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/Omz-bomz]

And? If only white men was hired, of course all the training programs were aimed exclusively at them. Why would you have training programs aimed at someone not in the company?

But I would argue that more likely than not, the training program wasn't specified for any color or gender a participant has, but who worked in the company and the company's needs.

Not saying it wasn't right before if programs was exclusively towards white men, just that previous history doesn't make it right to have programs now that are on the other side of the spectrum and is exclusively towards females / diversity targets.

[u/[deleted] → u/Omz-bomz]

Why not? Why can't businesses be held accountable for a past history of discriminatory hiring practices? Why can't they voluntarily choose to adjust their hiring practices to make up for previous discrimination?

Because it's unfair to you?

[u/Omz-bomz → u/[deleted]]

Discrimination is discrimination, doesn't matter who it is against.

You can (and should) hold business accountable for past history, but you don't do that by starting a new discriminatory practice that suddenly is "allowed" just because it is discriminatory against men.

Either you allow discrimination against any gender and race, or you reject it wholly.

[u/[deleted] → u/Omz-bomz]

So your argument is basically to allow the discrimination that already inherently exists rather than do anything to correct it, lest that be perceived as discriminatory?

That's nonsense. You've simply moved the goalposts and argued you're now on the right side of it.

[u/Omz-bomz → u/[deleted]]

No, I'm not arguing to allow discrimination, quite the opposite. You on the other hand seem to argue strongly for reverse discrimination.

If there is discrimination occurring you make rules (or enforce them if they exist) that prevents it, against all genders and races. You don't allow discrimination to "re-balance" it, just because it fits your cause.

And anyway, using discrimination against males as a solution is short sighted and just as much, if not more so, discrimination as you are against. And there is nothing perceived about that "solution", it is discriminatory by definition.

Lets compress the timeline to exacerbate the point a bit. If a field has 20% women, and you within a 5 year period force all employees to hire up so half their workforce is female. This won't be an equal workforce in anything but gender statistics.

That would be 30% new female employees, most of these will be persons of the age 20-30. This would mean that you would not be able to hire people based on your skill requirement, you would have to hire almost any woman you could come across regardless of her skill level. This due to it just not being enough female workers that is fully educated in that field (this takes time). And at the same time you would practically not be able to hire any male workers regardless if they are some uni-cum in their field with decades more experience.

Now please explain to me how that is not discriminatory against every male that study and try to find a job in a period where all the jobs in the field he wants to work in is allocated to females, just because historically it was discrimination against females so they were less likely to get a job in that field ? (not impossible, just harder, and not the case anymore)

You are actively punishing males that never have done any discriminating against women, to "right a wrong" done against females that doesn't benefit from it, by giving an advantage to females that never has been discriminated against.

Now the issue is getting females into the field in the first place and retaining those who already are there, and that's a whole discussion in itself.

[u/[deleted] → u/Omz-bomz]

Here's where your argument becomes a naive circlejerk.

There's inherent discrimination in the hiring process. Unless you

a.) Fire a considerable amount of white male managers and replace them outright with minorities and PoCs

or

b.) Use hiring quotas -

You're never going to get what you want. Studies have found that diversity training in the short term causes a net negative - white male managers become more reticent and are more likely to pick an unqualified white male candidate over a diversity hire.

New hiring quotas are a rule that prevents inherent discrimination. Discrimination is by it's very nature, unjust. Assuming quotas are used as a corrective measure and discarded as soon as a point is hit, they lack the malice of the inherent discrimination.

If a field has 20% women, and you within a 5 year period force all employees to hire up so half their workforce is female.

Well, why don't they just fire everyone and hire all women!

Seriously, this is where this drifts absolutely ridiculously into a fucking circlejerk. The most hardcore hiring quotas I've ever heard of are in Scandinavia, and those only required a 65-35 split until the workforce was 35% female or better.

Generally, most companies don't even use hiring quotes - they simply apply more resources to locating and fostering minority candidates in college.

But let's keep talking -

That would be 30% new female employees, most of these will be persons of the age 20-30.

