Google parts with Cloud VP over his manifesto renouncing his antisemitism(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Google parts with Cloud VP over his manifesto renouncing his antisemitism
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/google-separates-with-cloud-vp-after-employees-complain-about-manifesto.html
110 comments
Yeah I would be careful about drawing conclusions and assigning blame in this situation because it's hard to know all the factors leading to his dismissal. At the least, it sounds like there were problems with his leadership for months before this:
> Employees who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said the frustration with Awadallah’s leadership style had been building for months, leading up to this week’s all-hands meeting, where employees confronted him about their discomfort with his manifesto, working with him and the leadership attrition of his reporting leaders.
At the very least, if your job is dev relations you've got to be somewhat adept at how to communicate publicly. It sounds like his manifesto didn't hit the mark.
And I'd have to question why he decided to do that in the first place? Did something force his hand? I feel like many people have had the experience of growing out of past prejudices but posting a manifesto about it is not something I've seen too often, certainly not in the workplace.
> Employees who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said the frustration with Awadallah’s leadership style had been building for months, leading up to this week’s all-hands meeting, where employees confronted him about their discomfort with his manifesto, working with him and the leadership attrition of his reporting leaders.
At the very least, if your job is dev relations you've got to be somewhat adept at how to communicate publicly. It sounds like his manifesto didn't hit the mark.
And I'd have to question why he decided to do that in the first place? Did something force his hand? I feel like many people have had the experience of growing out of past prejudices but posting a manifesto about it is not something I've seen too often, certainly not in the workplace.
There was a fired CEO recently that hackernews was up in arms over because he came out and said that he was fired for microdosing. A couple of days later it came out that he was talking to the press for months without an okay from the board. The first story is never the real story.
There are always many stories in big stories.
You may not be wrong (to your point, no one knows), but is such a cynical approach beneficial?
It's extremely beneficial to avoid uproar and having your emotions manipulated. Knowing when someone may be taking advantage of an absence of information helps you focus on real issues and not manufactured ones
You are basically saying do not get upset about this because maybe it is manipulation. But if it turns out it isn't manipulation, you have successfully tamped down outrage over something that was actually deserving it?
It's cynical to support the firing of an executive that admits to the worst sort of extreme racism publicly as a misguided attempt to build his own brand? Lol
Sometimes I think the only reason platitudes like “bring your whole self to work” exist is just to weed out ppl who are dumb enough to fall for it. Never break the act if you wanna stay on top it seems.
It's about the best option I can think of to preserve one's brand if it is about to be made public that you are antisemitic.
Cynical? It seems like a measured and realistic approach to me. There's no upside in getting riled up when there's every reason to believe you are missing important context.
Assuming there's more to the story than what's at face value is really the part I was referring to.
The question is, what really is at face value? "Employees [...] said the frustration with Awadallah’s leadership style had been building for months", and the article doesn't contain any direct claim that Google parted ways with him because of the manifesto. You could draw inferences from the timeline, and the article does seem to be written to encourage you to, but those are exactly the kind of inferences that are unreliable when you don't have all the facts.
If we look at things in terms of positive and negative reinforcement this has some interesting consequences.
So, he admitted to antisemitism in the past and shared how he has grown or is growing past it. This kind of admission by him has the ability to challenge other and positively reinforce others who are in a similar situation to him. That _positive_ reinforcement for change away from antisemitism.
He was pushed out which is a form of _negative_ reinforcement. That will teach him and others not to speak out with stories of how they have changed which will limit others from positively reinforcing future change like this.
The way this influences people going forward is worth noting.
So, he admitted to antisemitism in the past and shared how he has grown or is growing past it. This kind of admission by him has the ability to challenge other and positively reinforce others who are in a similar situation to him. That _positive_ reinforcement for change away from antisemitism.
He was pushed out which is a form of _negative_ reinforcement. That will teach him and others not to speak out with stories of how they have changed which will limit others from positively reinforcing future change like this.
The way this influences people going forward is worth noting.
His manifesto is a self-congratulatory virtue signal that does more to show off his prejudices that still exist and which he demonstrates zero self awareness of, so it's no surprise that it backfired.
These kinds of manifestos/confessionals on LinkedIn are so completely inappropriate. There's no reason this guy needed to ever publicly say anything on this topic no matter his intentions real or perceived, and it is absolutely predictably that he stepped in it.
These kinds of manifestos/confessionals on LinkedIn are so completely inappropriate. There's no reason this guy needed to ever publicly say anything on this topic no matter his intentions real or perceived, and it is absolutely predictably that he stepped in it.
So, I'll start off by saying - I work at google, in cloud, but not for this person, I don't know anything about him, and this is my own opinion.
I think if someone had asked him at an all hands for his position on the israel palestine conflict, and he said something like:
"I grew up in a strict Egyptian Muslim household, indoctrinated to hate Israel and Jews, and it wasn't until I was exposed to jewish people and became friends with them that I realized how toxic those ideas were, and I regret that I ever held those ideas and no longer do. And now I hope that everyone on both sides of that conflict can have the same realizations that I did, and realize that we are all human and just want to live in peace"
I don't think it would have been an issue, or at least not to this degree. It's possible to acknowledge a past flaw, talk about how you've taken steps to address, and move on in a productive way. But that's not what he did.
If you read the entire LinkedIn post, it's pretty cringey. It starts off going deep into how much he hated Jews, then talks about how long it took him to not hate Jews, then he takes a sharp right turn to point out that because he is .1% Ashkenazi according to 23andme, he's technically also Jewish, so isn't this whole thing just an idea? Aren't these political and cultural boundaries just ridiculous ideas we need to get past? Then he takes a swing at Zionism that I don't quite follow, and he wraps things up.
