Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#731

Post by andreasklinger » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:05 AM UTC

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #714

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…

You imply bias in the the hiring process is what is causing the gender imbalance in tech. Indicators such university enrollment in CS programs show that this is unlikely to be the case. If the author is wrong, that there definitely isn't some inherit genetic behavioral bias influencing job choice, than the bias is happening before students finish highschool. I'm a proponent for an "early bias" theory because of far l…

a) i agree that it's a problem for the whole society not just the corporates. it starts by far earlier as you said

b) your argument is that 50% is currently not possible

most companies are a few years ago even [1] https://pxlnv.com/blog/diversity-of-tech-companies-by-the-nu... [2] https://unreasonable.is/silicon-valley-more-female-engineers...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#732

Post by Zarath » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:06 AM UTC

mrbill wrote: post #134

maxxxxx wrote: post #12

This is starting to be scary. Instead of government companies are acting as thought police. I think a lot of people will watch what they are saying publicly from now on.

When you do/say/write something that has the potential to cause problems for your employer, you should be aware of and prepared for the possible consequences. I certainly would not write a multi-page screed criticizing the policies and practices of my employer, distribute it at work, and then expect to keep my job or have no repercussions.

God forbid a monolithic, trillion dollar corporation have an employee saying things they don't like.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#733

Post by shawn-butler » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:07 AM UTC

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…

Diversity programs have been shown to be ineffective at reaching their stated aims. A longitudinal study of over 700 U.S. companies found that implementing diversity training programs has little positive effect and may even decrease representation of black women. [0]

They seem to be used by companies as a "shield" when sued for discrimination. [1] The so-called “diversity defense”. It worked for WalMart.

[0]: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122406071004...

[1]: https://hbr.org/2016/01/diversity-policies-dont-help-women-o...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#734

Post by emanreus » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:09 AM UTC

zouhair wrote: post #642

jorgemf wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wom…

>If I were I woman (or belong to minority) I would prefer to be being hired without any diversity program. Only someone who is not a woman or not from a minority could say this. People tend to dismiss other peoples problem or minimize them, even when those people are telling they are hurting.

> Only someone who is not a woman or not from a minority could say this.

How could you possibly know that?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#735

Post by peak_body_yo » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:12 AM UTC

wastedhours wrote: post #729

jorgemf wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wom…

White male, so checking my privilege, however I know my "widening participation" status influenced certain opportunities I had access to in the run up to university, and quite likely as part of a numbers game for the university place itself. I've often thought about how I feel knowing something as simple as the postcode I grew up in affected how I got somewhere, but always arrive at it being a net positive. There are…

> It's (in almost all cases), very small variations of tangential achievements, most of which can be outweighed with a minority group bringing a different group of life experiences to the table.

Actually, diversity initiatives can decrease cultural diversity in tech. Many diversity initiatives leave immigrants behind and mainly benefit Americans.

It can be said that foreigners are considered more "culturally diverse" than Americans in USA based workplaces. Diversity programs might increase gender and racial diversity, but also decrease foreign representation as a result and make a company less culturally diverse.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#736

Post by slackingoff2017 » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:12 AM UTC

andreasklinger wrote: post #731

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You imply bias in the the hiring process is what is causing the gender imbalance in tech. Indicators such university enrollment in CS programs show that this is unlikely to be the case. If the author is wrong, that there definitely isn't some inherit genetic behavioral bias influencing job choice, than the bias is happening before students finish highschool. I'm a proponent for an "early bias" theory because of far l…

a) i agree that it's a problem for the whole society not just the corporates. it starts by far earlier as you said b) your argument is that 50% is currently not possible most companies are a few years ago even [1] https://pxlnv.com/blog/diversity-of-tech-companies-by-the-nu... [2] https://unreasonable.is/silicon-valley-more-female-engineers...

Yup. 50% is possible if you reject 3-4 men for every woman you hire for a programmer position.

I don't think the percentages in management really matter because you tend to get promoted from lower rungs. Management % probably reflects the programmer hires 5-10 years ago.

We really need to look at the percentage of female applicants. In the ~1000 applications I've seen directly from indeed etc, less than 20% we're female. I didn't count, but it seemed closer to 10%. It's so bad that for some job listings I remember not receiving a single female application for 20+ males.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#737

Post by lmm » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:13 AM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #694

ThomPete wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gender based diversity programs are hurting more than they are helping because they are confusing the role of gender diversity with the role of talent diversity. These programs are most likely not responsible for qualified women getting jobs and even if they are they are also responsible for qualified men not getting the jobs so nothing is really gained. The idea of qualification is something that is misunderstood fa…

The cold, hard facts prove that unless we force a change, it will not change. The simple counter argument to this, and what changed my mind utterly, was that the number of woman on boards never changed. "Women will setup companies" was what they said in the 70s, 50 years ago. It never worked until we started forcing it. There's still a ridiculously small percentage of female chairs. There's still a ridiculously small…

What if they're not just as good? What if they could be as good, but aren't interested? That part isn't fact, it's an assumption - one that it's time to reexamine given that things have turned out differently from how we expected.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#738

Post by observation » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:15 AM UTC

My 2 cents.

I did write an essay but this is the TLDR.

Google has made a giant political mistake. Everybody saw this coming. Straight into the fire, Google must have known that even as they did it.

If Google's real aim was non-talent-bias, we already know the solution: blind hiring.

Let's use a little metacognition here. People on HN are highly likely to be in the Bubble (same way as average academic must be left of center). They belong to the Valley and will rationalize these kinds of events all day long, it's worthy of "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom!". Rightists are penalized in SV. That's been true for a while, that is the bottom line. This forum itself used to contain more rightists.

I don't know the future for Google or SV but the upshot is that if I found a company it will explicitly not hire leftists. I will have internal cohesion in my mini one party state. Do I want "diversity of ideas/perspectives". Yes, but the atmosphere is already poisoned by events like this and the firing of Brendan Eich. Plainly nobody has the right answers so I'd opt for political uniformity to keep infighting at bay.

More broadly I suspect Affirmative Action is on the ropes which means that SV is way behind the curve.

tldr;tldr; Somebody as brilliant as Peter Thiel would be fired today, or more likely: never hired. That is where we are at.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#739

Post by lxxxvi » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:16 AM UTC

zouhair wrote: post #642

jorgemf wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wom…

>If I were I woman (or belong to minority) I would prefer to be being hired without any diversity program. Only someone who is not a woman or not from a minority could say this. People tend to dismiss other peoples problem or minimize them, even when those people are telling they are hurting.

Am a black programmer. Would hate to be a diversity hire. Don't feel like I'm hurting.

Do I qualify as belonging to a minority according to your definition of "the oppressed", or will you "dismiss or minimize" my opinion because it doesn't align with yours?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#740

Post by moomin » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:18 AM UTC

For all the people who think the memo actually had a point, this is a huge opportunity. You can now get a court case going and get a judge to rule on it.

It would, of course, be a good idea to do some background research into biology, sociology, cross-industry comparators and the history of software development. And drum up some expert witnesses. I'm sure you'll be fine.