Google Employee 28 / Dec 19, 2018

Over a week ago, I was reminded that Google was a top-tier sponsor of CPAC in 2018, because it was making rounds
in the news [1]. I emailed Adam Kovacevich, asking whether Google intended to fund CPAC in 2019, as we did in
2018. So far I have received no response.

The CPAC conference takes place over the last weekend of February, so I guess we'll know soon enough either way –
but would sure be nice to have internal transparency on how our "public policy" funds are being spent.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-audio-reveals-googles-efforts-woo-conservatives/

Google Employee 1 / Dec 19, 2018

/sub

Google Employee 2 / Dec 19, 2018

Oh no, not this again! :-(

Google Employee 28 / Dec 19, 2018

It might be helpful if other folks also asked for more info.

(My personal suspicion: Google will fund at the same level or greater, participate just as much, but ask to not be
displayed quite as prominently on the promotional materials.)

Google Employee 3 / Dec 19, 2018

/sub

Google Employee 4 / Dec 19, 2018

From CPAC 2018, a quote from the keynote comparing immigrants to snakes:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17044760/transcript-trump-cpac-speech-snake-mccain

Okay. Immigration.

On her way to work one morning, down the path along the lake,
a tender-hearted woman saw a poor, half-hearted frozen snake.
...
But instead of saying thank you, that snake gave her a vicious bite.
...
Oh, shut up, silly woman, said the reptile with a grin. You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.

And that’s what we’re doing with our country, folks. We’re letting people in.

It's hard to say how much of Google's American workforce self-identifies as immigrants, but anecdotally I believe
>50% of people on teams I have worked in were not born in the US. Even more have parents that were not US-born.
Google Employee 5 / Dec 19, 2018

Let's not overstate what was said. It's merely drawing upon a very popular story, "Girl and the Snake", which is about
looking past nice words and into the heart of the matter (that no matter how sweet the words, a person will act in
their nature). It is not literally comparing immigrants to snakes.

Google Employee 6 / Dec 19, 2018

Respectfully, Google Employee 5, I couldn't disagree more. There's a reason the argument was made with this
evocative, metaphorical poem, rather than appealing to logic by simply making a direct point with the words "people
will act in their nature". This speech, bookended by "Ok. Immigration" and "We're letting people in" gives the
listeners permission to embrace and express their resentment toward immigrants. If a speaker wanted to avoid such a
reaction (as one should) then they'd be extra careful to steer clear of potential misinterpretation -- the speaker here
clearly intended the opposite.

Google Employee 7 / Dec 19, 2018

Google Employee 5, while I respect your opinion and I appreciate having this space where we can share our opinions, I
could not disagree more with it.

The issue here is not comparing immigrants and snakes. Of course the word "snake" is used metaphorically. The issue
is blatant racism and xenophobia in the message. The issue is the fear-mongering and demagoguery that is evident in
the message.

Instead of relying on our values, reasoned deliberations, facts, statistics, and science, demagogues rely on people's
worst instincts to advance their agenda.

The question is whether as a company we want to continue supporting demagogues.

Google Employee 5 / Dec 19, 2018

Then it appears we are in agreement with my point that this is not comparing immigrants to snakes. I don't see why
the two of you felt such needs to dive deeply and see things in my email that were not there.

Google Employee 8 / Dec 19, 2018

The metaphor is not simply about looking past nice words. It is a common one, and it is as far as I know used
universally to disparage whoever is cast as, in this case, the snake.

Setting aside for the moment the long and storied history of calling members of out groups animals, your reading
contains less than half the message, and I think it's important to be clear about that.

