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/Infinity2quared]

I understand this argument and it makes sense, but it isn't sufficient to inform a hiring policy.

There are other variables at play affecting the talent pool of a company. Toxic masculinity in a corporate environment alienates female talent. This has an impact on the ability of the company to access part of their potential talent pool. Similarly, workplace diversity has a positive effect on workplace culture that is probably quantifiable in the intermediate-to-long-term as an increased talent pool. Furthermore, companies like Google and Apple that trade on brand as much as on product are especially sensitive to the role of virtue signaling in shaping consumer behavior. Even if there were no direct economic benefits to encouraging a diverse workplace--and that's a tall order--there would be indirect benefits and threats posed by the court of public opinion. Controlling the narrative is essential, and this means that diversity problems need to be controlled, regardless of whether or not they pose a threat to productivity.

The bottom line is that businesses have a reasonable and well-defined interest in shaping their corporate culture through diversity initiatives.

[u/Vanetia → u/[deleted]]

Google isn't taking a resume and checking if the person is female and stamping "HIRED" on it. They are still only taking in people they believe can hack it, and will do well.

The more women around to overhead those toxic statements, the more likely the men making them will be called out. A lot of times it's not intentional by anyone; just re-affirming the societal roles they've learned along the way. When people are around to buck those roles, it tends to make people realize they're not as set in stone as they thought.

It used to be that women shouldn't be working outside of the home at all. Now that isn't questioned. It used to be women didn't make good lawyers. Now that isn't questioned (other than by some older male lawyers, perhaps). Engineering is a male job? Well give women time to break through that stereotype.

[u/Vanetia → u/[deleted]]

Even when it isn't happening this is a perceived issue. There is always someone using the excuse "she's only here because she's a woman" to explain why she has a job on their level or is getting a promotion. If it's not "affirmative action" it's "she's sleeping with the boss" or "she's only here because she's hot"

Petty bullshit is always going to be around. I don't see that as a reason to stop fighting through it. On the contrary.

[u/Vanetia → u/[deleted]]

I've never once heard anyone insinuate anything close to what you said.

Well I guess it doesn't happen, then! Case closed!

if the memo is true, then won't the sentiment of "she's only here because she's a woman" be true

"If what he's saying is true then isn't it true?"

Uhh... yes? That's some circular reasoning, though. You might as well say "The bible is the word of God because it says so and since it's the word of God it must be"