Free Speech, Science / Tech

A Policy of Censorship More Extreme Than Google

By now, we’ve all heard about James Damore, the software engineer who authored a memo suggesting that the tendency of more men than women tend to pursue careers in technology may be explained at least in part by biological differences. Qualified scientists have confirmed that the scientific facts cited by Damore are accurate to the best of our knowledge at this time, but Google nonetheless fired Damore for “advancing harmful gender stereotypes,” raising concerns from many that the company is inhospitable to those who do not conform to a very narrow, politically correct ideology.1,2 From my own experience as a software engineer who has worked at several companies and holds degrees from two universities, I can attest that this problem is not unique to Google but is widespread in both industry and academia.

In response to the Google memo, one company saw it necessary to lay down the law for its own employees, setting out a policy that is even more censorious than Google itself. That company is MongoDB, a New York-based database startup employing over 800 people.3 Those who do not work in technology have likely never heard of MongoDB, as their products are sold to other software developers rather than directly to consumers. Yet, the company’s influence is far-reaching; it boasts an impressive array of customers ranging from Google and Facebook to Verizon to The New York Times and The Washington Post.4

The company’s response was set forth in an email sent to employees by CTO Eliot Horowitz and subsequently posted on the company’s web site.5

He begins by invoking the history of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry, going on to assert that diversity efforts are an effective remedy, but providing no evidence to back up this bold claim. In fact, it is highly questionable that this is true, especially in light of a recent cover story in The New York Times reporting that the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Hispanics at colleges and universities has gotten worse, not better, over the last 35 years while affirmative action has been in effect.6

Horowitz goes on to claim that viewing diversity efforts as acts of discrimination is a “false equivalence” and that the memo is therefore “not part of a healthy dialogue at all.” By doing so, he alienates the majority of the American people and makes it clear that their opinions are unwelcome at MongoDB. According to a Gallup poll taken last year, 63% of Americans believe that race or ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions, while 66% believe that gender should not be a factor.7 Ballot initiatives to ban affirmative action have passed in a number of states, including traditionally Democratic states such as California and Michigan.8

The notion that policies put in place to promote diversity or remedy historical injustices can themselves be acts of discrimination has also been the holding of the United States Supreme Court in numerous cases. Racial quotas and point systems in college admissions were struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds that they discriminate against white and Asian students.9,10 Single-sex public universities have been struck down on the grounds that they discriminate against men.11 Views that are mainstream enough to be held by a majority of the public and used as a basis for decisions by the nation’s highest court are declared to be unthinkable at MongoDB.

Horowitz continues by characterizing Damore’s memo as “just another attempt to disguise prejudice in the clothing of rationalism.” “History is littered with them,” he claims, although he provides not a single example. This characterization seems highly questionable, since many of the most oppressive institutions that have existed through history operated by forcing people to suppress their rationality and accept the word of authority figures without questioning. From the Inquisition to the regimes of Hitler and Stalin, those who thought for themselves were to be quashed, often with brutal violence.

One can assume that Horowitz is referring to such things as eugenics and social Darwinism. Yet this too is a highly flawed analogy. Proponents of these hateful ideologies used pseudoscience to argue that people of certain races were superior to those of others and to advocate for human rights abuses such as forced sterilization. Damore is doing just the opposite: arguing that we should treat all people solely on account of their individual merit, without regard to accidents of birth such as their race or gender. To view those who use pseudoscience to negate the humanity of others and justify violence against them as morally equivalent to those who use valid science to argue that all people should be treated as equals is the true false equivalence at play in this discussion.

Next, Horowitz provides the following gem: “For those of you with the luxury of reading this latest example without feeling directly threatened by it, understand that crediting the author with ‘some good points’ provides cover for his conclusions, and contributes to a hostile environment for your peers.” First and foremost, he is suggesting that the idea that companies should treat their employees equally without regard to their gender is so horrific that to merely speak it is threatening to women. His use of the words “hostile environment” is almost certainly an allusion to sexual harassment law. That he would interpret this law so broadly as to consider the expression of political views or scientific hypotheses to rise to the level of sexual harassment is deeply troubling. The First Amendment comes into play here, as these are no longer solely the actions of a private corporation but rather are done in the name of complying with the law.

