
Google’s Testament to Political Correctness - RealityNow
https://medium.com/@jeremybernier/googles-testament-to-political-correctness-eb7d9ac974b5
======
ErikVandeWater
What I found unusual is that many of the initial stories about the memo _had
no quotes from the memo whatsoever_.[1]

Is this SV PR doing a good job, or is it that it was impossible to verify the
memo? From what I read, I did not see any mention of attempts to find, verify
and link to/quote/distribute the memo in question.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-
fi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-
employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo)

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16111724/google-sundar-
pic...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16111724/google-sundar-pichai-
employee-memo-diversity)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/08/google-
fire...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/08/google-fires-
employee-behind-anti-diversity-memo-perpetuating/)

The Federalist is the only site I found to apparently include the memo, though
I did not fact-check the article: [https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-
the-google-diversi...](https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-
diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/)

~~~
cyphar
Considering the main version of the memo that was circulated was doctored (and
the article stated they had doctored it), I wouldn't put much stock into
anyone having bothered verifying it. But I don't think that's the reason
nobody has quoted the document, it's because nobody bothered to do their
research.

"Professional" journalism really isn't doing it's job well at the moment.
Everyone just copies the same article contents and titles, and nobody does any
actual research. It's quite apparent if you read two articles by similar
publications on the same topic -- they contain effectively the same contents
which tells me that very little independent research is done.

There was a particularly striking recent example of this, when the director of
the movie "The Red Pill" was being interviewed on Australian TV. The questions
being asked of her came from people who clearly had only seen the movie
trailer, and upon asking whether they had seen the movie (she had sent them
links to stream the movie for free several times) they said they "couldn't get
it to work". Which means that they objectively were conducting an interview
without the faintest clue what the subject was.

------
prepend
I don't think it's safe to comment on these types of articles online. These
comments are stored and indexed forever and whatever we say could be used
against us at some point in the future.

You may think you are reasonably debating or discussing something, but you
have to consider that someone in the next 50 years may review your post
history and use it against you.

Theoretically, we would need to make throwaway accounts to have meaningful
discussions.

~~~
RealityNow
That's essentially the problem that the article is trying to bring attention
to - our culture of intellectual hostility.

The only way this will ever change is if people stop caving in to political
correctness.

I realize it's a prisoner's dilemma in that individually it's in nobody's best
interest to speak out, but that's an incredibly selfish mindset. We need to
start valuing integrity and doing the right thing. It was never in any
slaveholder's best interest to speak out against slavery, or in any white
person's best interest to speak out against racism in a Southern community in
the early 1900s after a lynching - but speaking out was the right thing to do
and should be commended.

~~~
funnyguys
This is not the same thing, is it? From reading the comments in most forums,
looks like people seems to at least partially support the contents of the memo
and the guy for writing this. Also, he is not speaking out in support of the
minority, he is insinuating that they may be biological not suited for the
job.

<s>If only we could decide the characteristics and job of a person based on
the person's birth, race and other things totally out of a person's control,
society would be so much better.</s>

~~~
beaconstudios
but that's not what he's saying at all is it? The memo says that the diversity
initiatives that google puts in place (I presume trying to get close to 50/50
gender representation) is a bad idea because more men than women are going to
be developers naturally, due to gender differences in interest or aptitude.
That doesn't mean women can't be developers or that female developers are less
capable - it means there are naturally going to be less of them. I don't
understand why so many people are misreading what the memo author was saying.
Is it wilful?

~~~
funnyguys
I read in comments from people who claimed to work for Google - diversity
initiatives in Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female
ratio in the applicant pool. Couple of other companies I know where number of
employees are in thousands, the diversity initiative aims to achieve something
similar. That does not seem like a bad idea at all.

Humans are complex beings. Is interest in a specific field or profession a
function of only gender? Would not the surrounding environment, role models,
religion, books read, experiences in life and various other countless factors
affect a person's interest and character?

I don't think he was wilful. He was wrong to reduce a complex subject like
human interests and behaviour into a simple statistical function.

