
Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai - nimz
https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/
======
koolba
Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine:

> At the same time, _there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can
> safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a
> minority viewpoint)_. They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK.
> People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points
> raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings,
> questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether
> programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are
> important topics. _The author had a right to express their views on those
> topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it
> remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these
> discussions_.

Good luck with that. You can't take a guy out back and shoot him for speaking
his mind, and subsequently expect others do so.

I'm certain Google management knows this as well. They know exactly what
they're doing and they're fine with it.

~~~
cynicalkane
Also from the memo:

> _However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the
> line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to
> build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To
> suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less
> biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to
> our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do
> their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment,
> intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination._

He made his continued employment both a social and legal liability. This is a
fireable offense even if he was "right".

Also consider this. As part of Google's mandatory diversity training, one is
presented with Google's internal research claiming that unconscious bias is
real and measurable, and that diversity hiring yields both better individual
and group performance. In short, Google feels these programs are
scientifically valid. The author claims they aren't, but casually dismisses
Google's position without really addressing it. Instead we get an evo-psych
Chewbacca defense, phrased in a way that's sure to offend a large number of
people. Even if he did that in good faith, it's a colossal mistake _at best_.

~~~
chappi42
Would be helpful to know WHICH Code of Conduct he is supposed to have
violated.

From glancing over the memo I perceive that: women/man are different and men
prefer working in engineering. No need to artificially increase percentage of
women engineers with incentives. I did not notice any inferior/superior
claims.

Being fired for this polite memo? And being characterized as a kind of toxic
outcast? - I'm sorry, what have our society and companies become?

Googlers seem to be allowed to do his/her utmost only within a narrow cage of
accepted/mainstream borders.

~~~
soundwave106
I think the memo made two mistakes here.

The first, from my perspective, is that it crossed a line that you _really_
have to tread with care when it started talking about "biological IQ". Anyone
familiar with the sordid history of eugenics knows that you tread that line
_really_ carefully, both because of the sordid history of policy on that sort
of thing, the extreme difficulty of separating biological vs. environmental
constructs for IQ, and the difficulty of creating a single "IQ test" that
measures every single aspect of human intelligence. The quote about "IQ and
sex differences" (being something the left ignored) was only supported by a
link to conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (which
said some things about bias in science grants, but didn't really have anything
to say about IQ and sex differences).

This is the point where, to me, the memo went downhill. I am not sure it is
the intention (possibly the emphasis was intended to be more the politic), but
it is very easy to infer inferior / superior claims at this point, because the
whole "IQ and sex differences" thing sort of came out of nowhere.

The other reason it went downhill fast, and unnecessarily so, was because the
paper brought in "liberal" vs "conservative" American political dynamics
elements. BIG mistake. Any discussion along this line needs to be as
apolitical as possible, lest it descend rapidly into toxic left-wing vs.
right-wing tribalism territory (as, well, happened). Instead of attempting to
skirt around politics, loaded phrases were used, particularly at the end of
the memo, like "PC authoritarian", and sourced links typically were op-ed,
often with strong bias.

I agree that a lot of the memo is more some of the tribal / "role" paradigms
and elements that have been discussed in many sources over time, and there's
actually some interesting food for thought in it. I'm not terribly comfortable
that what I see as poor communication skills led to the firing. I would not
characterize this memo as "polite" though, for the above reasons.

~~~
imron
> is that it crossed a line that you really have to tread with care when it
> started talking about "biological IQ".

He mentioned this only briefly (a bracketed clause 5 words long) as an example
of science that the left ignores, because there does appear to be a difference
in IQ between biological sexes [0], with current research suggesting the
_averages_ are similar, however there is a higher variation among males,
leading to a higher proportion of men at the very high and very low ends of
the spectrum.

His comments on this were in no way used to infer one group was superior or
more intelligent than the other. He was just pointing out that the left will
ignore or deny science when it conflicts with ideology.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligenc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Current_research_on_general_intelligence)

------
dopamean
I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private
school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to
have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and
how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered
how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other
people find to be morally reprehensible.

