The NAXALT Inquisition Unhinged: Stating Bio/Psychological Facts Is Now Sexual Harassment

Shortly after I posted "Heretical HBD vs. The NAXALT Inquisition: A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st Century" [*1], a memo from the United States' National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in California was made public [*2], after Damore withdrew his claim, deciding, nonetheless, in favor of Google and against James Damore, who was terminated for writing a memo [*3] using a plethora of scientific studies (conveniently deleted out by libelous news outlets, including the charlatans at Wikipedia, gaslighting the public [*4]) to explain why a goal of 50/50 distribution of men/women employees (Google's implicit end game) that doesn't account for scientifically observed differences in averages between the sexes isn't realistic. James argued Google fired him for expressing dissent on matters affecting working conditions (abject hostility to white cis-gendered males) and offering critical feedback on Google's employment policies (retaliation).

The NLRB is fairly explicit about its mission: "[t]he Law we enforce gives employees the right to act together to try and improve their pay and working conditions or fix job-related problems, even if they aren't in a union [*5]." The harassment of James by his co-workers and superiors in retaliation against his attempt to fix working conditions and job-related problems was unhinged, including e-mails from co-workers like “You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[***] you.” [*6]. Numerous other examples can be found in James' separate class action lawsuit against Google here [*7], which were undoubtedly also disclosed in the instant case.

The NLRB agreed that expressing dissent on working conditions and offering criticism would normally be protected speech, entitling James to relief. However, they found an interesting exception to the rule. Stating facts about human biodiversity (HBD) and differences between sexes, meticulously examined and concluded in countless psychological studies, is not only not protected speech, but constitutes sexual harassment in and of itself. Don't believe me?

The Charging Party’s [James Damore] use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. [S]tatements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers [*8].

Not All [Insert Demographic] Are Like That (NAXALT) is a boring red herring to toss at your heretic to justify his stake burning. And putting the word "scientific" in scare quotes doesn't magically undo decades of psychological and scientific data and analysis on differences between the sexes. Nonetheless, the legal arbiters at the NLRB know better. They have declared HBD not only heresy, not only unprotected speech giving employers license to allow and promote a beyond-the-pale hostile work environment, but the mere utterance of it is "sexual harassment."

And what exactly is sexual harassment? The NLRB doesn't have its own explicit definition. Its sister agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines it as such:

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer [emphasis added] [*9].

Imagine if Tennessee, circa the Scopes Monkey Trial in '25, didn't just outlaw a public school teacher from teaching "any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the bible and to teach that man had descended from a lower order of animals [*10]," but instead a federal agency declared any private employee that violated the same would subject his employer and likely himself to payment of judgments for money damages in addition to his termination (and possible detonation of his career).

Acknowledging the facts in Damore's memo, HBD between the sexes, is no different, scientifically speaking, than acknowledging humanity's evolution from lower organisms. Yet men and women can be studied directly. The theory that humans evolved from "a lower order of animals" or organisms involves indirect inferences from fossil examinations, carbon dating, and genome comparison [*11]. If stating scientific conclusions from the theory of evolution would be protected speech for an employee defending against a company imposing a creationist viewpoint on its employees, why is linking to studies showing HBD between the sexes to defend against a company squeezing out males to ham-fistedly enforce a 50/50 standard of sex division in its work force any different?

The sheer arrogance of any tribunal to conflate statement of scientific facts that acknowledge sex differences with "making offensive comments about women in general" reveals the societal cancer of Social Justice is rapidly arriving at Stage 4. To the degree this is made law of the land, lies the degree to which justice lies on hospice care. We wonder what other scientific studies and facts will not merely be outlawed from public teaching but their mere utterance in private employment will entitle employee observers to tribunal-ordered money damages.

"Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2 = 4. If that is grounded, all else follows. [*12]" The foundation to the rule of law is under attack. The NAXALT Inquisition have been exposed for the charlatans they are. It's time to take the law back. A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st Century is ripe for the ruling. And with our current president appointing four times as many appellate justices as Obama did in his first year [*13], the tide is ripe for a turn.

[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2018/02/heretical-hbd-vsthe-naxalt-inquisition.html
[*2] https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/17/damore_memo_complaint.pdf
[*3] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
[*4] www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/13/wikipedias-left-wing-editors-attempt-to-minimize-evidence-supporting-google-memo/
[*5] https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect
[*6] Footnote 1 on page 2. https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/17/damore_memo_complaint.pdf
[*7] https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit
[*8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/17/damore_memo_complaint.pdf
[*9] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
[*10] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2018/02/heretical-hbd-vsthe-naxalt-inquisition.html
[*11]  http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
[*12] http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/
[*13] http://time.com/5066679/donald-trump-federal-judges-record/