~~~
RealityNow
> Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female ratio in the
> applicant pool.

This is a laudable goal only if gender isn't used to discriminate against
candidates. Discrimination on gender and race is wrong, period. Discriminating
against men, whites, and Asians is still discrimination, and is not ok.

Nobody's going to disagree with you that environment and the individual play a
strong role in affecting one's character. These straw man arguments are
getting old.

------
taysic
According to the article some of the things that will "and will get you
socially lambasted"

"Any statement that perpetuates female stereotypes is sexist, even an
innocuous joke (or even a misconstrued joke in someone else’s private
conversation)"

"Prostitution is sexist against women" etc

Um wtf? No these are not appropriate in a work environment. If you want to
have a place with meaningful controversial discussion that's not the work
environment.

I'm a lady and I honestly would feel uncomfortable if people were discussing
these things at work. I really could not care less what other people's
opinions are on these issues but I know I'm there to do my job as best as I
can no get siderailed into lengthy controversial and highly likely
uncomfortable discussions.

Suggesting that Google needs to be a place to comfortably voice off your
random ideas is pretty irrational. It really doesn't.

Anyway, what does that even look like tangibly? Unprofessional...
uncomfortable. It would not result in people agreeing with each other more
just becoming less likely to like one another.

~~~
RealityNow
That was simply a list of topics that PC culture has deemed indisputable and
heresy to even question. The topic of whether or not they're appropriate in a
work environment is a whole different discussion.

The Google memo was pertaining to their own company's diversity policy, and
hence should be fair game for discussion. If that makes you feel
uncomfortable, then the Obama quote at the bottom of the article summarizes my
thoughts.

~~~
taysic
They appear completely related to what is heresy to discuss at Google. The
section starts off with

"Some takeaways from this whole fiasco"

"Here are some of those politically correct assertions that take on almost
religious-like qualities..."

And thus appear to be completely linked to the topic of the Google "fiasco".
Very confusing way to present the article if they are not relevant.

College is a very different place than a workplace. I am not required to
interact with anyone on my college campus. Additionally, a workplace works
best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or
controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes.

The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his
memo. So what?

I only read the first part - and I'm no expert on these topics but I haven't
experienced any exceptionalism within this profession as a woman. To the
contrary, my code is out there in the open ready for scrutiny all the time. I
truly believe this is a meritocratic profession. My understanding is that
companies aim to hire equally qualified workers from more backgrounds of
diversity. Even better, they have an economic incentive to do so.

Many of the time the people writing these things are looking for something to
complain about. I haven't worked at Google but I haven't experienced this to
be imbalanced in the way it's being portrayed.

I guess you can say the memo was put out there, and a discussion was had.

~~~
RealityNow
Apologies if the presentation was unclear, will see if I can make that
clearer.

> Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place
> for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone
> "innocuous" jokes.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I prefer workplaces, or any
environment for that matter, where we all respect each other enough to be open
to the discussion of any topic and not easily offended over stupid meaningless
jokes. That does not mean that one has to share their political beliefs or be
pestered to engage in controversial debate - but a culture where everyone has
to watch out for every little thing they say because any non-PC mark could be
misconstrued and used as grounds for firing simply because someone deemed it
offensive is intellectually hostile, unhealthy, and not the type of
environment I want to be in.

> The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his
> memo. So what?

That's not why the author is upset. The author got fired.

~~~
taysic
The author was fired but I certainly wouldn't describe the reason as due to
"any little thing they say". Most of the time people are fired for harassment,
which can be nuanced but a normal company compliance training can get one up
to speed.

The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice
this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his
female coworkers who may feel he finds them potentially undeserving of their
jobs or in excess supply, as implied by the article.

Sounds wonderful for the work environment, no? At the end of the day, Google
is a company out to make money and build good culture in their company.

I respect your desire to surround yourself by those who aren't easily offended
or too PC and I trust you will find many friends like that. However, that
isn't really appropriate for the workplace where it's not your right to be
treated well for any behavior.

