Damore will almost certainly lose in a court of law, but he’ll win in the Court of White Male Grievance. (More)

“Ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males”

As a matter of law, Damore doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Yes, California prohibits discrimination on the basis of “political activities or affiliations:”

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

In most states, thanks to the infamous Citizens United decision, your boss can require you to phone-bank and canvass for your boss’ preferred candidate(s). Yes, really.

California is one of the few states that prohibits such coercion, and that provision was written to both protect employees from that kind of coercion and ensure that employees can volunteer and participate in political activity – for candidates and causes of their choosing – on their own time. But that provision does not guarantee any right to drag your politics into the office:

A common misconception is that private sector employees in California have the right to exercise free speech at work, including expressing political views. This is partially false. California law bans private employers from discriminating against workers due to their political views, affiliations, or activities. However, there are exceptions. For instance, if you participate in a political activity that creates a conflict of interest with your employer’s business model, your job could potentially be on the line. Additionally, if you are not able to get your work done due to your on-the-clock political activities, it could be perfectly legal for your employer to demote or fire you if they see you as a liability.

So, for example, if your employer explicitly promotes diversity as an important corporate goal, and if you write a whiny screed about how women and people of color are biologically inferior so diversity goals are unfair to white men … then yeah, your company can fire you.

Among other things, Damore’s memo implicitly argued that the women and people of color who work at Google are incompetent quota hires. But as a matter of federal law, officially tolerating such tripe under the rubric of “free speech” would create a hostile work environment.

No, white male, you don’t have a First Amendment right to insult the women and people of color at your workplace.

Damore turns that on its ear and claims that Google tolerates a hostile working environment against white men:

“Google’s management goes to extreme – and illegal – lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees and potential employees at Google,” the suit reads. “… Google employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during company-wide weekly meetings.”

Um, good luck with that:

There’s some irony in those claims. Google’s overall workforce is 69 percent male and 56 percent white, according to the company’s most recent diversity report. Google’s technical employees are 80 percent male and 53 percent white. Google’s leadership is 75 percent male and 68 percent white. The company is facing a Department of Labor investigation and a private lawsuit claiming that it discriminates against women in pay, and promotion.

Damore is also pissed off that the Google runs email lists for not-white, not-heterosexual, not-monogamous people:

“Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality discussing sexual topics,” reads the complaint. (Note the use of the term transgenderism, which, well, isn’t how anybody in 2018 should be talking about the transgender community.) “The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.”

I would bet money to a macadamia that you can find plenty of email list discussions among and for guys who favor “traditional heterosexual monogamy.” In fact, I’d bet money to a macadamia that pretty much every list except the few that were set up specifically for “furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality” … is dominated by “traditional heterosexual” men.

Like the annual white male whine-tasting about Black History Month and Women’s History Month, this is yet another straight white guy who hates the idea that anyone else gets any attention … ever.

It’s the same mindset that declares white male identity politics as “populism,” driven by the common conservative belief that white Christian men “face a lot of discrimination.”

In related news, wingnut troll Chuck Johnson’s filed a similar lawsuit against Twitter yesterday. You may recall that Twitter banned Johnson in 2015 for, among other things, “asking for funds to ‘take out’ the civil rights activist DeRay McKesson.” Of course Johnson insists he didn’t mean violence … he just wanted money to dig up evidence of criminal activity or just nasty rumors that could “take him down.”

Like Damore, Johnson will almost certainly lose in a court of law. But they’ll win in the Courts of White Male Grievance, that is, the wingnut blogosphere and its accompanying wingnut welfare roll. That last link is to Damore’s “bounty” pool at WeSearchr … a site set up by Johnson, with a seven-figure startup check from an anonymous donor. Wingnutting pays well, it seems.

“F— Trump”

And speaking of free speech, conservatives are outraged that a University of Alabama running back yelled “F— Trump” before last night’s N(SE)CAA National Championship Game:

I can only hope there’s some disciplinary action taken. This was vulgar and unnecessary.
It looked as if coaches and trainers were coming up behind him, but none appeared to be upset. I would have made my way through the crowd and informed him he could go back to the locker room.
I’ll say, it’s hard to tell if this is in response to Trump’s feud with NFL players, or if it was just his general feelings.

Either way, it was thuggish and low. It was gutter behavior, and it needs to be left on the streets.

So there you have it. White men like James Damore who work for a private business have the right to insult women and people of color in a company email … but black men who play for a state university football team have no right to curse the God-King.

Oh, and Alabama defeated Georgia, so they’re the N(SE)CAA National Champions. I add that parenthetical because the University of Central Florida went undefeated – unlike either Alabama or Georgia – but they weren’t even included in the four-team playoff:

But the [American Athletic Conference] is not one of the venerable five “power” conferences – the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 12 – that dominate attention in college football and snatch up invitations every year to the four-team playoffs.[…]

Some here at UCF dismiss those conferences as “The Cartel”; no team from outside of it has made the playoff bracket since it debuted after the 2014 season (and no national champion in that time has finished undefeated).

For the record, both Alabama and Georgia lost to Auburn during the regular season, while UCF beat Auburn in the Peach Bowl.

Now if only they had a Macadamia Bowl….


Photo Credit: Jason Henry (Redux)


Good day and good nuts