First off, no one asked him to share his thoughts on the subject. Second, it's easy to find someone attempting to co-opt your identity via a saliva DNA test offensive. Third, by trying to talk about how made-up these groups and identities are, it can come across as erasing them. Fourth, and finally, his political views on solving the Israel-Palestine conflict have nothing to do with his previous beliefs.
Again, if he stuck to what he used to believe, and how he sees that's wrong, that's less controversial. But he uses it as a springboard to offer up a grand unified theory of racial identity which, again, no one asked him for his ideas and solutions to this extremely complex problem.
Then, from the article, apparently he continued to espouse these views in public, defending them, referencing his .1% jewish heritage as a defense.
But setting aside all of the exact specifics - if you're a VP at any large company, you should know this is not acceptable. You have to be able to read the room, you have to listen to feedback, and you have to know how to communicate with others. You have to be able to build trust and rapport with your team, it's not about being "right". If he was unable to do that, as it seems like was the case, then he's not a good fit.
I think if someone had asked him at an all hands for his position on the israel palestine conflict, and he said something like:
"I grew up in a strict Egyptian Muslim household, indoctrinated to hate Israel and Jews, and it wasn't until I was exposed to jewish people and became friends with them that I realized how toxic those ideas were, and I regret that I ever held those ideas and no longer do. And now I hope that everyone on both sides of that conflict can have the same realizations that I did, and realize that we are all human and just want to live in peace"
I don't think it would have been an issue, or at least not to this degree. It's possible to acknowledge a past flaw, talk about how you've taken steps to address, and move on in a productive way. But that's not what he did.
If you read the entire LinkedIn post, it's pretty cringey. It starts off going deep into how much he hated Jews, then talks about how long it took him to not hate Jews, then he takes a sharp right turn to point out that because he is .1% Ashkenazi according to 23andme, he's technically also Jewish, so isn't this whole thing just an idea? Aren't these political and cultural boundaries just ridiculous ideas we need to get past? Then he takes a swing at Zionism that I don't quite follow, and he wraps things up.
First off, no one asked him to share his thoughts on the subject. Second, it's easy to find someone attempting to co-opt your identity via a saliva DNA test offensive. Third, by trying to talk about how made-up these groups and identities are, it can come across as erasing them. Fourth, and finally, his political views on solving the Israel-Palestine conflict have nothing to do with his previous beliefs.
Again, if he stuck to what he used to believe, and how he sees that's wrong, that's less controversial. But he uses it as a springboard to offer up a grand unified theory of racial identity which, again, no one asked him for his ideas and solutions to this extremely complex problem.
Then, from the article, apparently he continued to espouse these views in public, defending them, referencing his .1% jewish heritage as a defense.
But setting aside all of the exact specifics - if you're a VP at any large company, you should know this is not acceptable. You have to be able to read the room, you have to listen to feedback, and you have to know how to communicate with others. You have to be able to build trust and rapport with your team, it's not about being "right". If he was unable to do that, as it seems like was the case, then he's not a good fit.
I didn't see it that way at all. Maybe because my home country has border issues and we've dealt with otherization from a young age. Certainly, nothing like the conflict he refers to, but I guess I have some personal context. I see someone who was genuinely baffled at the thought that there are good people of a particular ethnicity, when he was brainwashed completely to the opposite. The point about the 0.1% DNA is actually quite interesting. years back, I remember this white supremacist on oprah undergoing a DNA test and learning he had some black ancestors. It was a crazy moment where they realized that they were hating a part of their own identity - no matter how small it was. IMHO, most of the so called "manifesto" - can't we just call it a blog? - is milquetoast feel-good kumbayah stuff that has been said uncontroversially by other authors for decades.
As an aside, I think telling someone "nobody asked you for your opinion" is pretty rude. I don't think its constructive to put limits on people's freedom of personal expression in that way. It was a personal message/blog that they felt like getting off their chest. Google firing him just for this (if that is the case, I guess we don't know for sure) is absurd IMO. My sense is that it became a PR issue and Google just got rid of him rather than actually fostering a place where differing opinions are welcomed. This cancel culture is getting crazy.
As an aside, I think telling someone "nobody asked you for your opinion" is pretty rude. I don't think its constructive to put limits on people's freedom of personal expression in that way. It was a personal message/blog that they felt like getting off their chest. Google firing him just for this (if that is the case, I guess we don't know for sure) is absurd IMO. My sense is that it became a PR issue and Google just got rid of him rather than actually fostering a place where differing opinions are welcomed. This cancel culture is getting crazy.
Obviously everyone is free to read and interpret something however they wish. But to your point:
> I see someone who was genuinely baffled at the thought that there are good people of a particular ethnicity, when he was brainwashed completely to the opposite.
As I think I said at the top of my comment, if he had stopped there, I don't think there would have been as much hay to make (though that's an unknowable). Personally I found the writing of that first section awkward, and a little uncomfortable (man, he really likes to emphasize just how much he hated jews), but I at least can understand the desire to share a personal transformation.
Site note: Perhaps the jaunty tone of it is part of what I find off-putting? It's got a very "ho ho ho, man, wasn't that a crazy time" kind of tone, when other similar personal transformations that I've read are grounds for regret and reflection. Not that someone has to wear a hairshirt for every past belief they realized was wrong, but this one seemed inappropriately casual.
But the problem that I have with the piece is really the rest of it - I think it's a little patronizing, I think using 23andme data to justify your positions is problematic, and I think paragraph after paragraph you see someone expounding at length on their ideas about very complex subjects, subjects that are near and dear to people's identities and politics. It's not a dialogue, it's not a jumping off point for a discussion, it's just a polemic.
Even that, though ill-advised, probably could be forgiveable (after all, this bubbled up a while ago - the post was published over a month ago), but according to the article instead of taking feedback and starting a discussion, he continued to argue the same points that his team was telling him were offensive. That's not great leadership, that's not listening to the team, that's not navigating a complex situation with grace. He didn't have to just fall on his sword and apoloogize, but as a VP you have to at least be thoughtful about how you handle these situations.
