Google Fires VP over Bizarre Anti-Anti-Semitic Rant(yahoo.com)
yahoo.com
Google Fires VP over Bizarre Anti-Anti-Semitic Rant
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/google-fires-vp-over-bizarre-172706697.html
45 comments
Firing someone for removing hate from their lives and becoming a better person doesn’t send the right message…
While I partially agree, it certainly seems very tone deaf on the VPs part. A 10k word post and two hour readout on YouTube? Citing specific Jewish people he thinks are good? Really? It seems like there's something bordering on unhinged in that behavior.
> It seems like there's something bordering on unhinged in that behavior.
While I personally wouldn't do it and also think it comes across as kind of weird and unsettling I also think that what you are saying is based on your own cultural perspective. Let's take a few steps back and look at it. Is it really that bad if you talk about having a harmful belief in the past and how you let go of that? Should you be fired overt that? I think Google just chose the easy way here; Fire the person involved, least chance of having a controversy.
I don't know where you live but I can tell you in most western European countries there is a very strong hatred against Jews under Arab migrants. This hatred is also passed along to newer generations. A blog post this might actually make the world a bit of a better place instead of a worse one...
While I personally wouldn't do it and also think it comes across as kind of weird and unsettling I also think that what you are saying is based on your own cultural perspective. Let's take a few steps back and look at it. Is it really that bad if you talk about having a harmful belief in the past and how you let go of that? Should you be fired overt that? I think Google just chose the easy way here; Fire the person involved, least chance of having a controversy.
I don't know where you live but I can tell you in most western European countries there is a very strong hatred against Jews under Arab migrants. This hatred is also passed along to newer generations. A blog post this might actually make the world a bit of a better place instead of a worse one...
I think you make a good point, but maybe it's still right to fire this guy.
Using one's platform as a way to talk about personal racial views beyond the basic "don't be racist, and try to judge others based on their individual qualities" is unprofessional no matter what one's viewpoint may be. (I suppose an exception to this would be when your profession involves analysis of different groups of people, such as in diplomacy or sociology.)
Imagine a flight attendant using the in-cabin PA system to advocate that everyone should read How to Win Friends and Influence People. The message posted on LinkedIn may have been positive in a way, but at the same time a Developer Relations professional is supposed to use that kind of platform in a more topical manner.
Edit: I'm not usually one to complain about getting downvoted but I personally believe this is a fairly circumspect comment about using a professional platform in an unprofessional manner, and I'd appreciate if one of you would explain your distaste for it.
Using one's platform as a way to talk about personal racial views beyond the basic "don't be racist, and try to judge others based on their individual qualities" is unprofessional no matter what one's viewpoint may be. (I suppose an exception to this would be when your profession involves analysis of different groups of people, such as in diplomacy or sociology.)
Imagine a flight attendant using the in-cabin PA system to advocate that everyone should read How to Win Friends and Influence People. The message posted on LinkedIn may have been positive in a way, but at the same time a Developer Relations professional is supposed to use that kind of platform in a more topical manner.
Edit: I'm not usually one to complain about getting downvoted but I personally believe this is a fairly circumspect comment about using a professional platform in an unprofessional manner, and I'd appreciate if one of you would explain your distaste for it.
Yeah. Also a 10,000 word rant accusing Israel of fascism, telling diaspora Jews to “butt out” because they don’t know enough when he clearly doesn’t either, and listing all the ‘good Jews’ (particularly highlighting their atheism), is not the enlightened look-at-how-great-I-am-now post he thinks it is.
I wouldn’t fire him for it, preferring to have his views challenged but it also sounds like there were other factors to do with his management style that played a part too.
It’s a shame because I feel like he meant well but it also belies poor decision-making for someone at such a high management level in a major corporation.
I wouldn’t fire him for it, preferring to have his views challenged but it also sounds like there were other factors to do with his management style that played a part too.
It’s a shame because I feel like he meant well but it also belies poor decision-making for someone at such a high management level in a major corporation.
