By: Tyler Cowan | 08-11-2017 | News
Photo credit: Marco Verch | Flickr

James Damore's Memogate May Just Be Tip of The Iceberg

<a href=> James Damore’s Google Diversity manifesto </a> has sparked immense controversy and oddly enough, garnered some hisses and boos even from portions of the liberal and progressive media. James Damore and “Google Memo-gate” are a perfect example of how a majority of the mainstream press practice willful collusion and are willing to ignore relevant information in order to doctor a narrative they wish to project.

James Damore was actually arguing against discriminatory practices that Google actually has in place. Programs, grants, scholarships, etc. that are race and gender based. Despite how it’s been portrayed in the media Damore made sure to explain that the research is just on average. Men are on average stronger, that doesn’t mean all men are stronger than all women, but there are definite biological differences between males and females which explain some global behaviors across genders.

“Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population-level distributions,” Damore reasoned. A reasoned argument backed by science resulting in near instantaneous termination.

<i>New York Times’</i> David Brooks came out in support of the Diversity memo, blasting Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai:

“He fired Damore and wrote, ‘To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.”

That is a blatantly dishonest characterization of the memo. Damore wrote nothing like that about his Google colleagues.’”

Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic also came out pro-Damore. He was even brave enough to point out the brutal nature of the media’s attacks. They weren’t interested in the truth because it didn’t fit their narrative. No interest in journalistic accuracy, fairness or intellectual honesty.

“I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.”


Debra Soh (sex researcher and neuroscientist) in <i>Toronto’s Globe and Mail</i> puts it quite frankly:

“No, the Google manifesto isn't sexist or anti-diversity. It's science […] Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate[ …] Research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their occupations based on what they enjoy.”

“As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.

Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.”

Geoffrey Miller is chair of the Psychology Department at Rutgers University a recipient of the Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize and the APA Early Career Award for Distinguished Contributions to Psychology.

“I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course.

Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:

• The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;

• The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.

The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed. Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact. (See Venn diagram version above.)

Bottom Line: So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both. Weirdly, the same people who advocate for equality of outcome in every aspect of corporate life, also tend to advocate for diversity in every aspect of corporate life. They don’t even see the fundamentally irreconcilable assumptions behind this ‘equality and diversity’ dogma. American businesses also have to face the fact that the demographic differences that make diversity useful will not lead to equality of outcome in every hire or promotion. Equality or diversity: choose one.”

Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at Rutgers University also weighed in:

“The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Its main points are that:

1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right;

2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize;

3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination;

4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences.

I cannot speak to the atmosphere at Google, but:

1. Given that the author gets everything else right, I am pretty confident he is right about that too;

2. It is a painfully familiar atmosphere, one that is a lot like academia.

<div style="width:100%;text-align:center;margin:0 auto;"><iframe width="360" height="202" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

The real reason more women aren’t in STEM, The Factual Feminist on YouTube.

The story is an excellent center point for the current cultural cold war waging around us. 370,000 Google search results for “google memo” netting 87,000 Google News search results. Our evidence that the story has captured the interest of a wide audience. Marches on Google occurred and even Ana Kasparian, news commentator with the progressive news program, The Young Turks admitted that the media was in full smear campaign mode and that Damore’s work was scientifically based and had merit.

<strong> IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS </strong>

“Do social conservatives still have a place in environments where norms are moving in the other direction?” asks the Washington Post (AKA the CIA since the $600 million investment in Bezos certainly makes them a near controlling share) in an op-ed related to the memo-gate story. WaPo representing, the unrelenting hard-line pro-Google camp.

The question of diversity and equality are affecting multiple areas, not just work environments. <a href=””> A Virginia high school recently sent students home with a letter </a> that would make Martin Luther King Jr. Blanche. Despite the Reverend’s call for all people to be treated based on merit, rather than skin color, the make-up of this school’s Advanced Placement courses will be tied directly to skin tone.

“Through our collective work, advanced classes such as AP and Honors will have proportional representation. Proportional representation is 40% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% African American, 10% mixed race.”

Bear in mind, the school in question has a 90% white population. If systemic racism and institutional racism means it’s the authorities, the state and the government instituting it, it seems like the case for white racism is being made more day by day.

“American demographic trends indicate that America will be a majority minority nation in the next 25 years. Therefore, the new work of American public schools is to develop systems to address disparate outcomes,” for this reason, a student with superlative grades may not get to advance their education due to the color of their skin. All this in the name of “fairness.”

The opinion that whiteness is a problem, an issue to be solved or resolved is echoed by the (now nearly discredited) news titan CNN vis a vis Anthony Bourdain’s “Parts Unknown.” A “Utopia” could be reached in maybe 70 to 80 years but only when “there will be no white people.” Bourdain’s subject tells him over dinner. Anthony agrees, “It’s our only hope, there’s no way out of this.” The idea of “white genocide” is laughed out of the Overton Window in one breath and hinted at with the next.

Consider the mainstream nature of opinions like those of <a href=”> Noel Ignatiev, author of the critically acclaimed <i>Abolish the White Race”</i>Harvard Press 2002.

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Of course, we expected bewilderment from people who still think of race as biology. We frequently get letters accusing us of being ‘racists,’ just like the KKK, and have even been called a ‘hate group.’”

Well, there you have it, folks. According to popular opinion, getting rid of whitey is a no-brainer. So no wonder punching Richard Spencer is applauded and <a href=””> denying Uber and Airbnb services based on political creed </a> is also recently kosher as of the recent Unite the Right rally.

Barbara Spector also speaks frankly about the need for a diminished, global whiteness:

"I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."

Meanwhile, in Israel, the homeland of the Jews an ethnostate is expected to continue to exist involving a racial/religious supremacist philosophy (Zionism) with a notoriously staunch closed-borders policy and in-group preference that has allowed for massive consolidation of influence in the fields of academia, the media, law, and politics. Sounds like one set of rules for the rules, another for the ruled a bit, doesn’t it?

<img src=" " style="max-height:640px;max-width:360px;">

Image by <a href=””> American Enterprises Institute </a>

Share this article
Thoughts on the above story? Comment below!
1 Comment/s
Beth No. 6432 2017-08-12 : 10:17

Really enjoyed the article; however, the copy editor needs a new job. The myriad grammar and punctuation errors are a distraction from the informative content, thus undermining the journalistic integrity of The Goldwater group as a whole (imho).

I commend the author of the article for a well-balanced perspective. Unlike the dribble from the MSM, this article on "Memogate" was a refreshing read!👍🏼

What do you think about this article?
Comment *

Recent News

Popular Stories