Google engineer fired over memo is a UI grad, Bronze Tablet scholar

Google engineer fired over memo is a UI grad, Bronze Tablet scholar

Submit your Letter to the Editor here

URBANA — The Google engineer fired after writing an internal memo arguing that biological differences play a role in the dearth of women in top tech jobs was a University of Illinois Bronze Tablet scholar.

James Damore, 28, a software engineer at Google since 2013, graduated from the UI in 2010, a UI spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday. He earned a bachelor's degree in molecular and cellular biology, with minors in physics and chemistry, according to his LinkedIn profile. A post on a Facebook page that appears to belong to him also lists these details:

He received University Honors for graduating in the top 3 percent of his class. An online resume states that he had a 3.93 grade point average.

Damore, who is from the Chicago suburb of Romeoville, attended the Illinois Math and Science Academy during high school and was a competitive chess player, according to his resume.

After graduating from the UI, he did research in systems biology at MIT and Harvard, then enrolled at Harvard for two years, according to LinkedIn. But he dropped out before completing his Ph.D., The New York Times said.

His 10-page memo, "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," argued that "personality differences" between men and women — like a woman having a lower tolerance for stress — help explain why there were fewer women in engineering and leadership roles at the company. He said efforts by the company to reach equal representation of women in technology and leadership were "unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

The memo was shared widely in Silicon Valley and drew criticism in an industry where women are underrepresented in leadership positions. Google, which has been accused by the Labor Department of systematically paying women less than men, said the memo was hurtful to other employees and would make it difficult for Damore to work with women, according to media reports.

But many conservatives supported Damore, arguing that tech companies like Google suppress contrary viewpoints on issues like diversity. Damore has filed a complaint against the company late Tuesday.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CallSaul wrote on August 08, 2017 at 10:08 pm

So the special little snowflake is suing because he got fired after advocating discrimination against women based on delusional crackpot misogyny...?

This'll be interesting.

And the already underway mass flip out of the reactionary Archie Bunker types will be entertaining as well as informative... 

Annotator wrote on August 08, 2017 at 11:08 pm

"And the already underway mass flip out of the reactionary Archie Bunker types will be entertaining as well as informative..."

I agreed with you up to this quip.  I'm certain there will be very little future coverage of this "story" in the mass media.

champaign61821 wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

I find it ironic someone as liberal as you resorted to calling someone a "special little snowflake". Isn't that the same insult that conservatives typically yell at liberals? The same conservatives you bash day in and day out? Oh well, true logic and reasoning isn't your strong suit, so here's an article that actually takes an objective look at what Mr. Damore had to say:


Why is no one willing to argue with reason, logic, and facts any longer? They just shout down whomever is trying to present a reasonable counter-arguement. This man presented (however not very effectively) some real biological factors that play a role in the workplace differences between males and females. Those biological factors exist, but are compeltely ignored in workplace diversity pushes.

CallSaul, you just help prove his larger point. Having any opinion counter to the PC narrative gets you shouted down. But, I know this fact will be lost on you and you'll just shout me down, too. (Oh, and PS, I'm not a conservative, but I bet you'll paint me as one anyway.)

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

Yah, irony is a tough concept to grasp...

I could care less about whether you're right or left wing, though your complaints about the 'pc narrative' is certainly consistent with rightwing whining about there being consequences for expressing bigotry...

As is your claim that only your interpretation can be a result of 'true logic and reasoning' while anyone who doesn't share your misogynistic take on the memo clearly cannot be using 'true logic and reasoning.'

You're obviously have some skewed ideas about male and female biology affecting a person's suitability to be a software engineer...

And here's a hint: someone daring to express disagreement with you is not shouting you down, snowflake...

champaign61821 wrote on August 09, 2017 at 11:08 am

I take each issue at face value. Any one who views issues through their left wing or right wing lens can't truly be objective, and their arguement immediately loses weight. Anyone who believe that men and women's brains are built the same, really doesn't have any true understanding of biology (and much of how the human brain works is still not even fully understood). This man's arguement was flawed because he too viewed it through a veil of politcal rhetoric, but that doesn't make many of his scientific arguements any less valid.


