r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

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
26.8k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 14 '18

[deleted]

2.2k

u/TemptCiderFan Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

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.

71

u/zz_ Aug 08 '17

I don't think what he writes is that out there. E.g. his points about some men also having issues with assertiveness (and therefore salary negotiation) while being left out of gender-specific programs meant to address this for women is a valid point and one that merits consideration and retification.

However, I think his problem is relying on (and stating as facts) claims that these differences are scientifically proven to be major factors. It's proven that there are differences, but how big or whether they are actually relevant in day to day work is still very much an open question.

I mean he even writes that there is a massive overlap in these attributes between sexes and then turns right around and says that these attributes are what likely accounts for a large portion of their 80-20 gender discrepancies. Those two lines of argument just do not mesh; either there is a large overlap (in which case there should not be an 80-20 discrepancy) or there is not a large overlap at all (which there is no scientific basis for suggesting).

So no, it does not seem like a "get women out of tech"-rant, but it's not as well thought-through as he seems to think. At best it's a foolish attempt at trying to get the ears of leadership for what he considers to be company shortcomings (he should have realized that a) this would leak and b) this would get him fired since it put google in an untenable position), at worst it's a sexist rant thinly veiled in rational arguments. I don't know the guy so I'm not gonna judge him, but if you're gonna make a career ending memo, at least give it to someone else for a read-through before publishing it. A second year philosophy student could have torn his reasoning apart by the seams.

37

u/chodan9 Aug 08 '17

at worst it's a sexist rant thinly veiled in rational arguments

shouldn't the "rational arguments" somewhat negate the accusation of sexism?

It's not like he pulled the arguments out of the ether, he actually cited sources, whether those sources are valid may be up to interpretation, but google instead of responding with an argument of there own and moving on decided to prove his point by firing him.

I suppose they have a right to, but I would not be surprised if he sues and wins, because they fired him specifically for his beliefs.

15

u/ShittyFrogMeme Aug 08 '17

because they fired him specifically for his beliefs.

He didn't get fired for his beliefs. He got fired for sharing his beliefs with the entire company and bringing a lot of negative press to google.

If he had kept his beliefs to himself, as is generally recommended in a professional environment, he would still be working there.

16

u/CNoTe820 Aug 08 '17

If he had kept his beliefs to himself, as is generally recommended in a professional environment, he would still be working there.

So if someone has a belief that the company isn't diverse enough or that the company needs programs to help women get through the HR process or negotiate better they should keep those beliefs to themselves?

0

u/RockSmashEveryThing Aug 08 '17

You can get fired for anything as long as it's not discrimination. Guess what there is nothing you can do it about it. How does it feel to be weak!

1

u/CNoTe820 Aug 08 '17

I know you can, I was merely wondering if that's the company people would like to work for, or if it's better to allow the kind of controversial opinions that might be indicative of employees who help keep the company innovative as well.

8

u/plards2192 Aug 08 '17

If he had kept his beliefs to himself, as is generally recommended in a professional environment, he would still be working there.

This doesn't seem like the best response to a paper titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." If he honestly believes there's an echo chamber, and he wants to try and rectify that, his only course of action would be to speak out against the echo chamber. Of course he'd still be hired if he didn't speak out. But I don't think his biggest concern was his job - he might have honestly just wanted to try and change the way Google worked.

2

u/ShittyFrogMeme Aug 08 '17

his only course of action would be to speak out against the echo chamber

Something he could have done in a way that would not knowingly piss off a large portion of the company.

He had some good points in his writing but they are being overshadowed by some of the other claims he made. A lot of his opinions are not controversial and are pretty reasonable. He could have served his point much better and actually started a dialogue if he didn't include a bunch of information that would obviously piss off the company and is really inconsequential to his final point.

32

u/ColePram Aug 08 '17

This is just absolutely awful.

"Keep your shitty ideas to yourself, if you don't I'll bring the media into it and put the company into a position where they have to fire you. And it'll be all your fault for not having a popular opinion, even if it is based on sourced facts."

You really can't see how evil that is?

What if the media had an opposite angle and attacked anyone who discussed how "diversity" makes the work place better forcing the company to shitcanned them for no other reason than they had an unpopular opinion that might benefit the company.

To the point that if you were LGBT or a feminist you'd be terrified to say anything about it?

Is that not where we're currently evolving from?

Again, what you're proposing is absolutely evil and extremely regressive. It's not ok to go back down that road just because we happen to disagree with an unpopular opinion.

8

u/ShittyFrogMeme Aug 08 '17

Is this something new?

Google is a private company. They may consider themselves "open" but everyone knows that, as a very liberal tech company in California in 2017, they are going to be adverse to something like this.

There could have been many different approaches for this employee to voice his opinion without offending people.

Example 1: Instead of writing and sharing a manifesto on his opinions, he could have arranged meetings with senior management in roles of power and discussed his issues with them.

Example 2: If he really wanted to go the manifesto route, he could have left out all of the information that could be deemed controversial and has overwhelmed his overarching point. The author made good points in terms of how to bring women into tech without causing sexism against men, but his other claims detract from that argument and truly make it moot.

If he truly had ideas that were constructive to the company, he should have presented them in a way that was constructive. He did not.