Let's say someone at my company holds the opinion that black people are
generally too stupid to do tech jobs and they write a memo to the company
explaining that opinion. They cite sources that show how blacks underperform
academically compared to other ethnic groups and go about it in a really
professional way. Should the company just say "well this guy made some good
points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Should they tell
all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to
that opinion? As a black guy at that company I would be really unhappy about
that and I'd probably quit. I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed
to work and would love to hear some suggestions.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words
rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that
women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in
things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are
inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on
this as I spent several years training both men and women. They do enjoy
solving technical problems, but with time find them boring if left to solve
them alone. But let them work in pairs or in groups, give some interaction,
and the spark of interest is back. Most guys just didn't care or preferred to
do it on their own. I was happy with the performance of both sexes, and to say
one is better than the other is really sexist. But to state that they're
different? I'm sorry, but we're born this way, there's nothing wrong with it!

~~~
dopamean
I'm sorry but your response doesn't really answer my question at all. What I
want to hear are some suggestions about how to include people who hold
inflammatory opinions in a group that generally doesn't share those opinions.

~~~
vivekd
How do you know that the group doesn't generally share those opinions if those
opinions are considered "inflammatory" and stating them can be punished. Maybe
they're just afraid to speak up.

------
zaptheimpaler
Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough to
be the majority. It doesn't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint is..
majority > minority.

There is no debate, only angry people seeing what they want to see. Get angry
first, ask questions later (or never) - just people being people.

Googles response is simply to appease both sides as best they can, recognizing
that one is the majority. The firing is enough blood to appease the stupid &
intolerant, this post is to appease the rest.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough
> to be the majority. It doesn 't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint
> is.. majority > minority._

The operative phrase being, "loud enough". I.e. loud enough minority looks
like majority.

------
cnlwsu
Keep politics/religion out of work. Its one thing to rant on reddit at end of
day, its another to broadcast it to co workers. What did he expect would
happen? His little write up would change everyones mind? Both left/right are
extremists these days and will never change. All you will do is alienate and
anger a bunch of co workers for a few pats on back from "your" side. While the
smart people will put heads down and get actual work done at work and talk
politics at end of day at a bar with friends/family like the rest of the
country.

~~~
sremani
There was a political rally in Google Campuses in Feb 2017. So, may be you
vanilla comments are generally applicable, Google has sort of exempted itself.

Now some people in Google are creating black-lists of colleagues.

[http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-
goo...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-
cabal-blacklists/)

~~~
edynoid
That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.

~~~
cema
An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago)
there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its
opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I
wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement,
perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources
(online and offline)? Thanks!

~~~
edynoid
Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their
articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published
falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like.

The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of
course.

~~~
EJTH
Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis
instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading
something that might hurt your feel feels?

------
naturalgradient
There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments:

\- We can debate anything

\- However, some views are too harmful to be debated

\- Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to
debate/too harmful

~~~
oddlyaromatic
The memo itself was incoherent. Many of its statements made sense for debate,
and the author himself pointed out that you can't tell much about any
individual from the general data, which I think has not been focused on
enough. He seemed to think he was doing everybody a service and that his views
were not detrimental to anybody. But the actual choices in how to express the
generalities showed really bad judgement and overall apparently ran afoul of
the code of conduct. People are definitely putting words in his mouth, but at
the same time: An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a
debate on a sensitive topic. You might not instantly fire this person if he
had chosen a way to express his ideas that didn't burn bridges with half the
people who work there, if not more. This was not just "debate", it was maybe
80% debate and 20% attack on the credibility of all women in traditionally
male professions. If he did not mean it come across that way, which I believe
might be the case, then I feel sorry for him. And maybe he should have the
opportunity to edit the memo to better reflect the debate he intended. But
that's on him. He chose how to do this and what words to use.

~~~
Pyxl101
Have you read the memo? It's coherent. People just don't like what it says.
Please read this article which includes responses to the memo from four
scientists who study the subject matter:
[http://archive.is/z6xxP](http://archive.is/z6xxP)

> The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly
> all of the science and its implications exactly right. [...] This essay may
> not get everything 100% right, but it is certainly not a rant. And it stands
> in sharp contrast to most of the comments, which are little more than snarky
> modern slurs. The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the
> type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread
> resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such
> views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims
> about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response
> by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s
> arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity. The essay
> is vastly more thoughtful, linked to the science, and well-reasoned than
> nearly all of the comments. (Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at
> Rutgers University)

> For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical
> claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite
> carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are
> especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species,
> cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On
> the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years,
> written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks,
> reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students.
> Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about
> these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any
> masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state
> of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy
> rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give
> a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince
> you that psychological sex differences evolved?’) (Geoffrey Miller,
> evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico)

If you have read the memo and found it incoherent, then please explain what
part of it is incoherent. Here are some of the points made in its summary:

> [S]ilencing [people who disagree] has created an ideological echo chamber
> where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part
> explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and
> leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair,
> divisive, and bad for business.

Do you find those points incoherent? I find them to be clear. ("incoherent:
expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.")