Heck, I'm not even a VP, and I've had to deal with these types of very complex political and personal issues in the workplace, and I handled it better than this guy did. Leadership is listening, understanding, engaging respectfully, and disagreeing where appropriate. It doesn't sound like that's what was happening here.
> As an aside, I think telling someone "nobody asked you for your opinion" is pretty rude.
My point is, it's not like someone asked him to articulate his thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict and he just handled it badly. He chose to wade into one of the most polarizing and complicated topics, not just in a casual offhand comment, but in a >10k word essay that ranged from his own personal beliefs, to israeli oppression, to whether israel is a democracy, to his own status as a jew. All of these topics are highly polarizing and people have very strong opinions about them. He's entitled to his opinions, but publishing them to the world and then doubling down on them when confronted with the reaction is an unforced error. He should have known better.
> This cancel culture is getting crazy.
Look, I've only managed teams 1/10th the size of what he was managing, and even I know that posting something like this online is ill-advised and inappropriate, and I would never do it. If someone asks me privately what my beliefs are on a particular topic, I'm happy to have the discussion - but I'm not going to go to my audience of 12k followers on linkedin and proclaim them, as he did. If someone wrote something years ago that pops up, I'm usually onboard with forgiving them, because people say stupid things and people change. But respecting your team and the people you work with means recognizing that there are different beliefs and values and that the words you say matter.
> I see someone who was genuinely baffled at the thought that there are good people of a particular ethnicity, when he was brainwashed completely to the opposite.
As I think I said at the top of my comment, if he had stopped there, I don't think there would have been as much hay to make (though that's an unknowable). Personally I found the writing of that first section awkward, and a little uncomfortable (man, he really likes to emphasize just how much he hated jews), but I at least can understand the desire to share a personal transformation.
Site note: Perhaps the jaunty tone of it is part of what I find off-putting? It's got a very "ho ho ho, man, wasn't that a crazy time" kind of tone, when other similar personal transformations that I've read are grounds for regret and reflection. Not that someone has to wear a hairshirt for every past belief they realized was wrong, but this one seemed inappropriately casual.
But the problem that I have with the piece is really the rest of it - I think it's a little patronizing, I think using 23andme data to justify your positions is problematic, and I think paragraph after paragraph you see someone expounding at length on their ideas about very complex subjects, subjects that are near and dear to people's identities and politics. It's not a dialogue, it's not a jumping off point for a discussion, it's just a polemic.
Even that, though ill-advised, probably could be forgiveable (after all, this bubbled up a while ago - the post was published over a month ago), but according to the article instead of taking feedback and starting a discussion, he continued to argue the same points that his team was telling him were offensive. That's not great leadership, that's not listening to the team, that's not navigating a complex situation with grace. He didn't have to just fall on his sword and apoloogize, but as a VP you have to at least be thoughtful about how you handle these situations.
Heck, I'm not even a VP, and I've had to deal with these types of very complex political and personal issues in the workplace, and I handled it better than this guy did. Leadership is listening, understanding, engaging respectfully, and disagreeing where appropriate. It doesn't sound like that's what was happening here.
> As an aside, I think telling someone "nobody asked you for your opinion" is pretty rude.
My point is, it's not like someone asked him to articulate his thoughts on the Israel-Palestine conflict and he just handled it badly. He chose to wade into one of the most polarizing and complicated topics, not just in a casual offhand comment, but in a >10k word essay that ranged from his own personal beliefs, to israeli oppression, to whether israel is a democracy, to his own status as a jew. All of these topics are highly polarizing and people have very strong opinions about them. He's entitled to his opinions, but publishing them to the world and then doubling down on them when confronted with the reaction is an unforced error. He should have known better.
> This cancel culture is getting crazy.
Look, I've only managed teams 1/10th the size of what he was managing, and even I know that posting something like this online is ill-advised and inappropriate, and I would never do it. If someone asks me privately what my beliefs are on a particular topic, I'm happy to have the discussion - but I'm not going to go to my audience of 12k followers on linkedin and proclaim them, as he did. If someone wrote something years ago that pops up, I'm usually onboard with forgiving them, because people say stupid things and people change. But respecting your team and the people you work with means recognizing that there are different beliefs and values and that the words you say matter.
>But the problem that I have with the piece is really the rest of it - I think it's a little patronizing, I think using 23andme data to justify your positions is problematic, and I think paragraph after paragraph you see someone expounding at length on their ideas about very complex subjects, subjects that are near and dear to people's identities and politics. It's not a dialogue, it's not a jumping off point for a discussion, it's just a polemic.
The author is deeply involved in this complex subject and discussion. They have more than a good reason to have an opinion on it, and express it. I don't want to get into his tone/wording. I'm going to give him a wide pass just because its probably not his first language, and also because those types of things are highly culture-specific.
> That's not great leadership, that's not listening to the team, that's not navigating a complex situation with grace. He didn't have to just fall on his sword and apoloogize, but as a VP you have to at least be thoughtful about how you handle these situations.
Sure, a more street-smart/savvy person would probably do things differently. But fundamentally, I think that people don't have a right to not be offended. For e.g. I don't like the idea of people calling something offensive - like say the drawing of a certain prophet - and forcing others to accept their view. Its strictly a case-by-case thing. I'd want to know exactly what was so offensive. Maybe from a purely business perspective, Google did the right thing, but from a social discourse / wide-tent-philosophy standpoint I think it is disappointing.
Anyway, I appreciate you writing out your reply, and I don't really want to argue with you or change your opinion or anything, but just like how we can respectfully co-exist on HN, it should be possible to do so within a company too. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in a random person who I had not even heard of before this article ! :) I guess I just believe that people can still have integrity even when we disagree with them.
