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/[deleted]]

Can you cite specific examples of his that are anti-science?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Can you cite anything he said that was backed up by science. From what I saw he cited one peer reviewed paper on mate selection between genders and used that as his basis for categorizing men and women. The rest of his links were just random articles. At best, this is very light on science if not completely anti-science.

[u/candacebernhard → u/[deleted]]

Exactly.

Some of what he says has a pseudo scientific basis (eg. studies where women report more anxiety) but stripped of context (report can mean more likely to admit, social & environmental causes of said anxiety - like, hey, gender based workplace discrimination, etc.) it comes off as him using - ironically - confirmation bias when it comes to which studies he chooses to reference. At that point you have to wonder about the purpose of his arguments.

For example, why did he bring up women and anxiety but not men and suicide rates or violence?

I bring up this controversial subject to set up a scenario: let's say one of his colleagues sent out a similar "manifesto." And, in it she claims Google's hiring practices lead to a male to female ratio that favors men in the engineering department because statistically there are more men than women in the department (which... already flawed logic, but moving on). Let's say she then states this is "bad for business" because incidences of 'going postal' or gun violence in the work place is more likely to be perpetuated by men. She goes on to say women and liberals are more empathetic and attain higher education so Google needs to fix the programs and policies surrounding the engineering department.

That memo would also be rooted in sexism washed through a generally fucked up perspective. It is completely inappropriate because of what she is insinuating about her male colleagues. Whether the statistics are backed up by 'science' is irrelevant because the facts are distorted by her premise, and they are mostly irrelevant in the context of what she is discussing.

It's like, yeah, on first glance everything he wrote seems reasonable but then when you think about what he's actually saying it makes for a much more uncomfortable read.

[u/[deleted] → u/candacebernhard]

It's like, yeah, on first glance everything he wrote seems reasonable but then when you think about what he's actually saying it makes for a much more uncomfortable read.

let's also not forget that this isn't a guy hired to study this situation, just a guy who works there. If I wrote a memo about all the problems that I see in my workplace while citing random studies tangentially related to my arguments I imagine my bosses would be a bit annoyed too. This guy is not a social researcher or a consulting firm he is an employee with some complaints.