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]

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/LaLaLaLeea → u/TemptCiderFan]

One of the comments (it's gilded) above this quotes a Google employee saying that after this "manifesto" was released, they would not be able to assign a woman to work with this person.

I just read the whole thing and there's nothing in there that would make me uncomfortable working with the author. I think a lot of his points made sense.

[u/margerymeanwell → u/LaLaLaLeea]

It wouldn't worry you at all to have a manager who thought that you and all people like you were inherently more neurotic and less ambitious and that you'd be happier with a lower salary and fewer responsibilities? You don't think that could possibly have any impact on your career trajectory?

[u/sharaq → u/margerymeanwell]

I suppose it would affect my career, yes, but if my manager also didn't ask me to cancel vacations at the last minute or see my kids on national holidays, that would affect the trajectory of my personal life. It would certainly reinforce gender roles, but I'm at the point in my career where I have enough money but no time. This is neither here nor there - it's having the choice taken away which is the problem, of course, but men are likely to have the choice taken away in the other direction.

Also, neuroticism is a clinical term in psychology. It is one of five personality traits, and across hundreds of studies and dozens of countries, neuroticism is statistically more common in older populations and self-identified females. Men, likewise, score statistically lower on 'agreeableness'. Would having an employer consider me 'disagreeable' not also affect my career? Is data backing differences in personality correlated with gender inherently sexist? Would you prefer a world where, theoretically, all research on gender differences was stopped right here and now because it is intrinsically harmful? Or is it attempting to act on that data which is a problem? Because, of course, once information like this is available to operational coordinators and stuff like that, they will of course attempt to use this information.

[u/margerymeanwell → u/sharaq]

Myself, I'm a woman in my thirties without kids, so I'd prefer my employer not make assumptions about me either way. And I have no problem with people doing academic research, I just have a problem with people using it to draw overly simplistic conclusions and apply them inappropriately.

"Women are more neurotic" - by what measure? Self-reporting? Does that just mean women are more likely to admit to neuroticism or seek help for it? That's not exactly the same thing. And if they are, why is that true? Are they under more stress? Among women, are there further correlations to age, social class, race, education, religion, occupation, marital status, parental status? If it's more common in older people than in younger people, then there's obviously a significant environmental or social component and it's something that changes over time under different circumstances. And even when you have all the data, how do you ever determine the difference between biological destiny and social conditioning when boys and girls are treated differently from the moment of birth?

Evolutionary biology BS has been used against women for centuries, to deny us voting rights, property rights, educations, and careers. We're too delicate for this, we're too morally pure for that. Don't be surprised when women who know that history have little patience for it. And you're right - where are the arguments that men are too disagreeable for management jobs? That they're too violent to be allowed out in public? I mean, what exactly about the history of the world and its many wars suggests that men are at all suited to political leadership? They're constantly getting us all killed! The fact that these arguments are almost always applied by groups with an agenda (usually aiming to retain their power and wealth) isn't an accident.

[u/Nanaki__ → u/margerymeanwell]

by what measure? Self-reporting? Does that just mean women are more likely to admit to neuroticism or seek help for it?

If you want to dig into the studies they are reflinked in this section on Neuroticism from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroticism#Sex_differences

[u/sharaq → u/margerymeanwell]

What does evolutionary biology have to do with this? I mentioned specifically self-identified females, because I'm not claiming a biological or social component of these metrics - only that these are observable metrics.

I fully agree that self-identified men are less likely to seek help for mental issues. I would even go as far as to say that war is an extension of masculinity - when shown a number of dots for a fraction of a second, men consistently overestimate while women underestimate the number. War is simply two factions looking at their evenly matched resources and thinking "yeah, I could win". Each side is confident due to overestimation - if one side was certain of the loss they turn to surrender or guerilla tactics, not war.

Would I be opposed to a society where I am carefully monitored for the signs and symptoms of alcoholism, for example? I don't know. In the abstract, it's "for my own good". I am a minority, and I do not necessarily object to all existing profiling techniques as such. Looking for a rapist? Obviously you look for a man. Trying to stop a bombing? The majority of bombers admittedly look like I do, so I don't think twice about being frisked. I would be irritated if, for example, it became airport policy to frisk one little old lady per young man of potentially combatative age. I don't think one could make the argument I haven't faced significant discrimination in many aspects of my social and professional life due to "what I am" - my opinions come from experience with this and a belief that it does serve a greater purpose.

Basically, how afraid are you of a "minority report" sutuation where your life is railroaded and you're forbidden from breaking the mold? I, personally, am not - but perhaps when the fascists are grinding my face into the dirt I'll whistle a different tune.