I hope that he also sues media outlets for slander. To sum things up :
- fairness & lack of prejudice wrt minorities/women : goal
- minorities/women % in the workforce : metric
- diversity hiring : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox .
- without diversity hiring, differences in women vs men applicants pools, which can be explained by differences in *distributions* of interests, have no impact on distribution of skills in the workforce
- women are talented enough so that they just need to be *attracted* (e.g. better work/life balance) rather than pity-hired
This is my takeaway from the "screed". How could it be framed as «anti-diversity», much less «alt-right» ?
How could saying that «women are, on average more people-oriented and men are more thing-oriented» be framed as «women are inferior, biologically incapable of coding» ?
I hope that people get punished for such a dishonest character assassination !
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows: You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
I just finished reading it. I agree with some of the points, particularly: "Don't alienate conservatives." I consider myself left leaning. But if we are going to talk about tolerance and acceptance, then you have to attempt to do that across the board.
The entire manifesto seems like a first draft. I don't think presenting gender differences as biologically based was even necessary to support his main points. Even if on average genders exhibit different preferences, I'm still on the fence as to why.
And I can't tell which part was so offensive that people had to take time off and this guy needed to be fired.
I consider myself as leftist as possible with a functioning and informed brain. Yet I know that "left leaning" and "right leaning" are mostly biases that we use to orient ourselves in a world too complex to be fully understood. EDIT : I think that everybody should read http://righteousmind.com/ from J. Haidt.
Wrt to whether differences are biologically based or not, I'm convinced that one day, we'll look back at the Nature vs Nuture debate like we do with the Particule vs Wave debate for light. The sooner the better.
As to which part was so offensive, it's akin to wonder which spells got the witch burning at the stake. Witnessing so many smart and compassionate people join the angry mob really scared me : I have no reason to believe that I would not do the same if the right buttons were pushed.
I can't help but agree with almost everything he said about general traits in men. They seek esteem over most everything else, and are competitive by nature. And that explains at least part of the reason they're drawn to leadership positions in companies.
Of course I'm not going to get fired for saying that publicly.
Is it not possible that men are more competitive and seek leadership positions because most leadership positions are already held by men? Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging — it says "You can do this!" Modern society has built an image of men becoming successful, and so in a self-fulfilling prophecy the society's leadership positions are dominated by men who were told they would end up there.
I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. It seems to me to be primarily caused by societal expectations which are enforced starting from a young age.
Yep, the idea there is that representation matters. After Obama was elected, there was a whole spate of articles quoting young Black children, saying, "if he can do it, I can do it." A new world of possibility opened up to them, just because someone had done it.
When one of those recent Star Wars movies came out (I haven't seen any of them, so I might get the details wrong), and one of the leads was a Latino guy, I saw a few interviews with Latinx fans basically saying the same thing--"now I can see myself as the hero of the story".
Of course it matters, but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life. There are firmly established natural explanations for male drive which aren't overcome by representation.
> but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life.
I'm... confused why you decided this was a valid argument. Nobody said that anybody would assume this. The point of the other comment was that young Latino kids are used to seeing white males as the protagonists in stories, but seeing a Latino guy as a protagonist has altered how they perceive themselves.
> I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard.
Yep, the links between testosterone and hierarchy/drive/dominance have been established for decades. Its effects can be examined between males, and across multiple species, but there's actually no natural imperative which drives men in this regard. Come on man.
You gotta understand, those literature students who learned critical theory know far better about these topics than biologists and psychologists.
Of course hormones mean nothing. You think it's adrenaline making your heart beat stronger when you think you're in danger, or is it really social constructs all the way down?
I kind of resent the way you say "literature students" as though (1) you think it's valid to assume from my comment that I'm a literature student (I'm not) and (2) that somehow literature students in general are all the way you describe (they aren't).
Maybe in the future consider adding to the discussion constructively instead of resorting to silly (baseless) hyperbolic rhetoric.
Sorry, I wasn't very specific with my phrasing and I think I misrepresented my opinions. Of course I'm aware that hormones play a role in this stuff — that's basic science, and it was my fault for not addressing that more carefully.
But hormones are only a part of the story, and I think they're less important than maybe you do. I don't think the defense of "but testosterone!" is a valid explanation for the incredible disparity in representation we see in the upper echelons of society. Yes, it plays a role, but it isn't everything.
Most leadership positions are held by men, and I think that the way younger people (or people "lower in the hierarchy" I suppose) perceive this is more important than the natural inclinations due to hormonal differences. And that's what I meant by my use of the word "significantly" in my original comment. Not that the biological imperatives don't exist, but that they are not significant when compared to the societal imperatives.
> Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging...