Just as troubling is Horowitz’s contention that it is unacceptable not just to agree with the parts of the memo that he found offensive but rather to agree with anything that Damore said—granting that he had “some good points” is hostile. In doing this, Horowitz displays the worst tendencies of the far-left. When confronted with ideas with which they disagree and that they find offensive, they seek not to understand or even to persuade, only to demonize and dehumanize. Since Damore deviated from the politically correct dogma on diversity, we must not only criticize the points on which we see him as being wrong but unequivocally condemn every word of his memo.

There is no room for nuance, no room for subtlety. Feelings supersede facts. The emotions of the most fragile must be soothed at any cost, even if the truth is a casualty.

Horowitz concludes by saying, “As our Embrace the Power of Differences value states, our commitment to increasing diversity is not about changing our standards (which is what the memo implies). It’s instead about a commitment to source, interview, grow, and retain members of underrepresented groups who meet those standards.” We lack adequate data to know whether or not this is accurate about MongoDB. Even if the company does not have any overt policies that call for applicants or employees of certain groups to receive preference, telling those who make hiring decisions that the company wishes to hire more people from certain groups could cause them to grant preference, either consciously or subconsciously, to applicants from those groups.

Whether or not the claim is accurate for MongoDB specifically, it is demonstrably false for the technology field as a whole. At MIT and Caltech, the admissions rate for girls is more than twice that for boys.12 Unless female applicants are far better qualified on average than their male counterparts, this does not reflect admissions decisions being made solely on merit. At one company, an experiment was recently done where the voices of applicants were altered electronically to change their gender during phone interviews.13 This was done with the intent of counteracting subconscious bias that was presumed to be holding back female applicants. However, the results of the experiment were exactly the opposite of what was expected: Men did slightly better when perceived as women, while women did slightly worse when perceived as men. These results suggest that, to the extent that gender bias exists in the hiring process, it is perhaps in favor of women and against men, not the other way around. It seems that MongoDB has failed to live out another of its stated core values, Be Intellectually Honest.

While it has not received the same level of attention in the press, the MongoDB email ought to be sounding alarm bells as much as the Google diversity memo for anyone who believes in free speech, intellectual diversity, putting science ahead of political correctness, or the notion that people of differing beliefs should be able to put their differences aside in the workplace and work together to build great products. Damore’s memo was entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” but one could substitute for Google not just MongoDB but likely many other major technology companies. In the 21st century, these companies shape our world with their huge influence on how we access and share information. If we care about building a society where all are welcome and all voices can be heard, we ought to demand that these companies live up to the values that we hold dear as Americans.



[1] Jussim, Lee; Schmitt, David P.; Miller: Geoffrey; Soh, Debra W. The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond [Internet]. [place unknown]: Quillette; 2017 Aug 07 [cited 2017 Aug 31]. Available from:

[2] Grothaus, Michael. Here is Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s response to employees about the anti-diversity memo [Internet]. New York: Fast Company; 2017 Aug 08 [cited 2017 Aug 08]. Available from:

[3] About Us [Internet]. New York: MongoDB; [cited 2017 Aug 27]. Available from:

[4] Our Customers [Internet]. New York: MongoDB; [cited 2017 Aug 27]. Available from:

[5] Horowitz, Eliot. A MongoDB Engineering Response to the Anti-Diversity-Effort Manifesto. New York: MongoDB; 2017 Aug 14 [cited 2017 Aug 27]. Available from:

[6] Ashkenas, Jeremy; Park, Haeyoun; Pearce, Adam. Even With Affirmative Action, Blacks and Hispanics Are More Underrepresented at Top Colleges Than 35 Years Ago [Internet]. New York: The New York Times; 2017 Aug 24 [cited 2017 Aug 31]. Available from:

