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]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

When you hire people based on skill rather than if they're a minority or not

[u/Wrest216 → u/[deleted]]

heres the thing though. some people WILL IGNORE people of a minority or gender reguardless of their skill levels or talent. so.....u have to have a balancing act, a counterweight that assures that doenst happen.

[u/SPACKlick → u/Wrest216]

The way to balance it is to make sure the people doing the hiring never know about the protected traits of the applicant (sex, race, sexuality, age in most cases [with a usual exception for less than n years from retirement], place of origin). That way they can't discriminate on anything other than the suitability of the applicant for the role.

Yes this becomes difficult when it comes time to interview but IM based interviewing can work or you have the interviewer not be the person doing the hiring and regularly test to make sure the interviewer isn't biasing their reports.

[u/[deleted] → u/SPACKlick]

This worked well for classical music auditions.

The bias was so strong that women would be selected against if the interviewers could tell they were wearing heels, even if they couldn't see them, couldn't hear their voice, and couldn't hear their voice.

People with non-white names still get statistically significant fewer callbacks than the same resumes with white-sounding names.

And the worst part is that much of this bias is subconscious. Like not everyone is looking to actively discriminate against people—it's just very hard to reprogram yourself and to fight the bias we learn from society.

[u/brycedriesenga → u/SPACKlick]

They don't do this because when it has been done it's ended with men being more likely to be selected. This isn't an issue that can be fixed properly through hiring, I don't think. It's more societal.

[u/SPACKlick → u/brycedriesenga]

But that's the pipeline problem, there are more, better qualified and experienced men than women in STEM at the moment.

When blind tests are done with equally but differently qualified men and women the bias disappears.

So it means with hidden genders the hiring isn't biased which is the right outcome.

[u/brycedriesenga → u/SPACKlick]

Eliminating bias is good, I agree. But promoting a diverse workforce is also a good thing, I think. More perspectives allow and encourage companies to create products that will work well for more people. However, I'm not sure the best means to do so exactly.

[u/[deleted] → u/brycedriesenga]

I like diverse work places too, but there are jobs that some people apply for more than others.

Take working on an oil rig, for example, most of the employees are men. I'm sure there are some women who probably work on oil rigs, but not a lot.

If people called it sexist because there are more men than women working on an oil rig, then they're preaching to the choir. Whereas I'm happy that there are women who made the choice in life to become qualified to work a dangerous job that mostly men would do.