The author is deeply involved in this complex subject and discussion. They have more than a good reason to have an opinion on it, and express it. I don't want to get into his tone/wording. I'm going to give him a wide pass just because its probably not his first language, and also because those types of things are highly culture-specific.
> That's not great leadership, that's not listening to the team, that's not navigating a complex situation with grace. He didn't have to just fall on his sword and apoloogize, but as a VP you have to at least be thoughtful about how you handle these situations.
Sure, a more street-smart/savvy person would probably do things differently. But fundamentally, I think that people don't have a right to not be offended. For e.g. I don't like the idea of people calling something offensive - like say the drawing of a certain prophet - and forcing others to accept their view. Its strictly a case-by-case thing. I'd want to know exactly what was so offensive. Maybe from a purely business perspective, Google did the right thing, but from a social discourse / wide-tent-philosophy standpoint I think it is disappointing.
Anyway, I appreciate you writing out your reply, and I don't really want to argue with you or change your opinion or anything, but just like how we can respectfully co-exist on HN, it should be possible to do so within a company too. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in a random person who I had not even heard of before this article ! :) I guess I just believe that people can still have integrity even when we disagree with them.
Thank you for posting this. I learned a lot. You've added a lot of context that wasn't there for me before.
People who read the room to cater to an audience are never worth listening to, it is a waste of time. But in a corporate talk that is understandable as I think Google didn't have solving the middle eastern conflict on its agenda.
I still think your reaction to his opinion or view is a bit childish. But as I said, understandable in a corporate environment. The mistake was to give this opinion in an "official" position.
You should also refrain from stating your reaction in such a context.
I still think your reaction to his opinion or view is a bit childish. But as I said, understandable in a corporate environment. The mistake was to give this opinion in an "official" position.
You should also refrain from stating your reaction in such a context.
Matt's view is spot on. While his intentions may have been positive, this was cringe-inducing read all the way. Don't understand why people feel the need to publish their dumbest thoughts publicly on social media to get lynched in the court of public opinion. Writing an opinion piece on topics like this is a little like making love to a porcupine - you have to be very careful. It has never been worth it to someone's reputation (however well-intentioned) or career to come out and say anything of this sort, political correctness is an asset, particularly for someone in his role and level. The framing and choice of language really did him in.
Perfect quote paragraph you have there, it would have been ideal indeed. However i agree he's not there yet, but trying to make the transition in public, while boosting his ego = recipe for disaster.
Another way i was thinking about it, is someone on such a high position can't be such a dummy, therefore he might have unconsciously chose to spend some of his accumulated status/power to stoke some awareness to some factor that he believes it should be more spread; and managed to do a terrible job a communication whatever was his thorn.
Another way i was thinking about it, is someone on such a high position can't be such a dummy, therefore he might have unconsciously chose to spend some of his accumulated status/power to stoke some awareness to some factor that he believes it should be more spread; and managed to do a terrible job a communication whatever was his thorn.
[deleted]
Don't ask, don't tell: racism edition
Except being racist is bad and being gay isn't.
This is just our current social construction. There was a time right-here in the US when those were reversed. And there are societies right now where those are reversed.
There was a time in the west when having a vagina made you property, it does not stop any of us from judging those societies or criticizing current societies.
So? That doesn't change the fact that being gay is okay and being racist is bad. The obvious connotation of the post was that "don't ask, don't tell for racism" is bad in the same way that it was bad for homosexuality in the military - but there is obviously no comparison between being gay and being a racist.
And those societies are wrong.
damned if you do, damned if you don't!!
> When employees expressed their discomfort at the all-hands meeting Wednesday, the executive doubled down on his manifesto and insisted employees misunderstood, they said.
It doesn’t look at he’s really open to feedback, doesn’t seem much sensible about how people react to his opinions in general.
Other people might take the wrong message from his demotion, but then it also means they didn’t really care looking into the details, so wouldn’t they have been mistaken in other ways if he stayed in position and continued spitting weird manifestos ?
It doesn’t look at he’s really open to feedback, doesn’t seem much sensible about how people react to his opinions in general.
Other people might take the wrong message from his demotion, but then it also means they didn’t really care looking into the details, so wouldn’t they have been mistaken in other ways if he stayed in position and continued spitting weird manifestos ?
This is the type of change we need to celebrate in people not further scrutinize!
As a Jew I would love to create dialogue with a person who realized the past hate was unjust, to hear why the hate existed and more importantly to understand what opened their eyes.
It is that process that will help eliminate hate across the board. Today as a society we approach discrimination through censorship and cancel culture which unfortunately will not solve deep rooted hate.
As a Jew I would love to create dialogue with a person who realized the past hate was unjust, to hear why the hate existed and more importantly to understand what opened their eyes.
It is that process that will help eliminate hate across the board. Today as a society we approach discrimination through censorship and cancel culture which unfortunately will not solve deep rooted hate.
Showing grace for past sins is crucial for a heterogenous society to operate well. Let the guy be honest and open, it may encourage others to do the same and acknowledge differences.
> As a Jew I would love to create dialogue with a person who realized the past hate was unjust, to hear why the hate existed and more importantly to understand what opened their eyes.
There were opportunities for this to happen with this person. They did not go great.
There were opportunities for this to happen with this person. They did not go great.
As awkward is his note was, this is a public admission that he had bigoted views and grew and is still trying to grow out of them. I wish I was a fly on the wall at Google to understand why that's not acceptable. Growing and learning is necessary and the only hope.
Here's what I think happened:
The Powers That Be took a short look at this drama and decided that no, this is not the hill to die on. They never are. Being perceived as tolerating antisemitism because VP Weirdo keeps getting "misunderstood" over a "manifesto"? That's not even a hill anymore, it's a grave someone dug for themselves.
The Powers That Be took a short look at this drama and decided that no, this is not the hill to die on. They never are. Being perceived as tolerating antisemitism because VP Weirdo keeps getting "misunderstood" over a "manifesto"? That's not even a hill anymore, it's a grave someone dug for themselves.
