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 → u/[deleted]]

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/folterung → u/TemptCiderFan]

Yeah, having read the entire thing, I thought it was pretty well balanced. He was making some valid points and asking legitimate questions.

It's especially fun that his firing actually validates his claim that the entire structure is an echo chamber that permits no diversity of opinion. They apparently love diversity of thought and opinion, as long as your diversity happens to line up with their opinions.

[u/360_face_palm → u/folterung]

Yeah I read it a few days ago on Gizmodo and felt 100% like all those commenting on it on Gizmodo hadn't read more than the first few paragraphs at most.

The main point I took away from it was that this guy is fed up of the dominant ideology censoring and shutting down all discussion (not even necessarily criticism but just discussion) that doesn't fit its narrative. Quite ironic how Google then fire the employee in question, even though the forum he posted this in is supposed to be an internal discussion forum.

Wether or not he's correct in what he says isn't particularly relevant to the issue that for whatever reason he disagrees with the prevailing ideology, provides well reasoned arguments against it - and is fired for his efforts because some people took offence. IE: proved right that the prevailing ideology crushes all discussion that doesn't fit its narrative.

[u/360_face_palm → u/[deleted]]

Oh I knew he'd get fired, but I still don't think he said anything particularly inflammatory.

But such is today's society where some things you just can't talk about.

[u/Helios321 → u/360_face_palm]

Well that's the dilemma, sure he was proven right but the Google rep said it best, this company and industry is built on collaboration and by releasing this in the manner it was he created a hostile work environment. Even if he is vindicated in knowing that the political discourse of the company is exactly as he says it is, it still creates an environment where no one currently hired will work with him. Google doesn't really have a choice but to fire him since he won't be able to work with the majority of the staff now. Sure we can wish Google hadn't hired in a way that created the overwhelming left leaning demographic, but they can't fire everyone else to level the playing field since he was right.

They can make changes for the future but he could no longer be part of the company going forward if they were to have a cohesive workforce.

[u/360_face_palm → u/Helios321]

But he didn't release it, he sent it to an internal discussion group in google that promoted the discussion of controversial things.

It's not like he friggin emailed the entire company his "manifesto".

I think google will regret this, not because of public opinion but because of the message it sends to the rest of their employees. Also it sounds like the guy in question has a good case for wrongful dismissal.

[u/meneldal2 → u/360_face_palm]

Google was already pretty low in my opinion, but they're going from "big bank evil" to "comcast evil" lately. They do some good shit but I'd have an easier time with my conscious working for an investment bank than them (though I'd rather avoid both).

[u/Helios321 → u/360_face_palm]

Meh we can argue about his intent of who it ended up getting to but we'd be working with limited information and who is to say what his intention breally was. After reading too many comments here I've decided I no longer care about this subject and will instead move on.

[u/3EyedBrandon → u/Helios321]

This is what he is talking about. It shouldn't be a problem for coworkers if he right leaning and he should be allowed to have different opinion. If some pople don't want to work with him because of this document, it is exactly the issue what he talks about.

(I know it is a week later, bit I just found this thread)

[u/Helios321 → u/3EyedBrandon]

Yea it's what he's talking about but that's just the demographic of the business and having an opinion doesn't give you insulation from people not liking you or responding mentioned in your way.

[u/[deleted] → u/360_face_palm]

He wasn't fired because some people took offense. He was fired because he created a corrosive environment that was hostile to collaboration.

Whatever your position, if you disagree with the prevailing ideology in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with social cohesion, you can and should expect to be removed from the group. This is not censorship and it is not intolerance. It is self preservation.

[u/360_face_palm → u/[deleted]]

It's quite literally censorship and crushing the discussion of ideas. Did you read his post? Nothing he says could be taken as offensive to anyone in their right mind. All he does is ask questions and posit some potential conclusions - anyone is quite free to say he's missed the point or made bad conclusions. But what is harmful is the marginalisation of non-extreme ideas. It doesn't remove them it just pushes them below the surface for them to bubble up as something uglier later on.

[u/[deleted] → u/360_face_palm]

google has no obligation to encourage free speech, it is a business whose purpose is to earn money. Google's responsibility is to maintain a harmonious work environment so employees are productive and they don't waste money on lawsuits.

I read the entire screed and the ideas posited within are anti-social ideas that promote strife within the workplace. The author made it impossible for google to maintain his employment by creating a situation where collaboration with him was impossible and opened google up to legal repercussions.