[7] Newport, Frank. Most in U.S. Oppose Colleges Considering Race in Admissions [Internet]. Washington (DC): Gallup; 2016 Jul 8 [cited 2017 Aug 27]. Available from:

[8] Affirmative Action: State Action [Internet]. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures; 2014 Apr [cited 2017 Aug 31]. Available from:

[9] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978)

[10] Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 (2003)

[11] Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 US 718 (1982)

[12] Mulhere, Kaitlin. 10 Best Colleges Where Being a Woman Gives You an Admissions Edge [Internet]. New York: Money; 2015 Dec 15 [cited 2017 Aug 31]. Available from:

[13] Lerner, Aline. We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical interviews. Here’s what happened [Internet]. San Francisco: blog; 2016 Jun 29 [cited 2017 Aug 31]. Available from:

Filed under: Free Speech, Science / Tech


The author is a software engineer. Gideon Scopes is a pseudonym. Given the current climate surrounding political expression in the technology industry, his real name has been withheld.


  1. Leah Falco says

    Great article about the frightening and far-reaching oppression of free speech and free thought!!

  2. Michiel says

    Frightening indeed, especially the part where he says”. “For those of you with the luxury of reading this latest example without feeling directly threatened by it, understand that crediting the author with ‘some good points’ provides cover for his conclusions, and contributes to a hostile environment for your peers.”
    That’s a threat if ever I saw one. You are not allowed to even engage with the subject matter in any nuanced way. There is only one allowed point of view. Anything else makes you guilty automatically of threatening your coworkers. Absolutely totalitarian. Personally I would quit immediately if my boss would send me such a message, and probably sue them for creating a hostile work environment (oh the irony).

  3. Thanks for this information, and in particular thanks for linking to the full MongoDB message. I’m not in the market for any of MongoDB’s products, and their CTO has ensured that will never change.

    Here’s a failure to recognize his own face in the mirror: “It is just another attempt to disguise prejudice in the clothing of rationalism”

    And more hypocrisy: “Diversity isn’t just a metric, it’s a means to a more inclusive way of thinking”. Apparently MongoDB’s definition of “inclusive” in this context means that they will include everyone else in thinking exactly and only like them.

  4. We currently use MongoDB but will be actively seeking a replacement. We were tied to their product due to our choice of framework but as we will be switching to GraphQL we will be freed up on the backend. I don’t like the idea of using products designed by people who can’t even understand the point of the Damore memo. It was pretty clearly written and was pro-diversity. It was just against racism and sexism which companies like MongoDB seem to be in favor of.

  5. David Konerding says

    Hi, the statement in the article that Google uses MongoDB is almost certainly false. In particular, MongoDB is licensed under the AGPL, a particularly restrictive license. The rules at Google specifically prohibit the use of MongoDB due to the license.

  6. b19690103 says

    I highly recommend people listen to James Damore’s appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. (Just don’t do it if you think he’s Satan and you can’t handle having your preconceptions proven wrong.)

    • I like James Damore but didn’t care for Joe Rogan’s interview. Rogan barely gives Damore a moment to get a word in edgewise, while Rogan expounds endlessly, clearly loving the sound of his own voice.

  7. MongoDB is a very bad database from a technical standpoint anyway which does many things that are extremely bad for data integrity so you shouldn’t have been using it anyway. Technically speaking, you are best off using PostgreSQL as a database but MySQL (or its non-Oracle fork MariaDB) is also a good option.