There is a way to debate this topic without name calling and shouting, but that is just not common enough in society anymore.

rsp wrote on August 08, 2017 at 11:08 pm

I have a feeling this guy doesn't have any knowledge of women. He doesn't have any knowledge of the history of engineering either. As for women having a lower tolerance for stress, it's his fragile ego that seems to need protection.

fuddrules wrote on August 09, 2017 at 8:08 am

NPR has a story that some women at Google had to stay home due to stress from the memo.  Oh the irony.  


And to add, employees that have good attendance earn more than those who don't have good attendance.  Just sayin.

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 9:08 pm

fuddrules -  that hurt my ribs, shame on you using intellect, logic, and facts on unarmed people. 

Milanus wrote on August 08, 2017 at 11:08 pm

Did you even read the memo he wrote, at all? Please point to where you see this misogyny?

CommonSenseless wrote on August 09, 2017 at 7:08 am

That isn't Saul's style.  First and foremost, he must virtue signal (ironically anonymously), then disparage, then digress to another topic not even mentioned in the first place.

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

Uh, the part where he ruminates about how biology makes women unsuited for the job, maybe...?


(Obviously and for the irony challenged, I don't expect that you do...or at least you're pretending not to...)

MarkDibley wrote on August 09, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Saulie didn't read the memo, because that would mean challenging his ideological beliefs with a reasonable and rational argument.

Saulie's kind have been pushing as hard as they can for more women at Google. They spent $115 million dollars in 2015 to get more women, they have a diversity chief, they talk ALL THE TIME about how they're doing their best to attract more women. What have their efforts achieved? A workforce comprised of 80% men, 20% women. Obviously this is not working. If only someone could take a different look at their efforts, bring a different point of view to the table and help them determine if they need to change their efforts to achieve better results.

If only someone could write a sourced, cited, rational, reasonable argument pointing out the flaws in their diversity efforts, address some of the--on average--differences in preference and ability traits between men and women, and use that information to propose how Google can change their gameplan to attract more women to work at the company. I mean, after all, Sundar Pichai--the CEO of Google--states on their Diversity webpage that “a diverse mix of voices leads to better discussions, decisions, and outcomes for everyone." I'm sure they would welcome these well-intentiioned suggestions. WRONG. You don't toe our ideological line, STFU and GTFO.

Saulie and his ilk are so blinded by their emotionallly unstable, swollen amygdala possessing brains that they cannot see that their refusal to deal with the reality--in this case the on-average differences men and women. Instead of considering what Mr. Damore has presented and seeing if they could modify their approach to achieve better results THAT WOULD HELP WOMEN, they must plow firmly ahead with the tired tropes of their failing ideology. What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Look in the mirror, Saulie.

champaign61821 wrote on August 09, 2017 at 1:08 pm

What a well thought-out, rational arguement. It has no place on the internet, though. Or, in modern society, for that matter. Go spew your worthless rational dialogue somewhere else! All kidding aside, thank you for that. It was refreshing. 


On another note, I find it interesting that Silicon Valley can be so into science in their tech jobs and their apparent respect for environment science with our their green buildings, but push back against the basic sciences of biology and anatomy.

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Anyone willingly swallowing the unscientific and loony misogyny in the memo has by that willingness made quite clear all we need to know about their capacity for logic and reason. 

Supposedly 'scientific' reasons were, and of course still are, trotted out to justify all sorts of racial and ethnic bigotry and prejudice.

That doesn't make them any more true than the tripe in the memo.

Those who assert women are biologically --- and anatomically! --- ill suited to software engineering are showing how foolish and misogynistic they are as well as boradcasting to the world that they have absolutely no understanding of actual biology, anatomy, sociology and a whole host of other scientifc inquiry.

