOGLE

The fallout comes as Silicon Valley faces a watershed moment over gender and ethnic diversity.

Blamed for years for not hiring enough women and minorities and not welcoming them once they are hired tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Uber have promised big changes. These have included diversity and mentoring programs and coding classes for groups underrepresented among the companies' technical and leadership staff. Many tech companies also pledge to interview, though not necessarily hire, minority candidates.

These are the sorts of things Damore's memo railed against.

As such, experts say Damore might not have been fired at a company that doesn't have such a clear message on diversity.

In addition, had Damore worked for a smaller, lesser-known company, an internal memo might not have created such a "media storm," said Aimee Delaney, a Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney who represents companies on labor matters.

A DIFFERENT WORLD

Still, bringing so much public, negative attention would spell trouble for any worker. That's especially so in this age of fast-spreading social media posts, when internal company documents can easily leak and go viral.

It didn't help that this was in the heart of Silicon Valley, where typing fingers are on 24/7 and people rarely disconnect from social media, even on a quiet August weekend. Or that Google is a brand consumers interact with all day and want to read about when memos go viral.

Perhaps the biggest lesson is this: Don't be so quick to post your angry thoughts for thousands, then millions, to see.

Michael Schmidt, vice chairman of labor and employment at the Cozen O'Connor law firm, said that while workers might have refrained from such remarks around the physical watercooler, "people treat ... electronic communications much more informally than face-to-face speech."

But the consequences are similar, if not more severe.

EXPLOSIVE CLIMATE

Initially shared on an internal Google network, the memo leaked out to the public over the weekend, first in bits and pieces and then in its 10-page entirety.

It took a life of its own as outsiders weighed in. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took to Twitter to offer Damore a job. One conservative group, Americans for Limited Government, criticized what it called Google's politically correct culture and left-wing bias. Others called for a Google boycott.

Known for its motto, "don't be evil," Google is broadly seen as a liberal-leaning company, something Damore criticized in his manifesto. Liberals and tech industry leaders came to Google's defense and denounced Damore's claims as baseless and harmful.

"It's fair to say that whatever side of the political aisle you are on, ... we are in a climate where we are dealing with very highly charged and emotional issues," Schmidt said. "And those issues are spilling into the workplace."

Instead of looking for a bright-line test on what is permissible, he said, "both sides need to understand there has to be a sensitivity to the bigger picture," a level of respect and cultural sensitivity across all demographics.

Read more:
Google gender debacle speaks to tech culture wars, politics - ABC News