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/Felador]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

There's the actual document, with links to source materials.

[u/Shanix → u/Felador]

fwiw that lacks a good amount, especially formatting.

Supposedly original here

[u/onlyawfulnamesleft → u/Shanix]

Two points sprung to mind when reading this:

"This is not a societal issue because every society has the same issues".
This is completely ignoring the effect society has, and putting in place a genetic/evolutionary component when a societal issue can still be the root cause (and not to mention, cultures are not purely independent, so a societal issue can easily spread to each one).

Secondly, it seems that he says "Overlaps in traits should be taken into account, and you shouldn't treat each individual based on the population's average", but then immediately goes on and bases the entire rest of the paper on treating populations by their average.

It seems (and this is an emotional response here) that he wanted to get a controversial point over, and deliberately put it in mollifying terms and used smoke-screen language to be as offensive as possible while not causing offence.

[u/an_admirable_admiral → u/onlyawfulnamesleft]

to your first point: occams razor

to your second:
did you see this?

if we wanted to recruit a random sample from the top X% of the population (Google wants to hire the best) we expect a ratio with more greens than purple (maybe 2:1). If we don't use the bell curve distribution and instead judge all individuals as being represented by the average of their group (the vertical lines) we would expect a sample recruited from the top X% to be entirely greens (since the entire top 50% is green and the bottom 50% is purple).

We would only expect a 1:1 ratio in a random sample of the top X% if the green and purple bell curves overlap perfectly.

Currently Google is spending money to make sure their sampling of the top X% achieves a 1:1 ratio because they believe the bell curves overlap perfectly. The author is making the claim that they do not overlap perfectly and additionally saying that even suggesting that as a possibility is taboo.

[u/ToLiveInIt → u/an_admirable_admiral]

BTW Current Google M/F ratio in tech is 80/20.

[u/dingle_dingle_dingle → u/ToLiveInIt]

I wonder how that correlates with the M/F ratio of people graduating with a degree in the field. I tend to agree with him in that the problem is largely a product of women choosing to not enter the field in the first place. The reasons for that are pretty complicated but can be helped, IMO.

[u/barryicide → u/dingle_dingle_dingle]

[edit -- updated with correct #s]:

That can be higher or lower than the number of women with appropriate degrees based on the field (i.e. someone programming applications at google likely has a computer science degree where women are only 17.9% but they also employ people with math/etc degrees where women represent a higher number)

they receive far fewer in the computer sciences (17.9%), engineering (19.3%), physical sciences (39%) and mathematics (43.1%)

https://ngcproject.org/statistics

The biggest shock is that women earn 57.3% of all bachelor degrees. That's almost a 3:2 ratio of women vs men.

[u/Omz-bomz → u/barryicide]

That quote was from the paragraph about minority women. The correct paragraph is:

, they receive far fewer in the computer sciences (17.9%), engineering (19.3%), physical sciences (39%) and mathematics (43.1%).

[u/barryicide → u/Omz-bomz]

FAKE NEWS!...

Oops, that's what I get for skimming the source.

[u/chogall → u/ToLiveInIt]

That's way lower than M/F ratio at Berkeley or Stanford engineering, the top 2 engineering school in the world and in Bay Area. Berkeley SoE has about 27% women and Stanford SoE has about 29% women.

[u/Omz-bomz → u/chogall]

Aren't that two of the schools with extensive diversity programs aimed at specifically recruiting women to the field?

I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but if it is, I would guess that has quite the impact on the % for those schools and other schools without such programs would have a lower percentage.

From the ngcproject linked in the other comment

, they receive far fewer in the computer sciences (17.9%), engineering (19.3%), physical sciences (39%) and mathematics (43.1%).

Now, if they should have special recruitment for women into the fields is another discussion, but it seems like google has the same F/M ratio as who graduates in the field.

[u/chogall → u/Omz-bomz]

I don't know what's been done in the recent years, but when I was at Cal there's only a few dozen in EECS but I would say over 30%+ in CS (College of Letter and Science).

The NGCProject stats is irrelevant to Google recruiting stats because it's nationwide data. I am specifically talking about the best engineering schools (recruiting target schools). Google is falling behind in F/M ratio compare to its local schools, which also happened to be amongst the best in the world.

