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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#261

Post by darawk »

jjirsa wrote: post #224
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…

It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company).…

> It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it

It should absolutely be ok, if it's true. Which it unequivocally is.

> (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company).

What about his post was pseudo-scientific? He cited studies, and to my knowledge, the actual facts of what he said are fairly uncontroversial.

> - The next time a woman interviews for his team, and he votes against hiring, how does the hiring committee interpret that vote?

Did you read the document? He explicitly embraces diversity. He even says he's in favor of programs to help promote diversity.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#262

Post by [deleted] »

jjirsa wrote: post #224
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…

It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company).…

[deleted]

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#263

Post by senectus1 »

Ironic really... Suggestions I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

Google responds to the article by being knee jerk intolerant to the ideology...

Guess he was kinda right?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#265

Post by [deleted] »

jjirsa wrote: post #224
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…

It's not about virtue signaling, he was almost certain to be terminated just because it was a ridiculously stupid thing to say - you can't tell your teammates that they were hired because their employer lowered the bar and expect people not to be upset about it (and that's 100% what he did, he also made up pseudo-scientific bullshit to try to justify it, but he flat out insulted countless people within his company).…

[deleted]

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#266

Post by chiaro »

A relevant kid's story:

The Racist Tree

By Alexander Blechman

Once upon a time, there was a racist tree. Seriously, you are going to hate this tree. High on a hill overlooking the town, the racist tree grew where the grass was half clover. Children would visit during the sunlit hours and ask for apples, and the racist tree would shake its branches and drop the delicious red fruit that gleamed without being polished. The children ate many of the racist tree's apples and played games beneath the shade of its racist branches. One day the children brought Sam, a boy who had just moved to town, to play around the racist tree.

"Let Sam have an apple," asked a little girl.

"I don't think so. He's black," said the tree. This shocked the children and they spoke to the tree angrily, but it would not shake its branches to give Sam an apple, and it called him a nigger.

"I can't believe the racist tree is such a racist," said one child. The children momentarily reflected that perhaps this kind of behavior was how the racist tree got its name.

It was decided that if the tree was going to deny apples to Sam then nobody would take its apples. The children stopped visiting the racist tree. The racist tree grew quite lonely. After many solitary weeks it saw a child flying a kite across the clover field.

"Can I offer you some apples?" asked the tree eagerly.

"Fuck off, you goddamn Nazi," said the child.

The racist tree was upset, because while it was very racist, it did not personally subscribe to Hitler's fascist ideology. The racist tree decided that it would have to give apples to black children, not because it was tolerant, but because otherwise it would face ostracism from white children.

And so, social progress was made.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#267

Post by [deleted] »

LouisSayers wrote: post #226

Where is Google's rebuttal of this memo? All anyone is saying is "it's wrong" etc, but where is an ACTUAL breakdown of what was incorrect about what he wrote? I feel like most "rebuttal's" are like listening to Donald Trump. "He's wrong and we're right. We're definitely right.". If you do have a link, please share!

[deleted]

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#268

Post by engi_nerd »

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…

You're not giving that a remotely fair reading. He literally calls for people to be treated as individuals while acknowledging and calling attention to traits that populations (read: large numbers of people) exhibit.

I'm really having trouble finding anything to be upset about in his "manifesto". He's literally being fired for trying to start a serious conversation about a delicate issue.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#269

Post by aaronbwebber »

chrissnell wrote: post #237
halostatue wrote: post #207

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Political affiliation is a protected class and you are protected from workplace discrimination based on your affiliation.

It is not unless you are a federal employee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

If you are a federal employee you are covered by a different law than everyone else, and that does include political affiliation.

https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#270

Post by bangbang »

So much of the discussion is about what he said has any truth. I think this is beside the question. He Wrote and distributed materials criticizing his employer's core HR mission while alienating coworkers.

If you're a person targeted in his manifesto, I'd suspect you'd no longer want to work alongside him. That's reason enough to fire him on the spot. He's creating a hostile work environment via coworkers and media.

For those that doubt it, I say try it at your job and see what comes of it.

Honestly, what did he think would happen?

Post reply on HN