Is it? You presume male employees see themselves in their bosses. If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"
> If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"
It's possible that they don't, which may explain why we don't see a lot of openly gay executives, for example. Remember when Tim Cook came out? He was the only openly gay Fortune 500 CEO. It was fairly recent, so I can't imagine a significant change has happened yet, but it's possible that more closeted gay executives may come out, which in turn may encourage younger people to pursue leadership roles like these.
I'm not saying it's an absolute thing — I mean, Tim Cook was able to get where he is without having a gay CEO to look up to. But having that representation may help those who are slightly less determined (but still qualified). You see what I mean?
The issue with the essay is that it's connecting two points that do not necessarily connect.
First, you have biological differences between men and women. These are reasonably well characterized, and the sorts of psychological differences that might impact the workplace are small but present. It's still very difficult to get into specifics, however, as definitions/measuring is difficult (lots of room for error here) but the thesis of 'this may be relevant, and we should be able to discuss this' is supported.
Then you have the various stereotypes about men and women that we observe in the current population. There's a lot of nuance here and, again, a lot of room to confirm your own biases, but on the whole there are certainly differences. The question is mostly nature vs. nurture and how much of this is cultural historical artifact.
The problem comes from trying to explain the latter with the former. This is difficult to do in a scientific way; the essay mentions castration and some cultural practices that can suggest some aspects of this relationship, but it's a far cry from being generally explanatory. It's all terribly specific and contextual and the state of the art is so far away from explaining bias/discrimination in hiring/employment that it's arguably not worth mentioning.
The equality/diversity contradiction is a good enough point to make, but it doesn't accomplish much. The real thesis is that Google's hiring practices are discriminatory, but there's not a clear scientific answer to that at all. Aiming for rough equality seems like a conservative approach; the distributions for these metrics suggest something like single-digit-percent differences between populations of men and women (i.e. lots of overlap due to variance). A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory.
A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory.
You can't compare the population ratios of engineers to the population ratios in the general population. You have to compare it to the population ratios in the applicant pool. Google does not control the world, and it isn't desirable that they do so. The gender gap in the tech industry is as concerning as the gender gap among garbage collectors. If you don't care the same amount about both, you're being hypocritical.
If men are more naturally drawn to leadership positions, but not actually better leaders, diversity efforts make a lot of sense. In such a scenario you would want to actively encourage women to seek status and lead.
So by agreeing, you are basically saying you believe in the idea of biological differences playing a role in the gender imbalance at Google? Or to put it another way, you believe women don't strive for the same things as men due to genetic makeup?
People strive for things based on personal and perceived expectations around them, biology has nothing to do with it, unless you are speaking of one's personal talents, which is gender neutral anyway.
Establishing or assuming anything about anyone based on one's biology is very misguided and ignorant. It is very similar to any number of times anyone has approached me to ask if I knew how to speak Spanish because clearly, since I look the part, I am assumed to know how.
Once there was this women sitting at table. I wanted to go talk to her.
I wanted to say "Hi, the rain really is beautiful, isn't it". But I didn't know if she associated the rain with painful trigger emotions, so I didn't.
I wanted to say "Hi". But I didn't know if she spoke English, and I didn't want to discriminate against people who don't, so I didn't.
I wanted to say "Hi" in all the possible languages of the world. But I didn't want to discriminate against deaf people, so I didn't. If she was deaf, would she not have been offended?
So in the end, in this fictional story, I didn't say anything at all.
There is no certain knowledge, there are only distributions. I know nothing, and I am learning more all the time. But I do the best I can based on my past experiences.
A bayesian approach to the world, will not neglect what you know; but it will update your model rapidly based on new information, perhaps information specific to the person that you are interacting with.
Communication is impossible without good faith.
So, the next time someone asks you if you speak Spanish, tell them you do not, and use the opportunity to show them the world that is uniquely you. Let your identity have an integrity that YOU own. The next time they see a person who looks Spanish, they might approach it differently. And they'll also remember that Spanish looking people are nice people to interact with.
"We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google."
Seems to me that publishing a "manifesto" in a company saying the senior leadership are bozos is a reasonable grounds for firing.
Seriously! I have strong opinions about the role of women in our industry and society, as does pretty much everyone.
But ignore the gender/culture argument and replace diversity with "Foo". The stated goal of the organization is to increase Foo, from top to bottom, from HR to engineering. What do you think will happen if you publish a letter saying Foo is overrated? What will happen if you make getting Foo harder for them? What will happen if you semi-publicly argue against increasing Foo?
Actually that's not what the author of the memo advocated.
He did not say Foo was overrated, he said he supports Foo, but he questions the effectiveness of the current company methodology in increasing Foo. He thinks there are other root causes for why Foo is not as high as they want, and he proposed other ways to increase Foo.
He was doing a good job by all means, but then people categorized his point of view as anti-Foo when he was simply against the current ways of increasing Foo.
Exactly: "pro-diversity" is not necessarily incompatible with "maybe we should reconsider affirmative action-esque initiatives".
