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

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#631

Post by DannyBee »

NaliSauce wrote: post #583
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #555

Google really blew it. Just look at this conversation, normally happy and polite HN is barely restraining itself only because of fear of being hell banned and this is a tiny watered down version of the outrage they have unleashed nation wide. Had they just (as they should ethically have done) privately let the guy know "hey uh, independent of whether we agree with you, can you please cool it because this is USA, Bay…

>hey uh, independent of whether we agree with you, can you please cool it because this is USA, Bay Area 2017 and you just can't say shit like that You make the Bay Area sound like a somewhat dystopian, closed and repressive place. Is it really like that?

It's funny, i had a discussion about this unrelated to the Google stuff tonight.

It's definitely a cultural bubble (as is california in general, to generalize for a second).

Whether you believe the bubble is closed and repressive or open and progressive depends on your point of view.

IE California considers itself open and progressive, and cultural bubbles in the US as closed and repressive. Those cultural bubbles consider California closed and repressive, and themselves open and progressive.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#632

Post by HelloNurse »

Banthum wrote: post #442
postnihilism wrote: post #275

This feels like the blue and black (white and gold) dress. It boggles my mind that people don't see the fundamental and toxic misogyny in this 'manifesto'. Please have a woman you care about in your life, preferably one in tech, read this and then ask their opinion of the piece. The "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group" sentiment of the author is fine except that we have hundreds of…

"The "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group" sentiment of the author is fine except that we have hundreds of years of doing just this in order to oppress and disenfranchise groups of people." Just the opposite as far as I can tell. Every great evil in history came from grouping people and punishing based on collective guilt (whether the guilt was real or imagined). This includes the c…

Just because they are considered a group. Our group is "the people", their group is something less. It happens with completely random groups, and when there are racist, sexist etc. excuses they are only a way to make oppressors feel right.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#633

Post by takluyver »

GreaterFool wrote: post #536

Every time I read about women in tech discrimination problem I keep wondering: is it supposed to be specific to US or global? Are there any countries that could serve as an counter-example? That is, has numerical parity between men and women in tech ever been achieved without implementing targeted diversity policies? It would be great to have an example. "Look at country X! Their society doesn't discriminate based on…

I don't know of any countries which serve as a counter-example today, but apparently in the very early days of computers, programming was mostly done by women. At the time, programming was seen as a clerical job like typing or filing. As it moved from that to a prestigious, well-paid job, it also became male dominated.

Not quite the counter-example you're looking for, though.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#634

Post by carapat_virulat »

GreaterFool wrote: post #536

Every time I read about women in tech discrimination problem I keep wondering: is it supposed to be specific to US or global? Are there any countries that could serve as an counter-example? That is, has numerical parity between men and women in tech ever been achieved without implementing targeted diversity policies? It would be great to have an example. "Look at country X! Their society doesn't discriminate based on…

>Are there any countries that could serve as an counter-example? That is, has numerical parity between men and women in tech ever been achieved without implementing targeted diversity policies?

As far as I know in poor unequal societies women go more to STEM careers[1]. I'd think that's because you don't have the luxury to choose to study something that won't pay well after your parents made the effort to put you through university.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#635

Post by SidiousL »

puranjay wrote: post #567
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #555

Google really blew it. Just look at this conversation, normally happy and polite HN is barely restraining itself only because of fear of being hell banned and this is a tiny watered down version of the outrage they have unleashed nation wide. Had they just (as they should ethically have done) privately let the guy know "hey uh, independent of whether we agree with you, can you please cool it because this is USA, Bay…

They did screw up. But this guy had to be fired. Not because they had to make an example out of him, but because by publicly sharing his biases, he's ensured that a large part of Google wouldn't want to work with him. It's a team sport after all.

If you're a professional you should be able to work with people you disagree with as long as the disagreement is civil and reasoned. I'm astounded to see that you would say he "had to be fired" because "people wouldn't want to work with him". If so, I would place (at least part of) the blame on those people.

