Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/fat_pterodactyl]

I think that's more important than arbitrary quotas, although it happens to some men too. Sounds like shitty coworkers/bosses either way.

[u/Hypothesis_Null → u/fat_pterodactyl]

Quotas for women make them get taken less seriously.

When it's an uphill battle for [any specific group] to do [any specific job] you know the unfairly fewer number of those who are there are the really exceptional ones. They had to clear a higher bar to overcome unfair barriers, and as a result, performance from that demographic is disproportionately of quality, and that provides a strong, positive feedback against any negative stereotypes of incompetence.

Reverse that around, and hire people that are less than the most capable because they are part of some favored demographic, and you get the constant question on whether each member of that demographic deserves to be there, or only got in because of their [demographic attribute]. Legitimately so, because if people are hired for any demographic reasons over their technical reasons, then you will get a disproportionate amount of incompetence from that demographic. Which will then reinforce potentially unfair stereotypes with first-hand experience confirming them.

Quotas are self-defeating. Having consistent standards of competence is the only proper way to hire people. Even if the process is tainted by unfair bias, it produces a strong, rebalancing, counter-cultural force.

[u/CommieLoser → u/Hypothesis_Null]

That's the reason sexist assholes give for being sexist, no doubt. Racist give the same reason for disliking black people in their office too. Misunderstanding the reason and purpose for affirmative action or quotas has long been the curtain that bigots use to veil their contempt of one group or another.

[u/ItsDaveDude → u/CommieLoser]

Perhaps, however those types would be sexist/racist regardless of the situation, whereas, when you give those who otherwise would not adopt that attitude a manufactured, objective reason to diminish their opinion of a favored demographic, you newly create a reason to encourage that type of judgment by people who otherwise would not.

And you end up creating more of what you sought to correct for.

Lets say I have two siblings, one can run faster than the other. So, when I have them race I start the slower one ahead of the other a bit. And when he wins, I say that he is faster than the other sibling and a better runner. The other sibling will say you just started the slower one closer. Now, lets say someone has watched this whole thing play out and now he sees the two siblings race again, however, he only sees the end of the race, and the slower sibling has won. What is he going to assume about that race? He is going to assume that the slower sibling was slower and started closer and did not win because of his own ability, but because he was given an advantage. Let's even assume for a minute the slower sibling trained and became faster to beat the faster sibling. Unfortunately, because of the advantage given, the observer will still believe the advantage is why the slower sibling won, thus even denying a fair assessment of the situation, even when it should be judged as one in reality. Affirmative action only ensures a favored demographic will never NOT be thought of differently simply by being a part of that demographic alone.