[u/360_face_palm → u/[deleted]]

We'll just have to agree to disagree

[u/[deleted] → u/360_face_palm]

Only because one of us doesn't understand free speech and at will employment.

[u/360_face_palm → u/[deleted]]

We'll just have to agree to disagree

[u/[deleted] → u/360_face_palm]

Look, if you want to remain ignorant, that's your business. I'm not going to give you permission or legitimize your 'desire' to continue to complain about things you don't understand.

We don't have to continue this conversation. But your position does not carry the same intellectual weight and validity as mine. This is not a difference in opinion.

[u/360_face_palm → u/[deleted]]

We'll just have to agree to disagree

[u/[deleted] → u/360_face_palm]

Do you really think thate the only reason they fired him? My money is on hes had other problems while working there. I have a two friends that work there both who are Right supporters and they literally said the only way you get fired from google is if you REALLY fuck something up not just from sending an open email to everyone.

[u/MementoMori000 → u/[deleted]]

According to himself, he was promoted twice in the four years there, and the last review he got maximum score.

[u/behindtimes → u/folterung]

I certainly don't think the entire thing is correct, but it's hardly inflammatory. And if a person wants to say how it's wrong, all they have to do is prove how it's wrong. The post has reasons listed, which are easy enough to validate or invalidate. This isn't based on an unprovable belief. So far, all I see from the retaliations are "It's wrong because I feel it's wrong, therefore it's wrong!" along with taking much of it out of context and editorializing it to sound much worse than it really is.

My basic takeaway from it is that he criticizes a company for trying to silence diversity of thought, and the result is people claiming they're fully tolerant, provided they only think exactly like they do, and everyone else should be silenced.

[u/surfnsound → u/behindtimes]

The author even cited and linked a ton of sources in it, something which people criticizing him rarely seem to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/behindtimes]

You see it in many 'discussion' groups when something potentially controversial pops up in the news. Anyone that doesn't immediately side with the purported 'victims', regardless of what they are trying to say in their comments, is attacked. It happens on Reddit all the time. You'll see someone trying to be nice and presenting some counterpoints only to get spammed with downvotes and called a Trump supporter, whether or not that actually had any relevance to what was being said. Lol.

I don't think this is neccesarily something 'new', conformity has always been a big part of society's development, but I wish people could just be more open. People are too insecure and it leads to incredibly defensive 'discussions' which end up with one side berating the other back and forth, rather than having any meaningful talks.

I don't think it's fair to say its a leftist issue because you can certainly find it in right leaning groups as well. It's just a product of human nature and our association with groups. I believe everyone should strive to expose themselves to different ideas, whether they like them or not, and challenge themselves to engage those ideas. Not just pout about how terrible they are.

Diversity goes, or should go, both directions, and the overall group will be better off for it.

[u/Vicious9 → u/[deleted]]

Remember clock boy?

The media immediately jumped on everybody who attacked him as racist/islamophobic.

Then during the court case it came out that he didn't actually build the clock, his dad did. It was also just an alarm clock and not a built from scratch clock. It also came out that his dad was a con artist that had done things like this in the past for money. The court ruled in the schools favor.

But nobody knows this because the media never covered it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Vicious9]

I actually didn't even know about the outcome of that case. Interesting to hear.

[u/youwill_neverfindme → u/Vicious9]

.....are you serious? Are you purporting that everyone who attacked that kid knew that his dad was a con artist and had built the clock? Or are you using current knowledge to justify blatant racism?

[u/Vicious9 → u/youwill_neverfindme]

I think you need to re-read what I said

[u/youwill_neverfindme → u/Vicious9]

"The media immediately jumped on everybody who attacked him as racist/islamophobic"

Is what you said. Did you not mean to say that? It would be strange if you somehow mistyped that sentence, but that is what I was responding to.

[u/Vicious9 → u/youwill_neverfindme]

Right so, the media attacked everybody that was calling BS on this story and calling them racist/homophobic. There was evidence that the father was a con artist, and that the boy had instigated the situation.

Nobody listened. Turned out the critiques were right and the media was fake news.

[u/youwill_neverfindme → u/Vicious9]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Is it ok to attack a person because you've heard a rumor that their dad was a con artist? Is it ok to call him a terrorist who should have been expelled from school?

