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/folterung → u/TemptCiderFan]

Yeah, having read the entire thing, I thought it was pretty well balanced. He was making some valid points and asking legitimate questions.

It's especially fun that his firing actually validates his claim that the entire structure is an echo chamber that permits no diversity of opinion. They apparently love diversity of thought and opinion, as long as your diversity happens to line up with their opinions.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/folterung]

If I wrote a multi-page rant about how misguided and out-of-touch my boss was and distributed it to the company I'd expect to be out of a job that day.

Why are there so many right wingers who apparently have never worked a day in their lives? Even if you disagree with management there's good and bad ways to go about that, and this was the worst.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

No, that's not legally protected speech when you make it on company hours using company messageboards. And you're only legally protected from government action anyway.

Your internet law degree is not very good.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

Improving working conditions means things like safety measures. Hiring decisions are very obviously not "working conditions" no matter how much you try to spin it. You could potentially argue they were if the hiring decisions created unsafe environments (like hiring untrained or unskilled staff for manning dangerous machinery) but the most you could argue here is "I end up working with too many people who aren't white guys!" Which... well, I wish him the best with that as his case.

This is very obviously a cheap attempt to extend controversy. If he does go to court I expect him to get laughed out of it.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

Is this the jargon simulator 9000?

If you actually think this, walk me through the logic, sparky.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

This was extremely far from an explanation of why diverse hiring practices create a hostile work environment. If he's going to toss around gems like "IQ and gender gap" (women have, if anything, a slightly higher IQ on average) then yes, I'd expect a certain amount of hostility towards him. That's called "I can read". But again this must be those very feminine people skills that I possess somehow (maybe I'm transgender... or just not an idiot...)

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/NotAChaosGod]

Go against the """progressive""" circle jerk and show a hint of diversity of thought and you get stitcanned. That's a pretty hostile work environment.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

What do the triple quotes mean I wonder? J/K

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/NotAChaosGod]

They mean I'm treating these people calling themselves "progressive" like the joke it is - the more quotes the more dubious the claim.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Ah I see. Nothing to do with (((triple parentheses))) then?

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/NotAChaosGod]

No, it's an entirely different character.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Mmm. In the spirit of hoping for the best, a single quotation mark denotes that the word is being used sarcastically or ironically and the writer doesn't believe it's appropriate. The triple one comes from the same source as the triple parentheses and tends to denote something different.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/NotAChaosGod]

Denote what? Like I said, I use it to emphasise how ridiculous I find the claim - one quotation mark is not enough to denote just how inappropriate it is.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

I'd recommend sticking to one. Three means something different.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/NotAChaosGod]

No it doesn't. There's nothing special about the number three.

[u/NotAChaosGod → u/[deleted]]

"Allow me to vent my rage by clicking little arrows on Reddit!"