The referenced LinkedIn post:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-one-amr-awadallah/
https://archive.is/NLMpd
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-one-amr-awadallah/
https://archive.is/NLMpd
What an idiot.
Free to have an opinion (even a overtly racist one) but not free from the consequences.
It seems to me that there is some base level of education you need to be in technology. My belief has always been that education helps eliminate racism. I think I need to let go of that belief.
Free to have an opinion (even a overtly racist one) but not free from the consequences.
It seems to me that there is some base level of education you need to be in technology. My belief has always been that education helps eliminate racism. I think I need to let go of that belief.
The quotations excepted from his videos are unsettling but ultimately positive - apparently he’s talking about his journey to overcome anti-Semitism. But in a way, the central message is irrelevant. If you’re a VP of Developer Relations, you talk about one thing and one thing only, and you do that with measured, pleasant enthusiasm.
1. I think posting something like that on LinkedIn is wildly inappropriate. I know it has dreams of being the next Facebook. I wish they’d stick to their lane and keep on being the professional social network everyone hates to use except when they’re job hunting.
2. Part of his statement rings true. Like how can you be anti-Semitic when you are also a Semite.
3. The west should really pay attention. The same propaganda techniques Arab governments have been using for decades to demonize Jews is being used on social media, talk radio, and the news.
4. Unfortunately, this firing feeds into the long held conspiracies that Jews are infinitely powerful and any criticism of them will get you silenced. Might there be other reasons he was let go. There is subtext in the article that points to it. But the narrative is he was fired for holding anti-Semitic views.
2. Part of his statement rings true. Like how can you be anti-Semitic when you are also a Semite.
3. The west should really pay attention. The same propaganda techniques Arab governments have been using for decades to demonize Jews is being used on social media, talk radio, and the news.
4. Unfortunately, this firing feeds into the long held conspiracies that Jews are infinitely powerful and any criticism of them will get you silenced. Might there be other reasons he was let go. There is subtext in the article that points to it. But the narrative is he was fired for holding anti-Semitic views.
2: the word ‘antisemite’ was popularised by German trade unionist and pamphleteer Wilhelm Marr who wanted to have a fancier, and thus more acceptable, scientific name for Judenhass (‘Jew hate’). The word has only ever been used to refer to anti-Jewish racism.
The word ‘Semite’ is a product of the abhorrent ‘race science’ of the time in Europe that purported to divide up peoples according to pseudo-scientific fashion of the time. It is only now used in the field of linguistics where eg. Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages. This has nothing to do with antisemitism.
This is also why we write it as one word rather than hyphenated with a capital S.
The word ‘Semite’ is a product of the abhorrent ‘race science’ of the time in Europe that purported to divide up peoples according to pseudo-scientific fashion of the time. It is only now used in the field of linguistics where eg. Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages. This has nothing to do with antisemitism.
This is also why we write it as one word rather than hyphenated with a capital S.
> The word ‘Semite’ is a product of the abhorrent ‘race science’ of the time in Europe that purported to divide up peoples according to pseudo-scientific fashion of the time.
Nope. The word Semite was coined in 1771 by August Ludwig von Schlözer to refer to a family of languages and their people. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18229/summary
Nope. The word Semite was coined in 1771 by August Ludwig von Schlözer to refer to a family of languages and their people. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/18229/summary
I think a lot of linguistic terms were stolen and repurposed as a way to lend credence and legitimacy to racist ideology. The same is true of the term “Aryan” which originally referred to people who spoke Indo-European languages:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
From the wikipedia article, the gentleman who first used the term “Aryan race” (in the context of language, not ethnicity) later said:
> These two sciences, the Science of Language and the Science of Man, cannot, at least for the present, be kept too much asunder; [...] I must repeat, what I have said many times before, it would be as wrong to speak of Aryan blood as of dolichocephalic grammar.