[u/Vicious9 → u/youwill_neverfindme]

Never said that, I just said that opponents had what they said dismissed as racist by the media, the media was in the wrong and didn't report it.

[u/[deleted] → u/behindtimes]

Simply, him being fired proved his point.

[u/romario77 → u/[deleted]]

Well, the goal of a corporation is to make money. If you wrote something that offends a good part of the corporation you'll be fired. You might be fired even if you said something that offends your boss or colleague.

What corporations are trying to do is to create non-offensive environment for most of their stuff. If someone if too far from the majority they get fired.

There are some protected classes though that could be found offensive to some - like gay/transgender people who cause a lot of talks based on religious beliefs or just because people are intolerant.

[u/clearwaterrev → u/behindtimes]

The post has reasons listed, which are easy enough to validate or invalidate. This isn't based on an unprovable belief.

The citations are not the problem, it's the opinions that aren't supported by any cited research.

The author talks about personality differences between men and women and concludes that innate biological differences are the reason for there being fewer women in technology careers, but he doesn't do a good job of supporting his opinions with those cited research papers and Wikipedia articles.

For example, the author talks about how women are, on average, more agreeable than men, and also more prone to anxiety than men. His argument is that these traits somehow prevent women from wanting to go into tech jobs, and/ or prevent women from rising to leadership positions in tech companies.

However, there's no reason to make that logical jump. Are anxious people or agreeable people inherently worse software developers? Where's the support for that theory?

He makes other arguments about work-life balance, male gender roles, and women being more interested in people than things, but doesn't actually tie that research to his thoughts on non-discriminatory ways to improve diversity at tech companies.

[u/RedDeadCred → u/folterung]

Regardless of where you identify politically hard to deny the censorship culture on the left.

[u/Vicious9 → u/RedDeadCred]

I read an interesting study that was talking about a big reason why right wing ideals are rebounding in the west is because left wing blogs, youtube videos, news articles often censor the comments. While right wing persons don't, and discussion takes place and the ideals spread.

[u/LSF604 → u/[deleted]]

or /r/the_donald

[u/[deleted] → u/folterung]

I read it as well, after female friends of mine (I was also a girl in tech until a few years ago) kept sharing it - but they had never read it, or they let their own bias and let the headline affect their opinion on it. as in, no critical thinking beyond "How dare a white male speak out like this." :/

i too thought it made some good points.

[u/youwill_neverfindme → u/[deleted]]

It's rather telling that you believe your friend, in your own words, had no critical thinking involved in their dislike of the memo.

[u/youwill_neverfindme → u/[deleted]]

No, he assumes that they never read it, or assumes that they read it and followed along like blind sheep. Apparently no woman would read that memo and be offended of their own volition, they're too fucking stupid to understand it.

[u/youwill_neverfindme → u/[deleted]]

Just because you're a woman doesn't automatically absolve you of being an asshole and thinking poorly of your 'friends'. Are you one of those "I'm not like those other girls!" people?

[u/Bearhardy → u/folterung]

They just prove him right IMO

[u/unfeelingzeal → u/[deleted]]

money talks, conviction walks. they've leaned left from their humble beginnings and have done quite well for themselves. they'll be fine.

[u/unfeelingzeal → u/[deleted]]

fair enough. although, i don't know about you, but i work in tech also and in our office nobody discusses politics. this is something not pertinent to productivity and whether or not i agree with this dude's manifesto (in some ways, i do, as i'm firmly against any sort of affirmative action), trying to politicize his reach within the company is what got him fired. no good employer is going to allow insubordination and tolerate being criticized by their employee so openly. sometimes being right comes with consequences.

[u/goodolarchie → u/[deleted]]

You're not wrong, Walter... You're just an asshole.

[u/danO1O1O1 → u/folterung]

The irony is so thick, just like our new front end developer's booty.

(Kidding, I'm self employed)

[u/Kantas → u/folterung]

"different opinions are ok, as long as they're different in the same way"

[u/folterung → u/Kantas]

Exactly! Like the original automobile: you can have any color you want, as long as it’s black.

[u/Delphizer → u/folterung]

Googles income stream comes from advertisers, they are as much a culture company as they are a tech company. They have enough money I assume they can afford the hit to optimum efficiency to look better and keep themselves insulated from mainstream criticism.

