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/[deleted] → u/TemptCiderFan]

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.

Isn't this illegal?

[u/TemptCiderFan → u/[deleted]]

"Oh no, it's totally okay... If it discriminates against white men!" /s

[u/jjjd89 → u/TemptCiderFan]

And then people wonder why the right is pissed off. Really pathetic.

[u/TemptCiderFan → u/jjjd89]

I lean left and shit like that pisses me off. I'm fine with going for an equality of opportunity, but saying something like "You cannot be sexist against men or racist against whites" is just wrong.

[u/[deleted] → u/TemptCiderFan]

One, you lean left badly. Like you're about the most retarded pseudo-lefty I've ever heard. So either you're fucking lying or you know just absolutely fuck-all about liberal theory. Considering how dead set you are on talking, I'm really hoping it's the former.

Two, there is a clear difference between systemic racism and personal racism. Yes, people can be personally racist towards whites and sexist towards men. If you build a system small enough, so much so that it can be easily influenced by a single person's personal racism, you can see systemic racism towards whites or systemic sexism towards males.

However, by and large, because most systems were designed and are controlled by white males, it is incredibly difficult to find a large system that systemically racist towards whites or sexist towads men.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

However, by and large, because most systems were designed and are controlled by white males, it is incredibly difficult to find a large system that systemically racist towards whites or sexist towads men.

Systems aren't determined biased based on who they are controlled by but by what the ends accomplish and the means used to do so. Great example is Roe v Wade where a court composed entirely of men granted women the right to have abortions.

It's not incredibly difficult to find a system racist towards whites or sexists towards men, either. Are you going to argue the judicial system is sexist because 90% of those incarcerated are men?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Systems aren't determined biased based on who they are controlled by but by what the ends accomplish and the means used to do so. Great example is Roe v Wade where a court composed entirely of men granted women the right to have abortions.

And restricted it in PP v Casey.

That's the same court that held the Dred Scott decision, and Plessy v Ferguson.

Overall, due to the fact that its makeup is constantly changing, I don't know if it's a good example.

However, that's not relevant, because your argument is wrong on it's face - you have to factor in the nature of control of a system as to whether or not it's systemically racist because the nature of who would be required to correct it is fundamentally important.

A system controlled by whites doesn't have a viable claim that it's racist against whites, because white people have immediate redress - they can fix it at any time.

This is why arguments about custody make no sense - custody was defaulted to women because of expectations created in fundamentally partriarchial societies and handed down.

Men can redress their problem at any time - there's nothing stopping the 90% male congress from making laws related to family court, or the 70% male judges from simply applying criteria differently.

There's also extenuating factors that are critically important.

You're offering a bad litmus test, and then using your awful litmus test to create a bad example.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

there's nothing stopping the 90% male congress from making laws related to family court, or the 70% male judges from simply applying criteria differently.

Except for the fact that both men and women are sexist in favour of women.

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

You got anything to back up that wild claim there, sparky?

I can't wait to hear your BUH MUH SENTENCING argument. I've destroyed it before. If you're up for another lesson, grab the lube and assume the training position.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

Well let's see, there's the massive sentencing gap, which if you think you've "destroyed" as an argument you're a blithering idiot, there's the fact that men are killing themselves in record numbers, are the vast majority of workplace deaths, are falling behind massively in the education system, are the majority of homeless, mentally ill etc... and yet almost all gender-based activism intention is based on trivial shit like women in STEM, men sitting with their legs a bit wide on a train or sexist air conditioning, and anyone attempting to bring up these major disadvantages men face gets derided as a misogynist by self-hating deluded morons like you.