From the wikipedia article, the gentleman who first used the term “Aryan race” (in the context of language, not ethnicity) later said:
> These two sciences, the Science of Language and the Science of Man, cannot, at least for the present, be kept too much asunder; [...] I must repeat, what I have said many times before, it would be as wrong to speak of Aryan blood as of dolichocephalic grammar.
‘And their people…’ Schlözer was a member of the Göttingen School of History which is credited with “two fundamental groups of terminologies of scientific racism” one of which is the biblical terminology for race (eg. Semitic, Hamitic, etc).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göttingen_school_of_history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göttingen_school_of_history
Yes, and the word antisemite was later coined to only refer to Jews.
Both statements are true. Language is often weird like that.
Both statements are true. Language is often weird like that.
> abhorrent ‘race science’ of the time in Europe that purported to divide up peoples according to pseudo-scientific fashion of the time
Reminds me of something... Oh yes the current race/gender ideology sweeping the West at the moment.
Reminds me of something... Oh yes the current race/gender ideology sweeping the West at the moment.
> the word ‘antisemite’ was popularised by German trade unionist and pamphleteer Wilhelm Marr
Thank you. This is the kind of information I come for on HN.
Thank you. This is the kind of information I come for on HN.
Being separated by pseudoscientific categories of race is very backwards.
It's much more scientific to be separated into 33,000 psychometric bubbles that can fold instantly into narrative-compliant political frames based on whoever can pay journos to write headlines that game SEO and HFTs instead.
It's much more scientific to be separated into 33,000 psychometric bubbles that can fold instantly into narrative-compliant political frames based on whoever can pay journos to write headlines that game SEO and HFTs instead.
>how can you be anti-Semitic when you are also a Semite.
There is no contradiction here, and his pointing it out was a bizarre tangent to me. "Semitic" by definition refers to the semitic religions, but "anti-semitic" is used nigh exclusively in both spoken and written communication to mean anti-Jewish.
There is no contradiction here, and his pointing it out was a bizarre tangent to me. "Semitic" by definition refers to the semitic religions, but "anti-semitic" is used nigh exclusively in both spoken and written communication to mean anti-Jewish.
Regarding your second point, you can totally be bigoted against a demographic you belong to.
Bobby Fischer for example is a very high profile person. Candace Owens is another.
Bobby Fischer for example is a very high profile person. Candace Owens is another.
Same with Clayton Bigsby.
Expanding on #2. 'Antisemitism' has always been a poor label for hatred of the Jewish people. It was invented around the time that Hebrew was brought back from the dead and is a term that excludes speakers of Semitic languages that never had their language go dead. It is unfortunately the prevaling terminology, despite this fact.
You will never avoid #4 unfortunately. It's just part of the entire cancel culture culture now to ascribe institutional power to people and individuals, even those who get lipservice at best. See corporations on social media putting pride flag overlays on their logos while their CS reps argue with outraged reactionaries about how they don't actually mean anything by it in the one post where they talk about some abstract need for disversity.
Why is it that Google seems to always have these sorts of very public employee issues and controversies? I’ve got a pretty good idea, their work culture is one of the most toxic in respect to diversity of thought and freedom of expression. This echo chamber culture comes all the way from the top. Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way advocating that employees should be allowed to post or disseminate any sort of hate speech, but this seemed like an attempt to apologize for past mistakes and open up a dialogue and conversation. You couldn’t pay me enough to work at Google, I’d probably also be fired pretty quickly as well.
Plenty of smaller companies have these sorts of personnel issues, its just that nobody cares because they aren't worth a trillion dollars or whatever.
I honestly think Google is pretty open to any sort of discussion at work (including political), the cases where it boils over are just the extremes (or very contentious, see Damore) outcrops of allowing this in the first place.
goto/distraction[1] alone would be over the line in some of the places I've worked
[1]: https://www.slideshare.net/paulsmarsden/google-deck-on-digit...
goto/distraction[1] alone would be over the line in some of the places I've worked
[1]: https://www.slideshare.net/paulsmarsden/google-deck-on-digit...
