Live data from Hacker News

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#101
I believe that equal opportunity among all persons is manifest. But I think the manner in which we encourage/enforce/promote it, especially in the workplace, demands debate. We must be able to disagree with the methods without any question of our belief of its purpose.

The most disgusted I've ever felt at a workplace was when my boss, prior to me interviewing someone, said, "and she gets an extra point because she's a woman." The government punishes us on research tax breaks if we don't have enough diversity.

So what am I supposed to say to this person when she asks what set her apart from the other candidates to be hired? "No you weren't the best candidate, but you are a woman." That disgusts me and I refuse to do it.

My job is not to balance an arbitrary math equation that x% of engineers are supposed to be women. That's an issue far larger and more systemic. It can't be fixed this way.

What I can do is remind myself that my job is to pick the best candidate, and my definition of "best" may be fraught with bias, so I need to be exceptionally perceptive to question what capabilities each candidate might bring to the job that I don't naturally consider to be ideal.

Apologies for the ranting nature of this comment. I feel frustrated when faced with the reality that what the establishment wants are at such odds with my morals and convictions.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#102
post #25

Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. Every peer review, every no-hire, every interaction , is and should be suspect. Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. This is textbook hostile environ…

I did not get that meaning from reading the memo. And I really don't understand how anyone could. Could you point out the part in the memo where he stated bluntly that many of his colleagues shouldn't be there because of their sex?

6th page, under the subhead "The harm of Google's biases"

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#104
post #46
post #7

An excellent opportunity to re-read PG's essay, "What You Can't Say". [1] "What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."…

This isn't an issue of "fashion" or "opinion". It's an issue of whether the guy is right or wrong, and if he's wrong[1] whether or not he's caused damage to his employer[2], and if that is true whether it is a firing offense[3]. You don't get to avoid discussion[4] about those subtitled points by retreating to some kind of invented safe space here. Out with it. Is he right? [1] He is. [2] He has. [3] It is. [4] Yeah,…

Right, wrong, damage, and safety are precisely the dressed-up fashions PG's essay talks about.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#105
post #25

Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. Every peer review, every no-hire, every interaction , is and should be suspect. Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. This is textbook hostile environ…

Doesn't a policy of preferentially hiring certain groups necessarily imply that employees who are part of those groups are less capable? Like, helping folks pass the bar implies that they aren't above it - otherwise, why would they need help?

In an imaginary utopian meritocracy, yeah it would. Since we live in the real world however ...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#106
post #25

Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. Every peer review, every no-hire, every interaction , is and should be suspect. Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. This is textbook hostile environ…

Doesn't a policy of preferentially hiring certain groups necessarily imply that employees who are part of those groups are less capable? Like, helping folks pass the bar implies that they aren't above it - otherwise, why would they need help?

No. It’s actually a policy of no longer favouring certain groups (e.g., white men). There is systemic discrimination in favour of white men in software engineering, and only policies and procedures that change hiring away from those things which encourage such discrimination will fix the balance.

You don’t have to “lower the bar” at all, because it turns out that the average “bar” is the wrong standard for anything but the most independent of programming (which is not modern software engineering, thanks). My own hiring standard looks for people who love learning, don’t mind shifting contexts and languages, and can work well in a group. Some of the “smart guys” who have interviewed with us have been poor choices because they are bad culture fits—cowboys and jerks.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#107
post #74
post #31

Fun fact: the author of the memo earned a PhD in Biology from Harvard. Google can fire him and get away with it, but it's going to be tough, very tough, for him to be falsely characterized as someone who is misinformed or unscientific. And the court of public opinion may well be more important in this controversy than any court of law.

When I was in academia there was no shortage of my peers with PhDs in physics who were very religious. Having a PhD in a science is not proof against having misinformed or unscientific views.

Nor is being very religious proof of having misinformed or unscientific views.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#108
post #8

> he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." Of course, because a policy of positive discrimination for minorities is not perpetuating any stereotype... Equality doesn't mean equity. Equality is not fair. P.S. downvote whatever you want, it is called discrimination for a reason (even if it says positive before)

If things keep going this way (esp. in California) someday saying that only women can get pregnant is gonna count as "perpetuating gender stereotypes".

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#109

Yep, after reading the public response provided by Google's new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance ( https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di... ) I was pretty sure this was all that was left. Regardless of whether you agreed with the letter or not, it's 100% correct in asserting that it's super difficult to have productive, rational conversations about the issue of diversity. Goo…

Perhaps more important (for Google, at least) is to be compliant with employment law, than to allow "rational conversations about the issue of diversity."

In California, it's illegal to fire someone for political actions or affiliations.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#110

The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…

What else is the American mind unfairly closed to? Why is "women are, in the the large, excepting some outliers, biologically disfavored to become programmers" the threshold issue? What else should we be more open-minded about? We're also very closed-minded about:

* Child labor

* The facially legitimate grievances of Al Qaeda

* Universal suffrage

* The illegality of marital rape

Does it just happen that this particular issue, the one pertaining to nerds working for six-figure salaries at software firms, is the last straw?

Post reply on HN