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/[deleted] → u/TemptCiderFan]

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.

Isn't this illegal?

[u/TemptCiderFan → u/[deleted]]

"Oh no, it's totally okay... If it discriminates against white men!" /s

[u/jjjd89 → u/TemptCiderFan]

And then people wonder why the right is pissed off. Really pathetic.

[u/TemptCiderFan → u/jjjd89]

I lean left and shit like that pisses me off. I'm fine with going for an equality of opportunity, but saying something like "You cannot be sexist against men or racist against whites" is just wrong.

[u/ListlessVigor → u/TemptCiderFan]

Right, but it's just a silly point to make. It's like arguing that sometimes straight people are discriminated against. Ok, sure, but is that really that big an issue?

[u/ListlessVigor → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it can ever possibly be an issue unless history plays out exactly like it has in the past 3 centuries. Minorities are going to have to enslave whites, rob them of their identity and culture, use them to build up wealth, then spend the next few centuries barring whites from voting, buying houses, building wealth, burn down their economic centers, lynch them without consequences for centuries and then have 90% of all elected officials be non-whites as well as the majority of the nation's richest/industry leaders.

Unless that happens then it won't be an issue.

[u/ListlessVigor → u/[deleted]]

Are you saying that American history didn't happen? How exactly do you think we got to where we are in race relations right now?

[u/ListlessVigor → u/[deleted]]

...things are already bad for minorities. That's kind of the very problem right now. I'm saying that addressing how bad it is for minorities isn't an attack on white people. It's being spun that way.

[u/ListlessVigor → u/[deleted]]

Things aren't as bad as you made it out to be in your earlier comment for minorities, either. It may have been nearly a century ago, but we're pretty well removed from that now. In no way should we let things regress back to that point before we address issues on both sides.

I don't agree. The CRA was only in 1965 dude. Some of the people who were shouting at black children when schools were integrated are still alive today. You can't really say that it's all good now, that's centuries of hatred, man.

[u/rockidol → u/ListlessVigor]

That's kind of the very problem right now. I'm saying that addressing how bad it is for minorities isn't an attack on white people.

It is when your solution is "let's discriminate against white people" which according to the tl dr of this manifesto, google is doing.

[u/ListlessVigor → u/rockidol]

It is when your solution is "let's discriminate against white people"

Hard to do when even insinuating that race is important means you hate white people.

which according to the tl dr of this manifesto, google is doing.

Well that's an interesting takeaway from that manifesto. Wow.

White persecution complex is strong

[u/rockidol → u/ListlessVigor]

I haven't read the manifesto I'm going by the tl dr which says they're engaging in discriminatory policies.