Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#701

Post by issa » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:32 AM UTC

redditmigrant wrote: post #680

RealityNow wrote: post #290

It's incredibly ironic that a company that apparently cares about diversity enough to have a "Vice President for Diversity" fired an employee for presenting an opposing viewpoint - to their diversity policy of all things. Further evidence that Google and the other large institutions don't actually give a rat's ass about "diversity". Diversity has absolutely nothing to do with diversity of thought, and is only concern…

Diversity by its essence is about diversity, and hence accepting people who are opposed to diversity is antithetical to the idea of diversity. So this argument of accepting diverse viewpoints including those against diversity is non-sensical. The idea behind diversity is not to ignore gender differences, or racial differences, but to have the belief that skill and talent exists can come from anywhere. So these viewpo…

Exactly. You either think women can be in tech or you don't. If you don't, there isn't really room for compromise, so the notion of an "open" discussion is a red herring in addition to being incredibly insulting.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#702

Post by gambiting » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:33 AM UTC

jorgemf wrote: post #235

tunesmith wrote: post #123

People 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…

> 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…

My sister was extremely put off going into CS after the career adviser at her school literally told her "you should go into CS since companies will have to hire you because you are a woman and they have quotas to fill". She was so upset by this she didn't even want to consider trying a CS degree.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#703

Post by jamesrcole » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:34 AM UTC

Can you imagine the outrage there'd be if a company with a more conservative-learning workforce fired someone for circulating a liberal-leaning memo?

Two caveats: I'm not saying this is a perfect analogy, though I think it's good enough to make the point. And keep in mind you'd have lots of people in that situation making the same sorts of claims that the reasoning in the memo was flawed etc etc.

BTW, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I am not a conservative.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#704

Post by josteink » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:36 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #700

gopz wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Stated differently: Someone has an opinion that the system currently in place doesn't fully work and wants to discuss change.

If we're not allowed to invite to a discussion, how else do you suggest we facilitate change, or investigate the need for such change?

You don't seriously imply that there's never a need to review the basis for existing programs? Or are you just ignoring the general principle of things "because diversity"?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#705

Post by issa » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:39 AM UTC

People keep saying "the workplace isn't a place for politics" as if the reason minorities have been kept out of tech in the first place hasn't been because of politics. Not being allowed to vote is politics. Not being allowed education is politics. You cannot separate the two.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#706

Post by fiblye » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:39 AM UTC

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…

I agree that work and politics should be separate, but Google has already built itself a reputation for its strong political leanings. Every few weeks they have some sponsored video on YouTube promoting their political leanings and their involvement in the US gov isn't exactly a secret. Google is pretty much a Political Think Tank++ at this point.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#707

Post by lurker69 » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:40 AM UTC

cropsieboss wrote: post #644

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…

> If one of the things you have to deal with as a woman in tech is seeing 10 page pseudo-intellectual manifestos about your inherent inferiority at performing in technical and leadership roles published at one of the premier tech companies in the world, and then see that piece supported on the most popular tech social sites then it's no wonder we have the gender gap we see today. Could you provide citations in the ma…

Yeah I also didnt get feeling from reading the memo that is was misogynistic.

James just tried to point out that reasons for gender gab in tech might not be only sexism as current left leaning agenda dictates.

I understood memo more like complaining that employees with opinions that differ from "current left leaning agenda" are afraid to express them. And google proved him right by firing him.

This political correctness has brought us very close to Orwellian double think. Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote:

> “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it.”

And used this as basis to fire guy who expressed his concerns.

His appeal to replace diversity of gender and race with diversity of thought is completely valid and reasonable.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#708

Post by znfi » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:44 AM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #668

ThomPete wrote: post #658

Earlier 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…

Honestly, I have a hard time understanding much of these "biases having affected women their entire lives", maybe you could expand on what you mean by the points you bring up. I attempt to clarify why I have a hard time understanding it:

"from what hobbies they were steered towards"

Ok, but the thing I don't quite understand here is that it's not like men are "steered" towards tech that strongly either. At least when I was young it was not "cool" to be some geek who sat infront of the computer all day, in fact quite the opposite.

"to their experiences during education"

I'm in Europe and I have no clue how a woman can have a worse experience in the educational system over here. Women tend to perform better in school and I'd to so far as to say that things are probably the other way around. Based on anecdata more "traditional" boys/men are probably very poorly served by the current educational system and there could be much done here.

"to their interviewing process, to their working environments after having jobs"

Again, I'm rather confused here. Is this some reference to startups? This whole debacle seems to show that women, at least at the larger corporations, has some clear benefits. As anecdata I can add that I've had women tell me "getting an internship at Corp XYZ was very easy, they kept telling me they were looking to hire more women". I've heard a professor comment on hiring new faculty by saying "If we don't hire a woman we have failed", etc.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#709

Post by imartin2k » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:45 AM UTC

I am starting to think that this type of debate will only work constructively once we have Elon Musk's brain computer and are able to express our complete world of thoughts to each other. Using words is so unbelievably flawed, as it is impossible for anyone to communicate in full what they actually want to say, without being perceived as saying something else as well.

Is it possible that humans have reached their limits of current collective intellectual capacity?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#710

Post by gopz » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:46 AM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #700

gopz wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we're in agreement on what the original author personally believes about diversity programs. But there is a difference between outright calling for the end of diversity programs at Google and wanting to discuss it further. It seems that the commenter I originally replied to in this chain doesn't differentiate between these two goals, which is why I said something in the first place.