10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

> why do we see 50/50 male/female in tech as some kind of gold standard

This isn't even a hard question. The short version is, "duh, history". The slightly longer version is that many, many other fields have shifted from "no women" to "50/50" over the last century because patriarchy is finally starting to fall apart. Tech is a weird exception:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

Maybe you could read a book or take a class before opining much more on this?

> what if the problem had a lot more to do with how ingrained the drive for status is

You mean what if our organizational cultures are so fucked up as to reward status-seeking behaviors rather than more healthy ones? Organizational cultures that derive from patriarchal dominance hierarchies? The answer is to shift to more healthy and inclusive models of working, which is why modern diversity/inclusion programs do much more than fix hiring. Which fits nicely in with a lot of organizational improvement efforts that have nothing to do with bias reduction, because it turns out that raw primate dominance behaviors are a pretty terrible way to organize knowledge work.

I can understand the authors point of view but he presents several points as fact but provides no links to data supporting those points so they come across as stereotypical generalizations.

That women and people of color have been historically discriminated against and in many cases still are cannot be denied, especially in my personal experience, women of color. I have seen this both in tech and outside of it.

Is there a biological or chemical component to people excelling in certain fields? I have no idea but people must be judged as individuals not on any conceived notions of gender or race. I am a white guy and there are tons of women and people of color who are brighter than me or better than me at what I do. They should not be denied a role over me because an interviewer does not like their gender or ethnicity. If they are better than me they should get the position, period.

On the other hand, I am white with two white sons. I in no way agree with hiring practices or college admission policies that would put my kids at a disadvantage based on the color of their skin or gender. If my kids want to go to an ivy league school, and they invest the time and effort to to attain entry they should be granted it. I would be furious if they were declined in favor of another student if that student had worse grades and entry test level scores but were chosen based on the color of their skin. I would be very resentful.

If there is an issue with interviewers showing bias, we need to address that, not establish quotas which disadvantage others. A good solution should never involve pulling others down, a good solution lifts everyone. Bad solutions spread resentment.

We need to stop judging others on what they are and focus on who they are. I don't claim to be smart enough or educated enough to know the solution but i do know what it should feel like, it should feel like a good thing to all individuals. All individuals, not parties because we are all unique and should be treated and judged as such.

Edit: Personal story. I was in charge of hiring for a role in a non tech position. I interviewed several people for the position. My favorite was a black woman, she was awesome; smart and driven. I was over ruled by my director in favor of a decidedly less intelligent attractive white woman. His choice was fired after 6 months for poor performance and inappropriate behavior. Racism is absolutely alive and well in hiring. I think the solution needs to be addressed on the hiring manager level though, not by artificial quotas. By the same token that black woman was absolutely discriminated against.

I don't have the answers and all of the above is just the opinion of one person.

> but provides no links

The Gizmodo foreward say they have removed several links and a couple of graphs. I think I also recall googlers saying that the manifesto had links to various papers etc.

So... In this article we have a person talking about the positive discrimination in a company and how it can harm the company. This topic can harm some people even when the author doesn't want to. You can think he is saying terrible things (like some people thinks indeed), so you are not open to discuss with him about the topic?

> then maybe take some time to think about the opinions you're so excited to share

I am not going to shut up if I think I am right and it is the best for everybody even if my opinion hurts some people. I shouldn't do it indeed.

While some of the points are worth exploring, and have actually with Google's own research (aka psychology safety and Google's project Aristotle on what makes a great team), much of this essay becomes immediately discredited by creating suspect on the premise of questioning employment opportunities for women.

I thought about this a bit but let's say it was indeed a factor of employment and advancements over some men in roles.

There is signifant research on the benefits of a diverse culture.

Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.

I would argue that it isn't a problem that diverse members are indeed advanced because of ONE of the factors being their contribution to a diverse group. That doesn't negate the necessity that they must also be good at their job.

Furthermore, great engineers are people oriented. Anyone can learn how to write code, but it takes skill to hone in on necessary insights that deal with people, interaction, and the nature of finding solutions that I suspect are meant to help people.