I disagree with many things in the document, but, by all accounts, the employee had no issues with a diverse workplace. I think the case he was trying to make is that maybe the lack of representation of women in programming and similar fields can't entirely be explained by sexism or discrimination or bias, and that if it's true that women are on average less interested in things like programming, then it doesn't necessarily make sense to make a commitment to, say, "double the amount of women we hire this year" (not a real example; just hypothetical). The pool for women interested in the job may just be lower in numbers even when controlling for all social and cultural factors.
Of course, the science on that is still far from conclusive (and many of the "scientific" facts he cited sound dubious), and this absolutely can't be extrapolated to suggest that female programmers who do work at Google or other companies are less interested or are somehow less competent. I don't think the author tried to make that claim at all, nor did he suggest that sexism and bias wasn't an issue contributing to the gender gap or an issue that shouldn't be stamped out, but a lot of people (and the media) seemed to draw those conclusions after reading the document.
And since they appear to have used the willful misrepresentation of what he wrote as the reason, at least publicly, it might even be illegal in the good-ole no-worker-protections-for-U-S-A.
>And since they appear to have used the willful misrepresentation of what he wrote as the reason.
Wouldn't this help Google's case. Employers are allowed to fire at will employees for any reason, or no reason, except for specific reasons specified in law.
As far as I am aware, there is no law against fire an employee for being publicly accused of engaging in political speech (or whatever other behaviour Google wants to cite). The laws are only speak to fireing in retaliation for actual conduct.
Of course, this might be one of those cases where the courts take a more holistic look and determine that the laws also protects employees accused of the behaviours, regardless of if they engaged in them. Also, while the memo was misrepresented, the misrepresentation is not so egregious as to make this a slamdunk arguement in this case, even if it were an accepted legal theory in general.
My thinking was that they specifically said CoC violations and then used misrepresentations of his writings (writings that were, AFAIK, specifically encouraged) to justify those CoC violations.
Had they just said "I no longer like your nose", that would probably have been safer, but of course not effective PR and I am pretty certain that getting rid of him was a pure PR exercise.
Heck, they might even have given him some hush money in order for that not to happen.
And yes, this is all mostly uninformed speculation :-)
I am almost certain that they gave this guy a termination agreement in which he agreed not to sue Google, and in return would be given a massive golden parachute. Google felt they needed him gone for business reasons. But of course they had no legitimate reason to fire him and he could sue if they did. If that's not the case, expect a lawsuit from him shortly.
If he is, as the following article says, "considering legal options," then he wasn't given an exit package. Or I suppose he could have been offered one but turned it down.
Oh, wow in that case if I were him I'd probably sue. This termination will sadly haunt him and he will miss out on many job opportunities because of it. Even if you disagree with what he wrote, that's a huge price to pay for trying to have a discussion around making his workplace better and what he perceives fairer.
This case isn't cut-and-dry. Much of that memo I disagreed with but generally found innocuous. However, there were notable aspects of that memo that could be argued to have created a hostile work environment for different groups were they to be forced to work with or for that engineer. It's clear that, in aggregate, he believes certain groups naturally more "fit" for the work. Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable.
Comments and behaviors that make a protected class feel like that, even if made as "jokes" or "facilitators of open dialogue", are not permissible.
It's not a cut-and-dry case. I wouldn't bet on a lawsuit either way, excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.
>Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel? You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable.
I might be biased since my experience with data analysis gives me an above average internalization of the concept of "in aggregate", but I disagree with this assesment. The fact is, as a matter of aggregates, by my demographics [0], I am "in aggregate", more likely to be a drug addict, rapist, misogynist, and terrorist. There are some people who do hold these aggregate statistics against me personally, but they are very rare (or at least, avoid the circles where they will see me); and I would not suggest that any who observes or discusses these aggregate traits holds them against me personally.
The beginning of the memo spends a paragraph (and illustrative diagram, which was removed from in the original article) making this exact distinction.
>excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.
Google's lawyer's are probably also willing to settle out of court. I doubt there will be a trial unless he want "unreasonable" compensation, or to make a political point.
[0] Based on my current understanding; I have not verified any of these beliefs.
I realize the author tries to draw that distinction, but I think for many, on a personal level, the totality of the memo will be perceived to undercut that preface. You don't get to "hang a lantern" on emotionally-charged generalizations of competence so you have free reign to paint with a broad brush and expect everyone to just take your preface at face value. Second, much of the "science" cited was suspect at best, undercutting his credibility of objectivity.
That memo very intentionally dove into issues of identity within certain subgroups. You can't expect members of those subgroups to just unemotionally detach themselves from perfunctory qualifiers. He clearly wrote that some personnel decisions were inappropriately made to those of lesser competence. If you're a women or a minority, he may have been talking about you. With a smidge of empathy - a concept he does not appreciate - you can see how that may read to someone from those groups.
