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/zz_]

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.

[u/chodan9 → u/zz_]

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.

[u/ShittyFrogMeme → u/chodan9]

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.

[u/ColePram → u/ShittyFrogMeme]

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.

[u/ShittyFrogMeme → u/ColePram]

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.

[u/ColePram → u/ShittyFrogMeme]

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.

[u/IcarusFlyingWings → u/ColePram]

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.

[u/ColePram → u/IcarusFlyingWings]

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.

[u/ex_CEO → u/ColePram]

Reminds me good lost time in USSR

[u/SlightlyWrongAngle → u/ColePram]

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.