
Google Grapples with Fallout After Employee Slams Diversity Efforts - pkrecker
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/07/542020041/google-grapples-with-fallout-after-employee-slams-diversity-efforts?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170807
======
gavanwoolery
The irony here is the fallout from this memo is exactly what the author was
trying to fight against. Most negative reactions I have seen to the memo
attempt to shame the author without engaging in any sort of rational counter
or discourse. Whether or not the author is "right" is entirely up for debate,
but I believe they should be able to at least question the current situation
and get logical feedback as to why they are "right" or "wrong" rather than
emotionally-based feedback about how horrible of a person they are.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Most negative reactions I have seen to the memo attempt to shame the author
> without engaging in any sort of rational counter or discourse.

Likely because it's the same old pseudoscientific Gish Gallop of claims
that've been addressed a thousand times before.

[https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
man...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
manifesto-1e3773ed1788)

~~~
tooltalk
IMO, Zunger's dismissive and "corrosive" response does nothing, but reinforces
the original author's point about the majority's oppressive censorship.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/07/googles-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/07/googles-
diversity-rumpus-the-fun-thing-is-hes-right-about-the-cause-of-the-gender-
disparity/#44a84b052b41)

~~~
koomi
Agreed. I don't grasp how, in response to a text lamenting a lack of
psychological safety and fear of being shamed into silence, a response which
essentially states "what you said was stupid, you should never have talked
about it and this will have negative consequences for your career" can be
considered appropriate, let alone as having a positive impact in any
meaningful way.

------
xenity7
I would encourage everyone here to actually go ahead and read the
manifesto/letter. I did and was surprised by its tone, given the type of
headline this situation is attracting.

I think the author makes some very calm and reasoned points and is attempting
to start a discussion where he is open to being wrong.

I do NOT agree with all of the points he makes, but I think he is expressing
his views in what is largely a respectful manner that is not, for the most
part, racist or sexist in the way you might expect.

If he's wrong, and he IS wrong on some points, the proper reaction is to
engage on these points because other people are thinking them too.

Encouraging diversity and inclusion means convincing and educating people at
the margin like this guy, not virtue signaling and slamming them for not
toeing the line.

~~~
avn2109
Can confirm, the headlines/summary articles are generally
sensationalist/clickbaity. The actual document is more evenhanded than
breathless journalists would have you believe.

------
blfr
The uproar and its virality within Google first are so weird. From what I
skimmed, that post was ultra mild and the author went out of his way to
qualify everything.

~~~
minwcnt5
It may appear that way on the surface, but that's because it follows a typical
pseudo-scientific formula of citing some a few specific results as evidence to
give the argument an air of credibility, and then drawing broad and profound
conclusions that are at best vaguely related to the evidence. He basically
went from "there are biological differences between men and women that affect
their preferences" (okay, I can maybe buy that) straight to "women may not be
as good a fit as men for these roles" and "Google should consider ending all
of its diversity efforts". The evidence he cited (some of which is research
that's been debunked) doesn't even come CLOSE to justifying his conclusions.

The reason there's such an uproar within Google is that the place is full of
people with extensive training in mathematics and logic, who can easily spot
when you submit a "proof" that is missing about 10,000 steps between the low
level lemmas and the top level claims. Combine this with the fact that the
claims are questioning the right of 1/3 of the company to exist there, and of
course the reaction is going to be incredibly visceral. I honestly don't know
how anyone could read more than a paragraph of that document without their
bullshit detector exploding.

------
aaronhoffman
"...After Employee __Slams __Diversity Efforts " doesn't seem to be an
impartial headline to me.

~~~
naturalgradient
How do you mean? Aside from being the literal headline of the NPR article and
thus being right for HN, what would you suggest?

~~~
aaronhoffman
My comment was WRT the NPR headline itself.

~~~
MBCook
What would you suggest? From what I've seen that seems like a pretty apt
description.

------
vinhboy
This is a classic example of why we shouldn't feed the trolls. I am not sure
why this letter is getting so much publicity. This view point can be had any
day on reddit. Even in places like /r/technology you'll find plenty of people
throwing out these ideas.

I find it rather boring and cliche.

~~~
bradly
You may find it boring, but there are many people who's daily lives are
affected by this type of behavior. Having it displayed so broadly at a company
viewed as progressive as Google validates what marginalized people in these
groups have been saying for years but keeps getting dismissed.

