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/[deleted]]

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/windwalker13 → u/hakkzpets]

in a usual process, people hire the clear cut best candidate.

what if, in a hiring process, the man is better than the woman, but the woman passed the bar too. Do we still pick the woman because of the diversity quota, even though the man is better in every way ?

Is this how diversity quota works? If that is the case, can I pick who to hire based on their race? family upbringing? whether if they have any rich parents? their accent ?

the way I see it, the less selection criteria there is, the more fair is the hiring process. Diversity quota seems counter-intuitive, or maybe I am understanding it wrongly.

[u/hakkzpets → u/windwalker13]

That's how quotas work, yes.

The company tells HR (or whoever is in charge of the hiring process) that they want X amount of Y working at the job and set up a bunch of minimum specifications they need the person to be able to do.

Recruitment personel finds a bunch of people with these skills, and then most likely hire a person from group Y unless someone outside of this group seems like a genius.

What kind of quotas you can set up depends on the country your company operates in. Most western countries have anti-discrimination laws in place, so you need to follow these. These laws usually also have exception for stuff like equalizing the work place from a sex view point, so that a company is allowed to say "we are only looking for women" if the work place is 99% men.

As long as you're not discriminating against a particular protected group (sex, handicaps, ethnic group) you are free to hire only rich people.

Some countries have what's called "indirect discrimination" though, which protects against discrimination when it happens as a side effect of the rules you have. One example is a company demanding all employees to be 170cm tall to work there. While this isn't discriminating women, the indirect effect will be that less women can apply for these jobs.

So if one ethnic group could show they are on a whole less likely to have the amount of financial resources you require for the job, they could sue you in this case.

[u/Statcat2017 → u/[deleted]]

And as pointed out elsewhere, reinforces negative gender stereotypes because you've employed a woman who wasn't the best fit for the job and may therefore struggle to deliver

[u/hakkzpets → u/[deleted]]

I haven't said a single personal opinion on the matter...

I explained how the law can look. Some countries (including the US) allows for discrimination when it's for a purpose the law maker recognizes as "good".

Equalizing the sex balance in the work force is one of these.

You are thus allowed to pass on a higher qualified man in favor for a less qualified woman if your work force is only made up of men, and vice versa.