Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#761

Post by peak_body_yo » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:39 AM UTC

postnihilism wrote: post #275

This feels like the blue and black (white and gold) dress. It boggles my mind that people don't see the fundamental and toxic misogyny in this 'manifesto'. Please have a woman you care about in your life, preferably one in tech, read this and then ask their opinion of the piece. The "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group" sentiment of the author is fine except that we have hundreds of…

> Diversity programs are not about lowering the bar, they are about outreach

What if all you are achieving is rearranging the dirt (ignore the negative connotations to dirt)?

Skilled URM engineers who meet the Google hiring bar will find a place to work regardless of outreach efforts. The URM outreach efforts will just shift the talented URMs from other companies to its company.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#762

Post by mathattack » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:40 AM UTC

There are a lot of reasons why Google isn't 50/50 Men and Women. And people try to justify it by saying "The company can't do anything about it." Many of the reasons sound well thought out. But these reasons also could have been used in the 70s when women weren't doctors, lawyers or accountants either. And (with the possible exception of at the partner level at the latter two) this has largely proven to be untrue. Nobody worries that their doctor, lawyer or accountant is female.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#763

Post by samolang » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:41 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…

I agree mostly. But there may also be a cyclical effect where women don't go into CS because they don't see women working in tech. In which case Google shouldn't necessarily have a legal obligation to hire more women, but there may be a moral argument or even a long-term self-interest argument (i.e. increase supply of good engineers) for it.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#764

Post by dcow » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:41 AM UTC

postnihilism wrote: post #676

kromem wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're so concerned with the advantages of wealth and education inequality, why are we still using race (a bad proxy, given the spread and distribution around the averages - the whole point of the original document) as the determining factor instead of just asking for tax returns/education records for special programs? And regarding gender - let's consider the example of salary negotiation. Now, if you research, yo…

My comment about 'White Male Persecution Complex (PC)" was tongue and cheek. I should have known that would be a mistake in this conversation. I have many white male coworkers (as you'd expect given the demographic statistics for tech) and I have nothing but the utmost respect for their ability. I don't harbor any assumption that, "that they've had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole life." I don't think that…

I just want to point out: it's very interesting to read your caveat because the language is remarkably similar to the preface the author felt obligated to include (which in turn echos disclaimers often attached to modern critiques of affirmative action programs by white males). Perhaps you've even played slightly into the parent's hand helping make their point?

Regardless, I find such disclaimers cumbersome and unnecessary. I'd rather interact as adults who understand how to critically dissect each other's essays than instantly assume bigotry or privilege and infer the most insidious implications: "he is basically saying all women suck at their jobs amirite". It just feels so.. unsophisticated. (To be clear I'm not directing that at you I'm just lamenting the situation in general--oops there _I_ go.)

Do you really think the author would say anything different than you've said if you engaged directly?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#765

Post by dcow » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:41 AM UTC

postnihilism wrote: post #676

kromem wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're so concerned with the advantages of wealth and education inequality, why are we still using race (a bad proxy, given the spread and distribution around the averages - the whole point of the original document) as the determining factor instead of just asking for tax returns/education records for special programs? And regarding gender - let's consider the example of salary negotiation. Now, if you research, yo…

My comment about 'White Male Persecution Complex (PC)" was tongue and cheek. I should have known that would be a mistake in this conversation. I have many white male coworkers (as you'd expect given the demographic statistics for tech) and I have nothing but the utmost respect for their ability. I don't harbor any assumption that, "that they've had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole life." I don't think that…

I just want to point out: it's very interesting to read your caveat because the language is remarkably similar to the preface the author felt obligated to include (which in turn echos disclaimers often attached to modern critiques of affirmative action programs by white males). Perhaps you've even played slightly into the parent's hand helping make their point?

Regardless, I find such disclaimers cumbersome and unnecessary. I'd rather interact as adults who understand how to critically dissect each other's essays than instantly assume bigotry or privilege and infer the most insidious implications: "he is basically saying all women suck at their jobs amirite". It just feels so.. unsophisticated. (To be clear I'm not directing that at you I'm just lamenting the situation in general--oops there _I_ go.)

Do you really think the author would say anything different than you've said if you engaged directly?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#766

Post by fuscy » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

I'm not entirely sure why the points raised in the memo are rebutted without providing evidence to other papers proving the contrary point.

