Would a "vice president for diversity, integrity and governance" be indicating Google considers itself lacking some of these?
Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
691–700 of 1001 posts
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 a double sword thing. With the program you might hire more qualified women, but also more less qualified women and you might prevent of hiring more qualified men. Because you have to hire wom…
As a woman with a disability who got hired by a diversity program, I don't give a fuck. I just need a job. Working at McDonald's sucks balls. If I really couldn't do the job, they could have fired me at the end of my probation period. I'm quite happy to earn my position after I've got it.
I second your sentiment. Even assuming we live in a perfect world were no-one is biased and hiring is perfectly fair based on skills etc, things like commuting time and accessibility of living spaces restricts what job people with impaired mobility can actually accept and as result they compete in a smaller job market.
This applies to the majority of protected categories one way or another, but people forget it's not "just because people are biased" - while many sadly are, at an explicit or implicit level, even if they weren't there are good reason to keep certain quotas around.
Edit: enlighten me naysayers, why protecting special categories with objective limitations a priory even in absence of cultural bias would be so bad?
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gender based diversity programs are hurting more than they are helping because they are confusing the role of gender diversity with the role of talent diversity. These programs are most likely not responsible for qualified women getting jobs and even if they are they are also responsible for qualified men not getting the jobs so nothing is really gained. The idea of qualification is something that is misunderstood fa…
Sure, if you define diversity as having nothing to do with gender, then of course you don't need women to have diversity. And if you define corporate responsibility as doing only what is needed to put effective people in chairs, then there is no need for diversity programs to meet corporate responsibility (at least, assuming sufficient talent). But your entire comment misses the phenomenon of biases having affected w…
Thats not what I said. Of course there is gender diversity in genetics alone, but it's not as important or meaningful as claimed and it's ironically the opposite of what you want it to mean i.e. it's not simply a question of bias against women.
Biases are affecting men, women, red haired, young people, old people, gays, lesbians, fat people, short people, people with too much education, people with almost none etc their whole life.
Singling out gender is exactly what's so wrong with this whole discussion.
Try and get a job in SV after you turn 45.
The actual problem if you really want to focus on something that would naturally bring more women into the industry, is that less women start companies or get into tech early on.
If you for some reason want to solve the problem of gender diversity, get more women to start a tech company.
It's really that simple.
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#694People can't seem to summarize his argument without getting much of it grossly wrong, because his manifesto was a haphazard collection of good points, bad points, good arguments, lousy arguments, misrepresentations of others' views, and unstated implications. A perfect recipe for people to argue past each other about it. It's worth remembering that one of his conclusions was to end or replace gender-based diversity p…
Gender based diversity programs are hurting more than they are helping because they are confusing the role of gender diversity with the role of talent diversity. These programs are most likely not responsible for qualified women getting jobs and even if they are they are also responsible for qualified men not getting the jobs so nothing is really gained. The idea of qualification is something that is misunderstood fa…
The cold, hard facts prove that unless we force a change, it will not change.
The simple counter argument to this, and what changed my mind utterly, was that the number of woman on boards never changed. "Women will setup companies" was what they said in the 70s, 50 years ago.
It never worked until we started forcing it. There's still a ridiculously small percentage of female chairs. There's still a ridiculously small percentage of female board members.
If they're just as good, as you say, and I also believe, why didn't it change? Because gender discrimination is rife.
Without positive discrimination, the status quo did not change, will not change.
Doesn't matter anything you said above, it's all noise. It doesn't correct itself like you say it will.
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gender based diversity programs are hurting more than they are helping because they are confusing the role of gender diversity with the role of talent diversity. These programs are most likely not responsible for qualified women getting jobs and even if they are they are also responsible for qualified men not getting the jobs so nothing is really gained. The idea of qualification is something that is misunderstood fa…
Sure, if you define diversity as having nothing to do with gender, then of course you don't need women to have diversity. And if you define corporate responsibility as doing only what is needed to put effective people in chairs, then there is no need for diversity programs to meet corporate responsibility (at least, assuming sufficient talent). But your entire comment misses the phenomenon of biases having affected w…
> Sure, if you define diversity as having nothing to do with gender,
I would have sworn that this would be "Not being sexist 101", but apparently words do not mean what I think they should…
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're so concerned with the advantages of wealth and education inequality, why are we still using race (a bad proxy, given the spread and distribution around the averages - the whole point of the original document) as the determining factor instead of just asking for tax returns/education records for special programs? And regarding gender - let's consider the example of salary negotiation. Now, if you research, yo…
My comment about 'White Male Persecution Complex (PC)" was tongue and cheek. I should have known that would be a mistake in this conversation. I have many white male coworkers (as you'd expect given the demographic statistics for tech) and I have nothing but the utmost respect for their ability. I don't harbor any assumption that, "that they've had a silver spoon in their mouths their whole life." I don't think that…
There are groups that have been more marginalized than "white males" on average. But that was the whole point of the original document in question.
