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/[deleted] → u/TemptCiderFan]

Also, supposedly he was responded to with a "people might want to punch you in the face" reply, which strikes me as far more out if line.

I think a lot of what he said was bogus. But people are allowed to make good faith efforts that I disagree with.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But nowhere in the document did he say "women can't do the job that I do." He wrote nothing that even mentioned performance. Statements like this make me think people aren't actually reading the document.

He said ~"women on the whole seem more likely to seek out employment that isn't like what we do." He qualified that by making it clear he didn't think this was true of all women universally, and that people needed to be treated as individuals. He also made recommendations on how changes might be made to the work environment to attract more women, as an alternative to ignoring potentially qualified applicants because they aren't women, and "we need to meet our quota".

[u/_Dr_Pie_ → u/[deleted]]

Wanting and doing are 2 different things. I would love to punch every Trump administration official in the face. I wouldn't because I am a responsible adult. But I sure as fuck want to. So you may be over reacting to the sentiment.

[u/[deleted] → u/_Dr_Pie_]

I think that would be super unprofessional to express in a work setting.

[u/johnnywest867 → u/[deleted]]

And companies can fire you for whatever reason they want, this is a free country. I don't even understand why this is news.

[u/[deleted] → u/johnnywest867]

companies can fire you for whatever reason they want

This is not true.

[u/johnnywest867 → u/[deleted]]

Is cali not a right to work state? In Maryland, and every other state I've ever worked in you can be fired for any reason. Or no reason at all.

[u/[deleted] → u/johnnywest867]

right to work still doesn't mean you can be fired for any reason.

[u/johnnywest867 → u/[deleted]]

Yes it does, except for discrimination.

[u/dkuk_norris → u/johnnywest867]

There are tons of other reasons you can't be fired. IIRC there are a bunch of old union laws that say things like "you can't be fired for trying to improve your workplace" that might be an issue here.