~~~
oddlyaromatic
Thanks for the link to the article... it'll take me a little bit of time to
get into the detail. But, the second scientist in the article says the
following:

>But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google
workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant
to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful
assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very
large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect
size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using
someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s
personality would be like operating with an axe.

I would argue that even if he didn't mean to, "using someone’s biological sex
to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality" is the message he
gave to many people. I do believe his argument is more complex than that, but
it's not sufficiently accounting for this impression.

I'll continue reading. In the meantime, asking if I read the memo and showing
me the definition of "incoherent" ... can we please have a respectful
discussion? I'm happy to explain why I find the memo, as a whole, incoherent,
with examples.

(Edit: changed "first" to "second" scientist)

------
tokenizerrr
> The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we
> need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree

...So we've fired the person starting the debate? Am I missing something here?

~~~
pimmen
As the note basically says; starting a debate does not excuse you from
suggesting that some of your co-workers are there because of a "lowered bar",
your evidence being psuedo-scientific bullshit about the tech-skill
distribution among minorities and women.

~~~
mejin
What can Google or any other company do to hire more from one group (example,
women) other then by making it easier (lowering the bar) for those groups to
be hired?

~~~
pimmen
Other work Google has done to attract engineers from underrepresented groups
is reaching out to women and minorities with tech skills and make them
interested in working there. Since they still need to pass the same hiring
practices, and the same continuous fitness evaluation, we have evidence that
these engineers from underrepresented groups do measure up to the task.

------
jamesrcole
By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not
tolerate a diversity of opinions.

That does not bode well for them, for a restrictive intellectual environment
is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the
company competitive.

~~~
onion2k
_a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent
people they want to hire to keep the company competitive_

So what? This action _might_ be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it)
but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the
overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run.

To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who
are openly racist write better code I still wouldn't believe Google should
hire them.

~~~
jamesrcole
I've already covered the "So what?". I explained what I think the consequences
are likely to be, and why I think that.

------
protomyth
Frankly, the CEO has more problems than this memo. Breitbart has been a
garbage fire for a while, but if the screen shots and messages in the
article[1] aren't fake then Google is going to have some problems. This is
really not the thing you want going on when you already have a government
labor investigation underway. I wish anyone impacted luck.

1) [http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-
goo...](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-
cabal-blacklists/)

~~~
unityByFreedom
> if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake

You could share your thoughts on this rather than making a clickbait comment.

~~~
protomyth
I did share my thoughts (CEO has other problems, good luck to people
impacted), and HN doesn't allow posting images so I posted a link to the
article. Inc. Magazine [https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-
blacklists.h...](https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-
blacklists.html) looks like they are verifying them although they did not
print any.

------
k-mcgrady
This thread seems to be a perfect demonstration of the problems when it comes
to diversity in tech. People just don't seem to get it. I see the same thing
in threads around big SV names sexually harassing women (and in those cases it
blows my mind even more that people don't get that it's a problem).

It seems like a lot of people are basing their opinions on logic (fine) but in
a perfect world where everyone has equal opportunity, we live in a
meritocracy, and people are judged solely on performance. Unfortunately none
of those things are true and we need to manipulate things manually to ensure
people are given equal opportunity.

