Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces • Hacker News Board

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#641

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

chitowneats wrote: post #616

whimsicalism wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are rules that you've invented, not every "cancellation" results in a firing even for people posting actually racist stuff. Indeed, there are plenty of people with racist posts who are routinely not fired by these companies. The contradiction is pretty clear - the guy is decrying these tactics, but still saying this person should be fired using exactly those same tactics.

Interesting that your comment implies that the blog post in question wasn't "actually racist". To me that speaks volumes.

I can see where you got that implication, it wasn't the intention of my comment - the last few line of the blog post are obviously anti-semitic.

I probably should have used the word "really" rather than "actually", as I was trying to contrast the minor response with the harm of the offense, not contrast other racist things with this racist thing.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#642

Post by datavirtue » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

nazca wrote: post #37

Slightly shocking that he didn't get fired. (yet?) They fired Damore for writing an email that was tone-deaf, insensitive, but largely supported by research. Bobb goes on a clearly antisemitic rant, and just gets reassigned. Is Google inconsistent, or has their policy on how to deal with these things changed over the past few years?

Read Damore's post again and you might see the epic burn he laid on Google executives. That is why he was instantly purged.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#643

Post by morelisp » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:22 PM UTC

dbingham wrote: post #572

dgb23 wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My intuition from reading these quotes is that this person spent a lot of time thinking about socioeconomic differences in relation to race[0], so they see things through that lens. It can come off as hostile, but the more generous interpretation that they simply emphasize this theme. [0] I dislike the term "race" in these contexts. In biological terms there is only one human race currently alive as far as we know. E…

A racial construct has been used to shape every facet of our society and we can't make right those wrongs with out maintaining an awareness and understanding of that construct. We can't undo the historical (and current) harms of racism with out continuing to see race. This is why the colorblind approach to solving racial issues failed. All it did was make us blind to the continuing harms of racism and there for unabl…

On this topic I strongly recommend Racecraft by Karen and Barbara Fields.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/233136/racecraft-by...

"Race-blind" anti-racism is like "money-blind" anti-poverty programs. You can't effectively fight racism when you ignore its most fundamental product.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#644

Post by bitwize » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #468

honkycat wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? I can think of plenty of reasons why google would want a head of diversity. - They may find diverse teams to perform better - or maybe highly qualified people prefer to work on diverse teams so it helps with recruitment - or their leadership value creating a more equitable society by giving people in under-represented groups the opportunity to work at google. If any of the above are true why should they not…

Companies are diverse as a side effect of hiring for competence. They aren't competent as a side effect of hiring with diversity as a goal. The statistically illiterate HR minions who preach the correlation between diversity and performance don't get this, because they aren't even educated enough to understand correlation/causation fallacy.

And you're not educated enough to understand that "meritocracy" is a myth that entrenches existing power and privilege structures, because the people who are good at something are the people with the resources and social capital it takes to get good at that thing.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#645

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

throwaway3699 wrote: post #346

devwastaken wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not threatened by "cancel culture". What are people going to do? Get them banned on Twitter? Won't happen, and that's the extent of the possible damage. Google does this because someone in the corp didn't like what this guy said, and canned them. People do that because they have beliefs. In the U.S. firing people, protesting, and overall underhanded methods are also a Hallmark of "the right" whenever someon…

The religious right was also wrong. The 90s were abhorrent. But that doesn't excuse current behaviour from the left today.

I'm curious - is it ever okay to fire someone based on something they posted on their blog?

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#646

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #633

nashashmi wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how his words based on the article were anti Semitic. They were anti Israel. And I find that you and everyone here and at google are having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Further based on the other comment to this post he was quite an activist. Fighting for rights of the racially oppressed and in minority. He went against white people and Israel? He is not racist. He is just anti majority dom…

The quote was: "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself" Yes, the sentiment is (possibly) anti-israel, not anti-semetic, but the wording itself implies that Jews have insatiable appetites for war. I'm not saying it wasn't an honest mistake, but someone who is chief diversity officer at a major corporation should certainly be attuned to the difference…

[deleted]

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#647

Post by local_dev » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

bozzcl wrote: post #489

agentofoblivion wrote: post #40

Only the purest of the pure can lead a diversity effort. And it doesn’t count unless you were pure from the beginning. Growing to overcome past problems is not sufficient.

Alternatively, you could just delete your social media accounts regularly to minimize your trail.

I find the best solution is to simply never use a social media account attached to your real identity.

Innocent comments taken out of context or a general changing of accepted speech can turn a decade old bit of text into damning evidence of bigotry, racism, or any other ism.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#648

Post by ant6n » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #633

nashashmi wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how his words based on the article were anti Semitic. They were anti Israel. And I find that you and everyone here and at google are having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Further based on the other comment to this post he was quite an activist. Fighting for rights of the racially oppressed and in minority. He went against white people and Israel? He is not racist. He is just anti majority dom…

The quote was: "If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself" Yes, the sentiment is (possibly) anti-israel, not anti-semetic, but the wording itself implies that Jews have insatiable appetites for war. I'm not saying it wasn't an honest mistake, but someone who is chief diversity officer at a major corporation should certainly be attuned to the difference…

But it was also quoted worse in the tweets.

"If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself," (…)

"If I were a Jew today, my sensibilities would be tormented. I would find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the long cycles of oppression that Jewish people have endured and the insatiable appetite for vengeful violence that Israel, my homeland, has now acquired."

It just became “If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing” in the tweets.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#649

Post by ta2161 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #533

lgleason wrote: post #247

Live 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…

I don’t see how his words based on the article were anti Semitic. They were anti Israel. And I find that you and everyone here and at google are having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Further based on the other comment to this post he was quite an activist. Fighting for rights of the racially oppressed and in minority. He went against white people and Israel? He is not racist. He is just anti majority dom…

He specifically stated "if I were a Jew", not "if I were a Zionist". That makes it explicitly anti-semitism.

You'd think that the global head of diversity would know the difference between Jews and Zionist.

Re: Google removes its head of diversity after 2007 blog post surfaces

#650

Post by morelisp » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #502

germinalphrase wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe the acknowledgement of race or racial difference to be intrinsically bigoted?

> acknowledgement of race or racial difference Acknowledgment of race is inherently an essentialist position; that there is an essence to being a certain race that sets it apart from other races. Doesn't matter if that position casts the purported essence in a positive or negative light, it is bigotry in one way or the other.

> Acknowledgment of race is inherently an essentialist position

No, you can acknowledge race as a widespread social construct, which having been constructed, has material effects that can only be fully discussed by including race. The idea that we can only discuss categories with an essential characteristic is, itself, an incorrectly essentialist idea.