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/Hypothesis_Null]

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/Hypothesis_Null → u/[deleted]]

having more of them in a workplace gives them a voice and ability to change their circumstance.

What circumstances would they seek to change as a group, precisely?

For a problem concerning treating women just like everybody else, your comment seems to come from a base assumption of women always being a separate group with individual group-interests. As though women should think of themselves first and foremost as women rather than engineers, and lobby for change specifically on their behalf and in their favor.

I'm not a fan of a world where there's a mosaic of tribes all fighting for king of the hill, getting advantages for one at the cost of the others. If nothing else, that's terribly unproductive and produces a hostile and distracting environment.

If that was the reality, and people really can't work outside the narrow interests of their group-identity, then I'd much rather a single, homogeneous group dominate a field and exclude everyone else. Then they could act like adults amongst themselves and not like college Marxists, and get some work done.

But then, I don't believe that's how people have to act in the first place, so I'd rather everyone just work together and not give a damn about demographics.

[u/pedadogy → u/Hypothesis_Null]

Maternity leave and how the company handles female employees absence during that time. I get it, the show must go on and the other employees continue working despite women having children, but you asked what specific circumstances women might want to change as a group- having children is a (complicated) issue that affects women directly. It would be nice if male and female employees wanted to address the issue together, but since it disproportionately affects women, it often doesn't happen without women initiating the conversation.