So he went out of his way to make it clear that he's not referring to individuals when he talks about averages and you still take it personally. What would be good enough for you, short of killing the entire discussion?
His words are in conflict with each other. He's not referring to any given individual, but he is referring to the system that got those individuals into Google, often due to alleged unfair/discriminatory practices. That inherently means he must view at least some of those individuals as unqualified. That's a conflict, and the end result is that some individuals in Google may take it personally (independent of other reactions around identity this evokes). Is that so hard to empathize with?
Also, why you do you accuse me of taking it personally? I do not. I also would never tell anyone they should take it personally. But I can understand why they would, and we know some people have. It seems presumptuous to me that we should tell those most-implicated by this memo dealing with emotionally-charged topics directed toward subgroups they are a part of (that have historically not been treated fairly) that they shouldn't take it personally. That does not mean I think Google will prevail in a lawsuit (which probably won't happen as a settlement seems most likely) based on the publicly-available facts.
Feelings have nothing to do with it. Maybe it is actually the case that some people were given an unfair advantage in the hiring process and don't belong there. The way to examine that possibility is to examine the process and have a discussion about what is fair and proper, not shut down the conversation and exile anyone who brings it up. By the way this is exactly what is happening from the other side: white males are supposed to be unfairly advantaged. I don't hear your side denouncing those sorts of arguments on the basis that it might make some of those white males feel bad to bring up the argument.
Feeling have quite a bit to do with hostile work environments. If you feel that your workplace is intimidating, hostile, or abuse because of your membership in a protected class, that is directly related to determining whether a hostile work environment exists. It's not the only criteria.
> The way to examine that possibility is to examine the process and have a discussion about what is fair and proper, not shut down the conversation and exile anyone who brings it up.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all!
> By the way this is exactly what is happening from the other side: white males are supposed to be unfairly advantaged.
That is the allegation, yes. At Google, it may be true, it may not be true. If you feel white men are disadvantaged because there are no special avenues just for them to find coaches/mentors, etc., then fine. I'd disagree that such things disadvantage white men because they don't need or benefit from those specialized avenues the way minority groups do, but that's a different debate.
If white men are in fact being held to a different standard of job performance for same roles at same levels, then yes, that's unethical and illegal. I would not and do not support that, and have personally (in my real-world job) redefined hiring criteria that did this. I have actual skin in the game here.
> I don't hear your side denouncing those sorts of arguments on the basis that it might make some of those white males feel bad to bring up the argument.
Ah, this is "my side." You've turned this into some sort of culture war. I haven't advocated for this person's firing, and I don't state that it was either the right or wrong thing to do as I'm not close enough to the situation. But because I don't immediately take up the banner for him, I'm on the "other side."
Give me a break. This isn't cut-and-dry stuff. That was my original point, and indeed my first sentence in the thread. It was not "this guy is a sexist/racist and everyone who agrees with him needs to shut up."
> It's clear that, in aggregate, he believes certain groups naturally more "fit" for the work. Now, if you're a woman who has to work with or for him, what do you feel?
He explicitly states that the overall trends contribute to the resulting distributions (eg. overall trend where men are more interested in tech-type things leads to resulting distribution where more men than women work in tech) but that this should not be misinterpreted as having any relevance to any given individual.
So if you're a woman working with or for this person, whose reading comprehension is roughly equivalent with that of your peers (and I'd expect no less at a company like Google), you would know that he explicitly does not view you as any less "fit" or capable, and so would not feel victimized or targeted in any way.
I know what he wrote, but don't feel that "solves the issue" on a personal level. Knowing how one views your entire group is enough to make you question one's opinion of "you." At least I think there's a credible argument to be made from that angle. I don't want to make any definitive claims on anyone's behalf.
> You likely feel that your capability is more in question
I don't really understand this. It's not like female engineers at Google had never noticed how few of them there were until this memo was published. Obviously you're a deviation from the average in some way if you're one of a few X in a large group of mostly Y.
I can't understand this logic. Replace 'coding' with 'volleyball', is it Ok for him to note that best volleyball players are more likely to be male? If so, and since it is not entirely impossible that some innate physiological difference causes best developers to more likely be male as well, then I can't see what's wrong with his argument at all.
edit: take not volleyball, but chess. Let's take top1000 players by ELO, is it Ok to note that most are male?
If you can't understand this logic because your impulse is to equate physical characteristics with mental ones as if they are equivalent, then I really don't feel like you're trying all that hard.
i'll repeat this slowly just for you: it's obvious that physical characteristics are different, so by extension it is not impossible that mental characteristics are different, too.
Exhibit A: top chess players.
Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
> it's obvious that physical characteristics are different, so by extension it is not impossible that mental characteristics are different, too.
It's easy to say things are "not impossible." It's not impossible that were society restructured to systematically favor the current (vs. innate, whether ostensible or in fact) female gender roles that women would significantly outperform men on more mental tasks than they do today. No, it's not impossible. It is highly speculative based on many assumed truths.
