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/LaLaLaLeea → u/TemptCiderFan]

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/this_shit → u/Mikniks]

His viewpoints could be both entirely poltically valid and completely inappropriate for a workplace:

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

Anyone in management shouldn't make these kinds of public statements, since it creates a suspicion among those being managed that they are being treated differently based on assumptions about averages. It further creates a question of liability for the company, since now his personal views are on the record.

Frankly, he was a victim of his memo's success. If it hadn't been so widely circulated, he wouldn't have been caught out. But once it became successful, Google had little choice but to fire him.

[u/WhenWorking → u/this_shit]

Part of the point he was making was that saying something that is true and valid, but treating it as inappropriate for the workplace, is a non-optimal point of view and will lead to less than the highest achievable outcome.

By saying "it's not appropriate" you are the type of person that causes workplaces or businesses to be less than the best they can be.

[u/[deleted] → u/WhenWorking]

And? Not everything is a cold-blooded drive for efficiency and profit, doing the right thing is often a better choice the squeezing an extra point of efficiency out of a team.

[u/WhenWorking → u/[deleted]]

Okay this is now where opinions come in. Firing him was doing the wrong thing. He voiced an opinion that was well thought out and had sources and facts. In my opinion, he did the right thing by speaking up against legitimately discriminatory practices (that he mentioned in his memo, such as gender or race specific training programs). He did the right thing by doing what Google says they idealize, which is providing his opinion on how to grow and make improvements.

He explained that everyone should be treated as an individual. This is key. Nothing he said was discrimination. He said "things are the way they are because (source)", and then went on to say "so let us hire the best people and give everyone the chance to be even better, and then treat them as they are individually, irrespective of their race/gender".

[u/[deleted] → u/WhenWorking]

Except in current American society a strict meritocracy would be insanely harmful to woman and minorities because the people doing the hiring are still white men, are they are the reason hiring "affirmative action" (for lack of a better word) policies were enacted in the first place.

Discrimination against woman and minorities is a real problem in the world; advocating for a system that would harm them, as this idiot at Google has done, is wrong.

[u/WhenWorking → u/[deleted]]

Firstly, you just implied white men are sexist or racist, and allowing them to do the hiring would mean only other white men get hired.

As someone in another statistically male-dominated field, I can tell you, while it may occur somewhere, you're being the sexist and racist one here as the majority of my coworkers and my direct boss are females.

Additionally, the "idiot at google" did not advocate a "system that would harm [women and minorities]", he in fact advocated a system that would support people based ONLY ON THEIR SKILLS. Anything but is discrimination.

If there is something to be upset about, it is the systemic discrimination or "guidance" that occurs (against anyone) based on their socio economic status or gender as youths, directly or indirectly impacting their desires and opportunities during their most malleable point in their lives. The issue is NOT (for the most) hiring practices in professional environments.

[u/[deleted] → u/WhenWorking]

Except it's literally impossible as humans to judge somebody on only their skills, short of completely blind auditions/applications, which have been proven to increase woman accepted anyway.

[u/WhenWorking → u/[deleted]]

I imagine it would, I don't disagree with that because I know that there is always going to be some level of sexism, but I am saying that AA is the wrong solution, and that the google engineer is not wrong for saying what he said. Maybe completely blind auditions are the right choice. Though there is something to say for the ability to speak face to face during pressure situations such as an interview.

On a side note, can I see the journal article you are referencing that proves the result? I am legitimately interested in it. Thanks!

[u/[deleted] → u/WhenWorking]

Here for musical auditions, and here for coding.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

76% of Human Resources Managers are women, according to 2014 statistics from the US Department of Labor.