When conflict arises, the truth becomes nearly impossible to find.

On August 5th, a memo named “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” was published on tech website Gizmodo’s front page. The piece, originally written in July for Google’s internal mailing list, was authored by James Damore, Harvard biology graduate and Google engineer for three and a half years. In short, the document discussed the company’s employment policies and suggested changes to its approach towards diversity and inclusion. However, rather than remaining a peaceable expression of thought, Damore’s claims ignited a polemical firestorm across social media and news outlets.

Many sources quickly labeled the ten-page paper as the Anti-Diversity Memo, launching scathing criticism at the author for the remarks. Others defended Damore and instead condemned Google, who fired the memo’s author two days later under the stated reason of “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” Argument continued and became more inflamed once the author began interacting with the controversy through interviews. Thus, what remains today is a debate where the article’s meaning lies muddled under conjecture, misinterpretation and ad hominem.

To best explain Damore’s particular situation, his actual memo—not the media’s version—must be accurately pursued. One of his first points centers on the subject of moral biases, factors that regularly affect one’s perceptions and preferences. Political affiliation becomes an extension of this, and Google’s liberal bias, the author states, inherently damages the company’s ability to achieve employment equality. He asserts that Google’s political orientation establishes “a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence” when a functioning company succeeds best through a combination of both liberal and conservative ideologies.

According to Damore, however, politics is not the sole concern troubling Google: the general biological and personality differences between men and women also contribute to the issue. Citing numerous reports, Damore notes various traits attributed to the average male and female that, when arbitrarily compared, may provide a partial answer to why Google’s workforce does not have more diversity. Damore also inserts multiple disclaimers before and after each affirmation, emphasizing that his argument only applies to average population groups that cannot account for individual variation and remains a limited viewpoint. Discussion of the information thereafter regards the public’s misconceptions towards these gender discrepancies, such as his call to “stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.”

After reviewing the effects that have arisen in Google’s employment as due to its biases, such as discrimination towards white males and authoritarian workplace sentiments, Damore concludes the document with suggestions and observations that may better establish equality if implemented. He addresses how society’s modern attempts to improve institutional diversity have actually dramatically lowered diversity, acknowledging how sidestepping biases has caused this predicament.
In overall conclusion, he carries the theme of tolerance towards all perspectives, stating that “an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology” readily pervades Google’s mentality.

Yet, ostensibly, Damore did not just directly challenge the mindset of his ex-company with his words—he also indirectly revealed flagrant ironies in the media’s reaction to the memo and one arose simply in the reporting of his composition. Gizmodo’s release of the piece, the version that first sparked the controversy and still remains available to view, did not contain any of his numerous reference links and citations, markedly hurting the author’s credibility and unfairly inducing misassessment of his work. By the time Damore published the complete rendition, the scandal had already broken out across the country. This became a token for further agitation on the issue as many who took the author’s side called to the inherent incongruity present in a media silencing an opinion to promote tolerance of thought.

In the end, the most microcosmic measure of the mercurial memo manifested itself in Google’s own hands. A seemingly separate debate appeared solely over the company’s settlement to fire Damore, which it did without refuting his charges in regards to workplace practices and biases. The author had placed them in a palpably difficult position: fire him and be accused of censoring free speech while alienating like-minded employees, or accept his complaints alongside potential outrage from employees and public alike. Despite resultant protest from Damore’s supporters, the former avenue of action left Google in the best position to endure the contentious scene, and though Damore was left temporarily unemployed, Wikileaks offered him a job via Twitter the day following Google’s decision.

For the memo’s truth, however, no one seems to be hiring.