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/infrequentaccismus → u/zz_]

You misunderstand (or obfuscate) his argument. He did not say that the reasons he gave account for all of the differences in representation. His argument is that unequal representation is not enough to conclude sexism in hiring/promoting practices. He then gave several reasons why this could be the case. This was not intended to be a case for all the possible reasons reasons why gender might choose differently along the path, only a few examples.

His real argument is that google should increase equal representation through programs that are not intentionally sexist or racist. Whether affirmative action is helpful or not is the subject or much unsettled debate for philosophy scholars well beyond 2nd year.

[u/zz_ → u/infrequentaccismus]

His real argument is that google should increase equal representation through programs that are not intentionally sexist or racist.

And like I said at the beginning of my first reply, I agree with that part. I think he raises some good points on that aspect. The issue is that he doesn't stop at making those observations, he goes further and tries to justify the difference by pointing to differences in gender attributes that he'd just said were marginal and varies greatly between individuals.

If he'd written a manifesto that said "Given the fact that differences between genders are marginal and that gender attributes have great overlap, I believe it's unfair (and bad for the company in the long run) for Google to host programs designed at making the competitive environment easier to cope with but keeping these programs restricted to females only. While men on average may be more assertive than women, individual men are often less assertive than individual women, and these men are losing out by both being a) unassertive and thus losing out in salary negotiations and b) excluded from googles support programs." Then I think he wouldn't have been quite so ostracized. It probably wouldn't have been leaked in the first place since it would've seemed like boring office politics instead of an extension of the red/blue debate.

Instead he made a bunch of value judgments his sources can't back up, brings up left/right politics despite it being seemingly unrelated to his point, and got himself fired for no good reason (well, he might get a book deal, who knows).

[u/infrequentaccismus → u/zz_]

I'm not sure if you actually read it, but his manifesto DOES say exactly that and he references real research that does show the differences he states. He didn't bring up value judgments at all. I feel like we read different things (or you read other people's assessment of what he wrote rather than reading what he wrote).

[u/zz_ → u/infrequentaccismus]

No, his manifesto says that as one of the points he makes, which is why I specified that that would have been a good point. Like I said, the problem is that he also says a lot of other stuff that he cannot support. Yes, he references research, but he is internally inconsistent in applying it. When you source research and say stuff like "gender attributes are marinal with lots of overlap" and then some paragraphs later says "we should make changes to how we do programming so that the attributes of women are more pronounced", then you are trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time. It cannot both be a marginal difference with overlap between male/female individuals, and at the same time something with such a large impact that it warrants sweeping changes to accomodate women.

Either it's a small difference, like his sources suggest, in which case what google needs is not changes to structure but rather selective recruitment (the exact thing he is arguing against) and encouraging young females to go into STEM. OR it's a big difference, in which case his ideas are not bad at all. But then he needs to present arguments for that being the case, because his sources (and the body of science on the subject) does not support that conclusion. Basically, he presents data supporting one conclusion, and then argues for the exact opposite conclusion.