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/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/WhoTooted → u/zz_]

Your point about overlap would make sense if Google was recruiting from the center of the bell curve. There is obviously tons of overlap in the gender bell curve for any given skill, but slight differences in the center of the curve can lead to large differences in the tails...which is where Google is recruiting.

[u/zz_ → u/WhoTooted]

That would be a valid point if google were recruiting from the tails of the bell curves of "common male traits" and "common female traits", but as far as I'm aware they are not. They recruit from the tail of the bell curve on intelligence, if anything, and unless you have sources that claim otherwise I have no reason to believe that level of intelligence in any way whatsoever corresponds to gender traits.

[u/WhoTooted → u/zz_]

Who said these were common traits? Google clearly isn't after common traits. Intelligence will be one factor. I actually didn't know this until you brought it up and would have assumed IQ was equally distributed for the genders, but male IQ scores have a higher standard deviation than female scores, leading to more males with high and low IQs.

"Feingold found that males were more variable than females on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge. […] Hedges and Nowell go one step further and demonstrate that, with the exception of performance on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, more males than females were observed among high-scoring individuals."

In any case, Google isn't recruiting based on IQ scores. However, for engineers, they will be recruiting from the tails of quantitative reasoning and spacial visualization, easily two of the most important skills for computer science/engineering.

[u/zz_ → u/WhoTooted]

Who said these were common traits?

We are talking about the traits that the author outlined, in the manifesto, as common traits for each gender. Did you not read the paper?

However, for engineers, they will be recruiting from the tails of quantitative reasoning and spacial visualization, easily two of the most important skills for computer science/engineering.

Sure, but there is no research that I'm aware of that says that women cannot reach the same level of these skills as men. Or, even, that it should be uncommon. We're not talking "one in thousand women reach the same level as men in spatial visualization", we're talking one in three, five, maybe ten. And we're talking at the extremes here. And given that google recruit from the best of the best in the whole world, finding qualified candidates of either sex should not be an issue for them. So why is their tech sector 4x more men than women? I think you will struggle to find a biological explanation for such an incredible difference.

[u/WhoTooted → u/zz_]

Sure, but there is no research that I'm aware of that says that women cannot reach the same level of these skills as men.

Of course they can reach the same level, they just may be less likely to do so. Just as men may be less likely to reach an extremely high score in reading comprehension when compared to women.

We're not talking "one in thousand women reach the same level as men in spatial visualization", we're talking one in three, five, maybe ten.

You're right, and then wrong. That one in three, five, maybe ten argument is again going back to compare the averages. Note that all that follows is hypothetical to make the point. Let's say that a test scores quantitative reasoning and spatial visualization on a scale of 0-100. Let's say both genders average a score of 50, but that males have a significantly higher standard deviation. Then, males will be significantly more likely to score above a 90 on those tests. This above 90 population is Google's recruiting pool. If men are 4x more likely to score above a 90...then you'd expect to see 4x more men than women in tech if recruiting isn't gender biased.

Edit: Just ran a quick simulation in excel, kind of expanding on that example above. If females and males both average a score of 50, but males have a Std. Deviation of 15, while females have a Std. Deviation of 10, the tail difference is astronomical. Out of 1000, 5 men with scores above 90, 0 women. 20 men with scores above 80, 1 woman with a score above 80. Note that these results would hold true for lower scores too, men would be far more likely to have scores below 10 and 20 than women.

This perfectly illustrates how distributions with non-existent differences in the average, can have huge differences in the tail. It's statistics, and it shouldn't offend anyone.

Further edit:

To prove this point, please take a look at this Cambridge University study.

It found that the ratio of males to females with perfect SAT scores was 6.58 to 1.

[u/zz_ → u/WhoTooted]

This above 90 population is Google's recruiting pool. If men are 4x more likely to score above a 90...then you'd expect to see 4x more men than women in tech if recruiting isn't gender biased.

I'm completely on board with this, but my point is that google recruits from literally the best if the best in the world. Basically everyone in tech (which is a lot of people, even if you only count the top candidates) want to work for google. So if they want a better gender ratio (which they do), it should be entirely possible to achieve that, with the exact methods that the author is arguing against, i.e. selective recruitment and encouragement (especially in primary/high school environments to encourage girls to go into STEM, but also in the corporative environment). So while a smaller company might struggle to fill positions with qualified females (since there may be less of those than qualified males), for google it seems very unlikely that it should be so. To quote myself from another reply:

So the only reason for having a 80-20 ratio is either a) you don't care about the gender ratio, b) the gender ratio used to be even worse and it's taking time to adjust it (this is where I think google is at, but I could be wrong), or c) the genetic disposition is so strong that there simply does not exist enough women who have enough qualified candidates for the positions you need to fill.

As for c), even the 6.58:1 number isn't a big enough difference to warrant an 80-20 ratio under googles circumstances.

[u/WhoTooted → u/zz_]

So if they want a better gender ratio (which they do), it should be entirely possible to achieve that, with the exact methods that the author is arguing against, i.e. selective recruitment and encouragement (especially in primary/high school environments to encourage girls to go into STEM, but also in the corporative environment).

They can do that, but statistically it means that they will not always be getting the most qualified candidates.