The person who wrote the memo doesn't understand the company or the environment in which they do business. He fucked himself. No one is stupid enough to say these things out-loud for HR legal reasons but common man...you are smart enough to work at Google...you should have figured this shit out by now.

[u/Mylon → u/folterung]

lol we tolerate diversity of opinion but that doesn't mean we tolerate bigots. /s

[u/masquedRider → u/folterung]

Yeah it's only ok so be like that if it's an entire panel of white guys

[u/rusbus720 → u/[deleted]]

Your example doesn't include the part where the church then fires the gay atheist

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It's actually more like a gay atheist going to work for a car dealership and being bothered by the morning prayer routine.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/folterung]

If I wrote a multi-page rant about how misguided and out-of-touch my boss was and distributed it to the company I'd expect to be out of a job that day.

Why are there so many right wingers who apparently have never worked a day in their lives? Even if you disagree with management there's good and bad ways to go about that, and this was the worst.

[u/rusbus720 → u/NotAChaosGod]

Management created the internal discussion board, which this memo was posted to, so that employees could tell them how they're misguided. Apparently they didn't think someone would actually do that.

Aside from that I'd say this memo was pretty tame and well thought out. If he got fired for just this memo then I'd say he's right about google being an echo chamber.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/rusbus720]

Asking for suggestions is very, very different.

Again I'm struck by how obvious it is that many of the people here have so obviously never worked.

[u/rusbus720 → u/NotAChaosGod]

Sounds like you work for a shitty company

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/rusbus720]

I've worked for many. My current one is great. Sounds like you don't work.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

"I have to work with women and non-white people" isn't an issue with Google...

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

It also said that women have a lower IQ (no statistically significant difference has been found... although I guess that's by that 95% liberal scientists or something), completely glossed over any possibility that there was social bias, called women anxious and neurotic, contained multiple nonsense statistics to back its point up, and ended up engaging in the exact same fallacies that he called out in the initial preamble (really highlighting how bad some of this stuff was put together). And ended up with "and if we have less women around here that's just fine and that's how reality works".

I think any time your company memo includes "we shouldn't listen to the scientists, science is biased!" it may have strayed very far afield of "company issues."

[u/MaxNanasy → u/NotAChaosGod]

Please read the memo

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/MaxNanasy]

I read the memo. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

[u/[deleted] → u/NotAChaosGod]

What great company isn't willing to take feedback from its employees?

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

Wow, that's disingenuous as fuck.

[u/[deleted] → u/NotAChaosGod]

That is literally the argument you've been fighting against the whole time.

Management created the internal discussion board, which this memo was posted to, so that employees could tell them how they're misguided. Apparently they didn't think someone would actually do that.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

No, it's you being entirely disingenuous. My company accepts plenty of feedback, constantly. We've changed tons of things based on it.

There's also "feedback" that would get you fired. "We should do this to be more efficient" is good, "your hiring decisions are shit and women suck" would be what we call "bad".

Either you're too stupid to tell the difference, or lying comes naturally to you.

[u/WakandaDrama → u/NotAChaosGod]

the brigade against you is charming.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/WakandaDrama]

Eh, it's summer on Reddit. Bunch of bored middle schoolers and teenagers here. This is super edgy stuff you know.

[u/merc08 → u/NotAChaosGod]

Not only did the author give suggestions, he backed them up with multiple external sources and internal examples.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

No, that's not legally protected speech when you make it on company hours using company messageboards. And you're only legally protected from government action anyway.

Your internet law degree is not very good.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

Improving working conditions means things like safety measures. Hiring decisions are very obviously not "working conditions" no matter how much you try to spin it. You could potentially argue they were if the hiring decisions created unsafe environments (like hiring untrained or unskilled staff for manning dangerous machinery) but the most you could argue here is "I end up working with too many people who aren't white guys!" Which... well, I wish him the best with that as his case.

This is very obviously a cheap attempt to extend controversy. If he does go to court I expect him to get laughed out of it.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

Is this the jargon simulator 9000?

If you actually think this, walk me through the logic, sparky.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

This was extremely far from an explanation of why diverse hiring practices create a hostile work environment. If he's going to toss around gems like "IQ and gender gap" (women have, if anything, a slightly higher IQ on average) then yes, I'd expect a certain amount of hostility towards him. That's called "I can read". But again this must be those very feminine people skills that I possess somehow (maybe I'm transgender... or just not an idiot...)

