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

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#91

Post by jetpks »

throwgoog452 wrote: post #43
zorpner wrote: post #25

Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. Every peer review, every no-hire, every interaction , is and should be suspect. Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. This is textbook hostile environ…

> this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex Did you read the essay? He certainly did not make that claim. Population averages are not statements about individuals. This is pure censorship.

> The harm of Google’s biases

> I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

> * A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

> * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

^ Isn't that exactly what the author is saying?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#92

Post by eej71 »

ajross wrote: post #80
wildmusings wrote: post #35

The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…

> He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. No, he said quite clearly that Google was hiring too many women and minorities (and also that said women and minorities suck at tech jobs, though not in so many words). It's the specifics of the argument that got him in trouble. Bland abstract stuff like you paraphrase above wouldn't get anyone fired.

I don't see any text in there that warrants that claim. Is there a specific sentence or two that you could highlight that leads you to your conclusion?

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#93

Post by ionforce »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #30

Yep, after reading the public response provided by Google's new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance ( https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di... ) I was pretty sure this was all that was left. Regardless of whether you agreed with the letter or not, it's 100% correct in asserting that it's super difficult to have productive, rational conversations about the issue of diversity. Goo…

You don't need to go very far and blame Google for the level of difficulty. Making generalizations based on sex and without references is hostile from the get go.

If you want to have a rational conversation, have it rationally.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#94

Post by sadface »

maxxxxx wrote: post #12

This is starting to be scary. Instead of government companies are acting as thought police. I think a lot of people will watch what they are saying publicly from now on.

Good. People should be thinking twice.

Freedom of Speech is not the same thing as Freedom from Consequences. Unless we decide that being "aggressively antisocial" should be a protected class, private companies should have every right to fire employees who they deem toxic for their culture.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#95

Post by danso »

wildmusings wrote: post #35

The author's arguments have been completely misrepresented. He pointed out widely-believed and sometimes scientifically-established differences in the DISTRIBUTION OF traits in men and women. He said that those differences make attempts to achieve numerical parity misguided, discriminatory, and harmful. What is his conclusion about how we should behave? "Treat people as individuals, not as just another member of thei…

The author accused Google of discriminatory hiring practices and "hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates" (under the subhead, "The harm of Google biases"). Just because he couched his claims in a boring, vague manifesto doesn't mean he didn't imply something that impugns the qualifications of his coworkers.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#97

Post by InclinedPlane »

wyclif wrote: post #31

Fun fact: the author of the memo earned a PhD in Biology from Harvard. Google can fire him and get away with it, but it's going to be tough, very tough, for him to be falsely characterized as someone who is misinformed or unscientific. And the court of public opinion may well be more important in this controversy than any court of law.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you think having an advanced degree makes you invulnerable to common biases or errors in reasoning? Do you think that having a STEM degree makes someone knowledgeable in issues of sociology? Ben Carson is a very accomplished neurosurgeon, and yet he has enormous gaping voids in his knowledge of other subjects.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#98

Post by hardwaresofton »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #52
zorpner wrote: post #25

Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. Every peer review, every no-hire, every interaction , is and should be suspect. Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. This is textbook hostile environ…

Doesn't a policy of preferentially hiring certain groups necessarily imply that employees who are part of those groups are less capable? Like, helping folks pass the bar implies that they aren't above it - otherwise, why would they need help?

Yes, except for the case where they are already past the bar but not being considered because of biases of people doing the hiring. I think that's the case that the prevailing amount of diversity-related efforts try to solve.

You're right though, and it's actually really insulting to insinuate that certain groups need help passing the bar. You can easily identify people who think like this if you ask a question (politely) like "would you hire a candidate that was more 'diverse' but less technically skilled than another candidate?". People who would choose the more "diverse" candidate but without a principled reason are probably just virtue signalling.

Note that 'diverse' can mean anything -- like comparing a developer who used to work in construction before being turned on to programming to a developer who came out of an ivy school (assuming they have comparable skill levels).

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#99

Post by wyclif »

cthulha wrote: post #63
maxxxxx wrote: post #12

This is starting to be scary. Instead of government companies are acting as thought police. I think a lot of people will watch what they are saying publicly from now on.

I don't think you've thought this through. Maybe read the article and other informed commentary such as this ex-Googler: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

I think he's thought it through enough to see the implications. And that ex-Googler has a fairly draconian, authoritarian view of groupthink.

Re: Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

#100

Post by falcolas »

We fire people for snickering at the word "Dongle".

We witch hunt people who play at Gor in their spare time.

We hound CEOs who disagree with the popular stance on gay marriage.

We fire people who clumsily try to open a dialogue internally to a company.

The tech industry is indeed fucked, but perhaps not for the reasons that are currently popular.

Post reply on HN