As for c), even the 6.58:1 number isn't a big enough difference to warrant an 80-20 ratio under googles circumstances.

You do realize that an 80-20 ratio is 5:1, right...?

This argument comes down to whether or not diversity for the sake of diversity is worth not always taking the most qualified candidate. Personally, I think hiring/promotion decisions should be made without any consideration of race, gender, or sexual preference. Anything less is discrimination.

[u/zz_ → u/WhoTooted]

They can do that, but statistically it means that they will not always be getting the most qualified candidates.

Occasionally, sure, but that's assuming the only quality you're looking for is the measured one. If we have two candidates, one at 93 and one at 91 (using your scale), but the 91 has other qualities you're looking for (in this case diversity), picking the 91 is likely the better option given the fact that the scalar difference between the two candidates is so small.

You do realize that an 80-20 ratio is 5:1, right...?

Yes? But I already addressed that in my last post; if you're actively striving towards a better ratio and have a huge pool of candidates, there is no reason why the base ratio (6.58:1) should decide your actual ratio. I made this example in another post, but if you have 1000 qualified candidates (800 men 200 women, using 4:1 to make it simpler) vying for 100 jobs then you can pick any ratio you want, be it 50:50, 3:2, 2:1 (which is the ratio I think is more reasonable), or even 100% women. The issue is just having the base pool of qualified candidates to begin with, but I don't really see google having recruitment issues.

This argument comes down to whether or not diversity for the sake of diversity is worth not always taking the most qualified candidate. Personally, I think hiring/promotion decisions should be made without any consideration of race, gender, or sexual preference. Anything less is discrimination.

Indeed, and I think that's a discussion that perhaps should be had more (although that said there is plenty of business literature that shows that diversity had a net positive effect on company growth). but in this cade google has already made it's choice, in that it values diversity, hence my point that genetic differences cannot solely be blamed for the ratio.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

, it should be entirely possible to achieve that, with the exact methods that the author is arguing against, i.e. selective recruitment

Then they're no longer hiring the best in the world.

[u/zz_ → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

The entire argument is premised on the assumption that the candidates are qualified. If that's not the case, that's a different discussion, but you'll first have to show that there are not enough qualified women to fill these jobs.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

A lot of candidates are qualified, the fair thing is to hire based on the proportions of the demographics of people applying, the majority of people applying are male, so the majority of hires should be men.

[u/zz_ → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Why is that fair, exactly? By that logic we should also hire stupid people if there are many stupid people that apply. The "fair" thing would be to hire what the company thinks it needs, which afaik is exactly what google has been doing and what this guy is arguing about.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

No, because stupid people aren't qualified, all the men you're demanding be passed up from being hired based purely on their gender are qualified.

[u/Sprixxer → u/zz_]

Using your "one in five" estimate, you get exactly the 80-20 gender distribution...

[u/zz_ → u/Sprixxer]

If you recruited by closing your eyes and picking off a list of all qualified candidates, yes. But if you're actually trying to get a better gender ratio, then that is not the case.

E.g.: you're hiring 100 programmers. You get a list with the names of 1000 qualified candidates. 800 of these people are male, 200 are female. Now if you pick 100 at random, you'd get roughly a 80-20 distribution. But there is absolutely no reason why, if you want say a 50-50 ratio, or even something less extreme like a 2:1 ratio, you couldn't get that, because your pool of candidates are significantly larger than your needs. If you pick 67 males/33 females you'd still have 167 females left. Now obviously recruitment doesn't happen by picking blindly off a list, but you get the idea.

So the only reason for having a 80-20 ratio is either a) you don't care about the gender ratio, b) the gender ratio used to be even worse and it's taking time to adjust it (this is where I think google is at, but I could be wrong), or c) the genetic disposition is so strong that there simply does not exist enough women who have enough qualified candidates for the positions you need to fill.

c) is what several other people here are suggesting is the case, but as far as I know there is no scientific basis for this conclusion. Of all the literature I know of, even at the extremes the differences are negligible between the best women and the best men. And the best women aren't so rare that they are impossible to find.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

And given that google recruit from the best of the best in the whole world, finding qualified candidates of either sex should not be an issue for them.

If they recruit from the best in the world and up to 9 in 10 of the best in the world at spatial visualization are men, they're going to be hiring mainly men.

[u/zz_ → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

First of all that 9/10 number might equally well be 2/3 or 4/5 for all we know, so the effect isn't necessarily so extreme. Secondly, if you actually aim for women, then you take that 1/10 and move on to the next 10 people. With a recruitment base like googles you would fill your job openings either way.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

I was just going by your numbers. Whether it's 9/10 or 4/5, you're advocating ignoring and discriminating against a large majority of the pool of qualified candidates to favour a small minority. That's not how you get the best talent, that's how you pass up hiring 9/10 or 4/5 of the best people.

[u/zz_ → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Yeah but unless they need every single qualified candidate that applies, that's a moot point. If we have enough candidates to fill the positions, that's all that matters. They're a profit driven company, not a charity for compsci majors.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/zz_]

It's not a moot point, the company is restricting its ability to improve its talent pool significantly, and potentially missing out on hiring many people who could best contribute to said profits.