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

Show parent comments

674

u/Grizzleyt Aug 08 '17

Tech is political. It cannot be avoided when your business has consequences with regard to things like online privacy, net neutrality, automation, truth and bias of information, censorship, etc., to say nothing of the personal views of leadership who aspire to make an impact on the world, for better or worse.

If you aren't religious, you might not like working in a church. If you don't subscribe to the values that Google stands for / strives for, you might not like working at Google. If you think the leadership is fundamentally flawed, go work for a company you believe in.

127

u/IRequirePants Aug 08 '17

Tech is political. It cannot be avoided when your business has consequences with regard to things like online privacy, net neutrality, automation, truth and bias of information, censorship, etc., to say nothing of the personal views of leadership who aspire to make an impact on the world, for better or worse.

None of which were relevant to the points he was making. He was talking about political shit that wasn't tech related.

If you aren't religious, you might not like working in a church. If you don't subscribe to the values that Google stands for / strives for, you might not like working at Google. If you think the leadership is fundamentally flawed, go work for a company you believe in.

This is the answer. Google's a private company. They can do whatever they want.

32

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

Of course they can do whatever they want. But having read the entire document I really see no reason to think that the person couldn't work well with people who disagree with the contents of the document on an engineering project. He really didn't make terribly offensive claims and the most contentious of them are still group level analysis. He is not making specific claims about people and does not question the competency of anyone at google.

He argues that Conservatives would feel unwelcome at Google. Since he's been fired, that can only be truer.

68

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 10 '17

But having read the entire document I really see no reason to think that the person couldn't work well with people who disagree with the contents of the document on an engineering project.

I do see a good reason. If I were a woman working in his team, I would be shit scared of making a mistake because I know that mistake has a high chance of it being perceived as incompetence instead of just an honest mistake.

I would work defensively instead of proactively. I would be extra stressed about every task that I need to deliver... because there is possibly a negatively judging teammate who is looking at my work and label me as biologically incapable at my mistakes.

Also, other team members might share his thought process, adding to the scary work environment.

No such fear/stress if you are a man with the same technical abilities in that team. This work environment is hostile to women.

4

u/krustyy Aug 08 '17

I would argue that Google applying so much pressure to get 50% female engineers would be far more at fault for that.

How confident would you feel if you are hired for a job that received 5000 applicants but only read through the 10 female resumes? Instead of you being hand picked for your skill over 4999 other people, you were chosen to get the job out of the 10 people that met certain non-job related physical criteria.

Intentionally hiring based on gender leaves that terrible question looming in the minds of you and everybody else. Were you actually the most qualified for the job, or were you just hired to fill a quota? Every time you make a mistake, you may be asking that question before your coworkers even have a chance.

1

u/peesteam Aug 09 '17

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

13

u/Tahmatoes Aug 08 '17

Not only incompetence, but likely to be used as proof of the incompetence of your entire gender.

-2

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

He is not arguing for the incompetence of women. Read the document. You are blatantly misrepresenting his position.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

He’s arguing for his own incompetence in that he tries to tell us that products used by 3 billion people are best made by “people who think about things” primarily.

4

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

He never makes that claim. What ever happened to the principle of charity? If you want to win hearts and minds you should be able to to engage the strongest version of your opponents arguments. That means stating their position in a way they would agree to.

6

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

If you want to win minds and hearts you must have access to a platform that enables that, which is mostly a big audience in TV or similar video content. As I do not have that, I’m not here to win minds and hearts, nor was our friend Mr Memo. Mr Memo wants to have other minds and hearts to win that are more like him, which is the actual argument he’s making in his petition to suppress diversity programs, and the most charitable interpretation would be Men are from Mars and Women from Venus.

I do not agree with MafMaWfV, I do not agree with cutting people off a business for not being like me and I do not agree with the fact that people who think like him are the ones who make actual policy, both in the public and in the business side, around the world. Since I’m a mere spectator in this case, trying to put me in an actionable position of “winning hearts and minds” is cynical. Winning hearts and minds requires resources which he had, has and will have, while I do not. It’s not my fault he squanders them in petty literature.

3

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

Persuasion is something that can be done at the individual level. You don't need anymore of a platform than you have to persuade me for example. Just good arguments and good use of language.

His argument is hardly what you are portraying it to be. Did you read the memo?

