In the article “Why Google was wrong” the author stated that, in early August, a senior software engineer at Google named James Damore argued that most of the technical industries tried to get more women in the industry and took things in the wrong way. James wrote through a memo that more men are working in the tech industry than women, and it's not because of the hiring exercises, qualifications, or any other discrimination, but due to biological differences.
The thesis statement of the author is paraphrased, through this memo, he narrates that females are 'on average more interested in people', 'more co-operative', and 'more prone to anxiety'. These are the aspects that keep them away from the technical business or being raised to the top. Once the memo got international attention, James Damore was fired from Google, and legal action is taken against him.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The author is against the firing of James Damore and there are several reasons for that. According to the author, James's view wasn't twisted or crazy. Many serious articles and journals have been published in peer-review scientific journals that support the view of Damore.
The Author thinks that James put forward a very serious issue as Google is troubled by its workforce being largely male and sexism in many areas of the work field and its employment is well-documented. Employers should take prominent steps to stop such discrimination.
I would conclude that James got 'most of the science right' and elaborate 'pretty good judgment about what we know and what we don't know'. Google should revise its employee policy and forget the firing of Damore.
Different people have different opinions on whether Google was right in firing James or not, but in my opinion, google was fair and had complete authority to kick him out of the company. As it is providing the full knowledge wherever a user does not matter but still professionally giving its services. From the perspective of a businessman, after reading his manifesto, there is some reason why Google had to get rid of him.
James condemns the communist behavior of the fashionable career which is required to exhibit political correctness. Damore suggests that orthodox opinions should be welcomed by industries. This is working in opposition to the desires of the stakeholders, traders, professional colleagues, and most of the important clients. Both ladies and minorities are considered the main clients. Why it is necessary to make these demographics happy? I want to personify some ideas: from the records of the American Census, half of the population of America born in the year 2010 were not white. Adding to this fifty percent of the public in approximately each age community (the elderly being more so) were women. Moreover, all those English men who like minorities and manly that strengthen feminism, one can easily presume this sort of public relation failure can be very much catastrophic and it is the loss of amount if industries disregard discrimination and rationalize priorities for males, that Damore wants to prove through his manifesto.
Promotion of conservative behavior such as preventing fertile rights for ladies, implementing God-fearing conviction to conceal 'family' ethics, against-minority, and strategies which are against new settlements, surely be dilapidation for a technical industry’s recruiting succeeding and contemporary! Survival of the technical industries relays on distant employees.
Damore's views made many of the extremely professional laborers upset and they were thinking to leave the organization that provides such obvious contempt for ladies and minorities. That's why it was needed for the company to secure retention and gave Damore a lesson for making the public stupid with his impolite views. James should keep his opinions confidential only in that case, he would continue his job, but he shared his views publicly. It was never a good proceeding.
When an industry bears such an open ignorance for fellow workers, executives, and headship is that kind of working atmosphere entertaining for other workers? Where now it's reasonable to authorize prejudice, intolerance, and supremacy exactly in the forepart of your eyes? Alongside your work surface? Adjacent to where you toil? No industry wants to bear such kind of judicial and psychological troubles. And concluding all this discussion I would like to comment that James was undoubtedly kicked off from the job to eliminate damage as much as possible that he had created for his company, himself, and other employees that were distressed by his narrow thinking
Stuck on your essay?
