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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#741

Post by peak_body_yo »

fatbird wrote: post #355
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 you were a woman, you might think that being hired under a diversity initiative is okay, given that the alternative is not to get the opportunity at all due to systemic discrimination in hiring.

> due to systemic discrimination in hiring.

It's ridiculous how many times I see this dropped out of nowhere in this thread without any sources or proof.

This is a very contentious statement on a two sided issue.

It is similar to proclaiming that minimum wage increases will always lower job opportunities without any proof.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#742

Post by Darthy »

observation wrote: post #738

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…

How does you not wanting to hire leftists jive with your solution of "blind hiring"? If you did blind hiring, wouldn't you end up with a quite a substantion group of leftists? Your position doesn't seem to be consistent with itself.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#743

Post by jedrek »

jorgemf wrote: post #235
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 wom…

I love how you throw around the term "qualified" as though it were set in stone. Like one person is obviously more qualified than the other, as though these people are 100m sprinters whose performance is measured within a fraction of a hundredth of a second.

We're treating highly educated specialists tasked with delivering highly complex, variable and nuanced output like 19th century factory workers. How many hundreds of books have been published on just the question of measuring employee productivity, yet for the sake of this conversation we toss terms like "more qualified" around like they are law.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#744

Post by Sacho »

zouhair wrote: post #641
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…

The big problem I had with his "memo" is that, for a text that is about a hot and controversial topic, it lacks (more like doesn't contain any) references to backup his points. A lot of factoids and nothing to back them up.

It's hard to assume good faith in your opinion when the article that published his memo explicitly stated that they had removed the references from it.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#745

Post by cmsj »

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…

Might be worth remembering that companies like Google have significant links with education systems, so they can address their hiring not just at the "who is applying" stage. Also, regarding "lowering the bar" - remember there is a lot more to building a SWE team than finding people who can do the best whiteboard coding challenges. Coding skills can be improved, diversity of backgrounds is also a team strength and one that can't be taught. So, one would hope that by forcing hiring diversity now, companies 1) force the white dude monoculture to break down, encouraging 2) more women to see SWE as an appealing opportunity, making 3) their future hiring pipeline and hiring committees sufficiently diverse that they don't need to force numbers.

Also worth remembering that women CS grads entering the field used to be climbing at the same rate as lawyers and other similar fields, then something changed in the mid-1980s and while the other fields progressed ever-nearer 50%, CS numbers took a nosedive. I don't have good research into exactly why that happened, but I'm guessing women didn't say "oh we're doing 32bit computers now? Nah you keep this one bros" ;)

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#746

Post by cropsieboss »

mikeash wrote: post #294

It's strange how people who say that certain groups are inherently better at something are invariably a member of that group. To put it more bluntly: it's strange that the people saying white men are just inherently better at stuff are always white men. Oh well, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. When there are real, strong differences, usually a diverse group of people are willing to accept it. Plenty of women will t…

But no one said that?

Could you provide text snippets where this was said?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#747

Post by Chris2048 »

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

But is the bias substantiated so that diversity hiring tracks it? Do the men who lose out to diversity candidates, the same that are benefiting from bias (as individuals, not "men, as a group")?

Isn't this like saying "Jailing innocent men is a fair price to ensure the guilty don't get away"

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#748

Post by peak_body_yo »

vertex-four wrote: post #700
gopz wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree. While he obviously sees the diversity programs as misguided, he stops short of calling for an end to them. To quote: > Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. I understand that discussions within a business are different than talking with friends around the kitchen table, but I still think that you should go as far as you possibly can to have open d…

"Have an honest discussion", "review", etc, are all weasel words for "cut down on". This is the same across industries, it's bog-standard doublespeak. To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your post but I sense some anger or indignance. If that's true it is misplaced. Understand that if he phrased it any other way, he would have been further crucified.

Phrasing it more honestly and straightforward would be heresy in a corporate environment.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#749

Post by znfi »

I feel that one critical thing that have been missed by many is that on the meta-level this manifesto largely acts as a defence.

Feminists/whatever have come with far-reaching accusations of discrimination. Often backed by very flimsy arguments that often has a frightening lack of details and specifics. What I find the most absurd is that I can't recall ever having heard of an actual woman who was discriminated, instead one is very happy to talk about various summary statistics.

The point is that these accusations have been raised, and in fact come to be accepted as the established truth. Almost everyone, at least in public, agrees with the feminist viewpoint. Somehow, despite these opinions being universally agreed upon, many are not interpreting the manifesto in the context of a defence against these accusations.

Finally, I can to some extent understand the need for affirmative action However, one question I find interesting to think about is, when are we going to stop it? When has society gotten "good enough" that we no longer need these policies?

It seems society have made very good progress towards grater equality in the last few decades. Yet when reading the news, discrimination facing women and minorities seem worse than ever. Instead of relaxing affirmative action as society is becoming increasingly equal, the situation is the other way around with a never ending stream of demands for new exceptions, extra initiatives and so on.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#750

Post by tanilama »

observation wrote: post #738

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…

Good luck with your political oriented filtering, you should add that into the job description, and save people more time.
Post reply on HN