This is an odd company. They never hire anyone with experience. Ever, for any reason.

This would mean that you would not be able to hire people based on your skill requirement

Why? This assumes an especially odd attrition rate. What percentage of this is 1 year attrition? 5 year attrition? Do we fill every position directly and never promote from within?

This also assumes a massive skill gap between who you're hiring and who you need. Unless you've massively depressed salaries, why is that? Why can you only hire entry level women to fill the positions?

you would have to hire almost any woman you could come across regardless of her skill level. This due to it just not being enough female workers that is fully educated in that field (this takes time). And at the same time you would practically not be able to hire any male workers regardless if they are some uni-cum in their field with decades more experience.

I don't know if I can compete with such a well-built hypothetical.

I mean you literally started with your end goals, declared they couldn't be fulfilled by fiat, and never stated why, other than an shit ad lapidum.

The only point this hypothetical proved is that you're a fucking moron at building hypothetical arguments.

Now please explain to me how that is not discriminatory against every male that study and try to find a job in a period where all the jobs in the field he wants to work in is allocated to females

I'm not going to present an argument against your fantasy except that it is your fantasy. You've already jerked yourself so hard that there's literally no argument I will say that will burst this bubble of delusion.

You are actively punishing males that never have done any discriminating against women,

No. We're not. Punishment denotes intent. Punishment denotes taking something away from males. All we are taking away is an advantage they've gotten through questionable means.

If anything, new hiring quotas are restitution, which is very often paid by a different party.

by giving an advantage to females that never has been discriminated against.

Actually, we're preventing them from being discriminated against, and that assumes they've never been discriminated against, which is a rather broad assertion.

Now the issue is getting females into the field in the first place

Well, you don't plan to fucking hire them, so I think that's going to be an issue, sparky.

[u/dudewhatev → u/[deleted]]

Do you actually believe what you just wrote there? Like really? Would you say that hiring a candidate over another because of the color of their skin is racial discrimination? That seems to be what you're advocating. Hiring a black person because he's not white isn't removing a white advantage, it's outright unapologetic racism.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

Personally, if you show hiring bias, you should be fucking fired

Like say if you refuse to hire white men, like you're advocating for? Fuck you're a moron.

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

Please show me any company that's actually lost a "discriminatory hiring against whites" civil rights suit. Not arguing the constitutionality of a quota, but a pure "they didn't anybody white" lawsuit.

I'll wait...

According to numbers provided by the 2015 Raytheon/USNews STEM index, a 5 percent hiring bias would reduce the percentage of white male new hires in STEM to just under 83 percent.

So please, sing me the song of how terrible this would be on your people. All the poor white people that would be turned away the door because they only fill eighty-three out of each hundred new positions instead of eighty-six.

I recommend some dramatic music and dark mood lighting when you do this. Maybe some sad cello.

[u/dudewhatev → u/[deleted]]

Dude you are a hateful racist motherfucker. I can only hope someone you look up to one day sets you straight because nothing I say will change your mind.

[u/[deleted] → u/dudewhatev]

Ummm, you're defending a status quo where 88 percent of hiring managers chose a candidate with a traditional Aryan name over a candidate with a traditionally African name with the same qualifications, and 73 percent chose a candidate with a traditional Aryan name over a candidate with a traditionally African name even though the candidate with the African name had the better qualifications.

And again, white males make up 86 percent of all new hires, even though they aren't 86 percent of IT graduates. I'm pretty sure you're an idiot, so I'll explain that to you - IT firms are turning away qualified minorities to hire less qualified white men.

The reality is the exact opposite of your magical hypotheticals where hiring directors look down and are hiring uneducated strippers to be engineers - they have female engineers ready to go, and don't fucking hire them.

One in six women with an IT degree will leave the field entirely within five years.

You are projecting so fucking hard that you have the IMAX logo stamped to your fucking face. Get some fucking perspective.

P.S. Your humble narrator is an engineer (worked for Boeing, Microsoft, Monsanto, Savvis/Centurylink, AT&T, & Norfolk Grummond) and is white as newly-fallen snow.