In truth, I don't have an issue with the belief or implication that women and men think differently. I do take issue that one is superior to the other based on present-day conditions. Men used to be better doctors. Men used to be better dentists. Men used to be better lots of things, when you took a snapshot in time. But, as barriers to entry were removed, and the gender balance began to change, and more women were participating in developing the next generation, and shaping the roles they were now participating in, the innate capability gap seemed to disappear. That may not be a phenomenon that repeats itself in every occupation, but I don't think we can say that about technology yet.
What I'm not saying: men and women are innately equal at everything. What I am saying: relying on the analogy of physical tasks implies females are the disadvantaged group, where there is much more cultural noise that works to favor men on many sets of criteria.
> Exhibit A: top chess players.
There's no historical context to the game of chess that has traditionally favored men over women? This male-dominated mind game, taught by men, in ways that were honed around how men learn, in an environment that men were always welcome in, somehow has better results for men? Am I off-base here? I don't know the history of chess.
> Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
If you've got a reference for me I'd read it. I can't honestly react to this known fact without seeing the research behind it. I'm dubious that enough of the surround contextual variables were controlled for (e.g., size and maturity of the tech industry, workforce participation of the genders, etc.).
>> There's no historical context to the game of chess that has traditionally favored men over women?
See, maybe there was. But you're claiming that this historic context is the sole explanation for all observable difference. This claim is non-falsifiable, so there's nothing to discuss - you will always claim more reasons which are impossible to (dis)prove. But real people have their lives ruined for even suggesting otherwise.
>> s females are the disadvantaged group,
Look. Females are disadvantaged in volleyball, right? Why can't they be disadvantaged in something else (and advantaged in something else still)? And do you realise that this does not say anything about specific individuals? Like, even if you know this 6'3" girl, women are still shorter on average. Before you say "how can you conflate physical and mental" - well, everything is physical, your engineering performance is the neurons doing their chemical jobs.
My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women. And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this.
> But you're claiming that this historic context is the sole explanation for all observable difference.
I'm not claiming that, I don't know! And neither do any of us, at least presently. That is my point. We're effectively as far from falsifiability with my statement as yours. We don't know to what extent that systemic history exerts an effect, and to what extent it doesn't. Maybe given an equal history, women would be better! Or they'd still be worse.
> My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women.
Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that given an equal history where women were the advantaged gender, a women would be here arguing the same thing in the opposite direction.
We can argue a million things are possible, to what end? When it's all just speculation, the argument feels more like a philosophical exercise that challenges the fitness of one subgroup more-so than it an honest engagement of a meaty topic (fairly or unfairly). That's because it seems to normalize the idea of genetic mental weakness, even with acknowledging the lack of proof. And while it doesn't speak to any one individual, it can serve to create a perception that individuals from those groups are less capable as an a priori assumption. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, but it does make it challenging to do so, and people have their guard up for totally understandable and contextually-appropriate reasons.
> And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this.
Wait you're saying that of you take the top 100 women and the top 100 men in chess, who've been given the best of everything to succeed, that you can still distinguish performance on this intellectual task merely on the basis of sex?
What are we going to do to solve this problem? Perhaps we should encourage more women in chess and train them better from all early age.
Chess is sexist! Why do we even encourage things like chess in this enlightened age.
And only a sexist person would bring up chess in this discussion. Atone!
> You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable.
I have a hard time understanding how one could come to such a conclusion.
(In the following, "P(X|Y)" should understood as "the probability of X given Y")
Starting with probabilities: P(capable|your-gender-race-etc) != P(capable|you-being-you)
If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? Would it not be irrational to expect anything else (unless, I suppose, you have little faith in said hiring process)?
Strangely, there are people who respond the way you suggest:
In the video embedded in the article above, the Executive Editor of Recode responds with "I don't know about you, but I ate stress for breakfast and I like my big title at Recode." She and the news anchor then sarcastically tease each other for not being cut out for their jobs, as if anyone made a personal claim to that effect.
But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. What the author of the memo did express, however, was that he believed in the possibility of biological differences resulting in the distributions of capability of each gender being offset by some amount -- there's even a graphic of two normal distributions slightly offset right within the memo to help illustrate this point.
I won't go into any argument for or against this belief, as that's a deviation from the topic that you first rose. However, I will address the implications of this belief: suppose for the sake of argument that we, too, share this belief. What does this say about any given female colleague? At worst, we could say she might be one of a minority of women who share in both an interest in and ability to write software. However, this shouldn't evoke any ill feelings, as not only is the probability at hand just a number, it's also a number which does not apply to her as an individual: we have from observation (e.g. passing the interview, acing performance reviews, 1-on-1 experience, etc) that the probability of her being a solid engineer is 100%; that is, the probability of any one random woman possessing both the interest and aptitude in software development is irrelevant, and conflating that general probability with the conditional probability of your colleague being fit for her job would be irrational.
