Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

What we all in tech are forgetting is that this gender gap exists in all fields, including medicine. The more interesting problem with medicine is that the pipeline is basically at equity (close to 50/50 male/female graduates).

However, according to this article (https://amino.com/blog/how-the-gender-gap-is-shifting-in-med...) even medicine is seeing severe gender gaps based on the specialty that is chosen.

This was their analysis:

Only 7% of all orthopedic surgeons; 15% of orthopedic surgeons beginning their practice in 2015

9% of urologists; 21% of urologists beginning their practice in 2015

13% of cardiologists; 25% of cardiologists beginning their practice in 2015

Why are there so few women working in these specialties? According to Mayo Clinic's Ian Mwangi, “There’s a stereotype that orthopedic surgeons are jocks, that the field requires brute strength.” There’s a lengthy feature article on Orthopedics Today that explores other reasons women aren’t entering orthopedics, including less exposure to the field in medical school, discouragement among advising faculty and deans, and the perception of poor work-life balance.

NPR explains that there may be gender disparity among urologists because of a "misconception of the field ... that urologists treat male problems like prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction."

Women seeking a career in cardiology face similar deterrents, including the “impairments to family planning, poor work-life balance, and perceived radiation risks,” according to this fellows' perspective published in the Journal of American College of Cardiology.

In most of my research, I found that a lack of female role models was also a key reason why more women didn’t enter these specialties, echoing a trend across industries. Doximity reports that women represent only 22% of physician leaders.

The employees at Google are overwhelmingly white and male. According to this article Google employee makeup is as follows; -70% male/30% female -61% white / 30% Asian, 4% identifying as two or more races, 3% Hispanic, 2% black, and 1% other

The tech industry is heavily male and majority Anglo (aka white), with a large Asian representation. I presume that if you are on on hacker news you work in the tech industry or work at a startup of some sort.

I would prefer to not sweep your comment under the table. Its conceivable that there might be something that as a white male you are could be 'persecuted' by someone at your place of employment. However you are going to have to provide some real evidence how you are being victimized when the numbers are so tilted in your favor. And if this is true it is most likely one person, perhaps a superior? Gather some evidence in form of emails, documentation, etc. I'm not sure what kind of persecution you are the victim of but your first steps might be to discuss things with your immediate supervisor, or if that person is the source of your persecution then talk to HR or your bosses boss.

If you feel like moving to another team or a project might help look for internal postings at the company, talk to other people in other teams to see if you would be a good fit. A lateral move within the company might make a big difference.

One thing I would NOT do is write a letter about how women are prone acting neurotic, and complain about general efforts to get more women and minority members involved at your company. I would also advocate against complaining about being a minority based on your political beliefs, that the entire company you work for makes you feel ostracized because your political beliefs don't align with what your employers. That's probably a bad idea.

> Are you saying there are no situations in which applying a systematic adjustment as a function of gender to interview scores could result in a predictable net-fitness-increase in the resulting skill distribution of hired people?

Yes if you don't try to match the distribution of the pool of candidates. if the pool of candidates ratio is 10/90 and your goal in the company is 10/90, I am ok with anything that helps you to get close to the 10/90. (When both distributions are normal gaussian with similar mean and average. I don't see basketball teams hiring short people to fit the ratio or the pool of candidates)

> That's not really the important question though. Would you prefer being not being hired due to bias even though you are qualified, or being hired despite bias, even though you know it will make some people think you weren't really qualified?

I prefer being hired because they saw my skills. I think is better in the long term. If I am qualified for a job I will find it, it could take me more time but at some point I will find it and I will be happier than in a job where they saw me hired by a diversity program. Of course if I need the job to survive wouldn't care, but I think this is not the common case (or I might be wrong but as I said in another comment this is my personal opinion, other will think differently)

I strongly feel this was a PR move by Google. I read the article and although I disagree with many of the points stated, firing the person was an extreme step. It would set a wrong precedent for anyone trying to speak up against the majority. A behind the door warning and a rap on wrist would have been enough.