Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#231

Post by donohoe »

redthrowaway wrote: post #139

So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. This is insane. The speed at which this ideology has taken over SV is breathtaking, and a massive disincentive for anyone not already so inclined to work there.

Oh no, no, not at all.

These are not scientifically verifiable facts. Actually, I take that back. His broad claims can be scientifically demonstrated as false.

I encourage you to pause and read this:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

If that doesn't explain things, then I don't know what will. I hope it provides better context - whether we agree or not.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#232

Post by hossbeast »

brown9-2 wrote: post #171
bronz wrote: post #119

the author of the memo is completely correct and, as others have said, his memo is drastically misrepresented in the coverage it has received. he simply points out that women could have less desire to go into fields such as cs because of their biological makeup. he never says that women should leave google -- he only says that trying to reach a perfectly equal distribution is misguided. perhaps those who are red in t…

Try replacing "men and women" with "different skin color" and see if the idea that different groups could have different innate desires still makes sense.

That would make it a different statement which may we'll have a different truth value

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#233

Post by kevingadd »

kozikow wrote: post #217

Suppose that you work for the company that consists of 80% vimers and 20% emacsers. All documentation is geared towards vimers. There are interests groups geared towards vimers. No one questions you if you are a vimer. If you are a stuck with some error as an emacser there are fewer people to turn to or discuss your favorite text editor, so some people start to suggest that emacsers are worse programmers. The company…

I get what you're going for here but this isn't really a case where it makes sense to draw equivalence to text editors, tabs vs spaces, etc. This isn't a matter of taste or habit - it's a matter of discriminating against people based on the gender marker on their birth certificate or the color of their skin.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#234

Post by ztratar »

brown9-2 wrote: post #171
bronz wrote: post #119

the author of the memo is completely correct and, as others have said, his memo is drastically misrepresented in the coverage it has received. he simply points out that women could have less desire to go into fields such as cs because of their biological makeup. he never says that women should leave google -- he only says that trying to reach a perfectly equal distribution is misguided. perhaps those who are red in t…

Try replacing "men and women" with "different skin color" and see if the idea that different groups could have different innate desires still makes sense.

The biology is so radically different. You can't and shouldn't replace "men and women" with "different skin color" as the argument would be changed.

Men and women DO have different biological make ups, and there are detectable and measurable changes in statistical behavioral at large sample sizes. That's ok.

I don't condone hiring, firing, etc based on this information. And I do think diversity hiring is a good thing, as it pays dividends that go further than pure ability. Ideation is more powerful when diverse viewpoints and backgrounds are present, for example.

I think the author of the memo was wrong, but you can't de-construct his argument like this to subsequently claim an obvious moral authority.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#235

Post by jorgemf »

tunesmith wrote: post #123

People can't seem to summarize his argument without getting much of it grossly wrong, because his manifesto was a haphazard collection of good points, bad points, good arguments, lousy arguments, misrepresentations of others' views, and unstated implications. A perfect recipe for people to argue past each other about it. It's worth remembering that one of his conclusions was to end or replace gender-based diversity p…

> If gender-based diversity programs are responsible for qualified women getting jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten due to bias, then the lack of that program means those women wouldn't have gotten those jobs.

This is a double sword thing. With the program you might hire more qualified women, but also more less qualified women and you might prevent of hiring more qualified men. Because you have to hire women as the diversity program says.

If I were I woman (or belong to minority) I would prefer to be being hired without any diversity program. Imagine being a woman and being hired with this program, does it mean they hired me because I am a woman or because I am the best candidate for the position? (I said woman but applies to any minority group)

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#236

Post by andrenth »

mikeash wrote: post #125
wildmusings wrote: post #35

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…

That's one way to read it. Another way would be, "Stop trying to promote diversity, it alienates the racists and sexists who work here." I don't think this is an unfair reading. One of the bullet points in the conclusion is literally that the company's diversity programs are problematic because they alienate non-progressives.

Did you just equate "non-progressives" with "racists and sexists"?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#240

Post by Sleeep »

throwgoog452 wrote: post #43
zorpner wrote: 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…

> this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex Did you read the essay? He certainly did not make that claim. Population averages are not statements about individuals. This is pure censorship.

Um, so? I censor myself at work every single day. If I routinely said some of the not so polite things that I sometimes think about my colleagues and (especially) customers I'd be fired. This is called "playing nice with others" and I learned it as a child.

I also sometimes think about topics that would be inappropriate in an office environment (such as sex) and I censor myself by not saying what I am thinking. We even have an Internetism for that concept - NSFW.

None of this is new - we are expected to conduct ourselves appropriately for the current situation. It's just how society works.

I didn't even read the document in question, I just have a very hard time with people getting riled up about being "censored" at work. It's work, what exactly do you expect?

Post reply on HN