As well as of course being completely ignorant of software engineering itself...

Slapping 'citations' onto delusional lunacy does not magically make it True Science...

MarkDibley wrote on August 09, 2017 at 2:08 pm

You really ought to contact the editors at the "British Journal of Guidance & Counselling", "Psychological Science", "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America", "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology", "Social and Personality Psychology Compass", "The Quarterly Journal of Economics", and some of the other publications and sources he references and let them know what kind of junk science they are producing. I'm sure they would appreciate you enlightening them.

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 3:08 pm

This comment betrays a complete lack of understanding of the process of scientific and broader academic inquiry.

Please cite where in my comment you believe I said anything about the validity of any publication.

Slapping a citation onto unscientific tripe does not magically transform the unscientific tripe into True Science regardless of the validity of the sources of the citations in and of themselves.

That you conveniently flout this fundamental fact shows the true nature of your commitment to actual scientific inquiry...

read the DI wrote on August 09, 2017 at 8:08 am

It was probably written out of spite. He doesn't look like a kid who has ever had any success with the ladies. We should all chip in 10 bucks and buy him a hooker.

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

I'm sure all of this will amp up his dating life...

Hey ladies, he's available....come and get it...!!11!!!!11!

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Did you really just suggest that he should simply "buy" a woman for ten dollars?  Are you advocating human trafficking and suggesting that women can be had as sex slaves, and cheap to boot?  And look who jumped up to cheer the comment with Pom-Poms.    This is awesome, it's like the circus but with free clowns. 

OffTheBusRunning wrote on August 09, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Of course you can't buy a woman for $10. You'd rent one

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 9:08 pm

You mean all this uproar was over simple semantics?  Who knew?   You may be a genius, I hear there's a job open at Google, they could use more smart people apparently. 

EMT wrote on August 09, 2017 at 9:08 am

Lets be honest.  If you flip the genders here everyone would be applauding him.  The problem is that tolerance culture is largely intolerant.  And equality culture finds little satisfaction in finding worth in the male gender, only in the female.  While his opinions arent representative of most folks, we should recognize the fact that if these things were said about women, nobody would be fired, in fact it would be applauded.  Which isnt equality.  Of course women are not inferior.  But for someone to be proud of their gender and it's strengths shouldn't be bashed either.  

CommonSenseless wrote on August 09, 2017 at 9:08 am

Nowhere in his memo did he suggest women were inferior, quite the opposite.  

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 7:08 pm

That's pretty much the same thing I read from it. I guess it's better to simply remain quiet while everyone screams about how nothing can be changed because you won't participate in the discussion. 

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

Ooooh, are you a MRA warrior? Are you into MGTOW?

Are you going to lecture all the ladies about how they're losing out on a superior genetic specimen by refusing to date you...ever...?

jlc wrote on August 09, 2017 at 2:08 pm

If you've got examples of women saying that men just aren't cut out to be teachers or nurses or child care workers because their brains aren't wired to care about other people and they're biologically unable to show as much compassion as women, I'd love to see them. Otherwise, your hypothetical doesn't carry much weight. wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

Funny Sauulie


In the past you have said that women should not carry CCW for they were weak and could have the gun taken from them.  There by implying that women were not as good as men.  I pointed out that there are lots of LEOs who are PO including the COP of Urbana.   You never responded back, but now that this guy writes a memo  you all about the moral outrage.

CommonSenseless wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

Being hypocritical is a requirement for lefties...

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 10:08 am

Of course, you're lying about this.

But why should you let that stop you from spouting yet another delusional talking point...?

'I pointed out that there are lots of LEOs who are PO including the COP of Urbana.'

I honestly have no idea what point you were trying lo make about law enforcement officers and cops when you strung these words together, seemingly at random (as is not infrequent regarding you generally incoherent scrawls)...

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 7:08 pm

In the interests of quelching the standard "nuh uh, but you are" argument tactics, here you go, took less than a minute to find, gotta love google, I can see now why Saul would cheer for the most talented employees to be fired. 