White/black/male/female/etc is a really bad proxy for a person's history and character. Something along the lines of "don't judge me by the color of my skin but by the content of my character" rings a bell.
If you are concerned about socio-economic advantages, look at tax returns, not skin color. I know a number of white males that had extremely rough histories and disadvantages, living homeless for a few years or growing up in a cult in Utah and being abused by the leaders of the cult. I have black friends from school who were growing up in one of the richest neighborhoods in the US and attending one of the best schools in the area, going on to Stanford.
Don't dance around the disadvantages you want to correct by using race/gender as a proxy. Measure the disadvantages directly. Broken home? Poverty? Juvinile criminal record? Non-contiguous educational history? All of these are directly measurable/verifiable.
If you want to give the less advantaged individuals more of a chance to fulfill their potential I'm all for it. But measure more accurately than skin color or gender, where the spread and distribution around the averages is far too wide to be valuable, and will exclude a large group of people that have suffered disadvantages and let in a significant number of people who haven't really suffered the disadvantages their group has suffered on average.
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gender based diversity programs are hurting more than they are helping because they are confusing the role of gender diversity with the role of talent diversity. These programs are most likely not responsible for qualified women getting jobs and even if they are they are also responsible for qualified men not getting the jobs so nothing is really gained. The idea of qualification is something that is misunderstood fa…
The cold, hard facts prove that unless we force a change, it will not change. The simple counter argument to this, and what changed my mind utterly, was that the number of woman on boards never changed. "Women will setup companies" was what they said in the 70s, 50 years ago. It never worked until we started forcing it. There's still a ridiculously small percentage of female chairs. There's still a ridiculously small…
That's not a counter argument because women DIDN'T actually start companies and still doesn't. So what do you want to do? Force them to? According to you, that's what we need.
The reason why people get board seats is again one of those misunderstood discussions. It has absolutely nothing to do with qualification as in non-at-all. What it has to do with is the board members access to network, political power, special experience etc.
So as long as you and other keep insisting qualification is somehow important in this discussion, you are actually the ones making the noise.
Qualification has nothing to do with this.
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#698I've seen a lot of this argument going back and forth on the concept of "how it would feel to be a diversity hire" or "if more qualified candidates aren't getting the job". This ENTIRE line of thinking misses the point of diversity programs. The purpose is long-term--to make it so that at some point in the future you don't NEED a diversity program anymore. And that's why they are critical.
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#699I think this person might have grounds to sue Google for financial compensation. I don't think what Google did was legal. A good lawyer could probably sue millions from them.
But I understand why they had to fire him for PR reasons. It would be untenable to keep him. They will probably just write off any compensation they will have to pay him as the result of upcoming lawsuit.
Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo
#700People can't seem to summarize his argument without getting much of it grossly wrong, because his manifesto was a haphazard collection of good points, bad points, good arguments, lousy arguments, misrepresentations of others' views, and unstated implications. A perfect recipe for people to argue past each other about it. It's worth remembering that one of his conclusions was to end or replace gender-based diversity p…
I would disagree. While he obviously sees the diversity programs as misguided, he stops short of calling for an end to them. To quote: > Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. I understand that discussions within a business are different than talking with friends around the kitchen table, but I still think that you should go as far as you possibly can to have open d…
"Have an honest discussion", "review", etc, are all weasel words for "cut down on". This is the same across industries, it's bog-standard doublespeak. To "have an honest discussion" about a diversity program that we're not already having means that at least one party has a strong belief that they should be ended or seriously cut down.