If the papers proving that biologically there's an interest difference between the genders are not enough then we could apply some data science.

Let's assume that nothing can force the gaming interests of women and men such as higher pay or availability (this could be debatable in the past). There are studies like these made on over 250000 gamers which show clear interest differences between the two genres: http://quanticfoundry.com/2016/12/15/primary-motivations/ http://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/ The gaming field (and marketing in general) is full of models used very successfully when deciding on a company/business strategy.

Google with their huge data analysis powerhouse could end this debate swiftly in their favor but I fear that either their data proves the writer's points and they're acting hypocritically now or they are avoiding adding fuel to the emotional fire (from a scientific point, Google data would be pure gold for years to come) by not releasing anything (pro or con).

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#767

Post by freetime2 » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:48 AM UTC

peacetreefrog wrote: post #308

It's crazy to see such overtly anti free speech arguments in the discussion around this memo, even on Hacker News. "Well actually, the first amendment only protects against government intruding on free speech, it doesn't apply to the rest of us!" Free speech used to be the thing everyone agreed on. It's like a fundamental tenant of Western, liberal democracy has gone out of vogue.

The issue with "free speech" is that it is often used as a crutch for people to cling to their bad ideas. "How dare those people take issue with that ridiculous thing I just said! I am just exercising my right to free speech!"

So the "free speech only applies to the government" or the "free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences" argument is really just a reflex to "free speech" being often misused.

But in this case - I agree with you. The knee jerk calls for the guy to be fired without really hearing him out or engaging substantively on the issues like censorship and an affront the free exchange of ideas upon which democracy depends.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#768

Post by BlackLotus89 » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:49 AM UTC

jkoll wrote: post #650

zouhair wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unedited version of the memo: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

Thank you for the link. I only read the poorly formatted version and was disappointed because of this. Now it seems even worse how the whole situation was handled. For instance https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbv54d/google-on-...

> And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I'm not going to link to it here as it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

> Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

Yay we believe in "a culture in which those with alternative views [...] feel safe sharing their opinions" (except when they diverge from our view). We want them to feel safe sharing them and we show this through firing people who ask for an open discussion. Bravo google. And linking to the manifesto or at least quoting an example of what is wrong is bad, because ....?

(Yes a shitstorm is brewing and there now is a hot headed "discussion", but the main problem is that nobody actually references or talks about the actual manifesto. People talk _about it_, but quotes are sparse and the critics never point out any (logical) fallacies. It's a much to emotional "debate".)

Anyway thanks to the full text I now actually could revise my opinion on the whole matter (I actually have yet to follow all the references/sources), but am disgusted at googles reaction to fire someone because their opinion created a toxic reaction. If such a reaction spawns, maybe there is room for an open discussion and maybe we can find a solution everybody is happy with. Killing off unwelcome voices doesn't sound like a welcoming environment to me and unethically at best.

Edit: Let me close with a quote from the manifesto in relation to the response from the VP of Diversity

> My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology.

He now seems kind of right at least in that regard.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#769

Post by observation » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:50 AM UTC

Darthy wrote: post #742

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.

No contradiction, I'm saying there's a scientific way to be non-biased and in the current political environment I wouldn't choose that option. It's a selfish tactic, not an altruistic one to better society.

I would have political uniformity which would prevent Red vs Blue infighting.

#Warning# This isn't an attempt at flamebait, it's something like a hypothesis.

I would also likely be able to hire from a undervalued portion of Silicon Valley, I suspect I'd be able to get talented Eastern European, Asian and white men at discount rates. They wouldn't have to deal with PC from HR and other firms may be less willing to hire them.

It is not unusual for a sector of the economy to have a political slant. Everybody knows health/care is mostly leftist, military/intelligence is mostly rightist. These are slight tilts but the net affect has an enormous sway over sector thinking/dogma. I suspect SV will split along such lines (right companies, left companies).

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#770

Post by lagadu » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 10:51 AM UTC

jedrek wrote: post #743

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…

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 hundred…

"Qualified" was the wrong word because it can imply that the qualifications are measurable à priori, which is what I'm assuming is your interpretation.

That's not what the OP is saying though, he's saying "qualified" as seen in demonstrated performance after the hiring. It would've been clearer had he said "better at the job" (as in, leading to a greater total company value) than "qualified".