Even if you think this guy is evil, if you're open-minded and open for debate you can achieve more than by shutting him down. I remember the story of a black guy who sat down with members of the KKK and, as a result, they quit. He had all their KKK costumes at home.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#636

Post by carapat_virulat »

williamaadams wrote: post #443
jmorphy88 wrote: post #309

1) why is it a moral imperative to have 50/50 gender balance in a company? 2) why is it wrong to have a non-diverse company?

Here's the minority's perspective: 1) Why is it required that there can be no more than 20% women in a tech company? 2) Why is it required to have a minimally diverse company? If you look at these two questions and just say "hah! that's not the same thing at all!", then that's why.

Women aren't a minority.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#637

Post by Simon_says »

tunesmith wrote: post #523
lazyjones wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because his manifesto was a haphazard collection of good points, bad points, good arguments, lousy arguments, misrepresentations of others' views, and unstated implications. Is this really an honest assessment? I haven't yet seen a single reply to the manifesto that addresses its points and counters the supposedly "lousy arguments" in a neutral tone and objective manner. Please point me to one if you have...

Sure, the second paragraph of this is a good example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953024

> It's worth remembering that one of his conclusions was to end or replace gender-based diversity programs at Google. Given that, it's easy to understand why people would be upset. If gender-based diversity programs are responsible for qualified women getting jobs that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten due to bias, then the lack of that program means those women wouldn't have gotten those jobs.

This is not exactly a strong counter-argument.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#638

Post by foolrush »

libeclipse wrote: post #609
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #555

Google really blew it. Just look at this conversation, normally happy and polite HN is barely restraining itself only because of fear of being hell banned and this is a tiny watered down version of the outrage they have unleashed nation wide. Had they just (as they should ethically have done) privately let the guy know "hey uh, independent of whether we agree with you, can you please cool it because this is USA, Bay…

> Had they just (as they should ethically have done) privately let the guy know "hey uh, independent of whether we agree with you, can you please cool it because this is USA, Bay Area 2017 and you just can't say shit like that" then just waited out the controversy, this would have all been dead and gone by next week. Now it has turned into all out rage fest on both sides. Completely agree. I mean, alright, so the guy…

Posting a manifesto on medicalization / biological essentialism isn't fanatical?

I am absolutely stunned at how few sociologists are at Google that permit these sorts of toxic conceptual models to not simply exist, but come to fruition in such a crazy way.

It speaks volumes that someone would be so comfortable as to post such a destructive piece of poorly educated tripe.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#639

Post by SaltySolomon »

icelancer wrote: post #606
mehwoot wrote: post #243

Reading the letter, what surprised me was how political it was, framing everything as a "left vs right" cultural fight. I think if it was up to me I'd probably fire anybody on either side of that debate who started circulating shit like this. As soon as you're on that level, nothing good is going to come of it and you're just going to make a lot of people angry, which is very bad for the business in a lot of differen…

>The workplace is no place for politics like this. Actually, it is, in California. Political affiliation is a protected class. You have to make a different argument if you want him fired.

Him being toxic for the workplace culture and nobody wants to work with him isn't enough?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#640

Post by colordrops »

postnihilism wrote: post #275

This feels like the blue and black (white and gold) dress. It boggles my mind that people don't see the fundamental and toxic misogyny in this 'manifesto'. Please have a woman you care about in your life, preferably one in tech, read this and then ask their opinion of the piece. The "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group" sentiment of the author is fine except that we have hundreds of…

The problem is that all these programs address large grossly defined groups, leaving many individuals lost in the cracks. There are countless repressed and underrepresented groups that are barely acknowledged let alone accounted for by these programs. Even some large groups miss out. For example you regularly see black comedians thanking Arabs for being the new class of people everyone hates, yet they are considered white in the census and garner no benefit from any programs. White privilege without any of the privilege. Why are a Yemeni and an Englishman bucketed in the same category?
Post reply on HN