Its an interesting topic to discuss but personally I think progress is with
diversity. Not just for society but it benefits companies as well. I think
they are seeing that and ultimately they are allowed to do what they wish.

~~~
RealityNow
The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as
inappropriate.

If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated,
then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative
action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented
racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of
affirmative action itself.

I'm a huge proponent of diversity in the sense of embracing people with
different perspectives and ideas. Deciding that you need X% of females and Y%
of colored people does not make you a proponent of diversity, except in the
shallow sense of wanting some set of racial representation. The strongest
advocates of this form of racial diversity in my experience tend to actually
be the most hostile towards diversity of opinions - like all the people
deeming this memo sexist who fail to bring up any coherent argument backing up
their claims (since most of them never read the document).

And one of the points of the memo was that we need to de-moralize diversity
and allow people to have an honest discussion over it (which he ironically got
fired over).

Diversity of thought > Diversity of appearance

~~~
taysic
As I already explained diversity of thought isn't appropriate in a workplace.
If it were, that would mean bullying and teasing would be appropriate. The
problem is where to draw that line.

Where Google drew this line was firing someone for implying some people were
undeserving of their jobs due to the biological argument. This declaration
breeds hostility and is an outright attack on the qualifications of his
coworkers.

As far as I know, affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies
practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants. I
agree with this and think it's great companies can make their own decisions.

I've applied to jobs for startups where I would have been the only woman on
the small team and bro culture was strong. I don't fault them but I declined
those positions. I've gravitated toward companies like Google and their
diversity policies have attracted talent like me. Companies do this in their
own self interest.

I just want to clarify I'm not at all offended that the memo writer wrote what
he did. I would feel offended if someone I worked with felt like there were
too many woman in their office while there were only 5% and I felt that they
were all qualified.

Even measuring qualification is tricky as unless you are someone's manager.
More often than not, I've witnessed men make poor assumptions unaware of their
own prejudices. For example, I got accepted to a very good college. I was
surprised as to how many men thought it was only because I was a woman.
However I knew for a fact I got better grades than them. I simply didn't
advertise mine.

~~~
RealityNow
Bullying and teasing is not diversity of thought. Diversity of thought means
being open to people with different perspectives and opinions. Bullying and
teasing is unacceptable.

The author did not state or imply that his co-workers were undeserving of
their jobs. He was simply stating that biological differences may influence
one's career ambitions.

For example: Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have
something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a
profession than men.

This statement does not imply that men shouldn't pursue psychiatry, just that
they're probably less likely to do so. I don't see how that statement is
sexist.

> affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking
> diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants

I'm not sure what the difference there is. Google calls itself an "affirmative
action employer", and thus likely engages in the same kind of affirmative
action that colleges do.

It's unfortunate that you've been the brunt of such prejudices. But as long as
affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of
underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist.

A better and more fair way of promoting diversity is to keep the interview
process strictly meritocratic and gender/race-blind, but engage in initiatives
that help prepare underrepresented minorities (ideally from low income
backgrounds) for the interview process and encourage them to apply. My one
stipulation would be that these programs should be open to anyone, rather than
being restricted by race/gender.

~~~
taysic
"Diversity of thought means being open to people with different perspectives
and opinions."

Where exactly do you draw that line? As some thoughts are felt as hostile/
insulting to other people and enter grey territory. You can't really obligate
people to be open to all thoughts - good luck with that.

What does that look like anyway within a workplace? If such a memo was sent
out in my workplace and I had a slew of different thoughts on the topic, would
I be allowed to spend work time to pitch my ideas to my coworkers and discuss
them to my hearts content or simply send out a memo of my own? And then where
does it end?

"Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do
with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men."

While that may be true statistically it's impossible to prove woman choose
psychiatry because they're empathetic rather a myriad of other complex
reasons. I can tell you as a woman, I don't think Biology plays a large part
at all.

"But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating
in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist."

Affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and balance out the
effect of existing prejudices and biases when interviewing etc. So the real
question is do you think those prejudices exist and can be alleviated by
affirmative action? I do and talking with the woman of the previous generation
I would say we've come a long way thanks to affirmative action.

