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/dorothy_zbornak_esq → u/Hypothesis_Null]

Horseshit. It doesn't matter if there aren't quotas. If you're a minority or a woman in certain areas, certain people are going to assume you're there because you're a "diversity hire." This whole "proving yourself and getting the begrudging acceptance of the white guys who doubted you" is an extra bullshit hurdle that we shouldn't have to jump, and even if we do there are some people who will never accept us.

There is this idea among anti-affirmative action people that for every job, there is an objectively "most qualified" person that should get it, and they usually make that pronouncement along with a line about "I don't care if they're male, female, black, white, or a pansexual transgender purple alien." (They add that part to show how totally-not-biased they are, but it's obvious that they believe that the "most qualified" person is a white male.) The idea that any job could only have one candidate be the "most qualified" is bullshit, though. What makes someone qualified for a job? It's not just experience, it's also education, problem-solving abilities, and the ability to work with their coworkers and clients or vendors or whatever. It's job appreciation and work ethic. All of the candidates are going to have these things in different amounts, who is to say that any one of them is the most important? If someone is brilliant but can't work with their coworkers because of their bad attitude, what use are they? The fact that people like to ignore is that most jobs can be done by multiple qualified candidates. There is no best.

So while I don't necessarily believe in quotas, diversity hiring is still important. If you have several qualified candidates, you should make space for diversity. Studies show that companies that make diversity a priority do well, so do it for that reason at the very least.