Mandating and enforcing culture
On the contrary, promoting group based quotas as Google is doing here is systematic discrimination, and not in the vague way people throw that term around.
It is rather a means, sometimes arguably a necessary means, of equalizing opportunity.But Google's hiring practice reflect a different ethical system - one that is willing to hurt individuals based upon group identity to achieve an apparently better future end.Surely, we could adopt this ethical viewpoint and become a more utilitarian nation.That says: We are going to decide who gets what based upon group, and we will inhibit individuals from obtaining opportunities to reach our group-based goals.According to Damore's complaint, that was the policy Google higher-ups promoted.Then, when Damore's memo went viral, he was unapologetically shamed.
"You're a misogynist and a terrible human," one of Damore's colleagues Alex Hidalgo emailed him "I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired.
Even more stifling to the flourishing of the individual, Google prohibited and shamed dissent from its collectivist hiring ideology.
While at a "Diversity and Inclusion Summit" conducted by Google, Damore "asked questions about whether Google looked at viewpoint diversity with respect to hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as workplace.
Fuck you." There is a Talmudic saying: Whoever saves one life saves the world.
This can be read to say that contained within every man are endless generations, but the ethical point that each individual is, by virtue of simply being an individual, so ethically valuable as to be worth the entire world.
Further, at the women's history month meeting, Porat and Naughton said that "when looking at groups of people for promotions or for leadership opportunities on new projects, Google would be taking into account gender and ethnic demographics.