Amazing how what people write can come back to haunt them so easily, I hope you will accept it with grace when your peers turn on you and circle the wagons.

Written by CALLSAUL on July 26, 2017 at 2:07 pm in the News Gazette comment section:

"But the fact is that most abusers who kill their (ex) wives and girlfriends use guns to do so.  Are you positing that the (woman) victim in this case would have been able to retrieve and use a gun on the attacker without the attacker overpowering her and using the gun on her and possibly others?" 

Standing by for ranting tirade of unrelated hate-filled jibberish.    *Yawn*

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Here's the article with the whole subthread:

And note that you added '(woman)' to the comment --- I didn't write that. I referred to the person as 'her' because that's how the commenter I was responding to referred to her.

Now please explain how you believe my comment in any way supports the lie that I said 'women who carry concealed have a greater chance of losing their weapon than their male counterparts, there by implying that women are weaker than men.' 

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 9:08 pm

Dance around the facts all you like, it's not going to put your burning pants out.  The person told you that you wrote it, there's the proof that you repeatedly swore did not exist, don't bother apologizing for repeatedly calling them a liar, and don't be absurd, no one can explain anything to you, that's proven fact.

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 9:08 pm

This kind of desperate rejection of plain undeniable facts in full view right in front of your face is unfortunately all too typical of reactionary rightwing extremists these days...

At least you admit that, because you're lying just like the other RWNJ, you can't explain how my comment in any way equates with what he and now you falsely claim.

CallSaul wrote on August 10, 2017 at 11:08 am

And to be clear, if the person gave an example using a man, I would have asked the exact same question.

Anyone pulling a Walter Mitty in such a situation she described and pulling out a piece at a cramped restaurant table or booth would be liable to have the gun taken away from them, regardless of the genders of the people involved in the fantasy restaurant shoot out...

wayward wrote on August 09, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Interesting -- he claimed he'd been in touch with the NLRB before he was fired:

A little curious whether it's possible that his career at Google could have been stalling for other reasons.

jlc wrote on August 09, 2017 at 2:08 pm

I read the memo. There's the part where he says women are more neurotic, for one, which is a misogynistic "explanation" that has been trotted out for over a hundred years.

But the real problem with the memo is that it says because biological differences exist, we shouldn't try to do anything about the non-biological differences. For all of his "no, I'm really in favor of diversity" protestations, he explicitly says that Google should stop devoting resources to improving that diversity. That's the problem with bringing in the biological differences argument: it's too easy to say, "it's just how their lady brains are wired!", and that's something you can't do anything about, so oh well.

CommonSenseless wrote on August 09, 2017 at 3:08 pm

You may have read the memo, but clearly you didn't comprehend it.  And neuroticism isn't what you think it are referring to hysteria.  

jlc wrote on August 10, 2017 at 11:08 am

Aside from apparently using synonyms incorrectly, what did I not understand?

CallSaul wrote on August 10, 2017 at 11:08 am

He'd explain it all at you using nothing but PURE LOGIC AND REASON but your cute little hysterical ladybrain just wouldn't be able to truly understand the depth and PURE POWER of his PURE LOGIC AND REASON, uncontaminated as it is by your ladyemotions and ladyneuroses and ladyhysteria...and your ladyestrogen too probably...

wykhb wrote on August 10, 2017 at 8:08 pm

It's pretty obvious who the expert on being a lady is here.     

CommonSenseless wrote on August 10, 2017 at 2:08 pm

JLC - They aren't synonyms, and only one of them was gender specific.  I'll give you a's the one whose root is Greek for uterus.  If you want to be triggered, at least be knowledgeable about what is triggering you, otherwise it is just a tantrum.