Thanks for the discussion!

------
debatem1
Not going into the merits of any particular point of view, but it's amazing to
me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that
their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest.

In most areas of political life factions work to recruit seemingly nonpartisan
entities to advance their agendas. They go to great lengths to compellingly
demonstrate how what they want is really good for everyone. Saying "I was
elected by X so I'm doing Y" is only used as an argument of last resort.

But on diversity issues people get up on soap boxes and unabashedly advocate
for their side. Arguments for diversity as a broader virtue are seldom
advanced forcefully, and when they are there's usually not much of an effort
made to reconcile that virtue with specific policy prescriptions. It's
bizarre.

The end result is that you have a game of tribes and quislings, where facts
don't matter and nobody agrees on what appropriate steps are to deal with
diversity issues because the only thing people agree on is that everybody else
is acting selfishly.

So here you have a guy who wrote a thing advocating for guys. The rest of the
world views him as a sexist. Sundar fires him. The guys who agreed with the
author of the manifesto view Sundar as a quisling. The rest of the world still
views Sundar with suspicion as a member of Tribe Guy. Nothing improved, but
lots of anger was generated. Eventually there will be something from Tribe X,
and more or less the same thing will occur with roles reversed.

Is it so hard to consensus build on these issues that even bothering to frame
the discussion better is a waste? Or is it just easier and more cathartic to
be angry and build support that way?

~~~
zimpenfish
> it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work
> to ensure that their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest

I argue strongly for diversity etc. and I am a privileged high-earning healthy
English speaking white dude - literally one of the easiest levels of life
there is.

------
beaconstudios
Of all the things the author mentions as being propped up by political
correctness, this:

> Capitalism is the best economic system

sticks out like a sore thumb. I thought progressivism was more of a market
socialism type affair? A disproportionate number of diversity quota advocates
are open socialists or communists.

~~~
RealityNow
Open communists? Interesting, I've never met any of those. Perhaps Silicon
Valley and California are a lot different in that regards to NYC, where
declaring yourself a communist is sacrilege.

~~~
beaconstudios
well I don't know the situation on the ground so well as I'm in the UK, but
certainly online most of the PC types I've spoken to are avowed socialists (as
in proper socialism, not the Republican definition) and a few are communists.
Looking at the on-the-ground anti-free-speech protests that have become so
iconic of the movement you'll see a lot of anarcho-communist symbology and
tactics like the black bloc.

------
mindfulplay
I don't understand this stupidity - the original dude who wrote this thing.

A company is not a place to air out your public opinion internally and expect
no consequences. This is not the National Monument. This is not your open Mike
night in your comedy club. This is not where you scream and run and then cry
first amendment first amendment.

This is a place of work. Actual women work with this dude. Imagine how they
would feel. Imagine the potential number of people he interviewed that were
women or minorities.

Nobody's telling this sad dude what to do outside of work. He could very well
go and participate in all far right movements as he pleases.

But to espouse a stupid thing as 'women are less capable' and expect NOT to be
fired seems like he was playing with fire by first setting things on fire.

And let's not get started on 'did you ACTUALLY read his memo? He didn't say
that on page 4 line 43' like this is some Tolstoy level philosophical meta
writing. This is mediocre crap written by a dude looking for a reason to get
offended and throw shit around - someone who I think probably landed on the
wrong side of Reddit or 4chan often times.

Sorry. The most serious crime I think is his ingenious creativity that made
the CEO and many well-respected people to actually read his crap. If I only
had that talent, I would become a professional performance artist and quit
software engineering.

~~~
funnyguys
This exactly - it was mediocre crap. When you insinuate that some of your co-
workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that gender
more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to
take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for
them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is
frowned upon – not just because of innate sense of right or wrong. If this is
being politically correct, then damn right I am politically correct.

This reminds me of the movie Gattaca - let us start deciding the traits of
people based on the gender, race and blood samples and assign jobs based on
that.

~~~
RealityNow
So is stating that women tend to be more empathic than men sexist and creating
a hostile environment?

