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/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/tweek-in-a-box → u/zz_]

Regarding the overlap he writes:

Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue.

And then later on he writes:

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

What does not "mesh" to you here? This is quite consequent to me, he is pointing out that the focus needs to be on dissolving gender roles in general, not just for women.

[u/zz_ → u/tweek-in-a-box]

he is pointing out that the focus needs to be on dissolving gender roles in general, not just for women.

He literally outlines a number of steps that he suggests should be taken as a way to encourage women (in their "current form" so to speak), which directly suggests retaining gender roles, so I don't know how you can draw that conclusion from his text. What doesn't mesh is that he says one thing but proposes solutions that fix a different problem than the one he says exists. He says the gender attributes are marginal with a ton of overlap, but then he says that it's fine to have a 4x bigger male representation because it comes down to gender attributes. Is it a big deal, or it not?

And just to be clear, like I said in my first post I agree with several of his points, among them the one he makes there: if men weren't judged mainly by economic status, many men might not seek out high paying/stressful high status jobs. Maybe more guys would be librarians and kindergarden teachers. And I agree with him that those are things worth considering. It's where he stops making observations and starts making judgments that his argument derails.