[DoodleDawg]

I can’t speak for Dunham, but any time an employee takes a public stand that disparages a large part of his company’s workforce and places the company in a negative light then that person should expect to be fired. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

[Mr. K]

If I recall correctly, this was an internal email at Google that someone ELSE made public.

If he is fired for that I hope he sues their asses off.

[dayglored]

> ... any time an employee takes a public stand that disparages a large part of his company’s workforce and places the company in a negative light then that person should expect to be fired. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

I agree that free speech -- in the constitutional/legal sense -- has nothing to do with this case. And I agree that as an "At Will" employee, the company has the legal right to fire him for any, or no, reason.

However, there are a few things that make this different from some random employee shooting off his mouth and getting fired for it.

** Was any of the content of his screed demonstrably factually false? I doubt it.

** Was any of the content of his screed libel in a legal sense? I doubt it.

** Is there a published company rule that prohibits criticizing the company (policies, culture, procedures)? I doubt it, since that would prohibit things like a "suggestion box" as well. So criticism of the company, per se, isn't the issue.

So really, what was he fired for? HAVING POLITICALLY INCORRECT BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS.

So unless the Google Employee Handbook, or employment contract, has a statement requiring that all employees must have Politically Correct Beliefs and Thoughts, then I think the fellow can try to make a case.

Of course, he'll still lose, because Google has more lawyers, and At Will. But he should try to make the case on principle anyway, and raise some folks' consciousness. Somebody has to start fighting back at this stuff.

Winston Churchill said something relevant here, and although he was speaking of physical warfare, cultural warfare has the same basic form:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Decades ago, we missed the opportunity to fight for the right when we could have easily won. And in the past decade we missed the opportunity to fight with the odds against us. We are now at the point where we have to fight because even though there may be little or no chance of winning, because otherwise we are all toast, and no longer can be called free.

[IrishBrigade]

any time an employee takes a public stand that disparages a large part of his company’s workforce and places the company in a negative light then that person should expect to be fired

a ‘negative light’ according to whom...? so two individuals having a conversation that has nothing to do with their particular job requirements should expect to be fired, if some third party overhears and feels it to be in a’negative light’, and you are seriously proposing this as appropriate...?

[Ohioan]

The idea that recognizing the profound differences between the sexes, and seeking to further analyze those differences, disparages anyone, is ludicrous. All human life springs from those differences. Much of human pleasure, much of human aspirations, springs directly or indirectly from those differences. As the French say, "Viva la difference!"

And see Feminist War On Love & Reason