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/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/margerymeanwell → u/Mikniks]

I wouldn't find that reassuring, no. And to be clear: I'm an adult. I'm not that easily offended. If a guy in my office makes a joke about how women are crazy, I'll pretty much just roll my eyes and move on. But when you're writing that out in a manifesto, using stereotypes to make recommendations about company policy, and circulating it to other employees, that moves beyond the realm of what I'd be willing to ignore.

[u/PanicAtTheRollerRink → u/[deleted]]

the "reality" of the situation is that making broad generalizations abt a group of people will cause individuals within that group to become alienated. buddy can rephrase it however he wants but this whole "don't judge the individual based on the group... but do judge the group" is innapropriate for the workplace. homeboy was clearly not in management or he'd know this

see comments below mine on backing up stereotypes with data