~~~
hidden-markov
This thread feels like a Breitbart comment section.

~~~
marcoperaza
That's a nice tactic for discounting people's thoughtful opinions. Cognitive
dissonance resolved!

------
spodek
To Sundar Pichai:

How could someone express the views the author felt without getting fired,
while still promoting discussion?

Is it _possible_ , just _possible_ , that Google's policies are
counterproductive? If so, how would Google find out? By what process could
someone change them?

If such processes exist, why would someone the company valued enough to hire
risk his job to send this memo?

Is it _possible_ that Google's environment does not accept some minority
viewpoints despite your beliefs and attempts?

~~~
justinjlynn
This precisely. It's a pity they'll never be specific in addressing exactly
how these points could have been raised without sanction. As admitted, the
(former) employee clearly felt the discussion was worth starting - why won't
they provide concrete examples of how they would be preferred the issues be
raised in this case? (It's a rhetorical question; of course, we know why they
won't and can't do that.)

------
rsp1984
This is definitely _the_ best response to the memo that I've read. He clearly
says which parts of the "manifesto" are an acceptable expression of opinion in
the workplace and which aren't. I am very relieved that he didn't jump on the
bashing bandwagon and dismissed the memo as a whole just because it contained
some questionable and inappropriate parts.

This makes it very credible that he's actually read the whole thing and
thought about it. Something that I miss dearly with 99% of the other
discussion contributers (e.g. [1] which is IMO just hate speech of a worse
kind than the memo it responds to).

I really thought I wouldn't write this but kudos and thanks to Sundar for such
a balanced and well thought-out response.

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

------
Sir_Cmpwn
Wow, I'm surprised to see the comments here being hateful towards this
statement. I don't think it's contradictory at all. The stance he takes is
that any subject is up for debate, so long as you don't step out of line with
respect to the code of conduct. The guy who was fired was way out of line, far
beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. Even as a particularly
opinionated person myself, who would be likely to start a lot of shit at
Google - even about diversity, I consider these limitations just.

~~~
CodeWriter23
Not saying Google has to uphold everyone's 1A rights. Not saying dude who
wrote the essay is correct either. But it's a lie to say Google's culture
supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the
tyranny of a Code of Conduct.

~~~
oddlyaromatic
>But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of
that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct.

I think people often expect 'free speech' in situations where I wouldn't. Like
a collaborative working environment where you are all professionals trying to
get work done. There is a subset of speech (so no longer 'free') that is
appropriate for working professionally with a group, especially a group from
widely diverse backgrounds. The exact boundaries change over time and between
environments, but the idea of employers setting a baseline set of elections
expectations inherently limits speech. Google supports speech within limits,
and a person who gets that could probably have navigated the politics of
talking about the legitimate issues in the memo without crossing that line.
Working together in companies is weird. Codes of Conduct attempt to
standardize expectations so that work can get done. Work is a special place.

~~~
mnglkhn2
Your argument seems to be that in an work environment opinions should be kept
to one's self. Would that apply only to Republicans or to Democrats as well?

It is an utopia to pretend that the workplace should be opinion-free.
Especially since the workplace on purpose tries to blur the lines between
personal and professional lives: dorms on campus, cafeteria, malls and dry-
cleaning amenities on campus.

If that's the direction business are going towards to then it is normal to
accept that the employee comes with opinions attached.

~~~
oddlyaromatic
Generally I think people who are basically compelled to spend time together
should use company policies, and their own judgement, to figure out what's
professionally acceptable in context and work in reference to that. I don't
agree with how home/work lines are often blurred and I see nothing wrong with
opinions being shared at work, except the naive expectation that one has the
right to say anything at all and, if it's "just an opinion", experience no
consequences. It's just basic professionalism. In the real world outside of
work, people can express all ranges of opinions (well, most), and others can
choose to react, or not. Others can even choose to just not deal with you if
they don't like your opinion (again, mostly). At work, you have a complicated
long term contractual and financial relationship to the employer and other
employees. It's appropriate for people to come into that with some self
awareness and caution about what to say, and to whom.

