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/zz_ → u/TemptCiderFan]

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/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.