The post is not the only relevant data point here.
Maybe Google is taking the view that anything even remotely controversial which could cause someone to look negatively upon the company, is a cancer that must be removed immediately.
Except Kamau Bobb, who was simply removed from
Doing diversity activities at Google but still employed here.
This is a fact of life for Israelis and surrounding Arab countries. I am unsure why we pretend that these negative sentiments about each other do not exist -- they are incredibly widespread in these populations.
Unfortunately in the countries around Israel with whom they have had wars, there is significant anti-Semitism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3136059.stm
And in Israel there is significant anti-Arab sentiment, which rose significantly as a result of Palestinian terrorist attacks in the early 2000s: https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-shows-large-swaths-of-isr...
Unfortunately in the countries around Israel with whom they have had wars, there is significant anti-Semitism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3136059.stm
And in Israel there is significant anti-Arab sentiment, which rose significantly as a result of Palestinian terrorist attacks in the early 2000s: https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-shows-large-swaths-of-isr...
[deleted]
isn't anti-semitic and anti-arab the same term? historically/technically speaking
My takeaway from this if you've ever done or said something bad in the past, bury it. Don't ever bring it up again. Don't confess to it, don't talk about how you've changed, just bury it. Your past is an empty black hole, because otherwise it seems, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This guy should be applauded for recognizing his own hatred, and how he's changed and left that hate behind. Instead, he loses his job.
Is forgiveness and growing from our mistakes completely dead now?
Is forgiveness and growing from our mistakes completely dead now?
>Is forgiveness and growing from our mistakes completely dead now?
Yes. And you nailed it; there can be no explanation of anything anymore. Nuance is irrelevant. Best to keep all conversation strictly professional, maybe talk about sports teams or the weather but that's it. Your personal thoughts must now be either kept completely internal or published anonymously if you wish to take part in our progressive society.
Yes. And you nailed it; there can be no explanation of anything anymore. Nuance is irrelevant. Best to keep all conversation strictly professional, maybe talk about sports teams or the weather but that's it. Your personal thoughts must now be either kept completely internal or published anonymously if you wish to take part in our progressive society.
Let this be a lesson to all of you. First, don't write manifestos online of any sort, one day your words might be held against you. Second, don't admit guilt to anything, ever. All these 'unconscious bias' and 'majority guilt' are about soliciting admissions from you.
"As a person of X, I realized I was discriminating against people of Y." That's guilt. That's fire-able.
Don't emulate behavior just because it's fashionable. You might get the impression that society is run like a college campus now, but it isn't. All this activism isn't for you, it's for political control.
"As a person of X, I realized I was discriminating against people of Y." That's guilt. That's fire-able.
Don't emulate behavior just because it's fashionable. You might get the impression that society is run like a college campus now, but it isn't. All this activism isn't for you, it's for political control.
I don't understand this new culture of not allowing people to have redemption. The past isn't the present or future. People change, that is what is so problematic with "cancel culture," and digging up old tweets, etc.
> There's just something unsustainable about an environment that demands constant atonement but actively disdains the very idea of forgiveness.
-- Elisabeth Bruenig
-- Elisabeth Bruenig
If you do it at personal level not representing a company is fine. But this dude thinks mixing politics and work is a good idea...being a VP. Clearly he lacks emotional intelligence or common sense.
Mixing politics and work is the new American corporate mantra (as long as its a certain strain of politics)
I understand that this is embarrassing to Google any way they handle it, but surely this is the worst thing to do?
To me, this is the work, the hard part of inclusion. Understanding that people are not always perfect and sometimes very flawed.
To me, this is the work, the hard part of inclusion. Understanding that people are not always perfect and sometimes very flawed.
This is the easy solution, just fire the guy and go back to being a Happy Corporate Family.
But then again, he seems to be lacking in leadership skills if he keeps getting "misunderstood" regarding his manifesto.
Protip: your VPs should never write any kind of manifesto involving jews in any shape or form. Stick to banal business management tropes like anyone else.
But then again, he seems to be lacking in leadership skills if he keeps getting "misunderstood" regarding his manifesto.
Protip: your VPs should never write any kind of manifesto involving jews in any shape or form. Stick to banal business management tropes like anyone else.
I don't think him claiming he's keeps getting misunderstood is necessarily an indictment of him. Sometimes the misunderstanding comes from readers having a particular mindset, so they see everything through the lense of their preconceptions, which might not match up with what the author was thinking.
He is an VP, great communication skills is key to his success, that also includes understanding his audience. Like in, maybe I can write about diversity and inclusion without referencing my horrible antisemitism because holy shit that would be bonkers to bring up in a corporate context.
Agreed. I would think that as a VP he would understand this and have access to resources that would help him with phrasing etc. However, since that particular horse has left the barn.
I think there is more to the story than just his manifesto coming out. I feel like there was tension even before this incident, and this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
We should be encouraging such introspection and admittance of past failures. It gives people the opportunity to change. If we don't reward people for changing, they will never change!
We should be encouraging such introspection and admittance of past failures. It gives people the opportunity to change. If we don't reward people for changing, they will never change!
I complemented Google for how they handled a similar situation in the comments of a HN article from a few weeks ago[0]. In that case, they reassigned their head of diversity in light of his former antisemitic statements which had been recently uncovered. Just like their "VP of developer relations for Google Cloud" Amr Awadallah, their "head of diversity" Kamau Bobb had publicly renounced their old ways but, given the nature of their position, it didn't make sense to keep them there.
The difference is in that case Google reassigned Bobb to a position which would not be compromised by their past. In this case, they outright fired Awadallah. That raises some red flags.
As many other commenters have pointed out, we don't know the whole story and probably never will. This line from the article might shed a little more light on the situation, though:
> Within the manifesto, Awadallah describes how he was "cautious" of VMware co-founder Mendel Rosenblum based on his last name
If Awadallah had a history of antisemitism while at the company that had been recently uncovered, it could make sense for him to be terminated. And if that were the case, I doubt Google could speak publicly about it.
