Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#111

Post by runako » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

nxsynonym wrote: post #102

kafkaesq wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast ... Maybe some people are calling for stuff like that. But that's not what Google's doing to him. Google's just saying: "You can't do that here ."

That's kind of the point though. Google is one of, if not the, biggest player in terms of information served over the internet. If they are willing to censor at this level, how far will they go to protect their public image and suppress discussion they don't agree with?

> suppress discussion they don't agree with

Worth noting: he could post this publicly on Google+, Blogspot, or any other Google platform. It's only his paycheck that's being suppressed, his views are not.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#112

Post by amyjess » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #77

naturalgradient wrote: post #10

What this whole episode really seems to show is how authoritarianism has crept into our lives and how incredibly difficult it is to resist it even amongst highly educated people. I would wager that none of the people calling for this person to be personally ruined, expelled from society, terminated from their job and forever vilified as an outcast would view themselves as authoritarian. Not the Tweeters shaking with…

I would argue it is the opposite of authoritarian, it is mob rule. No one person or centralized authority deemed this person's actions as unacceptable. It was the majority of the community as a whole that deemed his actions as unacceptable. That is certainly a scary thing to see in action, but I think it is a different thing entirely than an authoritarian regime.

I call that society's natural immune system.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#113

Post by Latty » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #20

gobugat wrote: post #7

> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google execut…

Yeah... nothing to debate, no points of contention, nothing to see here... it's how I see it, and if you don't agree, I'll shut you down. Sounds open to new ideas and diverse opinions to me.

I keep seeing this kind of thing get said, but I'm not sure what the point is - are people really expecting people who espouse diversity to literally accept any opinion?

Am I meant to work alongside a person who has literally said he wants me to die, completely seriously?

So at some point, there is a line - I feel the more interesting discussion is why you feel this isn't beyond the line - presumably it comes down to a matter you not believing there was harm caused?

For me, I think the obvious justification for the firing here is that this guy had hiring as a part of his responsibility, and this document is a statement he isn't going to be able to fulfil that.

If I'm a developer and I write a manifesto about how we should be writing code to optimise for the worst maintainability to keep job security, am I fair game to fire? If I'm literally coming out with a manifesto that says I'm not going to do the job I was hired to do (of part thereof), is it unreasonable to fire me?

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#114

Post by IMTDb » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

gobugat wrote: post #7

> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google execut…

> Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google executives just did.

Exactly but then in the statement, don't pretend people should have the ability to speak their mind freely. By firing the guy they basically closed that door entirely, they choose to inflict the maximum penalty they legally could on a guy that wrote an internal memo.

Google executives basically just said: "Anyone expressing any other view other than our official politically correct position will be excommunicated (fired) on the spot" then goes on saying "but hey, we like free speech you know ;-)". They are not fooling anyone.

You may agree with the manifesto author or not, but his thought were articulate. He provided evidence for his theories and at no point was he needlessly insulting to anyone.

I feel a better response form the Google team would have been to issue a statement defending and justifying their position: "Google executive team does not agree with those theories for reasons X Y and Z, and our internal measurements have shown that mixed gender teams perform on average better for X Y and Z reasons as shown by report foo and bar. We however agree with the author that gender equality is a difficult issue to tackle bla bla bla".

The discussion would have moved to the manifesto evidence vs Google evidence and we would have actually had something to talk about regarding gender equality. Now it's just about Google inability to cope with free speech inside the company, as shown by the Bloomberg article.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#115

Post by gbarc888 » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

canoebuilder wrote: post #15

dangerlibrary wrote: post #2

Is any organization of meaningful size (# of employees, revenue, market cap - pick your metric) handling diversity issues in a way that completely satisfies the "proportional representation of the population" metric? Are there any success stories that one could use as case studies?