Now, here's where I ask you for your help: is there some angle that I'm missing here? I will admit that I tend to be more on the reptilian side of things, insofar as it behooves me to sequester my emotions; assuming agreement with my analysis (and if not, please do point out any flaws), is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual?
The one thing I might understand (even if I can't empathize with it) is the tendency for many to equate oneself with their "group", such that an expression that can be taken to be a slight against a group resembling themselves is taken as a personal attack. While I find it hard to imagine, I suppose what could be happening in such scenarios is that many people feel targeted merely by association. As a white man with an extensive background in dance, I suppose this could be like being offended by tropes like "most white men have no rhythm" -- for me, I'm not "most white men", I'm Charles Strahan: I've won two state German folk dancing competitions, I led the Latin dance club in my high school days, and I generally (I think) don't suck at dancing; I couldn't give a single fuck what someone says about "most white men", or "most blue eyed people", or whatever -- it doesn't apply to me. To broaden the scope a bit, the same goes for insults like "most men who dance are <insert inflammatory remark regarding masculinity>". Is this what I'm missing, or something else entirely?
This is a fairly robust comment, so I'll respond where I can. The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset.
> If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background?
You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions.
The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. When you combine the author's belief that certain sub-groups lack aptitude in general, and then challenge the validity and fairness of hiring/selection procedures, then you've effectively challenged the legitimacy of every diversity incumbent. Every single one. Or, it could be argued. I could also argue the opposite if I had to.
> is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual?
I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions. Further, when you're a part of a group that has historically been treated a certain way based on your association with that group (by choice or not), it is reflexively natural to view comments like the memo as having personal meaning. Finally, given the rest of the content of the memo, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those remarks might indeed have bearing on an individual.
Just to be clear to anyone stumbling along this: I don't necessarily agree with what the author of the memo wrote, and I think he should have anticipated backlash and hurt feelings that resulted; however, I am interested in sussing out what he wrote and what he meant by what he wrote, as there seems to be quite a difference in interpretation among those who have read it. I raise these questions because I want to better understand the position of those who believe what he wrote was intended to be anti-diversity and/or supremacist, and I want to challenge my own comprehension and interpretation of what he wrote, and what it entails.
Also, I don't know how Google HR conducts their business, and I presume we're all expressing our views under the premise (that is, something taken to be true for the sake of argument, regardless of whether we otherwise believe it to be true or false) that his remarks regarding discriminatory practices reflect what he knows to be true of the hiring and retention policies, unless someone explicitly states that they reject the premise as absurd (which, I should note, has not yet been communicated here or elsewhere). This leaves for discussion whether his conclusion follows from his premise.
However, as stated earlier, I have no interest in arguing for or against the validity of his argument: I merely want to better understand what his argument is in the first place, and why we all seem to have come to a different understanding thereof.
> The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset.
Definitely. That's mostly me trying to understand post hoc why I'm not perturbed by analogous situations which do apparently offend others, with the presumption that my brain meat subconsciously works through the logic in a similar way and subsequently dismisses any emotional reaction. My thinking was that I might learn something by seeing how the other side of the coin views their internal workings; not that I could ask people to change the way they feel a given a particular stimulus.
> You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
From my interpretation of what the author wrote (I quote: "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."), it was my impression that he was explicitly addressing discrimination against the majority in favor of the minorities in the context of interviewing and performance review. If anyone felt subject to tokenism, I would think that would be a direct result of the (supposed, explicit) discriminatory policy (paraphrasing from the memo: pass on candidates from the majority, and in groups of similarly underperforming individuals, keep the minorities while firing those from the majority), not those who speak out against it and the implications thereof. Similarly, if I ever came to work for a place that, as it would later be revealed, was headed by a closeted white racist, I would feel like my being hired there was cheapened by the fact that I had been given preference over my non-white peers, just because I was born into this world with white skin; I wouldn't attribute my upset to the journalist who broke the story and pointed out, rightfully so, that this (hypothetical) employer gave me and the rest of the all white staff an advantage.
This is corroborated by accounts told by friends and others online, wherein they felt patronized when they discovered that -- say, the conference that invited them, or the employer that hired them -- might have done so due to their policy of imposing a strict representation quota (which was discovered not from hearsay and/or conjecture by a third party, but communicated directly to them by the organizers/hiring manager); their experience was spoiled because they felt reduced to their gender or skin color, rather than being there because they're acknowledged and respected as experts in their field (which they are).
With this topic being such a volatile one, I feel like I need to clarify: discriminatory hiring (and retention) practices and offering a leg up to the disenfranchised (say, by providing training, financial aid and any other supportive resources) are two totally different things, and its my understanding that the author was talking about the former. As just one example of the latter, seeing services like free daycare at tech conferences is incredibly refreshing, and I think that's just one small step among many, many more that should be taken to make tech more accessible.
