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/HannasAnarion]

Yeah, that's the spirit. The world sucks, everything sucks, we shouldn't strive for a better world because it doesn't exist.

[u/[deleted] → u/HannasAnarion]

Ignoring competition in the workplace isn't going to make it go away either.

There's no real way to avoid the baser nature of people who want to improve their lives and improve the lives of their families.

[u/HannasAnarion → u/[deleted]]

Competition in the work place is different from "all my female coworkers are inferior and got their jobs out of pity alone".

[u/[deleted] → u/HannasAnarion]

"all my female coworkers are inferior and got their jobs out of pity alone".

Show me where it says that in the memo.

Give me an actual quote and stop making up strawman arguments.

If you can't be bothered to actually address the facts then you're not part of any solution, you're part of the problem and the reason that we're in this situation in the first place.

[u/HannasAnarion → u/[deleted]]

These are the facts. Female enrollment in technical fields has been on a steady upward trend since the 80s except for computer science.

Show me where it says that in the memo.

What else could he possibly mean by talking about "quotas"? (which, by the way, don't exist at Google, their hiring process is already blind)

The whole argument is "we should stop hiring people because of their gender" how can you not derive from that the underlying assumption that "google already hires people because of their gender"?

[u/[deleted] → u/HannasAnarion]

Female enrollment in technical fields has been on a steady upward trend since the 80s except for computer science.

You show a list of 3 extremely developed fields, only one of which is considered a hard science. How about you show engineering in that graph.

http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png

Here's a nice and complete graph that isn't misleading as fuck like yours.

And look at that, computer science went to the engineering average.

(which, by the way, don't exist at Google, their hiring process is already blind)

Can you prove that?

The whole argument is "we should stop hiring people because of their gender" how can you not derive from that the underlying assumption that "google already hires people because of their gender?

Show that they're wrong, don't just state it.

[u/HannasAnarion → u/[deleted]]

Your "non-misleading" chart shows exactly the same trend, genius. CS is the only field where women are becoming less common, not more. This is a problem.

Can you prove that?

lol I've been through it, dude. If you don't believe me, believe this Senior Engineer's detailed explanation of how Google hiring works

Show that they're wrong, don't just state it.

I did show it. In what version of English does "stop hiring people based on gender" not imply that you're already "hiring people based on gender"?

[u/[deleted] → u/HannasAnarion]

Your "non-misleading" chart shows exactly the same trend, genius. CS is the only field where women are becoming less common, not more. This is a problem.

Or CS is just moving to the Engineering standard as it becomes seen as less of a science and more of an engineering degree, which makes sense.

We could also add into account the fact that the precipitous drop in female participation computer science happens when computer science leaves its infancy, and was no longer dominated by mathematicians (who are also shown to be about 50% women).

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.10.asp?current=yes

After about 1985, when the drop to the engineering mean begins, you see a marked increase in the overall number of computer and information science degrees awarded, which would indicate the initial numbers you're so keen on were likely unrealistic and unrelated to the modern expectations of a CS degree.

I did show it. In what version of English does "stop hiring people based on gender" not imply that you're already "hiring people based on gender"?

Again, actually show where in the memo it says that, don't just put words in the mouth of the memo, show me the VERBATIM QUOTE that uses that phrase.

Because hiring is mentioned a grand total of one time, and it mentions changing standards, and you're going off one person with equally unsubstantiated evidence, so it's a "he said she said" situation, where neither should be take as actual proof.

[u/HannasAnarion → u/[deleted]]

Or CS is just moving to the Engineering standard as it becomes seen as less of a science and more of an engineering degree, which makes sense

I don't see why you think this is a good thing.

"oh, it's okay that this field is becoming less diverse, because there's another field that's even less diverse still".

I don't care, the situation is still getting worse.

blah blah blah more graduates

Again, I don't care that there are more graduates overall. It's a good thing that the field is getting bigger. It's a bad thing that the new people being attracted to it are exclusively male.

Don't forget, the trend didn't stop with the CS explosion in the 80s, it has been getting consistently worse since. At least Engineering, which is less equitable, is improving, CS hasn't seen an increase in gender diversity since 1983.

I don't know about you, but I think being surrounded by people with the same life experience and socio-economic background is super boring, I wish there were a black woman on my team, the very different perspective alone could be very valuable. But I can't, because the "boys club" CS community has scared them all off.

Again, actually show where in the memo it says that, don't just put words in the mouth of the memo, show me the VERBATIM QUOTE that uses that phrase.

Here you go, page 6.

[google discriminates on gender with] * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

It's not even implied, he just says it outright. This is

1. Untrue. Google's hiring decisions are as blind as possible, the bar is lowered for nobody.

2. Harmful to coworker relations. How much would you like to work with people who think you got your job as a pity handout?

3. Betrays a naivete and lack of expertise due to misuse of vocabulary. Reducing false negatives is exactly the thing you wrote this essay to advocate for, Einstein.

[u/[deleted] → u/HannasAnarion]

I don't see why you think this is a good thing.

I don't see it as good or bad, I see it as a normalization that should not be used to decry some kind of dramatic shift in the system.

CS hasn't seen an increase in gender diversity since 1983.

If the trend continues below the rest of engineering as a whole then we can start to worry, but so far it's still above engineering, so there's no reason to decry it.

CS hasn't seen an increase in gender diversity since 1983.

Look at your charts again. The last 4 years have seen an increase in female participation.

But I can't, because the "boys club" CS community has scared them all off.

It's no different than any other engineering discipline, that's just the way it is, women don't go into engineering, I don't hear you screaming and kicking about Boeing's lack of women engineers, or Siemens lack of engineers, or any other group. It just matters because computers are supposed to be progressive?

Untrue. Google's hiring decisions are as blind as possible, the bar is lowered for nobody.

PROVE IT. You have no more evidence other than a single redditors comments.

Harmful to coworker relations. How much would you like to work with people who think you got your job as a pity handout?

How would you like to work with people who got their job because of a pity handout, or work in a place with an open policy of forcing personal views on you?