    On another note, I should point out that “social Darwinism” is a fabrication of the Communist Party member and pseudohistorian Hofstadter (a Columbia professor circa 1950) whose work largely consisted of SPLC-tier smears of the conservatives of his day and their intellectual heroes thinly disguised as history. In this case, “social Darwinism” was invented as a means to defame and misrepresent the legacy of 19th century British libertarian Herbert Spencer whose book Social Statics was very influential among the American right in the first half of the 20th century. Hofstadter falsely equivocated Spencer with the Progressives of the pre-WW2 period, who were mostly enthusiastic supporters of eugenics and other hateful ideas, many of which inspired Hitler. These people were basically the SJWs of their day and were every bit as intolerant of disagreement. They also were equally likely to be corporate stooges while pretending to be anti-corporate. The Wilson administration, in particular, was the height of the Progressive Era and was consequently the most openly and viciously racist and anti-1st Amendment administration in American history. Without studying and understanding this history, you can’t fully understand today’s SJWs as part of a long and ugly tradition on the American left that had been, for a while, rightly marginalized by the tolerant and decent portion of the left.

    • LukeReeshus says

      Excellent comment. No one with any familiarity with the origin and political heritage of the term “Progressive” would proudly call themselves one.

      However, you forgot to mention the crowning achievement of early 20th century progressive politics: alcohol prohibition. For some reason, everyone remembers the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement as the primary advocacy group behind the illegalization of booze in America, while conveniently forgetting that the Anti-Saloon League was the one which actually got legislation passed. Why? Something to do with the stereotype of the devout, tee-totaling Christian, I think (Mormons being the prime example). And, to be sure, the ASL’s early and energizing successes did occur in conjunction with serious (read: rural-Protestant) religiosity.

      But whereas earlier temperance movements preached, well, temperance—what we refer to as “moderation” in modern parlance—progressive organizations like the ASL felt the need to change the law. To my mind, the 18th amendment is a perfect example of the effects of progressive thinking put to action: good intentions, combined with a faith in the power of centralized government to alter people’s behavior for the better, leads to systemic hypocrisy and various never-even-bothered-to-be-imagined negative consequences. And it’s happening all over again.

      At least we get to be drunk for it this time.

  8. Biology is not sociology. Leading psychologists have studied the biological differences in relation to society and have not been able distinguish biological differences as a significant factor regarding STEM.

    “Qualified scientists have confirmed that the scientific facts cited by Damore are accurate to the best of our knowledge at this time, ”

    The biological differences are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether they have any bearing on final social outcomes. Sociological, cultural and psychological scientific studies have not shown biological differences to be significant contributing factors relative to all others.

    I highly recommend the debate between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke two weeks ago, posted on Youtube.

    • Wait, you’re not disputing the differences?

      So you don’t think a greater interest in items is more likely to make boys want to take apart a computer, or figure out how to build things, both great precursors to a programming career?

      And you don’t think a greater sense of empathy might be pushing women towards more empathetic careers like teaching or nursing?

      Your stance seems to be strongly based on putting your fingers in your ears; I don’t really care to hear the things you listen to when you take them out.

  9. There is an error in the first sentence: “By now, we’ve all heard about James Damore, the software engineer who authored a memo suggesting that the tendency of more men than women tend to pursue careers. . .” Delete “tend” so that it reads, “. . .more men than women to pursue careers. . .”

  10. Is anyone else as appalled as I am that the author had to use a pseudonym instead of his real name?!? Here’s the deal, there is little you or I can do to change the opinions our neighbors.

    But when companies start flexing their power on the world we can influence them to stop infusing the CEO’s personal politics into their product simply by stop using their products. I am in the process of eliminating Google and Facebook from my life.

    I strongly encourage others to do the same.

    Neither is necessary for sustaining quality of life. There are alternatives. Or nothing at all. In this fight the power belongs to the consumer.

  11. Bora Meraj says

    The article references “an experiment recently done where the voices of applicants were altered electronically to change their gender during phone interviews” and falsely concludes that the results showed that “Men did slightly better when perceived as women, while women did slightly worse when perceived as men.” This is wrong and misleading because the results, which are clearly bolded in the original source, showed that masking gender had no effect on interview performance. see for yourself here:

    • I went to your very blog and right there in the “The Results” section is this: ” If anything, we started to notice some trends in the opposite direction of what we expected: for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women.” The next sentence does point out that the differences were not statistically significant.