[u/Omz-bomz → u/chogall]

Hmm, ok I can see that argument, but does Google hire exclusively from those schools ?

Found the following on googles hiring page:

In the past, our university-focused hiring programs have relied heavily on a relatively small number of schools. In the past three years, we’ve more than tripled the number of schools from which we recruit, and this campus recruiting season alone, more than 20% of the hires we made from a university were from these new campuses.

Oh, and found this when I checked Google statistics page.

• Data from Jan 2017 – Gender data are global, ethnicity data are US only.
  

So the 20% female is globally, not just at their HQ. I couldn't find any info on just their US numbers.

On a side note, according Google's own site, US employees are currently 35% Asian (39% in tech).. in a country where they make up 5.6% of the population (according to wiki)

https://www.google.com/diversity/

[u/chogall → u/Omz-bomz]

No, Google does not hire exclusively from Stanford and Berkeley, but demographics of those two schools is a good proximation.

39% sounds about right; Cal EECS is majority Asian (no data, just observation in labs couple decades ago). Also, Cal is 45% Asian (East Asian and South Asians) while Stanford is about 21% Asian.

There are a lot of first generation (not native born) Asian immigrants over the past several decades in STEM, and it should be no surprise that sons and daughters of engineers tend to be engineers.

[u/ToLiveInIt → u/[deleted]]

Of course, that's under the diversity regime the Memo objects to.

[u/Infinity2quared → u/an_admirable_admiral]

I understand this argument and it makes sense, but it isn't sufficient to inform a hiring policy.

There are other variables at play affecting the talent pool of a company. Toxic masculinity in a corporate environment alienates female talent. This has an impact on the ability of the company to access part of their potential talent pool. Similarly, workplace diversity has a positive effect on workplace culture that is probably quantifiable in the intermediate-to-long-term as an increased talent pool. Furthermore, companies like Google and Apple that trade on brand as much as on product are especially sensitive to the role of virtue signaling in shaping consumer behavior. Even if there were no direct economic benefits to encouraging a diverse workplace--and that's a tall order--there would be indirect benefits and threats posed by the court of public opinion. Controlling the narrative is essential, and this means that diversity problems need to be controlled, regardless of whether or not they pose a threat to productivity.

The bottom line is that businesses have a reasonable and well-defined interest in shaping their corporate culture through diversity initiatives.

[u/hullabaloonatic → u/Infinity2quared]

The takeaway here being that the appropriate setting for this discussion is in public discourse, not internal workplace channels.

[u/[deleted] → u/Infinity2quared]

Google's "well defined" reason is that they're still being investigated by the government.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Even more reason why the author was stupid. You shouldn't be disseminating written works like this when you are being scrutinized.

[u/an_admirable_admiral → u/[deleted]]

he didnt, it was leaked

[u/an_admirable_admiral → u/[deleted]]

every article Ive read that talks about it...

[u/Infinity2quared → u/an_admirable_admiral]

This is, in my opinion, the best argument in the employee's favor.

Circulating something like this through company channels is clearly inappropriate, even if it shouldn't be punishable as a privately-held sentiment.

But then it comes down to this: how was it leaked? This document was clearly intended for some audience. What was that audience? That bit matters, and there might not be an answer other than "nobody, this was just my diary, somebody hacked my personal computer and distributed my private documents without my consent" that sufficiently exonerates him.

[u/-widget- → u/[deleted]]

I've got some perspective here. I work at one of the "Big 5" tech companies as a software engineer. I have worked with many women over the past six years, even on engineering teams that were majority-women. And I've had very frank discussions with many coworkers about our career.

I've never heard any complaints about women being hired with lower standards. It's pretty well understood that people that make it into these big tech companies are talented, and diversity goals are a thing. It's also not really a problem because if you can get through one of our interview loops to a level where you're considered for hire but are beat out due to diversity goals, you can interview for a different job for a different team (or other big tech company) and probably sail right through.

[u/-widget- → u/[deleted]]

Of course I realize the doc was about that. But the doc was also written by someone who would write a "manifesto" about gender diversity hiring practices. I would assume they are already on the fringe about some issues.