Google Employee 7 / Dec 19, 2018

Well I disagree with this part of your email: "Let's not overstate what was said". The demagoguery evident in quoted
message is such an important issue by itself that I don't think it has gotten the attention it deserves. So, if anything,
we are understating of the seriousness of this matter
Google Employee 9 / Dec 20, 2018

A few more highlights from last year's CPAC -

• NRA was a lead sponsor, right next to Google. National Rifle Association spokesperson Dana Loesch declared
“many in the legacy media love mass shootings.” Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president and CEO of the
NRA, claimed Democrats were conspiring to “eradicate all individual freedoms.”
• There was a screening of: "American Pai: The Courageous Chairman of the FCC" (...aka the guy who
"courageously" killed net neutrality at the request of ISP's he used to work for).
• Marion Marechal Le Pen, granddaughter to the founder of the French far-right National Front party was a lead
speaker.
• There was a book signing of "Team Jihad: How Sharia-Supremacists Collaborate with Leftists to Destroy the
United States".
• CPAC communication director Ian Walters stated at the CPAC Ronald Reagan dinner: “We elected Mike Steele
as chairman because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/375399-michael-steele-addresses-cpac-officials-painfully-stupid-
comment-about-race
• Facebook planned a shooting game VR experience in their booth, and had to shut it down after Parkland
backlash.
• James Damore was a speaker, in spite of Google being a lead sponsor.
• Ben Shapiro was a lead speaker. He has insisted “transgender is a mental disease” and has attacked the U.S.
Supreme Court for striking down laws criminalizing homosexuality.

At best, CPAC is a circus platform for hate, and no self-respecting company should voluntarily want to align with it or
financially support it.

Google Employee 10 / Jan 20, 2019

I think it's pretty clear that the intent of the parable, in the immigration context in which Mr. Trump explicitly framed
it, was to say "Foreigners are by nature dangerous and untrustworthy, and any country that lets them in is being
played for a sucker." Which is a sentiment at odds with both the overwhelming majority of U.S. history and the
overwhelming majority of the tech industry's experience in particular. He's welcome to say such things, but the more
he and his supporters say such things, the less willing the tech industry should be to support him.

Google Employee 11 / Jan 20, 2019

I was in the group that sat down with comms (including Adam) earlier this year in a meeting that was in response to
the anger over sponsoring CPAC. The entire message from the comms team was that they hear us and understand our
anger, and they appreciated the feedback. That was it.

My read between the lines is that the sponsorship will continue as long as leadership feels we need to keep respecting
that particular opportunity.

Google Employee 12 / Jan 3, 2019

HI,

I just wrote to Adam (bumping an email Marie Collins started last year) and cc'ed his manager (Susan Molinari) and his
VP (Karan Bhatia). I think if many folks here did the same it may help. If we get no answer, maybe a TGIF dory
question is needed again?
Google Employee 6 / Jan 3, 2019

Hi Google Employee 12,

Just FYI, I emailed Adam on Dec 19th, and Susan on Dec 20th. In each case I simply stated that I was curious about the
funding plans and expected degree of internal transparency. It was a self-answering question, as I've gotten no
response from either yet and I'd be very surprised to receive one. +1 to a Dory question.

Google Employee 13 / Jan 3, 2019

I’ve also emailed heard nothing, and given up.

I now just assume that this department makes decisions without really fully including Googlers who might be affected
by them.

For example, as a queer Googler, I am hurt by that department giving money to anti-queer politicians. I haven’t ever
heard a response from that department about policies w.r.t. giving Netpac and Google money to politicians and
political organizations who work to advocate for and pass laws that take away my basic human rights.

Since they do not really engage with us in a substantive way, I can assume that they think their anti-discrimination
lobbying efforts make up for it. I don’t agree, and I think objectively it’s reasonable for anyone to take issue with a
claim that an ethical wrong is somehow made up for by doing a good in another place.

But I’m just speculating. Since they don’t provide visibility into how they make decisions, we can only guess.

It is hilariously incorrect that some right wingers think that Google is biased against them. If they saw the facts of how
we lobby (both in terms of money and time), and the facts of how our official lobbying people didn’t engage with all
Googlers, they could easily conclude that Google’s policy organization is biased in favor of the right.

