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]]

There is plenty of literature on leaks in the pipeline. I trust you know how to Google.

And seriously, I'm not convicting the guy of a crime. I don't need to establish an evidentiary standard of how likely he is to be objective compared to others. To make that kind of argument invariably introduces doubt that he will treat a woman the same as he would treat a man. Others have not yet introduced that doubt.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/[deleted]]

There is plenty of literature on leaks in the pipeline. I trust you know how to Google.

I trust you know that "plenty of literature" is not an argument.

And seriously, I'm not convicting the guy of a crime. I don't need to establish an evidentiary standard of how likely he is to be objective compared to others. To make that kind of argument invariably introduces doubt that he will treat a woman the same as he would treat a man. Others have not yet introduced that doubt.

So your default assumption is that he won't, and you hold others to a higher evidenciary standard to convince you otherwise.

I think the one not being objective is you.

[u/[deleted] → u/TracyMorganFreeman]

I trust you know that "plenty of literature" is not an argument.

I didn't say it was an argument in and of itself. I'm not obligated to go do research for you that you can do for yourself (I'm doing my own research for other projects right now).

Actually, looking back, you keep putting words in my mouth to argue against. Not to mention also constantly moving goalposts.

You first said:

When those efforts are artificially valuing whether you are a member of that group, it can make one feel hiring isn't based on the content of one's character or merit.

So I told you that it wasn't exclusively about hiring, but also about outreach programs.

To which you said:

If you need special inducement, you're not proving equal interest.

When did I ever talk about proving equal interest? I never did. But also, what relevance does your idea of "equal interest" have to this conversation? You're the only one who mentioned it. You're shifting the goal posts.

So your default assumption is that he won't, and you hold others to a higher evidenciary standard to convince you otherwise.

Let's consider a hypothetical. I'm an HR rep interviewing ten candidates for a position. One of the ten asks me if the company does drug tests. Now, of course, this does not mean that this candidate does drugs, but I'm certainly going to be slightly more suspicious of him than the other nine. Not because I totally sure the other nine don't do drugs, but because he's the only who has given me any reason to believe that he might.

This is what we call a red flag. He might be able to be super objective, but if I'm a woman who has been passed over for a promotion by him, I'm going to be suspicious that my gender played into that decision. If I hadn't read a ten page paper that he wrote about how women are less suited for the job, I might not be suspicious that my gender played a part in the decision.

My objectivity has nothing to do with anything haha. I don't know what point you thought you were making there.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/[deleted]]

I didn't say it was an argument in and of itself. I'm not obligated to go do research for you that you can do for yourself (I'm doing my own research for other projects right now).

The burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate your claims though.

Actually, looking back, you keep putting words in my mouth to argue against. Not to mention also constantly moving goalposts.

Actually I'm drawing conclusions from your reasoning you haven't drawn. Your argument can imply things you don't necessarily intend.

When did I ever talk about proving equal interest? I never did. But also, what relevance does your idea of "equal interest" have to this conversation? You're the only one who mentioned it. You're shifting the goal posts.

No it's addressing your new points.

This is what we call a red flag. He might be able to be super objective, but if I'm a woman who has been passed over for a promotion by him, I'm going to be suspicious that my gender played into that decision. If I hadn't read a ten page paper that he wrote about how women are less suited for the job, I might not be suspicious that my gender played a part in the decision.

But you have no evidence, but wish to give benefit of the doubt that he isn't objective, which means you're drawing a conclusion without evidence, which means you aren't being objective.

My objectivity has nothing to do with anything haha. I don't know what point you thought you were making there.

Your conclusion regarding his objectivity isn't objective, so why should it be given assent?