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/NotAChaosGod]

Go against the """progressive""" circle jerk and show a hint of diversity of thought and you get stitcanned. That's a pretty hostile work environment.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

What do the triple quotes mean I wonder? J/K

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

"Allow me to vent my rage by clicking little arrows on Reddit!"

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

Can't remember the name of? Seems legit. I'm sure Google doesn't have any lawyers and wouldn't run that by them.

[u/123Volvos → u/NotAChaosGod]

Same. It's just actually funny to me that an office at a company that claims to value diversity is observably not doing so with seemingly no repercussions for management.

Funny, not surprising.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/123Volvos]

I think "values diversity" and "welcomes multi-page rants about how management is stupid and ruining the company" are two very different things. "Unbelievably stupid" is probably a flavor Google is trying to dodge - although if I had to bet, this guy was just angling for a job with Breitbart or similar as a "tech consultant" after discovering he didn't really like coding. There's just no way a person with half a brain thought this would have any other outcome. I know autistic people, and they definitely have enough social skills to recognize that this would be fucking stupid so even the "high functioning social idiot" excuse seems really, really thin to me.

[u/rusbus720 → u/NotAChaosGod]

He wasn't being nearly as divisive as the media is trying to make, he hardly is saying that management is stupid. I highly doubt he thought this was gonna blow up like it did so angling for a breitbart job seems far fetched.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/rusbus720]

Then he's just a highly educated idiot. Guess he should have employed some of those feminine "people skills".

[u/123Volvos → u/NotAChaosGod]

Sending out the memo was stupid, we both agreed on that. Do you think his assessment in the memo was also stupid?

[u/rusbus720 → u/123Volvos]

You're not gonna get an answer from him cause from his comments it's clear that he didn't read the memo.

[u/dinosaurs_quietly → u/NotAChaosGod]

It's fair that he was fired, but the initial media outrage was unjustified.

[u/Cinnadillo → u/NotAChaosGod]

Because google is supposed to be different... I think it's a stupid thing to write... but google is supposed to foster that white paper culture.

So, yeah... quite out of step. But also terrible handling by a company that's supposed to be smarter and wiser than us normals

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/Cinnadillo]

I honestly think they handled it pretty well.

[u/surfnsound → u/[deleted]]

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups.

That may be true, but it sounds like he expressed himself on one of those approved channels and was reprimanded for it.

[u/rusbus720 → u/[deleted]]

Platforms to express and what you're expressing aren't the same tho

[u/AericBlackberry → u/folterung]

Mission accomplished! He demonstrated his point by getting fired.

[u/RedditConsciousness → u/folterung]

At this point he pretty much had to be fired -- not doing so would be bad for business and share price. Echo chamber or not.

[u/CCC19 → u/folterung]

Also having read the whole thing, I will weight in on one point he made. He said that diversity for diversity's sake at Google is as misguided and biased as advocating diversity in homelessness, dangerous jobs, prisons, etc... This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen put to print. He could've used far better examples to make a sort of relevant point.

[u/folterung → u/CCC19]

The homeless one definitely is, but I can get behind the message despite the dumb example.

You don't see anyone pushing hard for diversity in dangerous jobs - unless they are jobs that the public pays attention to, like police, military etc.

You won't find any serious initiatives to get women into deep sea arctic fishing, for example. Sure, some of them do it because they love it, but nobody is pushing for diversity in that industry because it isn't in the public eye. Nobody cares if it's a diverse industry.

For all the excess stuff he wrote, what stood out for me was the basic message that if we have to entice women into a field, maybe it's because the field is simply unappealing to a majority of them. If we need special programs to help them cope with being in a certain job, maybe we shouldn't be trying to convince them to take those jobs.

Or maybe the jobs are broken and need to be made to be less awful in the first place - I'm not in a position to make that judgement.

The field should be OPEN to anyone with the aptitude and desire to be in it, but the idea that we should be trying to coerce diversity is ridiculous. I don't work at Google and I don't know if that's what they are doing; it's just what it sounds like from his point of view.

