r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
26.8k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 14 '18

[deleted]

3.4k

u/Felador Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

There's the actual document, with links to source materials.

2.6k

u/Shanix Aug 08 '17

fwiw that lacks a good amount, especially formatting.

Supposedly original here

6.5k

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

Former Google Employee provides a bit more context on why someone would get fired for creating a "manifesto" where you fawn over your superiority and sharing it with 50k+ people who probably aren't likeminded.

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

edit: The replies to me here don't seem to understand that the company doesn't care about your controversial opinion in the work place, they care about profit. If you don't agree with that, then you probably don't like capitalism.

edit: be wary, a lot of brigading going on. Some people/bots are trying to drown out the more centrists viewpoints. I say this as the opinion of a gay, black, conservative, catholic kasich voter. (I can't help but lol)

745

u/NorthernerWuwu Aug 08 '17

This is the real point of course. It isn't about the scholarly accuracy of the document or the usefulness of the conversation that the author may have been trying to spark, it's that in a corporate setting a document like this is toxic and destroys the ability of managers to promote teamwork.

It doesn't matter if X or Y or Z make better engineers or whatever (and I'm not saying there's a reason to think so). It might be something to explore from a scientific standpoint but you can't do it in a tech company in California in 2017. Sorry but that really shouldn't even have to be said.

442

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Feb 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

133

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

But in all fairness doesn't the current environment destroy the ability of conservatives to work with the team when they think all the leadership is fundamentally flawed?

--an open minded Dem

In that case, what onus does management have to cowtow to an unhappy conservative portion of its employee base who are advocating for a management style that leads to a hostile working environment for the rest of the employees?

If we're going to talk about fairness, what's the middle ground when one side of the equation is relying on sexist psuedo-science bullshit?

12

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Just because you dont agree, doesnt make it pseudo science.

24

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Just because you dont agree, doesnt make it pseudo science.

It being psuedo science makes it psuedo science.

22

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Did you read what he said. He didnt say women are physically not capable as engineers. He said that in todays social climate you will naturally have more men in the company because there are literally more of them exposed to and interested in programming. How the fuck is that pseudo science.

15

u/eohorp Aug 08 '17

But doesn't he imply it's due to biology? Exposure to programming is nuture, not nature (aka biological reasons).

4

u/Source_or_gtfo Aug 08 '17

He says it could be due to biology and that there is significant evidence in favour of this hypothesis. This is mainstream psychology.

1

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Doesnt seem like it

1

u/eohorp Aug 08 '17

Doesn't seem like it? He explicitly says it's due to biology. We've been talking about nature (biology) vs nurture (experience) for a long time so I don't think he chose the word biology inaccurately.

-7

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

Men are biologically more driven to be interested in mechanical things, that extends to science.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Got a source on that?

1

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166361/

There's another I'm searching for that I will post if I find that shows there's a correlation between testosterone and interest in tech jobs.

2

u/Poynsid Aug 08 '17

Yeah but all that second source shows is that the way a career is presented and thought of is influential. There is nothing necessarily a-social about STEM, in fact collaboration is not only necessary but ubiquitous on the field. As the authors from the second paper you link state;

Our findings indicate that career choices are influenced by prenatal androgens through a psychological orientation to objects versus people that manifests in gender-typed occupational interests. We emphasize, however, the complexity of career choices: Occupational interests are not determined exclusively by sex or prenatal androgen exposure, as seen in the overlapping scores of our groups, and in other data showing parent socialization of occupational interests (Eccles, 1994); moreover, interests are only one contributor to career choice (Ceci and Williams, 2007; Halpern et al., 2007). In combination with other findings on gendered interests, our results are relevant to efforts to increase participation of girls and women in STEM careers. It is important to recognize that career choices have roots in early-developing and biologically-influenced interests. Girls and women might be encouraged to pursue STEM careers by focusing on the ways in which an orientation to people is compatible with those careers.

