81–90 of 464 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like it was one manager. Is that all you need to blacklist an entire company?
To be fair, from the outside it is often hard to tell what is one manager and what is company culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt this single incident alone is the reason, but maybe the catalyst. Google and its unhealthy lust for diversity has been an increasingly frequent topic. Hell, someone got fired for posting an anti diversity rant last year. While his arguments were weak or flat out wrong, it's clear that Google is making a point to single out underrepresented minorities to the detriment of others who may actually be better candi…
I mean, if it's the same memo in thinking of, it wasn't a "diversity memo" he was fired over, it was a manifesto that has been reviewed and agreed on as sufficient cause for his dismissal several times now. In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers. That's not a diversity memo, that's a sexist screed.
No he didn't. He said they were inherently less interested in STEM, and speculated about a few personality characteristics from psych research that might explain why, but all of that is irrelevant. Damore explicitly said that you can't judge individual competence from a probability distribution, even if the distribution of competence of each gender were different (which they largely are not).
Here's a broad overview of the literature covering what Damore got right and wrong: http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-re...
Turns out, he was right that women seem to have different interests. I suggest reading about the things vs. people hypothesis. You can get more women into STEM subfields that deal with people if you highlight those aspects. Hiring quotas and some of the other measures Damore was arguing against would indeed have no effect on gender diversity given these facts.
> In a statement, Google said that it would “vigorously defend this lawsuit,” adding that it has a “clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.” This sounds contradictory.
Please consider not working here, if you have other options (which you almost always do)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is the first big company that I actually rejected after receiving an offer from them. I had a really bad experience, and just felt like the company was looking for things I am much more qualified from. I was interviewed by engineers who were all just recent college grads, no managers, tech leads, or anyone I felt were probably more qualified to interview me. The environment felt toxic. Most people I talked to…
Maybe you failed the test that you were supposed to remove the plates :-O
A screenshot of an email from Allison Alogna to "Team" stating
> Please continue with L3 candidates in process and only accept new L3 candidates that are from historically unrepresented groups.
Another stating in part
> And we should only consider L3s from our underrepresented groups.
It also tells us that this wasn't the first time the plaintiff had issues with his manager over this topic. He had the same issues with the previous manager, the previous manager was found by internally by Google to have retaliated against him for his complaints, and Allison Alogna was hired to replace that manager.
[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391847-18-CIV-00442...
I fear that all this recent news about diversity and Google will create an environment where perfectly qualified non Asian minorities won't feel welcomed or will unfairly have their competency questioned.
One thing I never understand is how people claim to support both equality and pro-minority/anti-majority actions at the same time. It's like saying you support democracy and kim jong un.
> One thing I never understand is how people claim to support both equality and pro-minority/anti-majority actions at the same time. If you believe that the status quo is systematically biased, you cannot meanignfully support equality without supporting action to correct the bias.
Unfortunately, most countries/organisations seem to prefer second one, because it's easier and shows effect earlier, although over long period of time, it's going to be the worse one.
One thing I never understand is how people claim to support both equality and pro-minority/anti-majority actions at the same time. It's like saying you support democracy and kim jong un.