I want to promote a society which doesn't hold people forever accountable for past mistakes and allows them to change and improve. But I also don't want to promote a society where misdeeds go entirely unpunished just because the perpetrator apologized in a social media post. It's hard to strike a balance and I'm hesitant to comment any more about this story without more information.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27381425
The difference is in that case Google reassigned Bobb to a position which would not be compromised by their past. In this case, they outright fired Awadallah. That raises some red flags.
As many other commenters have pointed out, we don't know the whole story and probably never will. This line from the article might shed a little more light on the situation, though:
> Within the manifesto, Awadallah describes how he was "cautious" of VMware co-founder Mendel Rosenblum based on his last name
If Awadallah had a history of antisemitism while at the company that had been recently uncovered, it could make sense for him to be terminated. And if that were the case, I doubt Google could speak publicly about it.
I want to promote a society which doesn't hold people forever accountable for past mistakes and allows them to change and improve. But I also don't want to promote a society where misdeeds go entirely unpunished just because the perpetrator apologized in a social media post. It's hard to strike a balance and I'm hesitant to comment any more about this story without more information.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27381425
It’s possible they saw firing their head of diversity (which I think they should have) as politically messy. Easier to fire some people of color than others. In the situation you pointed out, Google may have feared BLM more than they fear the Arab world. It really feels like there’s an algorithm at work here, not rational sense.
Like many large organizations, Google condone controversial material expressions of individualism, without approval by PR/legal/HR (which are granted only when it benefits the organization, and typically with carefully sanitized scripts). At Google, this has been true for 15+ years and is not new.
If you look at the top brass at any large org, they all subjugate their individualism to focus on reinforcing carefully crafted PR/legal sound bites.
If you look at the top brass at any large org, they all subjugate their individualism to focus on reinforcing carefully crafted PR/legal sound bites.
Typo: doesn't condone
Now, as ever, the advice to never apologize to this particular crowd holds true. Google is just one more bunch reinforcing this point.
"When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard." -Sun Tzu
You should allow your opposition to at least believe they have an alternative to digging in and fighting you to the bitter end. Even if you have no intention of allowing them to escape or surrender, you should let them believe it's still possible.
You should allow your opposition to at least believe they have an alternative to digging in and fighting you to the bitter end. Even if you have no intention of allowing them to escape or surrender, you should let them believe it's still possible.
> they have an alternative to digging in and fighting you to the bitter end
There was an alternative though. The alternative was for this guy to not make a cringy blog post about his past anti-semitism, and simply not talk about it.
The solution to people having horrible ideas in the past, is not for them to make giant, public renouncements.
Instead, the solution is for those people to be ashamed enough about their past positions, that they won't even admit that they held them.
That is a really good solution for most people, as most people are not going to have every little detail of their past interrogated. It is very much possible for people with these bad ideas, to merely stop having those bad ideas, pretend like they never had them, and join productive society.
There was an alternative though. The alternative was for this guy to not make a cringy blog post about his past anti-semitism, and simply not talk about it.
The solution to people having horrible ideas in the past, is not for them to make giant, public renouncements.
Instead, the solution is for those people to be ashamed enough about their past positions, that they won't even admit that they held them.
That is a really good solution for most people, as most people are not going to have every little detail of their past interrogated. It is very much possible for people with these bad ideas, to merely stop having those bad ideas, pretend like they never had them, and join productive society.
When you surround an anthill, you can just stomp on it, though. Corporate political correctness is built on the perceived certainty of being so far on the winning side of history that any other point of view isn't worth considering.
I think I'm confused here.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but stomping an anthill wouldn't be 'winning' you would be pressed into your own retreat pretty quickly.
I believe the quote holds true, leave an out they will retreat or at least try. Cutoff all egress and it's a fight to the death.
Or was that what you were saying and I misunderstood? Or was I just wrong on all accounts?
I don't mean to be pedantic, but stomping an anthill wouldn't be 'winning' you would be pressed into your own retreat pretty quickly.
I believe the quote holds true, leave an out they will retreat or at least try. Cutoff all egress and it's a fight to the death.
Or was that what you were saying and I misunderstood? Or was I just wrong on all accounts?
Nah, I just had a bad day for metaphors. What I was getting at was that in corporate-conscience situations, the corporation doesn't perceive itself as even being in a battle; if they did, they wouldn't get involved, because it would be bad for business.
Progress in the long run may seem inevitable, but certainty of victory can be dangerous in the short to medium term. Whig history ignores the possibility of setbacks. Progressive democracies have fallen to authoritarian dictatorships in the past, and there will likely be more examples in the future. Hubris is not your friend.
Just a few days ago, there was a submission on HN about an Ancient Greek city where one side was so totally sure about its victory that it committed unspeakable crimes on the losing side - only to get whacked once a foreign military force allied with the losers arrived and the still surviving ones suddenly had a chance of revenge.
I fully expected to read his post and dismiss it with the idea that as a leader your first job is to make your employees comfortable and feel safe and respected.
But it’s a genuine, good post. There are so many better ways for Google to have handled this than to just fire like they’ve done with AI researchers before.
The relevant comic is: https://goomics.net/327/
But it’s a genuine, good post. There are so many better ways for Google to have handled this than to just fire like they’ve done with AI researchers before.
The relevant comic is: https://goomics.net/327/
> In an awkward attempt to decry hate amid the Israel-Palestinian conflict, he listed all the Jews he knew who he said were good people. Employees said his public admission, which omitted major historic Jewish events, made it difficult for public-facing developer advocates who are tasked with being the face and bridge for Google developers internally and externally.
It is weird to create a list of "good" Jews. But it seems to me like it may be a genuine attempt at positivity.