Adam Kovacevich / Jan 18, 2019

Hi everyone - Adam here from the US public policy team. In the spirit of communication and good faith, I just wanted
to let you know that we’ve let the CPAC conference organizers know that we've decided not to renew our sponsorship
of their annual conference this year.

Thanks,
Adam

Google Employee 14 / Jan 18, 2019

Thank you Adam, appreciate this update!

Google Employee 15 / Jan 18, 2019

Oh wow... That's unexpected, but very good to hear. Thank you!

Would still like to have more transparency into how these decisions are made, though.
Google Employee 16 / Jan 18, 2019

Hi Adam,
Thank you for following up with this update. Have we done a Postmortem of this issue to better understand what
happened, what lessons were learned and what we need to do in the future in a blameless and transparent manner?

Google Employee 13 / Jan 18, 2019

Thanks — this is great news.

Google Employee 11 / Jan 18, 2019

Hi Adam, thank you for the update, I really appreciate it. And for the record, I would have appreciated the update
even if the decision was the opposite, too. :) I'd also like to echo other people here in asking for more insight into the
decision process, if that is possible.

My personal feelings about sponsoring CPAC aside, I understand Google's need to build relationships on "both sides of
the aisle" as it were. My wish is that we do it in a way that avoids further harming already marginalized groups. I really
do believe this is possible (with both sides!) and it isn't an unreasonable parameter.

Thanks again for keeping the lines of communication open with us, it really makes a difference.

Google Employee 1 / Jan 18, 2019

Thank you - I'm glad to hear that, but more important I appreciate you looping back to update everybody.

Google Employee 17 / Jan 18, 2019

This is really awesome, thanks Adam!

Google Employee 2 / Jan 18, 2019

So glad to hear this! Thank you!

Google Employee 4 / Jan 18, 2019

@Adam: Thank you for responding directly on this thread. I appreciate the proactive communication.

I'm happy about the decision not to fund CPAC, but like others on this list I would like to see more transparency on
how these decisions are made. I'm particularly interested in how questions of diversity and inclusion factor in.

For example: do we consider the impact on minority groups when choosing who to sponsor? Do we seek out
members of underrepresented groups to sponsor?
Mike Wacker / Jan 22, 2019

Hi everyone - Adam here from the US public policy team. In the spirit of communication and good faith, I just wanted
to let you know that we’ve let the CPAC conference organizers know that we've decided not to renew our sponsorship
of their annual conference this year.

Thanks,
Adam

This decision is a travesty. Few things have alienated conservatives at Google as much as the CPAC debate, and the US
public policy team's decision here will only further that alienation. It's clear that the demands of the dominant activist
tribe matter more than principled pluralism at this company.

With all this talk of respect at Google, I can't help but come back to the wise words of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. In
a paragraph on the topic of intemperate discussion, Mill writes, "The worst offence of this kind which can be
committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men." When the
anti-CPAC petition promoted by activists-us@ is literally titled, "Google, Don't Sponsor Hate," it's clear that this dark
art of polemics is well and alive at Google. The clear undertone of this debate has been that conservatives are both
hateful and evil. I've had this running joke that Google is full of social justice activists who are dedicated to ridding the
world of the evils of Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and John Kasich. That joke takes on a new life of its own when the
anti-CPAC petition lumps Marion Maréchal-Le Pen and the NRA into the same overly broad, hopelessly vague
category of "hate".

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has insisted time and time again that Google is a nonpartisan company, but more and more
those words seem like empty words: all talk, no action. Both internally and externally, a narrative has begun to
emerge that liberal political activists are calling the shots at Google. It's really hard to refute that narrative when the
US public policy team engages with activists-us@ "in the spirit of communication and good faith" to inform them that
Google has caved to their demands, and that Google will not be sponsoring CPAC this year. Somewhere, a document
exists that explicitly defines Google's values, and perhaps those values could be described as non-partisan,
but that definition does not seem to be the one that matters. The definition of "Google's values" that matters is the
one used by Google's activists, who could only be described as "nonpartisan" in the same sense that the Women's
March could be described as inclusive towards pro-life Jewish women. Or, to quote a rather prescient headline from
David French of The National Review, "In Outrage Campaigns, It's the Internal Mob that Matters."