------
java_script
This whole thing to me is a great example of why the "Facts don't care about
feels" crowd is so disingenuous. Supporters of the memo writer talk about how
scientific and logical he was being, yet he draws lines that are not supported
by science at all. We barely know what things contribute to success of
software teams at all, let alone the implications of evopsych biotruths on
them. And all this pseudo-scientific reaching is for the grand purpose of
saying current employees who came to the company maybe from outreach programs
shouldn't have been reached out to. Which, objectively and logically, is a
dead-stupid thing to argue in an internal company-wide memo.

------
ExploitsforFun
SV has had major problems sheltering people in leadership who have used their
positions to sexually exploit their female subordinates. Yet a mid level
engineer publicly questions some of the company's diversity policies and gets
fired. Many of publicly stated reasons about women leaving tech is predatory
behavior by people in leadership. How about initiatives about getting rid of
individuals like that.

------
rewrew
Let's break down the reality of this situation as it currently stands:

1) You can't say what you want at work, period (there are no first amendment
protections at work, just from the government). The person who posted the memo
was naive and this memo from the CEO is corporate bullspeak to look good for
outside PR. That's all this is, and if you take it for anything more you're
also naive. For all intents and purposes it means nothing.

2) The company might be trying to make women feel more welcome by having the
statement from the new diversity officer and the CEO, but I can tell you as a
woman the LAST place I'd want to get a job right now is Google -- everyone is
going to look at you like you only got your job because you're female; it's
going to be extremely hard to get people to take you seriously. That's why, if
you're going to hire only for diversity (not that I recommend it), do it in
silence, don't tell the world, as it only backfires against those same
employees you're bringing in.

3) If Google really wanted to get more females and minorities in its rank it
should be looking at why it focuses so highly on only top rank schools (IF
TRUE: MAY NOT BE-- SEE DISCUSSION BELOW) -- there's plenty of great, smart
people constantly overlooked by Google because they can't see past their own
biases in this area, which some would argue is a bigger barrier to diversity
at Google than straight hiring by gender and race alone.

~~~
anthonybullard
Only going to reply to your last point, this isn't my experience at all with
Google. I work in SV, and get contacted by an internal recruiter at Google a
couple times a year. What school did I go to? None. Ok, I have a certificate
from the Defense Language Institute, but no degree. So I'm not sure this is a
problem.

~~~
rewrew
And you may be absolutely right -- I'm going off what I've heard from young
people anecdotally out of college who say they weren't given a second look
because they weren't from MIT or Cal Tech. But perhaps that's only for entry-
level positions, or perhaps my information is just plain wrong.

------
supremesaboteur
This is the moment. Google used to be this dream place to work, not anymore.
If other companies want to hire good conservative/libertarian engineers, they
should motion loud and clear that they will not ostracize employees for having
a differing political opinion

~~~
Mangalor
The truth is, in most states, you can be fired for holding any opinion your
boss doesn't like. Full stop.

~~~
bzbarsky
But California is not one of those states. See
[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101)

------
swalsh
The first thought that came to mind for me, "I disapprove of what you say, but
I will defend to the death your right to say it."

------
funnyguys
When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because
of their gender, it makes that particular gender all the 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.

Being white male, I bet most of us would never have faced any significant
discrimination and please stop pretending that we know how other side feels.

Some people are suggesting Google's stance on LGBT is alienating people -
Really? So, people who advocate taking away LGBT people's rights and opposed
to their ways of life are complaining of persecution?

------
andy_ppp
A lot of comments already misunderstanding the excellent response by Sundar
Pichai in the article.

You obviously can't say anything you like at work.

Google is offering diversity of opinion but there are things you can say that
are just stupid and will get you fired.

If you replace women in his essay with African American there would have been
about 1 second between it being posted and it being taken down, with an escort
out of the building and rightly so.

I loved this talk from Sheryl Sandberg that touches on a lot of these issues,
particularly the "joke" near the end, 39 minutes:

[https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-
develo...](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-develop-your-
voice-not-your-brand)

------
sol_remmy
Government regulation is actually the culprit here.

Google is being sued by the Department of Labor for violating a gender
discrimination regulation:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-
pa...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-
disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit)

Google's response is driven by this lawsuit. They have antitrust regulations
on one side, discrimination regulations on the other. Sundar is aware that the
government could sue Google out of business.

------
retox
A "Note to Google Employees" on a public site.

