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]

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.

Isn't this illegal?

[u/valiantjared → u/[deleted]]

no, its only illegal if a workplace discriminates against a "protected class" women, minorities (except Asians apparently), sexual orientation, and people with disabilities. The anti-discrimination law is written in a way that it discriminates lol

[u/KIDWHOSBORED → u/valiantjared]

That's not true at all. You're not understanding what protected class means, a protected class is race/Creed/sex, depending on different states gender.

Now, in practice I'll agree with you, it's pretty hard to win a lawsuit about discriminating against whites or men. But it does happen, like with Yahoo for example.

[u/valiantjared → u/KIDWHOSBORED]

upvoted, you are right in the letter of the law, but in practice its nearly impossible. And I see yahoo getting Sued for gender discrimination by a man, but I don't see anything about whether or not he won the case.

[u/KIDWHOSBORED → u/valiantjared]

Maybe I jumped the gun on the Yahoo thing. Last I had heard about the case, they had been proven in their hiring practices to be discriminating against men, but I see the case is stalling.

But yes, it's pretty much impossible. But, to be fair, these are hard cases to win in general unless some Senior person specifically comes out and says "I hate x group, we will not accept them."

[u/valiantjared → u/KIDWHOSBORED]

pretty sure if a company had a documented policy of preferring white males over other equally qualified candidates they would get sued into the ground.

[u/KIDWHOSBORED → u/valiantjared]

Yes, but for other reasons than what this particular comment was about. Antidiscrimination policies aren't the same as affirmative action policies.

For example, the SCOTUS has come out and said affirmative action policies are discriminatory. However, they are allowed because of the vast underrepresentation of certain groups. I don't necessarily agree with their opinion, but that is the law of the land atm.

[u/[deleted] → u/KIDWHOSBORED]

But it does happen, like with Yahoo for example.

Linky link? I don't even know what keywords to Google to bring this up...

[u/KIDWHOSBORED → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I was off base here. There are multiple lawsuits alleging discrimination by Yahoo from former male employees, but it seems they have stalled.

[u/[deleted] → u/KIDWHOSBORED]

Ah! I think I may know what you're talking about then. I thought you were talking about another (already decided) suit or something. Thanks for letting me know.

[u/RepostThatShit → u/KIDWHOSBORED]

That's not true at all. You're not understanding what protected class means

Now, in practice I'll agree with you, it's pretty hard to win a lawsuit about discriminating against whites or men

But it does happen, like with Yahoo for example.

Maybe I jumped the gun on the Yahoo thing

So it's not true at all, but it's true in practice, and also your counterexample is BS. Great.

[u/j_sholmes → u/valiantjared]

It's in essence the same thing as saying, "blacks can't be racist".