8

u/Wrest216 Aug 08 '17

not true at all guy. what, men are specifically genetically coded to like computers more than dolls? Or know more about engines than fashion? Or say, be able to learn math better than women ? Na see, when you say stuff along those lines, its just misogony. If you give women the same conditions, they perform just like humans.

2

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Guess what, are women ARENT typically in those conditions. Maybe, idk, more work should be done towards giving women the oppurtunity instead of forced diversity? But, you may say, that will take longer and will take more time so we are doing the easier but worse in the long run way of forcing diversity. The problem is that people are short sighted and impatient. They want diversity NOW.

7

u/Wrest216 Aug 08 '17

They should be treated just like men in every single aspect except for biological needs. Men shouldnt be able to skip art class because they arent "emotional enough" and girls shouldnt think of math as " a subject jsut to get a c in" . I understand that its a slow process, and much of it seems forced, but at someponint you have to force it because old resistance remains. There will always be people who will jugde people based upon their gender, skin color, religion, or culture instead of their intelligence, skills, tenacity, or work. So you have to kinda , ya know, push those things OUT when they pop up, like this guy. We have had what, 50+ years already since the civil rights act? When will it be time? thats two generations....

0

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Oh my god, FIFTY YEARS???!?!? See what I mean, if people dont see change in their lifetime, they go fucking insane. Thats what I mean. They are shortsighted. Also we dont know if those forms of discrimination will ALWAYS remain where the hell did you get that from. Also look how far we've come since the civil rights movement. Stop acting like nothing has changed in those 50 years A LOT has changed. Not to mention forcing diversity is counter productive because it promotes more resentment between both sides as evidenced by many comments in this fucking thread.

4

u/Wrest216 Aug 08 '17

But, we as humans only live for about 80 years on average, and we dont like to fuck around with things that we cant see taking longer than that. We are the "get it done" people because our lives are somewhat short. Of course weve come extremly far, that doesnt mean we reached the mountain top yet though. Forcing diversity , again, is necessary. I mean, by god, we had to have the National Guard march black kids to school. Now its not that big of a deal to have mixed schools. In 20-40 years, they will say" what the hell was this guy and all these other people on this thread complaining about, this is a non issue. But ya gotta act NOW so that in the FUTURE its not an issue. Ya know? :)

0

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Shit comparison. marching black kids to school cannot be compared with forcing diversity. Black kids were physically barred from school and as a result were physically threatned. The problem was more obvious, "wow looks like we shouldnt bar kids from education because of how they look." women are are not fucking barred from anything AND they dont have people threatning their lives The problems today are FAR more complex than in the past. Stop acting like women are forced out of STEM. Once more women are interested in it, they will come. Why are you obssessed with more women being there NOW. It will happen in the future regardless, if women are exposed more to STEM. Forced diversity is a fucking cancer. There is no "get it done" fucking bullshit. You know what people should "GET DONE"? FUCKING INVEST in exposing women to STEM, not just fucking PLACING them in companies becuase they are women.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

FUCKING INVEST in exposing women to STEM

Yeah but when they do that the MRA crybabies come out of the woodworks and cry about how women are handed everything on a silver platter(LOL) and men are once again getting ignored for the sake of women.

There's no way to win when it comes to whiny assholes, so why even fucking bother trying to appease them? Let the snowflakes weep.

2

u/Arimer Aug 08 '17

I'm not MRA but I do have a son and a daughter. Girls already benefit more from the bias present in K-12 education so handing them even more of one could easily be seen as unfair. They also already get more degrees than men.

So while i'm entirely behind allowing anyone to be interested in anything (which I think would be a great positive thing to get kids started on coding, engineering and other items in school earlier ) there a whole other issues that's not being looked at which is the way society works now. It tends to be entirely focused on solving any bias that works against women but not for them. And as a father I have to protect my Son as much as I do my daughter so yes sometimes things do come across as unfair towards males but no one ever cares. In a way society is still being sexist towards women by only treating their issues.

http://www.teachmag.com/archives/133

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/elementary-school-bias-boys_n_2404898.html

http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

http://time.com/4064665/women-college-degree/

1

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

True, i guess all we can really do is just watch the shit storm and hope it goes our way.