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Facts aren't misogynistic if they are facts.  I understand what you are relating but I feel that social engineering by force has repeatedly proven disastrous over so many areas of society.   Let me explain:

   Why use any means necessary to force a square peg through a round hole, when the square hole is obviously a better fit?   What I mean by that is: In a vocation which places a high value on logic, patience, and long hours of solitude,  do you really believe you are doing people who consistenly score and exhibit higher levels of neuroticism, anxiety, and depression a favor by employing them?  Or are you actually harming them by setting them up for failure?  I suggest that the best people for a given job should naturally present through proven performance.

Another example to address a point you make would be the military, where women perform dazzlingly.  But there are certain jobs which require traits that women don't biologically have.  Against all advice from actual experienced experts, the government forced those positions open to women, absolutely none thus far have been able to achieve the physical standards required.   Do we drop the standards which were established through hard lessons learned over time because they favor men?  If women die as a result, who will be accountable, will it be misogyny that killed them? 

Again I suggest that the most talented will be the natural people to rise to the top of any profession, any less is asking for... well, less.   Human nature and history shows that no matter who is on top, there will be those below with normal human emotions such as jealousy who will be dissatisfied with the arrangement and will relentlessy attack others, it is a coping mechanism to deal with personal failures. 


jlc wrote on August 10, 2017 at 11:08 am

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Once you claim that biology explains the difference in outcomes, there's no need to search for another explanation.

(Curious as to what job requires traits that women don't biologically have, aside from a specific type of escort service?)

wykhb wrote on August 10, 2017 at 12:08 pm

I could cite the valid research, but would it matter?  So biology does not account for men having superior strength and the associated chemical influences on the body and mind?  Biology doesn't account for women being capable of bearing children and the associated chemical influences on the body and mind?

Google didn't pop up and become successful overnight, the same guys who started it are still running it, would you say that THEY are responsible for the demographics of employees there?   How is it that they are going to point at someone and cry foul, deflection much?   If they don't know how the problem came to be, and they ask people to tell them, why then be upset at the results? 

Second time in this thread that a person screaming "misogyny" at others has insinuated something about women naturally being whores.  Good thing you don't work at google. 

wayward wrote on August 09, 2017 at 3:08 pm

I’m a Google Manufacturing Robot and I Believe Humans are Biologically Unfit to have Jobs in Tech

wykhb wrote on August 09, 2017 at 5:08 pm

The best part of this is that he will probably start his own company now and become a billionaire. Maybe even take out google which obviously has no skill at diversity despite trying to burn this guy at the stake for giving them exactly what they asked for.   I anxiously await the results of the lawsuit, you know, where the actual facts come out, any bets that he gets paid very well to go away and shhhhh? 

Top three in his class, Harvard quality, his memo was heavily read throughout silicone valley and now the world.  Yet here we are trapped with an Alinsky wannabe with Mad Hatter delusions who begs a small town comments section to cite his hateful, misogynistic, racist speech even while attacking anyone who dares disagree with it. 

Tick Tock...  Tick Tock... Tick Tock... 

read the DI wrote on August 11, 2017 at 6:08 am

Yeah, five years in at Google and still a drone in Sector 7G... he was really on a fast track to greatness. Face it, he's another hack who couldn't hack it. Even Steve Jobs had a couple friends. This clown screams virgin loser. wrote on August 09, 2017 at 5:08 pm

Sorry Saullie


As a LEO expert I thought you would know the terms.


let me help you


PO  Police Officer


LEO  law enforcement officer


COP  Chief Of Police


now.............. read my statement again using those acronms and tell me what part of that did you not understand.  you have stated that women who carry concealed have a greater chance of losing their weapon than their male counterparts, there by implying that women are weaker than men.  I called you out on it, just like I have with your statement that "family members are police officers"  who are  were they.  (grandmother, mom, uncle, second cousin once removed from your ex wifes side)...... where did they work  when did they work............


You have yet to let us know.

CallSaul wrote on August 09, 2017 at 5:08 pm

'LEO expert'...? That was weird...

Anyway, I understand the acronyms. 

