I didn’t understand the “berkeleys-top-dog-fires-employee” item until I checked out the link. (Note: I think the white supremacist rally was detestable.)
However, this is not UC Berkeley’s “top dog.” Also, Berkeley is a public university, which will have stronger free speech protection (generally speaking) for its employees than a private university.
The reference is to “Top Dog” at Berkeley, which is a restaurant.
@QuantMech I didn’t see anybody here say it was about UC Berkeley. It is clearly about a restaurant IN Berkeley, as you say.
I am getting uncomfortable that people lose their jobs over their political beliefs. The guy was in the rally but not shown to engage in a violent behavior. It looks like employyes are protected in that regard. I hope it holds true.
I read the guy’s article and wasn’t impressed. Just another dude with an inflated sense of how smart he is (“Look I can cite sources!”), not feeling valued enough. I saw his interview on CNN this morning and it only confirmed my initial impression; he could barely think on his feet; the female reporter all but gave him a pity pass because the holes in his logic were large enough to drive a truck through. Don’t get me wrong, he has a right to his opinion, but, the lack of personal reflection, either in the piece itself or in the aftermath of his firing, makes him supremely unsympathetic.
Igloo, as other legal experts have commented, the outcome of these cases will depend on many things. So far, we have only seen the factual tip of the iceberg - as presented by the Google dude. Of course his lawyers have “a strong case.” Why would not they? 
I thought he had no case. I was glad to see that we may be protected. It’s bad enough Washington runs on partyline. It’s better the rest of society doesn’t run on politics even if the guy holds a view disagreeable to many of us.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-damore-interview/index.html
Doesn’t support alt-right.
^Too late… he already woke up with the proverbial fleas when he let that “goolag” shirt photo out of the bag.
Better late than never. I keep reminding myself he’s 26. And perhaps spectacularly lacking in common sense.
Igloo - whether he “has a case” will depend in large part on whether his memo-spreading activities can be classified as “unionizing.” Talk about the irony… some folks that decry organized labor suddenly like the protection offered by those laws.
alh - you are too kind. I too hope the kid will mature (like that prof who wanted to kick a pregnant student out grad school).
Not necessarily kind, but a big fan of enlightened self interest, and doing my best to embrace those who decide they were misguided.
That doesn’t have to mean excusing earlier actions. imho
I don’t find his memo insulting. I wouldn’t be surprised if many people hold the view. It’s best to have it out in the open and talk about it rather than sending them to dark corners. I used to dislike feminists. They were so quick to attack and shut people up. After all, at Google only 10-15% employees are female. How many of them are in tech/engineering? Probably not even 5%. More like 2-3%. Why so few?
Cole White probably realized (after being publicly recognized as an employee of Top Dog) that he would lose his job in any case. If he remained employed at Top Dog, it is likely that Top Dog would be out of business in a short time due to the negative publicity associated with his employment there.
There used to be very few female voters… Think about it, Igloo. It is not that hard to figure out that the roots do not lie in biology purely as some suggest.
There used to be very few female architects. Now the schools are about 40% female, but the employment picture hasn’t caught up.
And why is that? There are also enough female students majoring in hard science and engineering, far more than they are employed. I’d guess 25-30%. That’s a lot more than Google is hiring. I am not saying biology stops them, not at all. It’s possible biology predisposes them away from tech on the average. But there are great variations individually and at the end of spectrum there should be enough qualified women.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
What about the employer’s first amendment right to free association in not employing individuals with expressed beliefs/behaviors not otherwise protected under EEOC or unionizing laws s/he may find abhorrent? Last I checked, political beliefs aren’t given EEOC protections.
Also, unlike the vast majority of EEOC protected classes, one’s political views aren’t immutable and are changeable according to circumstances.
There’s also the conflict with the employer’s duty under the law to maintain a hostile free workplace…especially in regards to doing one’s utmost to prevent discriminatory behavior or harassment against employees in the EEOC protected classes.
Do you want to retain employees who have demonstrated inclinations/behaviors which indicate they are likely to create a hostile discriminatory work environment for their subordinates or colleagues? Or worse, mistreat/discriminate against customers from the EEOC protected classes?
@ucbalumnus I get that why they had to fire him. What I don’t like is we became so vicious to hunt down an individual to the end of the world. Hunting down the killer who drove the car into the crowd is good. Make someone lose his job for attending a rally is an attack imo.
Political views and party affiliation are not federally protected categories. An employer can fire someone for attending a Nazi rally. Similarly, they can fire someone protesting said rally. There might be a local or state law though that makes such retaliatory firing unlawful, but whether participation in a nazi rally falls within that protection is up to how that law has been interpreted.