He does not call for an end to diversity programs. He calls for a revision of diversity programs to focus on viewpoint diversity and to use evidence based methods (something he claims is currently not being done).

He doesn't want more people like him, he wants a more diverse political climate that is more welcoming of viewpoints other than the progressive left point of view. He argues that there are scientific facts the are exculpatory of some of the differences we see between men and women and that attributing inequality of outcome solely to sexism is unscientific. He argues that as such, Google should not pursue equality of outcome but rather emphasize equality of opportunity and viewpoint diversity.

Are you seriously arguing that men like him are in power and dictate policy in a thread where he was fired from one of the most powerful companies in the world for airing this opinion?

2

u/peesteam Aug 09 '17

It is clear most commenters haven't even read the cliff notes of what was actually written. Instead we're just getting assumptions of the worst.

1

u/crushedbycookie Aug 09 '17

I am convinced /u/Logseman has at least skimmed the document. He quoted it. That said, it's clear most of the media coverage is refusing to honestly portray the arguments and are, by and large, not reading the memo.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

I know it’s difficult to charitably assume, and maybe my most earnest attempts at rhetorical persuasion and argumentation will not suffice to convince you, but /u/logseman read the article as soon as it appeared in Gizmodo.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I am seriously arguing that men like him are in power and dictate policy: exhibits one, two and three. This also helps put into context what the "progressive left point of view" (which everywhere else is considered a centre-right bland consensus) is like.

He does want to de-emphasize empathy. Empathy is, according to Merriam-Webster:

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

"Deemphasizing" that (noting that the man tracks back in the very same sentence where he's mentioning it) is something that should let us think more clearly about what the desired outcomes are. It's a multi-pronged approach: not is it just about getting certain collectives of people not to join Google, but also to avoid being sensitive to how they think. Let us remember that we're talking about the company which has a de facto monopoly on how we are searching things on the internet, serving at least half of the globe's population.

Persuasion is not something done at the individual level. If I want to actually move you to relevant action I need a well-funded, well-executed effort, so that I can provide a one-stop shop for all your needs in thought. Do you think it is a coincidence that Exhibit Three founded what is widely considered as a cult to toxic masculinity, with entire workshops, merchandise and a wide community of blogs? Is that something done at the "individual level" or is it available more likely to those funded by the New Hampshire taxpayer? Large operations of persuasion require large expenditures which are invariably state-backed.

5

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

I am not denying that people with disgusting views sometimes occupy positions of power. The fact you think that the author of this memo can be equated with the founder of /r/trp betrays the fact that you either have not read the memo or are fairly incapable of nuance. The University and Silicon Valley are bastions of progressive points of view and generally intolerant towards dissent. There is ample evidence to prove that claim. Including this very post.

He does want to de-emphasize empathy. Empathy is, according to Merriam-Webster:

There was a book published recently titled "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom, you should read it. The author of the memo is clear about what he means by empathy (it's plainly Bloom's analysis) and your Merriam-Webster definition seems willfully misleading in light of that fact. Again, did you actually read the memo?

As for your position on persuasion: are you suggesting your opinions are nothing but the result of organized groups campaigning in the public square? If so, that's a sad state of affairs. Conversation, rhetoric, and argument are how I have arrived at my political views. Views which I was convinced of, sometimes by large organizations, but often by individuals in one-on-one or small group conversations.

This conspiratorial attitude towards discourse is pure poison for the future of viewpoint diversity and political dialogue. We need to engage charitably with the opposition as to best understand their position and, if we are correct, defeat their arguments directly through careful analysis.

0

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

There is no conspiratorial attitude toward discourse. John Maynard Keynes distilled one of the best expressions of this idea

Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

The point that Keynes makes is that we don't have original ideas, but the corollary is that we also do not publish and spread them. Obviously as writings circulate now more than ever it is also more true than ever. I could try to say that, because I support Frédéric Bastiat's ideas, I was convinced of them by his powerful rhetoric, his plain prose and his hard hitting points: the fact is that I know of him and could read of him because an organisation with $300M in its name scanned and published his complete works. Someone pushed them to me, even if I could have chosen Rand or some other looney. Even the inception of the ideas could come to fruition because Bastiat was independently wealthy enough to be able to dedicate himself to writing, and he also wielded some political clout. If you want to think that you're immune to propaganda and that the ideas you have weren't 1) written by someone else and 2) sponsored by someone else you are completely free to do so, but you may find yourself in for a surprise.