But again, what is the point you're attempting to convey with this sentence: 'I pointed out that there are lots of LEOs who are PO including the COP of Urbana'?

What great insight do you believe you've hit upon there?

Simply repeating your lie about what I said is not actual evidence. Why won't you cite the comment in which you believe I made that assertion...?

The answer is of course is because you are very much aware that I made no such comment.

I'm under no obligation to provide you a list of cops in my family. And I really don't care that you say you don't believe I have cops in my family. 

Anyway, even if I did provide such a list, you'd no doubt simply reject it.

Heh, I bet you still believe the racist kookoo conspiracy theory that Obama isn't really American despite all the evidence, not to mention common sense, proving he undeniably is... 

read the DI wrote on August 10, 2017 at 6:08 am


wykhb wrote on August 10, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Someone seems anxious that they got called out for lying.    An adult would simply acknowledge the mistake and apologize to the person you were berating as you denied repeatedly, but no breath will be held here. 

Did you finally get netflix? you keep quoting a fictitious character named Walter Mitty, which of course is in keeping with the rest of the fiction that you write.  Who better to discuss fantasies of course. wrote on August 10, 2017 at 4:08 pm

'LEO expert'...? That was weird...


Over your posts you have told us about Law Enforcement is often wrong.  Citing your experience with Friends and Family whom are apparently police officers.  Where and when and for how long we can only guess.  I was giving you homage as you seem to believe that your an expert in your own mind.


Your comments that women are weak  ( her) and that they should not carry CCW is beyond the pale.


You have insulted every female  police officer in the US , including the past chief of police in Champaign, Urbana and the U of I with your comment.  You need to apologize.

CallSaul wrote on August 10, 2017 at 4:08 pm

So, just like the other lying RWNJ, you're not going to bother even attempting to explain how my comment in any way fit your delusional claim about it? 

I don't blame either of you for being afraid to even try defending your obvious and ham handed mischaracterization of my words --- such a task would be impossible for anyone.

Now you can resume sharing more insight about how a lot of law enforcement officers, including a chief of police, are actually in fact...wait for it...police officers...

wykhb wrote on August 10, 2017 at 9:08 pm

If this is not an artificially created SJW crisis, why isn't there a company dominated by females ruling the internet business world?  

They could have called it Giggle... wrote on August 11, 2017 at 11:08 am

This was your comment from June

I'm not sure if you're saying this happened to you or someone you know about or if it's a hypothetical you read about on the web.

But the fact is that most abusers who kill their (ex) wives and girlfriends use guns to do so. 

Are you positing that the victim in this case would have been able to retrieve and use a gun on the attacker without the attacker overpowering her and using the gun on her and possibly others?


Speaking of which.............. did this woman  get over powered getting her gun from her purse?


CallSaul wrote on August 11, 2017 at 11:08 am

Here's a link to the article with the full thread: Tom's #Mailbag, July 21, 2017.

I've asked you several times to explain how my question to that commenter supports your clumsy lie that I've said all women would be overpowered but you've of course proven unable to do so.

If the person in the example was a man, I would have said 'he' instead of 'she.' Would you then have claimed I'm biased against all males...?

Now, one option for you is to try to explain how a reasonable person might go from my question posed to the other commenter to your ridiculously over the top misrepresentation of my words. This would of course be an impossible task, but you could at least make a face saving effort to do so...

I'm guessing though that you'll instead come back with more impotent sputtering bluster and simply repeat your disproven lie that I said what we can all clearly see I did not in fact say... wrote on August 11, 2017 at 11:08 am

So what you are saying is that any ccw permit holder, man,  woman or transgender cannot carry as they may be overpowered and their gun taken away.  Is that correct?


I would then also state that police officers get over powered and their guns taken away.  Should they not be allowed to carry at all?


I see the most recent arrest in the NG is of a young man who was charged with disarming a police officer  ( I wont use acronyms with you any more... you get confused easily)  How do your law enforcment friends and family feel about that?