Most of what talking heads cry about Cancel Culture is just "consequences for having bad attitude/behavior". But this case seems like things going overboard.
It is weird to create a list of "good" Jews. But it seems to me like it may be a genuine attempt at positivity.
Most of what talking heads cry about Cancel Culture is just "consequences for having bad attitude/behavior". But this case seems like things going overboard.
The issue is in Egypt and other Arab nations they never meet any Jewish people at all. They just see the stereotypes, etc. When you never meet people you can view them as complete evil because you buy the propaganda.
This leads to the contact hypothesis as a means of reducing prejudice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis
This leads to the contact hypothesis as a means of reducing prejudice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis
- It takes real programmer brain to publicly post a 10k word solution for world peace littered with pop culture references
- If you are an executive for any company, maybe don't publicly share your opinion of the israeli/palestinian conflict, using your real name, and try to buy twitter ads pointing to it
- If you are an executive for any company, maybe don't publicly share your opinion of the israeli/palestinian conflict, using your real name, and try to buy twitter ads pointing to it
The rule is true, although the reason why I would agree with your recommendation is mostly a flaw I see in the audience, not necessarily with the sender.
Link to the actual manifesto: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-one-amr-awadallah/
This makes it a little clearer why Google parted ways with him.
This makes it a little clearer why Google parted ways with him.
Meanwhile here’s how Google handles present-day racism against Jewish people: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdbHft64/
[deleted]
I think there is a basic rule at work: Don't mix politics and work. There are type of personal positions political, religious and sexual that are always controversial and is better to keep it to yourself.
As a VP of DevRel he definitely should be focusing in work related topics as afaik Google isnt #1 Cloud there.
In today's world we have been including sexual preferences as a norm for people to share at the workspace which has also triggered people and in my opinion we should keep it personal. In this case Awr is a VP who manages multiple people of Jewish origin. Looks like absolutely he has nothing better to do that decided that it was a good idea to write a blog post and record a video. This topic is not going to bring people together he really has very low emotional intelligence whatever his intention was. Good riddance
Antisemitism is a lot like pedophilia; if you find yourself even mentioning its' existence, you're immediately suspect yourself. Best to never let the words even come out of your mouth regardless of context. Deny, suppress, gaslight, and ignore anything that even remotely touches the subject. No one ever got brownie points for profoundly exclaiming their lack of hatred for jewish people.
(And you see I'll be downvoted here for even mentioning it. Q.E.D.)
(And you see I'll be downvoted here for even mentioning it. Q.E.D.)
I read the majority of the linkedin post.
While it starts off benign enough with renouncing antisemetism and wierdly anti-zionism it soon goes into a tirade.
After the first few parts it's mostly about the Israel-Palastinian conflict (mostly denouncing Israel's actions), with a lot of denouncing Trump a long the way.
For a company trying for the last few months to get rid of politics in the office, I can definitely see how this would be a firing offense from a top executive.
While it starts off benign enough with renouncing antisemetism and wierdly anti-zionism it soon goes into a tirade.
After the first few parts it's mostly about the Israel-Palastinian conflict (mostly denouncing Israel's actions), with a lot of denouncing Trump a long the way.
For a company trying for the last few months to get rid of politics in the office, I can definitely see how this would be a firing offense from a top executive.
Awadallah will land on his feet, but what signal does this send to other holders of hateful ideologies? To me, the signal is: “You can’t change. Not really. If you ever held a heterodox view, ever expressed that view in any medium at any time in you life, or were caught in our surveillance capitalist nightmare systems doing so, you’re dead to us.”
How does that inspire anyone to change their view?
How does that inspire anyone to change their view?
I think we're going to get to the point where people only share their views on sensitive manners in anonymous / pseudo-anonymous forums, so they can't be linked to you.
That's not necessarily terrible.
That's not necessarily terrible.
I think it is terrible for society in the long term. We can post anonymously for now, but that may become much more difficult in the future.
We need to encourage a society that takes words into context, and assumes good faith instead of imagining the worst possible interpretation of everything. Similarly, we need to encourage people changing their views. Casting out anyone who said something bad, ever, independent of any character growth or changes of opinion as one becomes more knowledgeable, is going to lead to people continuing to hold horrible views... just in private.
Right now there is zero incentive to publicly apologize about anything or change one's opinion because people don't care about that, they just want punitive actions taken regardless of any changes afterwards. That doesn't really help address the underlying issues of racism, -isms, etc, at all....
We need to encourage a society that takes words into context, and assumes good faith instead of imagining the worst possible interpretation of everything. Similarly, we need to encourage people changing their views. Casting out anyone who said something bad, ever, independent of any character growth or changes of opinion as one becomes more knowledgeable, is going to lead to people continuing to hold horrible views... just in private.
Right now there is zero incentive to publicly apologize about anything or change one's opinion because people don't care about that, they just want punitive actions taken regardless of any changes afterwards. That doesn't really help address the underlying issues of racism, -isms, etc, at all....
Great, so, you post that you used to hate all Vikings... And you're my manager. And now I sue the company because I didn't get a raise, back in the time before the post.
You can't pretend there are no consequences to stating you have feelings that can impact other people. Even if what you're claiming is that you're reformed.
"I'm a recovering alcoholic," says the doctor. "Great!" say all of the lawyers with malpractice lawsuits against the doctor. You just can't avoid those consequences.
People will always hold horrible views. That's not going to change.
Of course there's an incentive to change your opinion - growth. If you need to PERFORM that you've grown, then I think that's pretty dangerous attention seeking. If you want to make a livelihood out of being a leader, where your transformation is part of your credentials, then yes, that's a risk, which you have to calculate.
> That doesn't really help address the underlying issues of racism, -isms, etc, at all....
I'm not really convinced talking does address those. Especially not on social media. I think people have to get to know each other on a personal basis.