Seems legit.

~~~
dullgiulio
As you might have noticed the debate did not involve Google employees
exclusively. It is of them that he is CEO, though. It would be quite
megalomaniac to title it "To all ye of this planet, listen to me!"

------
andruby
For those who, like me, missed the news that Google fired the author of the
original memo, here's the HN discussion around that:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787)

------
funnyguys
Any one even remotely thinks that the memo was right should read this :
[https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
man...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-
manifesto-1e3773ed1788) There are some good points in the memo - like having
training and support for men, but it was largely an exercise in casting doubt
on the ability of certain subset of your co-workers to do their job.

------
mnglkhn2
Full, unedited document. Gizmodo did a hatchet job ar taking charts and links
out. People should read it and then apply reason to it. Difficult when we get
into cult-like mob mentality.

James Damore document: [[https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-
uncenso...](https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-
memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f)]

------
lolgoogle
Outside the Bay Area bubble, this is _extremely_ damaging to Google's image.

------
ropman76
The real issue is how much a corporation can enforce "correct" opinions among
it's employees. This was an internal company forum. He expressed opinions that
deviated from company policy (and from the sounds of it a lot of other
employees at Google disagreed as well) and a lively debated ensued. OK that
what sounds like a healthy thing to have happen and get ideas out there and
agreed upon or shot down. However by firing him that sends a very clear
message that any deviation from the norm will not be tolerated. That's not
diversity, that is an attempt at moral conformity.

------
vivekd
We have this thing called diversity policies, and some people agree with it,
and some people disagree with it. The people who agree with it are free to
present arguments about why workplaces are discriminatory and why diversity is
valuable.

But with this - I'm starting to wonder if the same is true for the other side.
Are people free to post counter arguments showing that lack of diversity may
be due to other factors such as difference in behaviour or tendencies? It
doesn't appear that way.

------
Caveman_Coder
When I worked at Google I saw far worse things being said about those who held
conservative opinions on Memegen and eng-misc. The real issue is not that he
expressed opinions that could be constituted as harassment, that happens all
the time at Google, the only problem is that he dared to hold the "wrong"
opinion, counter to the dominant culture.

------
sandstrom
He's basically saying the same thing that got Larry Summers axed as president
of Harvard.

    
    
        [...] stomped Harvard University President Lawrence Summers for 
        mentioning at a January 14 academic conference the entirely reasonable 
        theory that innate male-female differences might possibly help explain 
        why so many mathematics, engineering, and hard-science faculties 
        remain so heavily male.
    

At least this guy is in good company.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-
fem...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-
careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/)

------
polotics
OMG, Cancelling his vacation? what message about work-life balance is the CEO
sending? ;^)

~~~
justinjlynn
Actually, you may be joking but in all seriousness what message indeed.

------
chvid
I wonder about the internal workings of Google here; did he (Sundar Pichai)
actually ok'ed the firing of the memo author?

Is this text actually written by him or is it by some HR/communications
person? It seems very coded and indirect.

------
EJTH
> we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves

By fireing them? Really?!

I see a lot of criticism from people who didn't read the memo. Most people
just fall for the sensationalist headlines of "OMG GOOGLE RELEASED ANTI-WOMEN
MEMO REEE".

The memo wasn't that bad. It tries to highlight some very real problems in
this age of intersectional recruitment.

------
camgunz
The whole "across cultures" thing in that 1 (importantly, __one __) study is
easily explained by a couple things:

\- men grow more muscle faster and that used to be important

\- childbirth used to be (and in many places still is) very dangerous for
women

Consequently most societies defined gender roles in similar ways, leading to
similar effects across them.

Or you can go even simpler and say they're more neurotic because their odds of
being raped by a man are terrifyingly high. Or they get paid less than men and
charged more for things like health care, car loans and mortgages so they
carry a higher financial stress burden. Or their health plans are inadequate
and they're worried about what will happen if that matters. Or they're being
harassed in the workplace.

Or you can dispute the premise entirely and say the standard for "neuroticism"
was based on a culture created and still dominated by men.