Google Employee 13 / Jan 22, 2019

Mike,

Are you not aware of all the GOP donations that Google makes? Your post leaves these out and inadvertently paints a
biased picture of Google’s true funding activities.

Google Employee 18 / Jan 22, 2019

The definition of "Google's values" that matters is the one used by Google's activists, who could only be described as
"nonpartisan" in the same sense that the Women's March could be described as inclusive towards pro-life Jewish
women.

how so??? do you realize this statement can come off as hateful, especially considering the forum in which it was
made? also, Adam did not provide behind-the-scenes information about why the decision to not support CPAC was
even made... at the very least, he didn't provide enough information in his email for anyone to deem this a "travesty".
I think your email was overly heated, emotional, and borderline offensive.
Google Employee 19 / Jan 22, 2019

+1 the analogy is intentionally inflammatory insofar as it does nothing to further shed light on the subject at hand

Google Employee 13 / Jan 22, 2019

I can understand the frustrations that a conservative partisan like Mike might feel when a decision is taken that might
affect his ability to promulgate conservative ideas in the world. So perhaps he was just speaking in frustration.

But at the same time, I think there’s some common ground: more transparency in how these decisions are made — a
rubric, principles, anything more than we get now — would help us see the basis on which we make donations to
politicians and political organizations. No one here—whether you’re liberal or conservative — seems to have any idea
about how Google makes these decisions.

In fact, that’s why I find Mike’s email to be frustrating: his email excludes all the times when non-conservatives
have seen actions taken by Google as biased in favor of conservatives. It’s the same thing as the narrative that
Breitbart and others put into the world, based on selectively leaked emails. But anyone who is nonpartisan
and isn’t trying to drive an agenda would see that the problem isn’t about political bias: it’s about a lack of
transparency.

It seems like a good idea for our political org to say where the red lines are. I’d hope that the partisans would take off
the conventional narrative lens they see the world though and ask for transparency, not just for their own side to win

Google Employee 20 / Jan 22, 2019

Agreed. Not only is the analogy incendiary, but it also coopts concerns of the Jewish community related to anti-
Semitism for a political agenda that most Jews do not support. Judaism has an incredibly nuanced view on the topic
and PEW Research surveys of religious communities in the United States show that a majority (83%) of Jewish
respondents believe that abortion should be legal. On Twitter, a number of Jewish users who have expressed
concerns over anti-Semitism in the Women's March have also decried the coopting of these concerns to advance this
particular political agenda; for example, see this Tweet (and many similar like it).

It is really important not to conflate these two different issues.

Mike Wacker / Jan 22, 2019

Google Employee 20, if we're going to talk about incendiary, let's talk about that time on intersectional@ you
compared African-Americans who spoke at CPAC to Jews who spoke a Holocaust denial conference. Both of those
points hit at a larger issue: diversity matters, but only for those who have the right political views. Or, for a more
satirical take: https://babylonbee.com/news/march-defends-womens-right-choose-conformity-one-political-
viewpoint

Google Employee 21 / Jan 22, 2019

Can everyone please take a step back? This thread is not going to do anyone any good from here on out.
Google Employee 27 / Jan 22, 2019

I'll +1 Google Employee 21 and use this chance to plug our shiny new community guidelines. Specifically the section:

Do not send an email when you want to:

Contradict, antagonize, or debate other group members on policy, politics, or philosophy (or anything else for that
matter). If you can’t not respond, book a GVC call and discuss directly with the people involved, not the ~1600+ person
list.

I think it's unlikely anyone on any side of this is going to "win" anything in an email thread forum. If you feel it's a
meaningful discussion you want to have with one another, feel free to book time to talk over GVC.

Cheers!
Google Employee 27

ps. I moderated an activists-us@ email debate turned GVC discussion last year using this agenda, if it's helpful.

