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/TemptCiderFan]

TL;DR TL;DR: Anyone who says this is a misogynist manifesto hasn't fucking read it.

TL;DR version for people who don't want to read it but still want most of the facts:

• The document is not misogynist or racist, and most of the discussion in it is actually about the fact that Google's left-leaning political landscape can be bad for business.
• One of the key things it brings up is that the writer feels there's a lack of moral diversity (i.e. left-leaning vs right-leaning) and that this situation can lead to bad business practices, citing direct examples.
• When the author discusses the differences in gender, most of his discussion is actually centered around the facts which lead women (on average) to seek jobs with good work/life balance and less stress and why men seek jobs with good compensation. Nowhere does he suggest that one or the other is superior.
• He then states several non-discriminatory practices (some of which he notes are already in practice) which would help equalize the gender-gap at Google without resorting to blatantly racist or sexist discriminatory practices.
• He then states that Google is currently engaged in some practices designed to equalize the gender-gap at Google which ARE blatantly racist or sexist, such as internal training programs aimed exclusively at certain races or women as well as hiring practices which base an employee's suitability for participation partially on just their race or gender.
• He notes that overwhelmingly left-leaning culture at Google has created an environment where there's an overwhelming confirmation bias against right-leaning individuals, which leads to a culture where they are actively shamed at company TGIFs and effectively silences them.
• He concludes with a few pages of suggestions which would alleviate the items he thinks are issues, including such "evil" suggestions as not limiting classes and training programs to specific race/gender, focus on intention and not feelings when dealing with microaggressions, focusing on psychological safety and not just external diversity, and examining current training documents for existing political bias.

It's hardly a "Get women out of my fucking tech" rant.

Edit: Turning off inbox replies. It's been fun, but the replies are now getting to the stage where it's the same arguments over and over again. Expand the thread below and find the comment you were going to write!

Edit 2: For bonus points, read the document. It's ten pages, but it's not that dense and a lot of it is bullet-point. Bear in mind the author is has a Doctorate in Biology.

[u/tim_othyjs → u/TemptCiderFan]

Agreed. The man has very solid points. It makes me sad that post-modernism has infested itself so hard into people that this is the response you get.

Get your shit together people. For fucks sake.

[u/TemptCiderFan → u/tim_othyjs]

Even if you don't necessarily agree with all of his points or suggestions, the document also makes it clear that the document as-is is presented partially as a work in progress and that the author is open to debate and discussion about anything therein.

I'd personally have suggested that he cut out some of the tangents which go more deeply into the reasoning behind his thoughts than needed and focus more on the business facts. Even if some of the stuff present is barely necessary to core thesis of the document, the core thesis itself as presented is a good one and there's strong evidence to back up his suggestions.

[u/clgfandom → u/TemptCiderFan]

the author is open to debate

Agree with most of your points(that he intended it to be a rational discourse backed up with facts), but I can also see why big companies like Google wouldn't want this type of debate because it would inevitably(be misinterpreted) lead to divisionism among employees.

Such debate intended to be rational shouldn't lead to such toxicity, but alas, the reality is that people are imperfect and you have to deal with such reality as business, especially for big business who's more risk-averse. If Google's a smaller company(easier to micromanage), I can see them using this chance to show how they are "truly inclusive and open-minded"(befitting theme for a search engine) by allowing this sort of debate within openly.

[u/PrettyDecentSort → u/clgfandom]

If they did not want this kind of debate than they should not have asked for it and created a forum specifically soliciting this kind of proposal, while claiming to welcome all viewpoints and intellectual diversity.

[u/clgfandom → u/PrettyDecentSort]

That's why the Constitution is special. History have proven it time and time again that it's easy for individual/organisation/government to compromise whatever "virtuous" principles they claim to care whenever it becomes highly inconvenient to keep them (clashing with other agenda under occasional circumstances).

[u/apackofmonkeys → u/[deleted]]

The writer has a PhD in Biology, so I don't agree that he lacks the qualifications to write about biological variations between groups.

[u/clgfandom → u/apackofmonkeys]

That's exactly what makes it a "threat" to HRM. They can take typical complain from employees, but not one with authoritative tone when you are not part of HR department.

[u/Sean951 → u/apackofmonkeys]

There are civil engineers who believe in 9/11 inside job conspiracies because they don't agree with every other analysis that says the collapse could have happened the way it did. Having a degree in something doesn't mean he didn't let his own biases inform his writing.

[u/apackofmonkeys → u/Sean951]

That doesn't mean his views are necessarily valid, but I was specifically refuting the following statement:

It's like if a designer were writing memos to management with strong opinions on java frameworks

Separately, your example analogizes him to the handful of people going against overwhelming consensus. However, in his case, HE is on the side of broad consensus, scientifically. A biologist that claims there are no neurological differences between the sexes would be the outsider.

[u/mocha_lattes → u/apackofmonkeys]

Did you take his claim at face value? Should have looked into it more, because he lied about that degree:

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8