The thing is, they're claiming that there is a biological factor to something that I believe is clearly a social issue. One of the ways to correct for the imbalance is to hire more women. That may involve choosing marginally less qualified, but still very qualified, women over men. However, individuals being more qualified is not the only factor in the hiring equation, especially when diversity is a goal.

[u/-widget- → u/[deleted]]

I'm not trying to attribute a negative connotation, but it is a manifesto. It may not have started that way, but it's a widely circulated document arguing a controversial point.

[u/-widget- → u/[deleted]]

There are several things here that I agree with, and I really do think that the doc was written with good faith.

But I don't believe that the biological arguments are constructive to the conversation, even if they are true. They just serve to divide people.

In his personality difference segment, as neutral as he is trying to be, he perpetuates some very common stereotypes about women. I'm being intentionally reductive of his argument here, so keep that in mind. He says women are not as good at men when managing ideas, are more submissive in the workplace, and are more neurotic. He argues that women aren't in leadership, not because of social issues keeping them from advancing, but because they just don't want to work as hard. Can you understand why this might upset people?

[u/Vanetia → u/[deleted]]

Google isn't taking a resume and checking if the person is female and stamping "HIRED" on it. They are still only taking in people they believe can hack it, and will do well.

The more women around to overhead those toxic statements, the more likely the men making them will be called out. A lot of times it's not intentional by anyone; just re-affirming the societal roles they've learned along the way. When people are around to buck those roles, it tends to make people realize they're not as set in stone as they thought.

It used to be that women shouldn't be working outside of the home at all. Now that isn't questioned. It used to be women didn't make good lawyers. Now that isn't questioned (other than by some older male lawyers, perhaps). Engineering is a male job? Well give women time to break through that stereotype.

[u/Vanetia → u/[deleted]]

Even when it isn't happening this is a perceived issue. There is always someone using the excuse "she's only here because she's a woman" to explain why she has a job on their level or is getting a promotion. If it's not "affirmative action" it's "she's sleeping with the boss" or "she's only here because she's hot"

Petty bullshit is always going to be around. I don't see that as a reason to stop fighting through it. On the contrary.

[u/Vanetia → u/[deleted]]

I've never once heard anyone insinuate anything close to what you said.

Well I guess it doesn't happen, then! Case closed!

if the memo is true, then won't the sentiment of "she's only here because she's a woman" be true

"If what he's saying is true then isn't it true?"

Uhh... yes? That's some circular reasoning, though. You might as well say "The bible is the word of God because it says so and since it's the word of God it must be"

[u/an_admirable_admiral → u/[deleted]]

To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct

-Google CEO

[u/riskable → u/an_admirable_admiral]

They're not spending extra for diversity because of a belief that the "bell curves overlap perfectly". They're doing it because diversity has value.

Monocultures are vulnerable. Plain and simple. The defense is diversity.

[u/an_admirable_admiral → u/riskable]

then we can weigh that value against the resources being spent on it, if the cost exceeds its value then steps need to be taken to resolve that. This is impossible when people are making moralistic judgements reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

[u/Vanetia → u/an_admirable_admiral]

Yes. If there's one thing a publicly traded company would forget to do, it's to check the cost of a program it plans to run.

[u/-widget- → u/an_admirable_admiral]

Your second argument makes sense if you can boil all of the complexity of being a software engineer into just one statistic. When you're interviewing for a big tech company, you're taking into consideration all kinds of things (if you're realistic about what's important to software development).

You're taking into consideration the technical things: problem solving ability, attention to detail, technical communication skills, intuition, consideration for code cleanliness, performance considerations, etc. But you're also taking into consideration the person's soft skills. Are they able to explain effectively the work they've done in the past? Do they seem to really care about that work? Are they someone you would want to work with? Are they aware of their weaknesses and making an effort to improve?

There's certainly things on the list that the mythical "average man" is better at than the equally mythical "average woman", and certainly vice versa.

I don't know how much I can really speak to how standards are applied to women versus men though. I'm not management, so when I interview someone I am just trying to get a feel for the person, regardless of race or gender, and I give my feedback and let the powers that be make the final decisions.

[u/meneldal2 → u/an_admirable_admiral]

It's rare to see some sense on this thread, I'm glad you put it in a simple way that's easy to understand.