Does my interpretation of the memo differ from yours in this respect? And, assuming a policy that, in writing, explicitly sets forth to give preferential treatment to those of a particular gender or ethnic background, wouldn't it:
1) be a logical (though certainly upsetting) inference from the policy alone that "if my gender/ethnicity matches what they're seeking, I might not have been hired solely due to my (perceived and/or real) fitness for the role"
2) and if so, wouldn't that inference be a fault of the policy makers, and not the person pointing out it out?
I should note that all of this is taking as a premise -- solely for taking the memo at its word so we may discuss its content and the implications thereof -- that Google has such a policy (I don't personally have a belief either way as I haven't seen their policies, but I don't dismiss this possibility because I do know hiring managers at other companies that have been in the position of outright rejecting non-minorities to meet hard quotas, strictly in accordance with company policy). What I don't hear is anyone suggesting that they take exception to the claim that Google has such a policy, and that the author is instead trying to put forward a damaging inference that isn't grounded in the letter of their hiring practices; if we take this alternative view as a premise instead, I would completely understand: it would be a dick move to imply that anyone was hired by their employer beyond reasons of fitness when the employer has no (known, explicit) policy for doing so. If this is key to why people are upset, though, no one is communicating it. If one disagrees with an argument because they believe it takes a falsehood as a premise (i.e. Google's supposed hiring policy), they must explicitly say so, otherwise people (like myself) will be confused at how we came to a different conclusion solely based on the rules of inference, and no constructive exchange of views can occur.
> The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. [...]
This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates", should we then fault the memo author for pointing out the demeaning, demoralizing consequences that you subsequently list, or the people responsible for patronizingly lowering the bar with respect to hiring and retention (again, this is a separate issue from providing assistance to the disenfranchised, as the latter implies nothing about the ability of the recipient of such assistance)? Or have I somehow got that backward: that setting lower expectations of performance isn't in itself demeaning, while suggesting that's the case is demeaning?
Now, if you're suggesting that you believe that the author is ascribing something to Google's hiring policies that isn't explicitly there, in ink, then I completely agree: that would be a seriously shitty thing to suggest that people are there just because they've had the bar lowered for them. That would be a deplorable notion to spread around. To say the least, I would be appalled if I ever heard a coworker suggest "Oh, Dan? Yeah, he's just here because of the color of his skin. Susan? She's just here because she's a woman". I would straight up lose my shit.
I don't know if my confusion stems from a difference in the premises held, a difference in my understanding of what those premises entail, or perhaps a difference in what I thought the author was arguing as a conclusion. Whichever it may be, I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions on what I might have gotten wrong!
> I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions.
I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group, have no desire to do so, and I don't care how people acknowledge my identity (so long as their actions don't impede my pursuits; otherwise, let them think and say what they may). I totally get that other people are different, though, and out of respect, I try my best to acknowledge and respect their identity in accordance with their desires.
Thanks again for your input! And sorry for the lengthy response. This stuff is subtle, and with it being an emotionally charged topic, I feel a certain level of care must be taken in fear of accidentally being taken the wrong way, and/or offending many people -- neither of which I want to have happen.
This is a large response that I won't have time to respond to fully now, but I'll hit one big thing:
> This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates",
There is a near-0% chance that this is the case, because this is illegal (to say nothing of unethical). Outside of a +1 tiebreaker when all else is equal between two candidates, no HR/Legal team worth their salt would ever create or promote such practice.
> I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group
I think that's easiest to say when you're a majority group member, because your group feels "default" of sorts. There's research behind this, but it's not my area of expertise. When you're a part of a smaller group, one that has a history of being treated negatively based on observable (vs. internal) characteristics, it's quite a bit different.
> There is a near-0% chance that this is the case, because this is illegal (to say nothing of unethical). Outside of a +1 tiebreaker when all else is equal between two candidates, no HR/Legal team worth their salt would ever create or promote such practice.
I see. I suspect many are taking that improbability as a given, and because it's so seemingly obvious, they don't feel the need to point it out.
On the other hand, many others don't take it as granted that people (or worse, organizations) will follow the law and/or generally do the right thing. For example, assault and murder are illegal, which, if the law were to be followed, should prevent gun violence, and yet many want to tighten access to guns. Additionally, people often (in absolute terms, if not relative) do accidentally discharge guns -- whether out of momentary carelessness or general incompetence -- and in such cases homicide laws are of little utility (laws generally work by dissuading conscious intent, rather than making people hyper alert to precarious scenarios). Fraud is illegal, and yet we had the big Enron scandal in the early 2000s, which then led to yet more legislature (Sarbanes–Oxley). Sexual assault is a thing, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss any accusation as unlikely just because it's unethical and illegal.