Introductions. Go around the virtual room one by one and share:

• Name
• What cause or concern motivated you initially to join the activists-us@ list? (or take the Activism 101 class, if
you got on the list that way)
• How did you gain your current knowledge of [...] situation? eg. reading news articles for fun, school, job
• What groups are you a member of or help inform your involvement in [...] policy?
• What do you want to get out of this discussion?

Open discussion

Google Employee 22 / Jan 22, 2019

+1 to Marie's suggestion. Would love to attend a GVC to discuss concerns, but an email chain tends to quickly escalate
to conflict that helps no one.

Google Employee 23 / Jan 22, 2019

@Mike Wacker, I’m sorry that you feel victimized.

Nobody is attacking your right to practice your faith as you choose, your right to own firearms, your right to marry
who you choose, your right to make your own reproductive choices, your right to make political contributions where
you see fit.

We haven’t seen an official statement, but I highly suspect that Google’s decision to not fund CPAC falls under
honoring these same rights for ALL of us. The decision doesn't hinder or jeopardize any of these rights. CPAC has
transgressed to attacking people’s rights to practice their faith (or lack thereof) how they choose, attacking someone’s
right to marry who they choose, attacking many other things that MANY Googlers find important to them, their
families, and their communities. To continue to sponsor CPAC through monetary contribution directly supports
attacks on some of the core rights of our coworkers.

As you will see in some previous responses, many people are totally for Google finding ways to bridge the gap here
and support conservative causes that as long as they don't support positions that attack some Googler’s very being.

I ask that you please take a step back and consider who is loosing or gaining something by this decision.
Google Employee 14 / Jan 22, 2019

+10000 Google Employee 23

Mike Wacker / Jan 22, 2019

If I can get 100 people on here - be it participants or lurkers - to read Mill's paragraph on intemperate discussion and
reflect on it in light of this thread, I'll consider that a small victory. A key question to consider in the context of this
thread is who holds the "prevailing opinion," and who holds the "contrary opinion." (Aside: for those who are more
interested in Mill but don't have the time to read On Liberty in full, the Heterodox Academy has published a great
book, All Minus One, which covers Mill's best ideas in about an hour of reading.)

Even on friendlier lists, this can become an issue; I recently received an email from someone who said, "I enjoy
reading the republicans@ mailing list, but I value my career so I don't post there."

@Mike Wacker, I’m sorry that you feel victimized.

Nobody is attacking your right to practice your faith as you choose, your right to own firearms, your right to marry
who you choose, your right to make your own reproductive choices, your right to make political contributions where
you see fit.

We haven’t seen an official statement, but I highly suspect that Google’s decision to not fund CPAC falls under
honoring these same rights for ALL of us. The decision doesn't hinder or jeopardize any of these rights. CPAC has
transgressed to attacking people’s rights to practice their faith (or lack thereof) how they choose, attacking someone’s
right to marry who they choose, attacking many other things that MANY Googlers find important to them, their
families, and their communities. To continue to sponsor CPAC through monetary contribution directly supports attacks
on some of the core rights of our coworkers.

As you will see in some previous responses, many people are totally for Google finding ways to bridge the gap here and
support conservative causes that as long as they don't support positions that attack some Googler’s very being.

I ask that you please take a step back and consider who is loosing or gaining something by this decision.

I'm going to politely suggest that this response may not be the best way to de-escalate the situation, and I am
definitely holding back in my response so as not to escalate this further... What I would briefly say, to channel Mill, is
that even though you have received "the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation" from others for this email,
perhaps you should consider whether you have accurately portrayed CPAC, or whether you may have "argue[d]
sophistically" here.
Google Employee 24 / Jan 22, 2019

Hey Mike-

Echoing Google Employee 23, I am sorry you're feeling victimized and unheard. I feel Google is a family and, like it or
not, we're all in this together. It's not the goal to alienate Googler brothers and sisters regardless of what they
believe. It is the goal to understand each other and listen. In that spirit, let me take a stab at explaining why I think
discontinuing CPAC funding was the right move.