\---

A lot of people are saying things like, "he didn't really write anything that
was sexist or misogynistic", but women and people of color are far too
familiar with fucked up policies justified by "biological differences". There
are real, deep, life and death social problems right now caused by misogyny
and they all stem from the fundamental idea that women have their role and men
have theirs.

What does this lead to? Health care policies that cost women more and don't
even meet all their needs. Health care systems that service women less
effectively than men (stroke symptoms are often missed in women, childbirth
mortality rates in less progressive parts of the US, etc.), jobs that pay
women less than men, laws that ignore or oppress women, etc. etc. etc. etc.
And every time, it's justified with "women are just biologically different
than men".

Why can't you express such an opinion in the workplace? Because that opinion
is responsible for the oppression of billions of women throughout the entire
history of humanity. It's not at all like arguing for wind over solar, or
honestly other political debates over private vs. public health care or
whatever. When you're talking about social issues, you're talking about
systems that have oppressed, brutalized and murdered unbelievable numbers of
people, and continue to oppress people that you work with and see each and
every day. They're not idle thought experiments or a curious hobbies. Treat
them with the sensitivity they deserve.

------
metaphorm
This is the chilliest I've yet felt the chilling effect.

------
CoffeeDregs
What a bummer. This could have been "Kubernetes for organizations", how to
manage diverse sets of containers-of-emotions/talents in a scalable fashion.
There is so little nuance and quality thinking around this topic inside most
organizations and Google could have done the community a great service by
elevating and firmly grounding the discussion. And I think there are great
discussions to be had that would lead to tech workers understanding and
desiring diversity for _actual reasons_ and not for PC/BS reasons.

But now no one will raise the topic.

------
tryingagainbro
_At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can
safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority
viewpoint)_

Define "safely" and maybe you can express your viewpoint. The good news is
that Google ain't gonna shoot you after a 15 minute trial (including appeals)
but you'll get fired and blackballed. (Google could at least give this guy FU
money with a wink and a nod.)

No company will hire you after rocking the boat....things have already been
decided by those who scream loudest. WTF are you to question them now?

------
zpq
> Aug 8, 2017

> This note was sent to Google employees this evening. -Ed.

I'm reading a note from the future. Incredible!

------
nadim
This site so janky on iOS.

------
octaveguin
Let a thousand flowers bloom.

~~~
nothrabannosir
(In case someone missed the reference: this is a comparison to Mao's Hundred
Flowers campaign,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign).
People were spurred to speak their minds freely, but, after a few years,
punished for dissenting.)

------
dsfjksdf
"The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an
environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take
action against anyone for prompting these discussions."

Maybe he missed the memo that the author has been fired? How is that
encouraging for people with unpopular opinions?

~~~
trevyn
Federal and California law protect your ability to discuss labor issues in the
workplace -- this is CYA.

See: [https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-
witchhu...](https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-witchhunt)

(The outcome of the above story: the employee was _rehired_!)

~~~
uncle_d
Now that would be hilarious.

------
xedarius
Know this, I'm cancelling my holiday just to show you and more importantly my
manager exactly how serious this is. Just to reiterate, you've all made me
cancel my holiday, you bad, me good.

------
justusw
Interesting. Was this submission kicked off the front page? I can't find it
anymore except by using the search.

~~~
sctb
It triggered the overheated discussion detector, which we've just turned off.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Idea: overheated discussion detector could probably run more efficiently the
next few weeks by replacing the implementation with 'cat thread.xml | grep
Google | grep -v technology'

------
cmurf
Completely predictable. And I'm amused that the alt-right is currently
flipping their shit over "PC nonsense" and calling for #boycottgoogle

And this dumb bro thinks he has a legal case.

I'm also amused with the pro-business anti-government types are the first to
go wailing to the government for intervention on behalf of their first
amendment rights _which do not apply to an employer_.

------
thanksgiving
A little off-topic but if you care about your employees, please make all
salary and compensation information for any employee available to all
employees (preferably make it public). Someone has to start doing the right
thing.

------
sidcool
I think this is a very good step in positive direction that the CEO is
addressing the issue in public. Independent of whether I agree or disagree
with the decision, I commend the blog.

~~~
aedron
I think it reads like typical corporate CYA double-speak, the opposite of
brave leadership.