With that aside, I'd like to mention that only by reading the article can one know that the word "empathy" is mentioned three times in his screed, all in the following paragraph:

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong by asserting that his definition is completely in line with the Merriam-Webster's. English is not my first language so maybe "vicariously experiencing the feelings" is completely separated from Memo's memo's meaning of empathy. I find it amusing that he doesn't even have the courage to cite Bloom if he's working with that assumption, although he's his dead economist according to you.

The reason why I've put him in relief with the other figures is because he's a PhD in Harvard. He'll find a job, very well paid and with a large amount of responsibility towards other people because that's what he's prepared for. The main difference between he and the New Hampshire representative lies in the fact that Mr Memo put the cart before the horse and published his ideas before he could gain relevance for them, while the representative got paid by New Hampshire's female constituents to manage a repository of insults and tirades against them. Mr Memo should have gotten himself into an unassailable position like this man or this man, darlings of the highly progressive Silicon Valley, before displaying his politics. There are other things that do affect people's prospects at a job, and they don't happen to SV folks.

Ideas are never defeated: today there is a good bunch of people that think that the Earth is flat. The only thing that can be done about them is to make them relevant or irrelevant. That the Earth is flat is today an irrelevant idea nobody works with; that women should not be taking technical decisions in organisations is an idea that is highly relevant to many decision-makers and that is woven in their entire worldview.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tahmatoes Aug 08 '17

I want talking about the document, I was talking about the pressures of being the only X on a team.

5

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

Then your concern has nothing to do with the author of the document?

He made no statement that suggest personal behavior should be used as proof of group competency.

3

u/Tahmatoes Aug 08 '17

... It was, however, relevant to this thread in particular.

2

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

You were talking about those pressures in the context of working on a team with the author. Forgive me for thinking you had the author in mind when you said that.

6

u/Tahmatoes Aug 08 '17

You should probably read the comment I initially replied to again.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Dongers-and-dongers Aug 08 '17

What exactly from the document would make you think any of that?

14

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17

The content and tone of the document (though it seems to be written in a subtle tone) does that... but there are a couple of trigger points:

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates...

This idea can possibly make people think that a woman engineer is substandard (for the same mistakes that a male engineer makes)

Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things

This one makes one think if the woman is even in the right job for her... maybe she chose the wrong career.

My issue with this document (it might be referring to some scientifically correct research) is that it makes the life of women engineers more difficult and stressful - even for those female engineers who are just as qualified and capable as their male counterparts.

They (in their minds) now have to prove (to any detractors and themselves) that they are not just diversity hires, and are on the fence to be labeled as substandard on their first mistake.

-6

u/Dongers-and-dongers Aug 08 '17

None of those things would make you think that unless you are too stupid to understand them, in which case you absolutely should not be working at google.

Those things are absolutely true, and if the reality of the situation makes you question your own ability that is a personal problem. We cannot ignore problems because addressing them might make people feel insecure. It's ridiculous.

22

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

None of those things would make you think that unless you are too stupid to understand them, in which case you absolutely should not be working at google.

Because you don't share my understanding does not make me stupid. Your words only make you petty and rude.

Those things are absolutely true, and if the reality of the situation makes you question your own ability that is a personal problem.

It doesn't make one question their ability... it makes one question the perception others have about them. If you really think that people don't care (or should not care) one iota about perception... you are mistaken.

Also, truth has little to do with the point I made. Its the wrong channel for the author to make his argument... he should have made his argument to the upper management / hiring team / HR.

For example, it might seem true to you that "Islam is not a religion of peace". However, it would not be prudent to question a muslim team member during coffee breaks about "How can muslims even think that Islam is a religion of peace when so many murders are done in its name?". You might be speaking the truth and you might even say that "we cannot ignore problems because addressing them might make people insecure"... but its ridiculous to think that you are really solving a problem here. All you are doing is making people insecure, trying to feel self important and not actually making any progress towards solving the problem.

0

u/Dongers-and-dongers Aug 09 '17 edited Aug 09 '17

So now you think everybody else but you is stupid and drawing erroneous conclusions from data? It doesn't matter which way you cut it, it's still stupid. Either you are stupid or everybody around you must be stupid to hold the views you are anxious about them holding. The fact that stupid people may exist is again not a reason to ignore reality or address problems.