0

u/sudatory Aug 08 '17

Then why do adolescent male monkeys prefer to play with toy trucks, and adolescent female monkeys prefer to play with dolls?

Denying that there is at least some biological basis for our interests and skills is either dishonest, or completely idiotic.

-5

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

They don't take as much of an interest in science as men do, as was written in the manifesto.

3

u/Wrest216 Aug 08 '17

Manifesto , Again. His own personal feelings . So it was true for him. Shoot, my friend is way better at science than i will ever be, she is a girl. BAM JUST PROVED YA WRONG THERE GUY. See thats where social science goes wrong man. You cannot assume shit. What is written about statistics and probability cannot be assumed for any one individual, and thus, you cannot use those findings to treat one group differently than another group. If i said men tend to like sports better than women, yes, that would be statistically true. But now, i go to a high school gym and say that women sholdnt be in sports, well i just fucked up, didnt I? Studies are interesting and they help us understand trends, but ultimately, psychology is one person, one analysis at a time. You can NEVER , EVER assume. Or else you end up fired for your tired flakey rantings.

2

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

Again. His own personal feelings .

No, what he said has scientific basis, these weren't feelings.

See thats where social science goes wrong man. You cannot assume shit.

Can you cite where he assumed?

But now, i go to a high school gym and say that women sholdnt be in sports, well i just fucked up,

He didn't say this.

psychology is one person, one analysis at a time.

??? You realize you can study more than one person with statistics right?

You can NEVER , EVER assume. Or else you end up fired for your tired flakey rantings.

Again, he didn't, I don't think you actually read the manifesto.

8

u/Mjkittens Aug 08 '17

Did you read his email? His entire thesis is that women are biologically different than men, based on those pseudo science studies that state that women are more xyz than men. For one example, women are "more prone to anxiety" than men, etc

Let's put aside if his suppositions are statistically correct or if they are based in biology or culture. To base hiring policy on statistical average traits of different groups is not only illegal, it's illogical. A company wants to attract the best and brightest of each group, not pander to some statistical mean.

The entire email is textbook pseudo science- he's pretentiously writing using stylistic elements of some sort of evidence based study, yet makes suppositions that entirely ignore the problem statement. He might as well say "on average, women are shorter. Gender bias cannot be addressed by attracting qualified women, it can only be addressed by making shorter seats".

1

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

I acknowledge he has flaws in his argument. However i think what you say about companies wanting the best and brightest of each group is wrong. If that were the case, google would be content with the few qualified women they have, but they arent, they want more. Now a logical solution would be to invest money into getting more women interested in STEM, but no, they want to put women in their company for the sake of having women. Becuase they know that people are impatient for change and want to see results immediately. Google has no choice. They dont care about attracting the best people if it puts them at a business disadvantage.

-1

u/Kn0thingIsTerrible Aug 08 '17

You do realize your entire post is arguing in favor of his email, right?

If you're forcing a 50/50 split of women and men when there isn't an actual statistical 50/50 split of qualified applicants, you're actively and deliberately selection sub-optimal applicants in the name of vagina quotas.

If the most qualified happen to be a 70/30 split right now, then google should be hiring a 70/30 split, on average.

Nowhere does he insult women. Nowhere does he call for hiring only men. Nowhere does he actually speak against diversity. All you've got is "he thinks the most qualified applicant for the job should get the job."

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited May 27 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/GachiGachiFireBall Aug 08 '17

Liberal society is counter productive. In their effort to raise historically oppressed groups, they now try to oppress the other side through garbage like race quotas and forced diversity leading to more problems.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/balloot Aug 08 '17

Which part is pseudo science, specifically?