> Google announced it's removing its global lead on diversity strategy and research from his post after it was discovered he'd made antisemitic comments in a past blog post. That post is not anti-semitic, it's anti-Zionism.
[deleted]
Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
291–300 of 1001 posts
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#292So, it took some digging, but here is the text https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:luIscB... As you can see, it's a quite well written critique of Israel, and it is definitely NOT anti-Semitic. I find it quite ironic that it took Google's cache to find the thing Google itself wants canceled
It is Anti-Semitic in that he is lumping all jews in with Israel. I am a Jew, America is my homeland. I live here and am an American. I am not an Israeli. I give almost zero thought to Israel in my day to day. Jews are consistently labeled with an "other" tag, we are not Americans, we are Jews and Israel is our country. Also "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in def…
> How is that anything except Anti-Semitic?
As you frame it, there is no other way to interpret his words (found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210601160519/https://www.kamau...).
If one takes a charitable read of his words, it might be less damning (although definitely questionable in terms of style):
1. It’s clear in the post that he’s speaking about Israeli Jews. While even Israeli Jews are not monolithic, and speaking of them like they are is suspect, he could have been clearer by using “Israeli Jew” rather than “Jew” in this post.
2. Furthermore, it seems more like he is speaking about “Israeli Jews” both in terms of being an actual Israeli Jew as well as a term used to represent the Israeli government.
3. He use the wrong pronouns. He used I/me when we/us would have been more standard when speaking of the acts of a nation state (esp. a democratic one). Even this creates problems since it would paint Israeli Jews as being monolithic in their thoughts (my experience is that they very very much are not monolithic). That said, with a charitable read, the stylistic use of I/me is definitely more powerful and more personal, and it probably provided the effect the author wanted of making the violence feel personal. As an editor, I would have given this stylistic choice a firm veto, but try explaining that to a young person who is finding their voice and is discovering the amount of violence towards various peoples that is occurring around the world.
TL;DR - Another way of interpreting the post is that a young kid trying to find a powerful voice made some very suspect stylistic choices when trying to write about the government of Israel.
Thanks to ‘andrewla for finding the original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27381980
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#293>will be reassigned to a STEM research role
Not fired, just reassigned.
I'm ok with that as a policy. Presumably he isn't ok with those old statements and can move on.
At the same time the folks who need to post some general statements about a whole group of people, religion, or whatever ...
As far as I can remember I've never felt a reason to talk about a whole category of people and "insatiable appetite for war and killing“ or "increasing insensitivity to the suffering [of] others".
I don't get it.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#294Here is a classic case of someone conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together. Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state. People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. His comments are offensive for this reason.
Internal and external criticism is important and welcome, but when the only democratic country in the hostile region, that's constantly fighting for its existence, becomes the world's punching bag, you have to wonder why it is. Does UN's human rights council obsession with Israel [1], while turning a blind eye on real atrocities in murderous regimes like Iran, North Korea, Turkey, Russia, etc., makes sense to anyone with a common sense?
BTW, I don't think most people who use the term Zionism in a negative context actually understand what it means. It's just the desire of Jews to live in its historic homeland - Israel, in a peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.
[1] https://unwatch.org/updated-chart-of-all-unhrc-condemnations...
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#295Live by the sword, die by the sword. That said, firing him, like they did with Damore would have been more consistent. Because everyone is under arbitration agreements that always benefit the company, vs the courts where you might have a shot at justice, they have no incentive to do that. As repugnant as his past anti-semitic rant was, people change and sometimes say and do stupid things. In a sane world this guy wou…
> but today it is all about getting scalps,
You say "today" as if it's ever been any different. Has it?
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this guy were a CTO or something sure. He was chief diversity officer though, there's gotta be a higher standard there.
True, but then again this was 14 years ago. People can change. Steve jobs had just launched the first iPhone when he made that blog post. That feels like a life time ago.
Depends how old you are. Feels like yesterday to me.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is Google inconsistent, or has their policy on how to deal with these things changed over the past few years? Simple explanation is Google's Democrat-leaning leadership are more aligned with Bobb than Damore (in the US, the left are generally anti-Israel while the right support it, and the left are pro-affirmative-action while the right oppose it).
Yes, people on the Left haven't realized women's innate biological tendency towards neuroticism, which renders affirmative action self-defeating.
Why does this statement sound sexist? Is it true? I feel like I should disagree on principal, but honestly I've remotely no idea if this is true or false.
I thought the data was that there are differences, but they're so small that the average man and average woman overlap in the majority of their characteristics.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the blog post is definitely worse than Damore's email (although I thought it was pretty crappy in itself), but you're talking here about a blog post from 2007 and an email that was sent via company channels while he was working there. I can only imagine Bobb was quite apologetic and a lot more aware of how terrible his conflations are there than he was in 2007. That's also 14 years of time to have solid evide…
No Damore sent supposedly confidential feedback when solicited to do so by diversity trainers. That content so enraged the diversity staff they leaked it to the rest of the company. Perhaps Damore was naive in thinking the feedback about diversity training was welcome or confidential, but he definately did not send a company-wide email to anyone.
I think the point being made was Damore's email was sent using company resources, while employed by the company, presumably on company time.
Bobb's blog post was from 2007.
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is Google inconsistent, or has their policy on how to deal with these things changed over the past few years? Simple explanation is Google's Democrat-leaning leadership are more aligned with Bobb than Damore (in the US, the left are generally anti-Israel while the right support it, and the left are pro-affirmative-action while the right oppose it).
Yes, people on the Left haven't realized women's innate biological tendency towards neuroticism, which renders affirmative action self-defeating.
[deleted]
Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They fired Damore for writing an email that was tone-deaf, insensitive, but largely supported by research Damore was asked for his feedback on Google's diversity policies, and that's exactly what he provided. Most of Damore's critics haven't actually read his memo[1], but rather formed an opinion based on the character assassination campaign against him, a campaign his employer publicly sided with. Over the 4 years…
People take issue with the following, but I don't recall Google confirming/denying if it is true: I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: ● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race ● A high priority queue and speci…
To my knowledge Google has never challenge the accuracy of those claims, and such practices are commonplace in many tech companies in the name of "diversity".