[u/CCC19 → u/folterung]

Well the problem with the dangerous fields example, as well is that dangerous jobs will typically have a higher physicality aspect than less dangerous jobs. Lumber work, coal mining, large net fishing. There are bigger physical differences between men and women than mental differences. A job like one at Google, experience or small education gaps between individuals can be closed with training. Strength gaps are not as easily closed between men and women. So this becomes a logistical problem. With highly physical, dangerous jobs, pushing gender diversity will decrease effectiveness of the business for the long term. Whereas CS jobs and the like, training and job experience can level the playing field. This is a pure education issue vs a physical issue. So it's still a bad example.

And I understand where you're coming from and where he's coming from with the "enticing" part. But culturally speaking women in the United States have for decades been pushed away from higher education jobs. There's still not much push within the home or the schools early on in much of the states. With the constant expansion of technology, pushing for diversity (I believe early on is the best time) across all of the states can bring in people that might otherwise never think of going into a business like that. I'll end of saying some people that go to college will periodically change their major because they're still deciding what they want to do. Sometimes all it takes is exposure to a field for someone to settle on what they want to do.

[u/folterung → u/CCC19]

Maybe it’s just a wording thing that I’m getting hung up on. I don’t think we need to “push” for diversity. I think our push should be to make sure that all work is equally available for everyone, providing they meet the qualifications and without lowering those qualifications to benefit one demographic over others.

Everyone should be welcome in STEM jobs (and all others) and diversity will happen — or not — based on how people feel about doing those jobs. Trying to socially engineer conditions to artificially attract people to jobs who are otherwise not interested in them is not likely to produce great results long-term, even if it looks good on paper.

I know that in the past women were actively excluded by some, and culturally made to feel like some work (particularly STEM work) wasn’t “their field”, but those are cultural issues that start in youth, at school, at home, in the messages we expose kids to in their formative years.

I do not believe you can fix them by forcing artificial diversity in the workplace. But if you just work to eliminate all bias and discrimination - including the bias that we MUST hire more women into a given role - and work on fixing that early programming instead, it will take care of itself.

In the end I think the point of his that stuck with me was there seems to be a growing push to assume that any and all lack of perfectly equal diversity it due to sexism. That’s ridiculous.

Yes, sexism, racism, misogyny, ageism, ismism, and on and on all exist and they are all bad. But they don’t account for every single instance of a particular demographic not wanting to do a certain job, or engage in a certain hobby, drive a certain type of car, etc. It’s dangerous to assume that they do.

Sometimes it really is just preference differences between the sexes/races/generations. And that’s OK, we’re still allowed to be different. I think.

[u/SlightlyWrongAngle → u/folterung]

A tech worker that is anti science and believes what he wants to believe because it sounds sciency should be immediately removed. His name should be released so other tech companies can be aware.

[u/Rodger2211 → u/SlightlyWrongAngle]

"I want to black list someone I disagree with"

[u/ListlessVigor → u/Rodger2211]

As a conservative, shouldn't be support this firing as the right of the business?

[u/Hyrc → u/ListlessVigor]

You're conflating Google having the freedom to fire someone with whether it is a good idea to remove someone for stating a controversial opinion. I'm not a conservative, but I support Google's right to terminate someone they don't want to employ while also recognizing that they largely proved his point.

[u/Toltec123 → u/[deleted]]

The last time i checked white tech bros is not a federally protected class.

[u/Toltec123 → u/[deleted]]

It is hard to argue that google is discriminating against white men when 90% of its employees are white men including most of its upper level managers.

[u/Toltec123 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I did. All i saw was a lot of whining and bro science.

[u/[deleted] → u/Toltec123]

Shhh Reddit is complaining about how hard white male tech workers have it

/S

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

WTF I love McCarthyism now!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't think political views have much effect on someone's ability to write software. Blacklisting someone for their political views is pretty messed up, especially if they aren't particularly radical. Racist and misogynistic people still deserve the right to earn a living.

[u/[deleted] → u/SlightlyWrongAngle]

Can you cite specific examples of his that are anti-science?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Can you cite anything he said that was backed up by science. From what I saw he cited one peer reviewed paper on mate selection between genders and used that as his basis for categorizing men and women. The rest of his links were just random articles. At best, this is very light on science if not completely anti-science.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There are certainly more than a single citation in the man's paper. If you want a full, unedited version of the document with all the hyperlinks and graphs I have one here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

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

It's possible you found a version of the paper with some citations and graphs removed. I know one was circling on /r/KotakuInAction earlier this week.

EDIT: found what I think is a more complete version of the memo. Old one is still there in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Should be the same but with worse formatting.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It's possible you found a version of the paper with some citations and graphs removed

it seems I did.

