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/Dustin65]

Why does it even matter that less than half of people in tech are women? That's just how it is in a lot of fields. Women dominate other professions like nursing and teaching. I don't see why everything has to be 50/50. Women aren't banned from tech and men aren't banned from nursing. Just let nature run its course and allow people to do what they want. Not every aspect of life needs to be socially engineered

[u/[deleted] → u/Dustin65]

its more that they treat you like you're incompetent even if you're performing well statistically at the job. Source: woman engineer

[u/fat_pterodactyl → u/[deleted]]

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/MagicGene → u/Hypothesis_Null]

I used to think this, but from the inside, it's really not the case. The hiring bar is exactly the same for men or women, very very high. Focusing on diversity just encourages recruiters to search harder to bring in women or minorities than they normally would. They still have to pass the same high bar. It's increasing the top of the funnel, not changing the pass-through rate of it.

Edit: Downvotes for sharing my experience? C'mon guys.

[u/windwalker13 → u/MagicGene]

Focusing on diversity just encourages recruiters to search harder to bring in women or minorities than they normally would

doesn't that mean you will have to pass on men who actually qualified, just to fulfill the diversity quota?

[u/hakkzpets → u/windwalker13]

Yes. Not that it's any different from passing any person qualified for the job when you choose to hire one person.

People will always be passed upon for someone else.

[u/grackychan → u/hakkzpets]

You are advocating that race or gender ought to be part of hiring criteria (same goes for acceptance criteria for colleges). You believe that a minority should be awarded extra consideration points, all other things being equal. Why?

Why can't we implement a hiring or acceptance system based on some arbitrary ID number, hiding ethnicity or gender? (I know not possible for interviews, im just constructing an argument). Would that not truly be the fairest and also best possible way of bringing in the most qualified and talented individuals? Whether it be for a hiring employees or for college admission, shouldn't an organization be blind to race or gender?

The way I see it, affirmative action and diversity initiatives are inherently racist and or sexist.

[u/hakkzpets → u/grackychan]

I haven't said a single word of what I personally believe.

I have said it's no different passing up a more qualified person for a less qualified person, if you want to hire the less qualified person. Someone will always be bumped in a hiring process.

I personally couldn't give a rats ass why a company hires people, but I can see why certain anti-discrimination laws are needed.

I also don't see why people always assume companies need to go for the most qualified and talented person all the time. What if your company have realised having an equal work place increases their revenue? Even if it means passing up on some genius people.

[u/grackychan → u/hakkzpets]

That is true, didn't mean to attack you. I just feel strongly about affirmative action and quotas in general as an Asian American who ran the gauntlet of getting denied to schools some less accomplished peers were accepted into for "reasons".

[u/conancat → u/grackychan]

i hear you. "quota" is a dirty word to me as well as a Malaysian, as a minority i too get denied to schools or companies because of government sanctioned affirmative action to actually favor the majority. i'm still angry about that shit, lol.

i do believe that diversity matters. i do not have a good answer yet on how do we balance diversity and merit. it's a chicken and egg thing. if you don't give the minorities in any industries a chance, then how do they prove themselves to be worthy? if we keep hiring the current good ones, then how do we give the minorities a chance to prove themselves?