"proportional representation of the population" metric? Is there some reason the social disrupters only get all frothy mouthed about this in certain areas? Like shouldn't we spend much more time going after the NBA, Fishing, Logging, Elementary teachers, Nurses, etc. because these industries are far more out of "diversity balance." Are people clamoring for a "proportional representation of the population" metric prep…

People in tech build consumer products that people actively engage with, which is why diversity is important. Logging/fishing/NBA/etc, not so much. I would argue that there should be far more diversity in the teaching profession, but it is a low-paying job.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#116

Post by gobugat » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #36

gobugat wrote: post #7

> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google execut…

> Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand Is this view not pretty clearly authoritarian? It literally comes across like a comic book villain speech. Is it not possible that there simply are intelligent people who disagree with you validly, and that shaming them into silence isn…

He wasn't shamed into silence, he was invited to blurt out his poison on non-Google territory. He wasn't chastised, or sued, or anything else. Unlike all the people victim of the kind of discriminations he endorses.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#117

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

moduspol wrote: post #36

gobugat wrote: post #7

> "Companies don’t have viewpoints." They do. Not reacting would have been an endorsement. Many would want to think that these issues are apolitical, or scientific, or anything "neutral". They are not. Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand, which is exactly what Google execut…

> Make no mistake. This is a fight. A struggle between two visions of the world, maybe more. Such conflicts are not won over peaceful arguments. Sooner or later, one must take a stand Is this view not pretty clearly authoritarian? It literally comes across like a comic book villain speech. Is it not possible that there simply are intelligent people who disagree with you validly, and that shaming them into silence isn…

[deleted]

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#118

Post by danschumann » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

It's hard to say things that can easily be misconstrued. The wage gap: guess what, women don't take high paying dangerous oil rigging jobs. Men suffer 90% of workplace deaths. Those deaths are high paying. It's unpopular, because it sucks, but it's true, so lets not tabloid-ize it.

The same people saying there is a wage gap are saying that every rich person is too greedy. So, if they're greedy and only care about money, why wouldn't they hire only women? They can pay women less and they only care about money. Are they saying that the only things ceos care about more than money is men? Doesn't add up.

This is a single issue, a single "one liner" that won't die. Remember the old story "if you flash your headlights at a certain gang, they'll follow you and shoot you". Sometimes lies are more viral than the truth. It's much easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled. It hurts to be told you were fooled, it feels fun to be a fool.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#119

Post by dangerlibrary » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

canoebuilder wrote: post #83

dangerlibrary wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is pertinent and well-made in the latter part of your post, but the ad-hominem language in the former makes it difficult to believe you want to discuss the issue.

Some people seem to have an unhealthy bias against colorful language when it is used in service of a larger point. But they seem all too happy to use it as a distraction from engaging with the points raised.

Calling people who disagree with you "frothy mouthed" is a distraction. Your comment is also not responsive to the question posed in the root comment.

Re: Google Can't Seem to Tolerate Diversity

#120

Post by moduspol » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #13

What else could Google have done? He made himself a visibly toxic employee to have on most teams. This might be weird to some people, but at work you have to work with other people, and while it may be OK to hold belief in general, advocating for it at work can make it harder for you to work with others. Abstract free speech crashes and burns in any situation where you can't select your peers.

The issue at hand is that it's entirely work-related (it's about Google's hiring policies) and that it's framed by offended parties entirely as something it's not (a suggestion that women can't perform in certain roles as well as men).

Google could have:

* Clarified the opinions shared are not theirs and they do not endorse them. * Clarified their existing position on the topic at hand (as they did). * Created or clarified a new policy on how such suggestions can be shared in a way less likely to be read by people easily offended by opposing views. * Created some training policies regarding how to effectively avoid or even (gasp) tolerate opposing views without taking personal offense. Perhaps this could be just after the microaggression training mentioned in the memo.

This whole idea that it's A-OK to preach the need for discrimination to account for effects unmeasurably attributed to white privilege, yet as soon as one suggests an alternative view, it's suddenly off-limits and political is ridiculous.