Correct me if I am wrong, but CPAC is funded by the ACU which argues for marriage being only between a man and a
woman and is pro-life, right? Obviously, not all members of the group hold those views, but prominent speakers do
(e.g Mike Pence, Marine Le Pen). Additionally, I took at look at their congressional ratings, and most of the top rated
folks fall in line with these views. Based on this, I'd say it's safe to say those positions represent the general group's
POV. Would you agree?

That being said, if Google is funding a group that argues LGTBQ folks and women should have less rights (e.g no legal
right to marriage & no legal right to abortion respectively), how can we expect LGBTQ folks to work here? How do we
expect women to work here? We can't really expect people to work for a company that lobbies to restrict their rights
and feel fulfilled, right? They would probably feel alienated, hurt and unheard, correct?

Now, let's turn this around from something targeting underrepresented groups to something targeting majority
culture for arguments sake alone. Let's say Google was funding a platform that said, "straight men should not be
eligible to vote", similarly restricting certain rights (e.g voting) on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender (e.g
straight & male).

I don't know your gender or sexual orientation, so such a policy stance might not impact you, but for sure it would
impact people you know and co-workers around you right? How would you feel about funding a conference that
promotes a policy like this? Comfortable? Supportive? Hurt? Offended? Outraged? Indignant? Conversely, assuming
you are impacted, would you still support Google funding a conference like that? Personally, I would feel just as upset
as I did when I learned about CPAC funding in the first place, upset that we're supporting an initiative that limits folks'
rights.

I think the views shared in this thread are that Google should NOT fund anything that restricts or limits ANY person's
rights. Again, it's about not alienating our Googler brothers and sisters, and recognizing that we're all people, with
similar wants and needs. We all want safe and legal access to the right kind of medical care and the autonomy to
make our own decisions right? We all want to be able to be with the person we love no? To me, it seems a bit
disingenuous to want these things for ourselves yet deny them to others no?

To steal Maya Angelou's words, we are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike. While we don't get to choose our
family, we do get to choose how we relate to them. Hopefully you can see that come through in this email.
Mike Wacker / Jan 22, 2019

So to be clear, Google can't fund groups that espouse pro-life views, and if Google does, then "How do we expect
women to work here?"

Furthermore, one of these overly broad statements does have me very concerned: "I think the views shared in this
thread are that Google should NOT fund anything that restricts or limits ANY person's rights." If that is true, and the
whole rationale for the anti-CPAC petition is "Google, don't sponsor hate," it would seem that this logic isn't narrowly
limited to just which political organizations the US public policy team decides to sponsor. It would also seem to apply
more broadly to every aspect of how Google runs itself as a company. For example, if a Google employee donates to a
"hateful" group such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, should Google not employ that person? Employment is a
form of funding, after all, and the money that Google pays that employee is being used to donate to the ADF.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I definitely think you need to clarify your position here. The lack of a
limiting principle here is quite concerning...
Google Employee 24 / Jan 23, 2019

Hey Mike-

Cut you a deal, how about I answer your questions and you address mine in the previous email? Deal? I am genuinely
curious to hear you out in a respectful, loving and understanding way, just like I would do with family.

CIL.

So to be clear, Google can't fund groups that espouse pro-life views, and if Google does, then "How do we expect
women to work here?"

Correct. I find it somewhat pretentious that anyone (other than the owner of the uterus in question) makes any rules
pertaining to what folks can or can't do with their uteri. I look at it this way, nobody has any right to dictate my own
sexual health. Wether I get a prostate exam or not, that's not your call to make, it's not the government's call to
make, it's not Google's call to make, it's mine. Exactly the same with abortions. This ties into personal freedom and
autonomy, I personally would find it super disturbing to work at a place that espoused views that limited my sexual
health options. Wouldn't you?

