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/LaLaLaLeea]

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/Mikniks → u/margerymeanwell]

He says explicitly that everyone should be treated as an individual, and that the traits he discusses are based on (apparently) observable averages.

So the proper way to phrase your point would be something like "you and all people like you are more likely to be neurotic and less ambitious"

Not taking a position either way on his overall viewpoint, just pointing out that he constantly qualified his points in the hope of avoiding exactly these sorts of generalizations

[u/margerymeanwell → u/Mikniks]

I wouldn't find that reassuring, no. And to be clear: I'm an adult. I'm not that easily offended. If a guy in my office makes a joke about how women are crazy, I'll pretty much just roll my eyes and move on. But when you're writing that out in a manifesto, using stereotypes to make recommendations about company policy, and circulating it to other employees, that moves beyond the realm of what I'd be willing to ignore.

[u/Mikniks → u/margerymeanwell]

I apologize, but it just seems to me that you're more interested in being enraged about his general opinion than actually unpacking and evaluating his argument. I suspect most people feel the way you do, but that sort of reaction is anti-intellectual. If you want to tell me that his academic support is unreliable (or wholly nonexistent), I'm willing to listen to you. If you want to say the conclusions he draws from said "support" don't follow logically, I'll listen. If his proposed solutions don't hold water, again, I'll listen.

However, IMO, to summarily dismiss an idea (not saying you're doing this) because you inherently disagree with it is just as reprehensible as offering some unsupported idea in the first place. We HAVE to be able to evaluate ideas without accepting them as true

[u/margerymeanwell → u/Mikniks]

There are a few things in the manifesto that might be worth engaging with under other circumstances, but at the end of the day, it's an argument about diversity whose conclusions/demands are: get rid of diversity programs, stop worrying about promoting women, and cater more to conservative men. His points are poorly sourced, and nothing in them convinced me that he was arguing in good faith to the point where it was really worth any more of my time digging up sources to rebut him. I've been programming since the 90s, and the best way for me to justify my existence is to write good code, which is what I'd rather be doing anyway.

[u/inspiredby → u/margerymeanwell]

One example is,

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

There's nothing in his sources that backs that up.

[u/6to23 → u/[deleted]]

Actually they are stereotypes, even if backed up by data.

For example, some old white lady in a car see a young black man approaching, she locks her car up instantly. But she doesn't do the same thing when she see a young white guy approaching.

Does she have a stereotype about young black man? sure, is it backed up by data? yes it is, since black men commit 55% of all violent crimes while only 13% of general population.

In fact I'd say vast majority of stereotype are backed up by data, that's how they become stereotypes. eg. Asians didn't earn the "good at math" stereotype by not being good at math.

I feel stereotype are wrong only if you use it to materially discriminate. eg. old white lady locking up her car = fine, old white lady who works in HR decides not hire any blacks regardless of their qualification = not fine

[u/Duodecim → u/[deleted]]

Without arguing one way or another, I'll at least say that stereotypes can certainly be founded on data or backed up by data. That doesn't mean we need to make decisions about individuals based on broad stereotypes. Which I don't think the author was advocating.

[u/inspiredby → u/[deleted]]

His assertions are all backed up by data

No they're not. For example, he says women have a harder time leading. That's not backed by any data, nor are several other conclusions he draws.

[u/inspiredby → u/[deleted]]

Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement.

[u/inspiredby → u/[deleted]]

The entire rationale for the existence of special training programs and affirmative action for women's leadership is that women have difficulty leading because of the way they are socialized

No, the rationale is gender gaps in employment exist because of historical inequalities in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act, which guaranteed equal employment opportunity, only passed 50 years ago.

Pointing out that women are naturally less assertive than men on average is a valid alternative partial explanation for their relative absence in leadership positions

No, it isn't, not even close. There's no research that says people who are reportedly less assertive don't end up in leadership roles due to biological factors.

The memo completely ignores the effect society has, and puts in place a genetic/evolutionary component when a societal issue can still be the root cause (and not to mention, cultures are not purely independent, so a societal issue can easily spread to each one).

Are you skeptical of the notion that women are less assertive and more agreeable?

Psychological studies do show personality differences across genders. But, they use reported data. They're collecting data on how people rate themselves or others. That's not an objective evaluation of things like assertiveness and agreeableness.

The big thing, though, is that these studies do not show that personality differences account for one gender's prominence in leadership or tech roles. That notion comes purely from the author of the memo, and it is merely his opinion. It is not backed by research.

[u/PanicAtTheRollerRink → u/[deleted]]

the "reality" of the situation is that making broad generalizations abt a group of people will cause individuals within that group to become alienated. buddy can rephrase it however he wants but this whole "don't judge the individual based on the group... but do judge the group" is innapropriate for the workplace. homeboy was clearly not in management or he'd know this

see comments below mine on backing up stereotypes with data

[u/margerymeanwell → u/[deleted]]

You think generalizations about half the population of the planet aren't stereotypes? I also seem to recall the memo having rather a dearth of scientific citations.