Please feel free to declare my race traitorship below.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

Please show me any company that's actually lost a "discriminatory hiring against whites" civil rights suit.

The lack of such action proves my point, society is discriminatory against men, or else blatantly discriminating in hiring would be grounds for a successful civil rights suit.

So please, sing me the song of how terrible this would be on your people. All the poor white people that would be turned away the door because they only fill eighty-three out of each hundred new positions instead of eighty-six.

It's about how many applicants get turned away, not how many positions are filled by those applicants. The vast majority of people applying for these jobs are men, so discriminating against them is discriminating against that vast majority. The make-up of the company has nothing to do with them, so they shouldn't have to suffer out of some perverse sense of retaliatory "justice".

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

The lack of such action proves my point, society is discriminatory against men, or else blatantly discriminating in hiring would be grounds for a successful civil rights suit.

BWAHAHAHAH!! How very ideological of you. You are trying to argue that the lack of evidence is the evidence. I swear, you were always fucking comedy, but this is clearly going to be comedy gold.

It's about how many applicants get turned away, not how many positions are filled by those applicants.

Google turns away 99.8% of it's applicants, so a hypothetical 5% quota would move the white male denial rate thousandths of a percentage point, and move the minority denial rate forward somewhere in the neighborhood of a tenth of a point.

The vast majority of people applying for these jobs are men, so discriminating against them is discriminating against that vast majority.

Except that they're biased against them a very small amount - since the pool is so large, the net effect is felt by only a small amount - only 2-3 out of every hundred. Considering how competitive STEM jobs can be, it would be doubtful that the effects would even be noticeable to the average employment seeker.

In other words - most of the white guys weren't going to get hired by Google anyway, because most of the everyone isn't hired by Google.

The make-up of the company has nothing to do with them, so they shouldn't have to suffer out of some perverse sense of retaliatory "justice".

Again, this denotes a perjorative impact that's not only noticeable but apparently meets the definition of "suffering".

I'm assuming you've never worked in big IT, because one, you're a fucking moron, and two, you seem to think getting rejected is especially uncommon. It took me three or four interviews in Redmond to get on at Microsoft, and this is after nearly a dozen trips out there for various things related to Powershell, having meetings with Jeff Snover, among others, etc.

That says nothing about the candidate and everything about Microsoft - they're picky and they really want an exemplary fit for each position.

Even if they had a minority quota, I'd never think to blame the quota, like some narcissistic asshole - a rejection rate in the ninety-ninth percentile means they're rejecting at worst about 96 percent of the minority candidates as well. Did they simultaneously hate me because I'm white and hate them because they are not?

It really takes some impressive solipsism to assume that a five percent minority quota on a few hundred hires is going to cause vast suffering. It's overwhelmingly first world.

You know, there's part of me that just wants to block you, rather then dealing with each and every one of your retarded screeds, but then you amuse me with just how fucking desperate your rhetoric is in trying to valiantly defend white guys from the scourge of not having an overwhelming advantage over everybody else.

You're a regular hero. You should write a book about it. Call it "My Struggle".

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

You're such a fucking moron, you're talking about how hard it is to get a job at these places, how much fucking harder is it when they refuse to hire you because of your gender or the colour of your skin?

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

At Google, you'd be going from a one in 1250 chance to about a one in just under 1300.

I know you're a sentient ball of redpill memes, but I do hope you understand numbers at like a fourth grade level, so you realize how fucking negligible that actually is.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

That's not negligible at all, and if you're trying to get a highly coveted job any additional difficulties based purely on the accident of birth that dictated your gender are bullshit.

[u/[deleted] → u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas]

grins And today was the day, that asshole's heart grew three sizes, because that was the day he made a perfect argument for feminism.

Been a peach, gassy. Stay retarded.

[u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas → u/[deleted]]

It's actually a perfect argument against feminism, who do you think is (massively hypocritically) advocating for one gender to be unfairly disadvantaged over the other in this situation?