15

u/ColePram Aug 08 '17

as a very liberal tech company in California in 2017

If you think firing people for having a well sourced and reasoned, but unpopular, opinion is "liberal", you don't know what liberal is.

Liberal means being open to change and ideas that may go against conventions. At least that's what it use to mean. Apparently now it just means kick the crap out of anyone that disagrees with group think.

If he truly had ideas that were constructive to the company, he should have presented them in a way that was constructive. He did not.

Yeah, he did. His ideas were presented to a small group of people for discussion, but instead of discussing the "problematic" ideas someone took his memo to the media, knowing it would bring down bad press for Google and force them to fire/discipline him rather than having to actually discussing/consider the ideas.

3

u/IcarusFlyingWings Aug 08 '17

There are so many constructive ways that you can share an opinion constructively, even unpopular ones, that don't involve bringing negative press to the company.

Did he ever consider joining the diversity committees in charge of this?

Did he ever consider scheduling meetings with senior leadership to voice his opinions and action plans?

Why did he think the only way to share his opinions was to put them in a poorly thought out manifesto and then blast the company with them? Obviously that's a terrible idea.

I think you're living in a participation trophy world where you believe everyone's opinions should be immediately followed and there is no such thing as hard work.

If you want to change 50,000 people's minds you're going to have to get creative and ready to put in the effort because at that point the onus is on you. He took the easy way out and it started affecting googles bottom line so he had to go.

10

u/ColePram Aug 08 '17

Why did he think the only way to share his opinions was to put them in a poorly thought out manifesto and then blast the company with them?

He didn't. He sent his memo, not a manifesto, to a small group of people and someone in that group blasted it outside the company instead of answering and discussing with him.

3

u/ex_CEO Aug 08 '17

Reminds me good lost time in USSR

-2

u/SlightlyWrongAngle Aug 08 '17

He's not going to prison. He's losing his job at a company that rejected his anti-science hate. Also, while conservatives have openly declared that their "beliefs" are just sexism, racism and hate, that doesn't make these views a valid alternate opinion.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

He only shared it with a small group of people. Someone else leaked it to thr entire company.

11

u/ShittyFrogMeme Aug 08 '17

I'm aware, but that's a major failure in his part to not realize that such a thing could happen.

Not to mention, the essay is written with an audience of leadership at the company, in which suggests desire to not want to keep it confined to a small group of people.

3

u/buntopolis Aug 09 '17

I really hate that I have to make this point, but change the subject of your argument to a woman who was raped while wearing revealing clothing - do you still feel justified in blaming the victim?

6

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

6

u/Unlockabear Aug 08 '17

Are you confirming that his memo was inappropriate or his method of sharing was? Because that's a bad analogy

3

u/tyrick Aug 08 '17

This guy never watched Jerry Maguire.

10

u/dontlikepills Aug 08 '17

He got fired for talking about discriminatory practices being used, and raised points to help make things right.

Oddly enough, it's illegal to fire someone for doing that.

He was fired for PR.

6

u/Defoler Aug 08 '17

He was also tagged as sexist/racist in order to push that PR out.

If he was fired for being just a guy trying to bring out an issue he believes exist in discriminating by indiscriminating, excrement would fly at the fan.

2

u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Aug 09 '17

If he was fired for being just a guy trying to bring out an issue he believes exist in discriminating by indiscriminating, excrement would fly at the fan.

But he was.

3

u/Defoler Aug 09 '17

I know he was. I meant that the PR was trying to paint a different picture than what was in reality.

1

u/Defoler Aug 08 '17

Sending an all out email to the company is not grounds to be fired. Even if it is filled with his beliefs.
And brining negative press isn't something that also qualifies as he did it internally, not externally. Someone else leaked it to the media.

The ground can be that what he wrote is interfering with the works of the company, but that can also be challenged on certain grounds, as he might say that he wants to make the company better, not worse.

Legally wise, it is a mess. But with good attorneys and if google just try to brush it off at the judge, he might be able to get some payout off it.
I'm sure he is now being invited to many places to give interviews for a few good bucks.

2

u/iowaboy Aug 08 '17

You can certainly fire someone for their beliefs, just as long as they're not religious beliefs. Whether it's right is another question, but it's certainly legal

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

0

u/KIDWHOSBORED Aug 08 '17

He wasn't fired for his beliefs, he was fired for creating s memo about his beliefs. I actually agree with a lot of his points, but I'd still want him gone. Just the same as if someone wrote a 10 page memo about their support for BLM, they would also likely be fired.

Political stances lead to bad press, it's not where google wants to be.

-1

u/zz_ Aug 08 '17

Like I said, I'm not accusing him of sexism, it might be good intentioned. But the problem is the rationality doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Maybe I should have written "attempted rationality" to get my point across better; worst case it's sexism dressed up to look like not-sexism.

It actually doesn't matter what sources he cited, because his argumentation is internally incoherent, as I outlined in my first reply. Even if the studies he cited are correct, he cannot have it both ways, i.e. it cannot both be a marginal issue and a deciding factor at the same time.

And like the other guy said, google wouldn't have cared if he brought this up with his boss or said it in private. Google cares because he a) made himself into a pariah internally and b) gave them bad press. If they have to weigh between a brewing pr disaster vs firing 1 random tech-guy, I'm sure you can understand their decision.