"I am in no way advocating that employees should be allowed to post or disseminate any sort of hate speech" -> you want freedom of expression yet support what others will claim as "hate speech".
If hate speech is something that someone disagrees is with or is slightly offended, then there's no freedom of expression.
How disappointing. It seems the post was about his journey from indoctrinated hatred to coming go see that we are all the same... and Google's response is "you used to have views we don't approve of so you're fired". It doesn't matter that he uses that past as a way to show that there is hope to get past the deep hatred between many groups in the middle east.
It is sad how little grace (and perhaps reading comprehension) we have. How does this culture change?
It is sad how little grace (and perhaps reading comprehension) we have. How does this culture change?
1) A redemption story can still be excruciatingly uncomfortable and enough to make it impossible for an executive to do their jobs.
2) I suggest 'reading comprehension' may help us find that in many cases these stories are not as redemptive as the author may think.
If there story were two paragraphs, and he 'saw the light' by the end of Uni or something.
If you're going to do this kind of writing publicly as an executive, you literally need to have some kind of PR person help you do it, so that you can frame it in the right way. Most people don't have a very good instinct for how things will be received.
And unfortunately many people will misinterpret it, and so there's always a lot of risk in it, it's a hard story to tell. But it probably can be done carefully.
2) I suggest 'reading comprehension' may help us find that in many cases these stories are not as redemptive as the author may think.
If there story were two paragraphs, and he 'saw the light' by the end of Uni or something.
If you're going to do this kind of writing publicly as an executive, you literally need to have some kind of PR person help you do it, so that you can frame it in the right way. Most people don't have a very good instinct for how things will be received.
And unfortunately many people will misinterpret it, and so there's always a lot of risk in it, it's a hard story to tell. But it probably can be done carefully.
Google is upset about him telegraphing to the world his previous views were actually approved during hiring process, and tolerated all the way to the moment of firing.
It could be more of “we don’t particularly want to employ you, and here is a convenient excuse to get rid of you” scenario.
Can we be clear that Google hasn't publicly stated why they chose to remove him. They have absolutely not said they fired him for his old views.
Not sure why you were downvoted. Since it's an HR matter, we will likely never hear google's side of this story. Not a huge fan of Google myself for many reasons, but a lot of people here are racing to judgement.
That's a very charitable description of what he wrote.
Since we have different interpretations, it seems like all the more reason for a dialog.
That said, perhaps Google decided that the risk of a bad interpretation is far too great (which would make sense) if they keep him employed.
That said, perhaps Google decided that the risk of a bad interpretation is far too great (which would make sense) if they keep him employed.
andyxor(1)
thought crimes are very serious. Until alexa, siri and google have the ability to read our minds, we need to act on any indicators that a thought crime may be occurring and pursue the guilty person until their proven innocent.
Founder of Cloudera: too much FU money and was probably bored/coasting.
It wasnt over Bizarre Anti-Anti-Semitic Rant.
It was over publicly confirming Google hires and tolerates Anti-Semites.
It was over publicly confirming Google hires and tolerates Anti-Semites.
If you are a VP associated with a company with a well-known brand, first and foremost, don't do anything that could hurt the brand. I suspect a world where someone makes posts like his (despite it displaying flaws) has less anti-Semitism than one without, because those very flaws are trail markers that show a real path to others who are at earlier stages in the trail. But those same flaws to our tweet-sized attention span seem to have to imprimatur of Google, and that's why he had to go.
The people with the 'I was bad but now good' stories often are pretty lacking in self awareness it seems and the story ultimately doesn't make them look good.
Despite possibly not realizing he'd get fired for it just out of making people very uncomfortable ... it's interesting to note that these stories are often not quite as redeeming as the author's might think they are.
Despite possibly not realizing he'd get fired for it just out of making people very uncomfortable ... it's interesting to note that these stories are often not quite as redeeming as the author's might think they are.
That he grew as a person and changed his thoughts but was fired is a tough one.