[deleted]
Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
281–290 of 423 posts
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). Minority viewpoints in tech become silenced and their author(s) ostracized by the biases of a mob mentality. It doesn't even matter what you write because most people won't even read the original source, instead floating by on derivative tweets and ext…
This was only ever true in online discussion forums, Usenet, etc. I agree that there is a lot of mob mentality going on, it’s just difficult to get upset about this case because the original author was spouting debunked “biotruth” arguments. Twitter replies are mostly full of men who didn’t read the original memo or who are willfully pretending it didn’t claim women are less biologically suited to being engineers. I…
The guy did have a degree in the sciences...
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
A strong message about breaking the code of conduct, yes. The message here seems abundantly clear and I have trouble understanding how it can miscontrued to be anything other than reacting to a clear violation. I can't even think of how to restate what is so clearly laid out in the note. I wouldn't rule out the potential that there is uneven enforcement of such violations, and that would make this action look questio…
> reacting to a clear violation. If it's so clear, then could you specify exactly which parts of the memo were "fair to debate" (as Pichai says) and which part were "clear violation?"
Pichai does in the note.
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say "the diversity program is harmful and should be stopped" without advancing gender stereotypes (which is what the guy did in his memo). All you need to do is back up that "it's harmful" with evidence. It's pretty damn simple.
He had sources from here to the moon. Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?
I had to look through four or so articles to find an edited and incomplete copy of the controversial text. Fortunately there are complete copies of it as it was originally posted linked elsewhere in the thread. It's possible that they haven't read it (in its unedited form including the references as intended by its author) because reporters have, for some reason, made it hard to find.
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#285Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine: > At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint) . They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings,…
I would imagine that they know exactly what they are doing and feel very conflicted about it, but they're weighing their options in the prevailing political climate and choose the least bad one. It's still very very bad though.
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can say "the diversity program is harmful and should be stopped" without advancing gender stereotypes (which is what the guy did in his memo). All you need to do is back up that "it's harmful" with evidence. It's pretty damn simple.
He had sources from here to the moon. Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?
[deleted]
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#287Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#288I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensib…
> Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs."
Only if they had been so close-minded to not consider that possibility before and are now convinced when this new evidence is presented after doing their due diligence to verify it (good luck with that). Seems more likely the truth of the guy's points are irrelevant and the programs the company provides to minorities exist for a bottom line that takes into account the company's reputation (which, in this case, he seems naively unaware of as a relevant component to decision-making).
> Should they tell all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to that opinion?
Open minded in what way? Open minded as in "engage with it", well, probably. There are explanations for studies that show differences between races (and women) that aren't biological. It's worth it to look at the studies and ask yourself what you think the most plausible explanation is based the available data if you haven't already.
> As a black guy at that company I would be really unhappy about that and I'd probably quit. I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions.
As a woman in tech who has also lived extensively overseas in cultures where women are considered inferior (at worst) and "separate but equal" in terms of domain at best, I find the best way to engage with these kinds of thoughts/opinions is directly.
Sure, there is indeed a marked difference when you look at men and women. Fact. I don't want to be someone who turns my head from facts. However, who knows what amount of that difference is nature vs nurture. Nature leaves us little room for improvement, nurture leaves a lot; why would we choose, because it would indeed be a choice, to assume the gaps are intrinsic to the sexes and limit our ability to close what are unfair gaps when it comes to prestige and pay? Further, if they ARE nature, then the few women who do have that interest + talent are entering into a profession that wasn't really designed for them and it makes sense they'd benefit from more support. Why would we deny them that? What, exactly, is the problem with the diversity programs even given the assumption a group as a whole tends to on aggregate not be as well suited?
Anyway. As someone who holds a fair amount of opinions that aren't PC, if I want to not be fired for them then I need to give other people the same right to offend with opinions as long as their actions are appropriate.
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#289This is the chilliest I've yet felt the chilling effect.
Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Yonatan Zunger's essay Tolerance is not a moral precept [1] -- linked off his response to the "manifesto" -- did a good job of addressing this scenario. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
Great article. I think a better metaphor than "peace treaty" describing tolerance would be "sect", however. And not in a pejorative sense, but used to recognize that there will be various self-organized groups with different definitions of tolerance and that membership in a group requires close adherence to a particular definition. And various sects may overlap to varying degrees. For example, a tolerant devout Chris…
> Peace treaty is an interesting metaphor but falls short on many levels. Primarily because peace treaties are more focused on geographic separation (whether country-level or block-level) and agreeing on borders (keeping people apart), not about rules of behavior within a single community
Actually, the Peace of Westphalia, described in the linked article, included a provision allowing freedom to practice their faith outside of the established state denomination [1],
> "shall have the free Exercise of their Religion, as well in publick Churches at the appointed Hours, as in private in their own Houses, or in others chosen for this purpose by their Ministers, or by those of their Neighbours, preaching the Word of God"