      So the author didn’t “falsely conclude” this point but actually paraphrased what the actual study presented (per your link).

  12. sestamibi says

    It appears that MongoDB is engaged in a great deal of virtue-signaling, but without the massive capital that such as Google and Facebook have to back them up. It will be interesting to see whether MongoDB’s sanctimonious posturing and hiring policies can sustain their existence over the next ten years.

  13. Pingback: News of the Week (September 17th, 2017) | The Political Hat

  14. Gribble the Munchkin says

    Am I missing something? Everyone in this comment thread seems to thing Damore was right, but reading his memo just makes me think he missed the point. Big companies want more women and minorities in tech. They think it’ll produce more varied ideas and viewpoints compared to a straight white male workforce. Hard to see how that’s controversial. If Damore is completely right about the science, and its very much open for debate as to whether he is, then so what? Google isn’t trying to say women are as good at tech as men on average, they just want to hire the women who are as good. Remember Damore speaks only of averages, and populations follow the standard bell curve. There will be lots of women who are perfectly good at, interested in and beneficial to have in the tech industry. Why not put into place some programmes to foster their interest while young and show them that its a viable career path? They don’t need to do the same for white guys because white guys are bought up being told its a viable career path, you can tell because tech is full of white guys.
    I honestly don’t see the link between establishing that taken as an average women might not be a disposed to tech disciplines, and that therefore having programmes to recruit the women that ARE good at tech is a bad idea.
    As to why Damore was fired, that’s easy. He engaged in actions that bought Google into disrepute. You may disagree with why that was so but you’d have to be blind to notice the sheer amount of negative press that came Googles way (and by extension the whole tech industry). Google had to get rid of him and were right to do so.
    As for freedom of speech, he can say whatever he likes, no one is stopping him. But he doesn’t get a free pass to challenge his companies position on an issue that any idiot would know is going to bring up publicity.

    • The only problem I see with part of your argument is that Damore didn’t publish his thoughts externally and it actually wasn’t he that brought Google bad publicity. The leakers did. Damore published his thoughts in an internal forum described as being for that purpose. The leakers/critics of the Damore are the ones that brought Google into disrepute, but I don’t recall reading about them being fired for releasing internal Google documents to the outside world.

      So based upon the twisted logic you’ve presented, anyone who doesn’t agree with politics should keep completely silent and say nothing. If you post internally, to an internal discussion group you get fired. If you post externally on your own time and social media accounts, you get fired (numerous cases of that recently). You freely assemble with a crowd that has a bad actor within and you can be fired. Is it any wonder why political polling in 2016 showed Clinton winning by a landslide? If you don’t state the Party line or offer any sort of academic challenge you are labeled any sort of disreputable things. Ask why they keep modifying the historical temperature records? DENIER! Ask why a company is forcing a gender split ratio versus focusing on merit and ability? MISOGYNIST! Question the political direction of the former President? RACIST! Question the tearing down of historical monuments and the revisionist history? NAZI!

    • C_Miner says

      I find it ironic that, if Big companies want more women and minorities in tech. They think it’ll produce more varied ideas and viewpoints compared to a straight white male workforce. they will then feel it is acceptable to stifle any ideas and viewpoints that disagree with their approach.

      If they want diversity so much, why on earth do they muzzle ideological diversity? If their goal is to have Everyone of the world, all races colours and creeds, thinking as one, then they’re promoting a communist system that has never worked in the real world. And, arguably, can never work with a free people.

      Communism is the ultimate monopoly, so it makes sense for monopolists like Google to strive for it. It means no competition once you’re at the top, and can mean an end to invention. I shake my head at bit-players who want to raise their market share trying to get in on that action. If they are bit players promoting a monopoly based system then that means they want to never get any bigger (because they would then supplant the current monopoly).

Comments are closed.