Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 423 posts

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#351

Post by morgtheborg »

camgunz wrote: post #319
morgtheborg wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my point. You can find sex "differences" but unless you somehow raised men and women separately, you'll be hard pressed to know which ones are innate and which ones are created through outside pressures. Not in all cases, of course, but in terms of behavior.

No I get what you're saying. I'm saying the way you phrased it puts the onus on women. It's fairer to say, "men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive" because men have the problem, not women.

And this is partially why people got so upset at that Googler. You understood what I said, but you're somehow displeased I didn't phrase it in the way you would have and are reading a direction of duty/responsibility that isn't in my comment nor in my thoughts.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#352

Post by Aunche »

cdubzzz wrote: post #24
lagadu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By firing the employee they're effectively sending out a strong message about it no matter how they sugarcoat it.

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…

Every instance of censorship is justified by saying the offender broke a code of conduct. The Sedition Act, ban of Huck Finn in school libraries, and even preventing sex education are justified this way. Equating a well meaning discussion to harassment is a dangerous precedent to set. Anything can be construed as breaking Google's code of conduct. If I compliment a coworker's new haircut, and they interpret it as an inappropriate sexual advance, should I be fired for making the coworker uncomfortable?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#353

Post by orisa2 »

soundwave106 wrote: post #255
johnsea wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have violated. From glancing over the memo I perceive that: women/man are different and men prefer working in engineering. No need to artificially increase percentage of women engineers with incentives. I did not notice any inferior/superior claims. Being fired for this polite memo? And being characterized as a kind of toxic outcast? - I'm sorry, what h…

I think the memo made two mistakes here. The first, from my perspective, is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". Anyone familiar with the sordid history of eugenics knows that you tread that line really carefully, both because of the sordid history of policy on that sort of thing, the extreme difficulty of separating biological vs. environmental…

I'd also suggest that another factor is that the author assumed that his reader base would have basic statistical knowledge, which I'd suggest would not be true even among software engineers. Just erase any reference to distributions or averages and you'll see what most people see. This just adds to your points.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#354

Post by andrewprock »

xiaosun wrote: post #279
cynicalkane wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from the memo: > However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of C…

What about the google employees who publicly called for the author to be fired (e.g. on twitter/social media)? Shouldn't these actions also be considered in violation of their Code of Conduct - those actions seem to fit the description of "harassment" and "intimidation".

It appears we have a spectrum:

* harassment and intimidation

* calling for harasser to be fired

* firing harasser

All three behaviors fall under the broad umbrella of harassment and intimidation. Clearly the first is a fireable behavior, and the last is not a fireable behavior.

The middle one certainly stands somewhere between. I suppose it's possible that if the author was exonerated, the middle group may be deemed as having participated in a firing offense?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#355

Post by ryandvm »

StephenMelon wrote: post #226
tedmiston wrote: post #100

Earlier 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…

Unfortunately, not everything has an objectively correct answer (aesthetics! ethics!) and so what you are saying kind of reinforces the point that diversity of viewpoints is vital to group problem solving. A group with the same blindspots will all make the same mistakes.

That is so beautifully ironic.

"All hail diversity! But if don't think like we do, GTFO."

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#356

Post by unethical_ban »

lolgoogle wrote: post #257
unethical_ban wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he went too far when he suggested women are inherently less capable in the computer sciences than men. Saying diversity training sucks, or that Google should re-evaluate how they encourage diversity, or that men are getting a raw deal, would have been tolerable.

None of that would have been tolerable. He'd still have been fired. Let's not pretend otherwise.

*to Google management, I assume you mean?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#357

Post by josteink »

SamBam wrote: post #311
josteink wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are effectively nitpicking words, single words , present or not in a cited source out of a 10 page reasonable critique of existing policy? And for what? To justify a guy getting fired? For real?

Saying " women have a harder time leading " is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. And it is a statement , whether or not it's introduced as a single word. To claim that this is "nitpicking a single word" is like saying that an article that includes…

> Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement.

I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does?

I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up?

If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine.

Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo.

Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really?

Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails.

I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#358

Post by funnyguys »

When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that particular gender all the more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is frowned upon – not just because of innate sense of right or wrong.

Being white male, I bet most of us would never have faced any significant discrimination and please stop pretending that we know how other side feels.

Some people are suggesting Google's stance on LGBT is alienating people - Really? So, people who advocate taking away LGBT people's rights and opposed to their ways of life are complaining of persecution?

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#359

Post by justinjlynn »

orbitur wrote: post #313
josteink wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had sources from here to the moon. Have you actually read the memo you are criticizing?

I did read it, where did he outline the failures of the existing diversity program that wasn't also a lie? For instance, a lowered standard for interviews isn't a thing.

If I have read their argument correctly the author proposes that the interview "bar" was lower only relatively speaking. Allow me to elaborate: in a somewhat clumsily stated thesis they point out the disproportionate care granted to the favoured class is evidenced by an allegedly reduced false negative rate. If that's true then, in a way, Google haven't reduced the technical "bar" per se except by making the test more reflective of their actual expectations for hires. This is, I believe, the heart of the author's argument in this case: these improvements in the interview process apply only to favoured groups. If true, these exclusive improvements yield a test which, though just as technically thorough, is paradoxically still easier to pass given a favoured candidate. If my understanding is correct, there really has to be a better way to phrase the author's argument such that it can't be misinterpreted in the most common way it appears to be being taken now.

Re: Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

#360

Post by elevenfist »

beaconstudios wrote: post #292
elevenfist wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "... that diversity hiring yields both better individual and group performance." This is a well-known, well-researched fact of organizational psychology. Are you guys really this stupid? Think about it from a problem-solving perspective, in terms of the solutions individuals and groups will come up with. Sexism, racism, and discrimination in general doesn't benefit anyone but the wealthiest few, and only if they're…

then you're arguing for diversity of opinion or viewpoint, rather than gender or skin colour? Because that's the opposite of the approach google is taking here.

I'm arguing for diversity of gender, skin color, cultural or sub-cultural background and identity. Diversity of viewpoint should already be a given.

In order to promote tolerance you have to shut down and remove the people who support intolerance. Firing this guy is clearly in line with that mission and improving productivity.

We learn this in grade school, are you all foreigners or something? Or has American education really been gutted...

Post reply on HN