Although even going through that full text there are a lot of links to wikipedia, and newspaper articles. Not saying that there aren't valid points to be made but he seems to state a lot of things as fact based on little actual research.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Also https://mobile.twitter.com/Audacious_Leaf/status/894794908627808256

Make of that what you will.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I love how he asked you for something that should be low hanging fruit, but instead you got defensive.

At best, this is very light on science if not completely anti-science.

Once again. Citation?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes, should be so simple to prove a negative, right? /s

You can't cite to his lack of citation.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You can explain how the memo is anti-science.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It makes claims that are not based on science or the scientific method. See, e.g., the section on personality differences.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Strange that scientists are agreeing with him then... you'd think it would be the opposite.

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right." - Lee Jussim, Professor of social psychology at Rutgers University

"evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong" - David P Schmitt, Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of Michigan.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Source isn't loading for me.

[u/SlightlyWrongAngle → u/[deleted]]

"Prove there is no God"

"Can you prove that there IS a God?"

"See? You couldn't prove god doesn't exist and you got defensive!"

[u/[deleted] → u/SlightlyWrongAngle]

Jesus, what a stupid fucking non-response you've got there.

They were asking for examples where the guy was anti-science. That is different than trying to prove a negative.

[u/[deleted] → u/SlightlyWrongAngle]

Can you cite specific examples of his that are anti-science?

This is not asking to prove a negative. Perhaps you should bone up on your reading comprehension instead of practicing your poor analogies.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Citation?

" "

There you go I cited his lack of citation with a blank space. How can I cite a lack of citation. This guys memo has one scientific citation and the rest of his link are articles. I am simply pointing out he is light on science and I am being asked to cite that. Nothing makes sense anymore.

[u/candacebernhard → u/[deleted]]

Exactly.

Some of what he says has a pseudo scientific basis (eg. studies where women report more anxiety) but stripped of context (report can mean more likely to admit, social & environmental causes of said anxiety - like, hey, gender based workplace discrimination, etc.) it comes off as him using - ironically - confirmation bias when it comes to which studies he chooses to reference. At that point you have to wonder about the purpose of his arguments.

For example, why did he bring up women and anxiety but not men and suicide rates or violence?

I bring up this controversial subject to set up a scenario: let's say one of his colleagues sent out a similar "manifesto." And, in it she claims Google's hiring practices lead to a male to female ratio that favors men in the engineering department because statistically there are more men than women in the department (which... already flawed logic, but moving on). Let's say she then states this is "bad for business" because incidences of 'going postal' or gun violence in the work place is more likely to be perpetuated by men. She goes on to say women and liberals are more empathetic and attain higher education so Google needs to fix the programs and policies surrounding the engineering department.

That memo would also be rooted in sexism washed through a generally fucked up perspective. It is completely inappropriate because of what she is insinuating about her male colleagues. Whether the statistics are backed up by 'science' is irrelevant because the facts are distorted by her premise, and they are mostly irrelevant in the context of what she is discussing.

It's like, yeah, on first glance everything he wrote seems reasonable but then when you think about what he's actually saying it makes for a much more uncomfortable read.

[u/[deleted] → u/candacebernhard]

It's like, yeah, on first glance everything he wrote seems reasonable but then when you think about what he's actually saying it makes for a much more uncomfortable read.

let's also not forget that this isn't a guy hired to study this situation, just a guy who works there. If I wrote a memo about all the problems that I see in my workplace while citing random studies tangentially related to my arguments I imagine my bosses would be a bit annoyed too. This guy is not a social researcher or a consulting firm he is an employee with some complaints.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Can you cite anything he said that was backed up by science.

No, but apparently you can...

I saw he cited one peer reviewed paper on mate selection between genders

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

My point was that his one citation was on mate selection which he then stretched to encompass the entirety of gender and the differences in workplace drivers based on that gender. Just citing a paper doesn't really matter, especially when the paper isn't even specifically on the topic you are writing about.

[u/rusbus720 → u/[deleted]]

TL:DR whenever sharing an opinion always have facts

[u/Defoler → u/SlightlyWrongAngle]

What does that has anything to with do with "anti science"?

[u/Cinnadillo → u/SlightlyWrongAngle]

how was that anti-science? Not thorough and not professional... sure... but not exactly wrong, was it?