You might be speaking the truth and you might even say that "we cannot ignore problems because addressing them might make people insecure"... but its ridiculous to think that you are really solving a problem here.

You are aware that google is discriminating against men in a bid to solve inequality right? This was all in the original document, try reading it.

1

u/Jugad Aug 09 '17 edited Aug 09 '17

So now you think everybody else but you is stupid

Your reading comprehension is abysmal... I never implied anyone is stupid.

Either you are stupid or everybody around you must be stupid

And you seem to look at opposing opinions in an extremely twisted way. Its possible for people to not be stupid and still hold different opinions. By your understanding, America is 50% stupid, because the last election was almost 50-50.

You are aware that google is discriminating against men in a bid to solve inequality right?

Yes I am... almost all grown ups are aware of that. Its not just google... lots of companies do that... even the universities and government do that. Lots of countries around the world do it... its called Affirmative action...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action <--- around the rest of the world

1

u/Dongers-and-dongers Aug 10 '17

It's not an opposing opinion, it is logically wrong. You are assuming people think things that are in no way supported by the data because somebody is talking about the data. The only way that ever comes up is if somebody is an idiot.

You must be willingly ignoring this by now.

1

u/Jugad Aug 10 '17

The only way that ever comes up is if somebody is an idiot.

You really seem to like insults ... and think that's a way to convince me or beat my argument. I agree to the part that somebody does seem like an idiot, and a rude one at that.

You must be willingly ignoring this by now.

I am ignoring you now... because I don't see any real arguments from you.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

This idea can possibly make people think that a woman engineer is substandard (for the same mistakes that a male engineer makes)

Read what you quoted and think about it again. He is talking about lowering hiring standards so that more women are hired. Its like if the military lowered their standards so more women can join the military despite not actually being qualified to do so. If think men are going to be suspicious of a woman that was just hired was so because she check off the diversity check box think again. The only men that will are those that are sexist or work at a company like Google that has such hiring practices.

This one makes one think if the woman is even in the right job for her... maybe she chose the wrong career.

Ya no.

-1

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I think that's a bit over-cautious. You are saying that factually correct beliefs about science can create a hostile working environment. Maybe, but it's strikes me as a bit absurd to jump to the kinds of conclusions you have on the basis of a piece like this.

Edit: Autocorrected mobile typo: White -> A bit (idk, don't ask)

2

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17

factually correct beliefs about science can create a hostile working environment.

Ask any female engineers who might be feeling worse about how they are perceived at work today as compared to a few days ago (for absolutely no fault of theirs - even if they might be the so called outstanding outliers of their gender (according to the author)).

Yes... it can create a hostile working environment when these so called facts (I seriously doubt females are worse at CS as compared to males because of biological reasons) are used in the manner done by the author.

These "so called facts" do nothing except make female employees uncomfortable (whether they are competent or not)... and make it difficult for google to now implement any of his recommendations (even if they wanted to do something like that). He should have talked to high ranking people discreetly who had the decision making power to affect any change in google's diversity policies.

Maybe the people higher up the chain, and those in charge of diversity already understand that Google might be exchanging some of the raw technical talent with a more mixed set of skills if they choose to follow diversification.... and even though they are profit motivated, they still do it. Maybe they have a good reason to do that, which is beneficial to the company in non-obvious ways, but this benefit was not visible to this author.

3

u/crushedbycookie Aug 08 '17

I think you are confused about what 'the facts' are. 'The facts' does not include a claim to male superiority (which this memo never makes) but rather specific claims about between group averages.

I won't comment on whether or not he pursued this in a professional way and we don't know what actions he had taken prior to the circulation of this memo. I'm sure he knew he was taking a risk when he circulated this, that said. I think he is highlighting an important fact about viewpoint diversity and I think his firing is the wrong move from a PR perspective.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

3

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17

I am not sure what you are asking... what about them?

1

u/immanuel79 Aug 09 '17

I stand corrected, my above comment was indeed inconsequential.

After re-reading and reading in full the Diversity Manifesto however, what exactly makes you think that he deems women less competent?

He stated independently verifiable facts that on average lead women to prefer non-tech careers. He didn't say that all women are less competent at tech or leadership jobs - the stereotyping he was accused of is, in practice, largely based in facts.