It's funny to me how we all run so hot and cold on social media. Right now, y'all are defending social media, in the context of performing that you're reformed on some topic.
Also, so much of this is tied up in the context of employee / employer relationships. Like, if you don't work for a company, you're probably way more free to express your views, to a point.
Like for instance, Bill Cosby wants to do a stand-up tour.
Should he be "cancelled"?
If you feel strongly no, then, well, I guess you can support venues that want to host him.
Some companies are going to shun people like this VP. Maybe you want to support companies that don't.
Or what about the Google Creep [1]?
How much should he have to apologize, or take sensitivity training, etc, before you'd hire him at a company where he'd be in touch with sensitive user information? We're all going to have different answers to that. We can't come up with one rule. So, maybe you want to support companies that give people like him a second chance. I don't feel that need.
There's lots of other parameters that are way more important to me, in evaluating companies I want to do business with, than their being responsible for managing the healing and forgiving process for people who made public mistakes that put the companies they worked for in potentially hot legal water.
[1] : https://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-te...
You can't pretend there are no consequences to stating you have feelings that can impact other people. Even if what you're claiming is that you're reformed.
"I'm a recovering alcoholic," says the doctor. "Great!" say all of the lawyers with malpractice lawsuits against the doctor. You just can't avoid those consequences.
People will always hold horrible views. That's not going to change.
Of course there's an incentive to change your opinion - growth. If you need to PERFORM that you've grown, then I think that's pretty dangerous attention seeking. If you want to make a livelihood out of being a leader, where your transformation is part of your credentials, then yes, that's a risk, which you have to calculate.
> That doesn't really help address the underlying issues of racism, -isms, etc, at all....
I'm not really convinced talking does address those. Especially not on social media. I think people have to get to know each other on a personal basis.
It's funny to me how we all run so hot and cold on social media. Right now, y'all are defending social media, in the context of performing that you're reformed on some topic.
Also, so much of this is tied up in the context of employee / employer relationships. Like, if you don't work for a company, you're probably way more free to express your views, to a point.
Like for instance, Bill Cosby wants to do a stand-up tour.
Should he be "cancelled"?
If you feel strongly no, then, well, I guess you can support venues that want to host him.
Some companies are going to shun people like this VP. Maybe you want to support companies that don't.
Or what about the Google Creep [1]?
How much should he have to apologize, or take sensitivity training, etc, before you'd hire him at a company where he'd be in touch with sensitive user information? We're all going to have different answers to that. We can't come up with one rule. So, maybe you want to support companies that give people like him a second chance. I don't feel that need.
There's lots of other parameters that are way more important to me, in evaluating companies I want to do business with, than their being responsible for managing the healing and forgiving process for people who made public mistakes that put the companies they worked for in potentially hot legal water.
[1] : https://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-te...
>> anonymous / pseudo-anonymous forums, so they can't be linked to you
Such places increasingly do not exist.
With few exceptions, practically all electronic communication can be traced.
Microphones are almost everywhere and voice recognition is very advanced.
"Privacy" increasing means that someone is paid well enough to not need to monetize your communications, but that they will still have the data ready to hand over if law enforcement comes knocking with a warrant or subpoena.
Such places increasingly do not exist.
With few exceptions, practically all electronic communication can be traced.
Microphones are almost everywhere and voice recognition is very advanced.
"Privacy" increasing means that someone is paid well enough to not need to monetize your communications, but that they will still have the data ready to hand over if law enforcement comes knocking with a warrant or subpoena.
If your goal is to redeem people instead of punish them, it's terrible. We want people to give up hate and rejoin society.
Opinions without identities are meaningless. We are increasingly living in a society where the only opinions we can attach to a human are from our families or talking heads on TV and social media.
It is an issue if those forums are echo chambers blinding people to the outside world or opposing viewpoints.
American has the fallen hero rebirth meme. It doesn't mean you get to stay where you were though and it requires a bunch of hard work and positive PR to get out of.
Has Mel Gibson recovered?
Has Mel Gibson recovered?
You can literally can change, you dont have to write a linkedin post about it.
> “You can’t change. Not really.
Well, you can though. Let me tell you a different thing that it signals.
It signals, that if you hold a harmful ideology, that not only should you change to it, but that you should be ashamed enough that you will never admit that you even held these ideas in the past.
It is not that hard, for most people (emphasis on most. If you run for senate, or something, it is a different story), to simply lie and say that they never held these opinions in the past.
Incentivizing people who believe these things, to vehemently deny they every held them, doesn't sound too bad of an outcome to me.
Well, you can though. Let me tell you a different thing that it signals.
It signals, that if you hold a harmful ideology, that not only should you change to it, but that you should be ashamed enough that you will never admit that you even held these ideas in the past.
It is not that hard, for most people (emphasis on most. If you run for senate, or something, it is a different story), to simply lie and say that they never held these opinions in the past.
Incentivizing people who believe these things, to vehemently deny they every held them, doesn't sound too bad of an outcome to me.
[deleted]
This confirms what many (like Sam Harris) have suspected a long time: political correctness for large companies is about PR, not about doing what's right or improving people.
Is the LinkedIn post renouncing their anti-semitism a spontaneous act that triggered the firing? Or were they internally in trouble with HR and the LinkedIn post renouncing antisemitism was a last-minute attempt to get ahead of an issue that could damage their career? We can’t know, but I suggest being careful whenever someone expertly and publicly spins themselves as the victim in a situation like this.
Either way, a company’s hands are virtually tied when someone publicly makes declarations like this:
> “I hated the Jewish people, all the Jewish people”!
And that same person is responsible for matters of customer relations and/or managing internal employees. Whether or not he genuinely renounced his beliefs, making a statement like that adds suspicion on top of past and even future actions by this person. When (not if) he has to make a difficult decision or take an unpopular action involving Jewish customers or employees, they will always wonder how much his public declaration of past hatred for Jewish people was a factor.