Furthermore, one of these overly broad statements does have me very concerned: "I think the views shared in this
thread are that Google should NOT fund anything that restricts or limits ANY person's rights." If that is true, and the
whole rationale for the anti-CPAC petition is "Google, don't sponsor hate," it would seem that this logic isn't narrowly
limited to just which political organizations the US public policy team decides to sponsor. It would also seem to apply
more broadly to every aspect of how Google runs itself as a company.

This is correct. We should conduct every aspect of our business in such a way that we reenforce everyones rights, not
take them away. This means lot's of things, from investing/contracting only companies that are paying folks living
wages (defending workers rights) to making sure we are using renewable energy vs fossil fuels (protecting our
environmental rights) or relaunching in China (protecting human rights).

For example, if a Google employee donates to a "hateful" group such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, should
Google not employ that person? Employment is a form of funding, after all, and the money that Google pays that
employee is being used to donate to the ADF.

Personal Googler donations are not Google's business. Of course anyone can donate to any cause they like, hateful or
not. As private citizens, Googlers' donations are non of our business.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I definitely think you need to clarify your position here. The lack of a
limiting principle here is quite concerning...

Lol, I don't need to do anything Mike ;)

Google Employee 17 / Jan 23, 2019

Could you drop it Mike? The current administration's actions in the past two years and the conservative agenda in
general in the past few years has had a *very* negative impact on the personal lives of *many* Googlers. Perhaps the
decision to not support CPAC has been out of respect to those Googlers.
Mike Wacker / Jan 23, 2019

Correct. I find it somewhat pretentious that anyone (other than the owner of the uterus in question) makes any rules
pertaining to what folks can or can't do with their uteri. I look at it this way, nobody has any right to dictate my own
sexual health. Wether I get a prostate exam or not, that's not your call to make, it's not the government's call to make,
it's not Google's call to make, it's mine. Exactly the same with abortions. This ties into personal freedom and
autonomy, I personally would find it super disturbing to work at a place that espoused views that limited my sexual
health options. Wouldn't you?

^ Keep this in mind as context for what I'm about to say next.

This is correct. We should conduct every aspect of our business in such a way that we re-enforce everyones rights, not
take them away. This means lot's of things, from investing/contracting only companies that are paying folks living
wages (defending workers rights) to making sure we are using renewable energy vs fossil fuels (protecting our
environmental rights) or relaunching in China (protecting human rights).

In the context of establishing limiting principles, which was my intent here, this is an...unfortunate response. Before
this thread becomes an even bigger liability to Google's nonpartisan image - especially now that we're bringing
Google's products into this thread - let me establish this clear limiting principle (and hopefully nobody contradicts me
here):

In the context of these remarks, "We should conduct every aspect of our business," every aspect DOES NOT include
search results, be it for organic search, YouTube, or any other product.

Google Employee 25 / Jan 23, 2019

The community guidelines for this list, sent earlier by Marie Collins, are pretty clear:

Do not send an email when you want to:

Contradict, antagonize, or debate other group members on policy, politics, or philosophy (or anything else for
that matter). If you can’t not respond, book a GVC call and discuss directly with the people involved, not the
~1600+ person list.

Additionally:

The mailing list was made to educate, empower, and organize activists, so it is not appropriate to argue
with others on the list, or criticize their beliefs and the goals they have chosen to pursue. If someone's
goal doesn't match yours, simply do not take the action they are suggesting.
(Emphasis mine)

If you folks want to continue to discuss the principles that sparked this discussion, please take it offline. You've got the
names of the folks who have engaged, I'm sure you could schedule a GVC to chat about it in more depth.

Google Employee 26 / Jan 23, 2019

[I] Google is funding a group that argues ... women should have less rights (... no legal right to abortion...), how... do
we expect women to work here?

What's going on here? Do people actually not realize that lots of women are pro-life?

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Google Employee 21 / Jan 23, 2019

I am going to reiterate my request from yesterday. Please end this thread. It is not constructive.