I can see the sense in suspecting the odds of such discrimination is low, but I personally feel (as I suspect many others do) that the odds aren't negligible. Laws are broken all the time -- sometimes that's because the perpetrator thinks they're being righteous, sometimes because they're unaware, and sometimes because they see personal gain in breaking the law.
> I think that's easiest to say when you're a majority group member, because your group feels "default" of sorts. There's research behind this, but it's not my area of expertise. When you're a part of a smaller group, one that has a history of being treated negatively based on observable (vs. internal) characteristics, it's quite a bit different.
I can see that my own privilege might shape my perceptions in this regard -- thanks for pointing that out.
2. Once an interview is passed, a connection to a manager is ensured. (Supposedly, you can pass an interview but never get matched up with a manager to work under, in which case you won't actually have a job there)
It would seem there are three possibilities (though I'm open to alternative interpretations):
1. Damore is lying (or at best, misinformed)
2. Damore is telling the truth, but such discrimination is deemed ethical
3. Damore is telling the truth, and such discrimination is deemed unethical (and arguably illegal)
If what he says is true, I imagine there would be great outcry if the discrimination was instead in favor of white men, and so it would seem that leaves us with either possibility 1 or 3.
... unless one supposes that, for any unethical discriminatory act, there exists some sort of "counter-discriminatory" act that is then both ethical and somehow no longer discriminatory (a necessary condition for being both ethical and legal in business), despite clearly meeting the definition of the word "discriminatory". As is probably apparent, this strikes me as absurd. However, if one finds error in this reasoning, I'm certainly open to an explanation of what I'm missing.
> This termination will sadly haunt him and he will miss out on many job opportunities because of it.
But his employment is at will, Google can terminate contract any time, and it is not Google who caused that damage, but news outlets and information leakers, who distributed these information..
Wikipedia says that according to explanation by Supreme Court of California no reasoning is required:
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.
IANAL But my understanding is "At will employment" does mean the employer can fire you for an illegal reason such as your race or as retaliation for a complaint. It really just means that the employer does not have to give the legal reason at the time of firing and there is no law requiring warning warnings or a formal evaluation system.
It's on the employee to prove that the company fired them illegally. For example, if the employee had an email showing that their boss said "I hate X because he's black" then the employee would probably win.
High price to pay? I don't think so. Writing and circulating that memo was a colossally stupid thing to do. Stupid on a level that basically puts you into the camp of "nobody wants to work with you anymore". You're now that guy. A liability for any company and obviously an unpleasant human being. I wouldn't want him at my company either, that's for sure.
Computer programmers often make the mistake of treating other humans like cold, calculating machines. But they're not. They have emotions. Emotions, and past experiences, and history. And, unless you're in the extreme Asperger's spectrum of being unable to deal with other human beings, you should know, by age 15 or so, that there are certain subjects that are sensitive and that a company environment is not the place for them.
To help other potential programmers from destroying their careers, I'll post a short list of risky topics here:
* Politics
* Race
* The Holocaust
* Sex
Any one of those could land you in hot water for creating a hostile work environment.
Nobody cares if you have scientific evidence that Jews make for inferior doctors, you don't post a memo claiming that in the company you work at. You just don't. Because you're working with other humans, not with machines, and you have to be smart enough to know what's acceptable office talk and what's acceptable poker night talk.
This Google Engineer is an idiot. I don't care whether he can "out-prgoram" me and code a complete OS in 2 hours. He's still an idiot. And deserves to be fired, because Google doesn't want to employ idiots.
I'd agree with your opinion if Google wasn't a place where political discussion is seemingly "welcomed" (eng-misc, Memegen, TGIFs).
It's okay to express an opinion that is targeting a group of people (conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters/etc.) if you belong to the right ideological group (progressives).
Don't think for an instance that this is the first case of controversial content posted internally. It happened all the time when I worked there, just that the group getting targeted wasn't in the majority in the social dominance and power hierarchy.
There's welcoming political discussion, and then there's saying that all gay people need to be euthanized because god wills it. You could say that it's just another "political opinion" and I shouldn't face blow-back for expressing it in an open environment, but, no, that's just not the case.
If I say something like that, I will (rightly) become a social pariah immediately and nobody would want to be around me.
Same thing with that guy. Yeah, you can joke about Trump, and you can joke about Hillary's emails, but saying that women are inferior due to biology makes you an unpleasant human being to be around and I don't want to be in the same room as you, much less on the same team or the same company as you.
If they hadn't fired his dumb ass, it would have sent a very bad message to all of Google's women employees.
> "Yeah, you can joke about Trump, and you can joke about Hillary's emails"
There was more than just "joking." There was a hostile atmosphere for a lot of my peers who voted for Trump, akin to how women might have felt after this latest memo. The thing was, that it was perfectly "acceptable" (within the larger "Google culture") to create an environment hostile towards conservatives, with no Management backlash (probably because a lot of them felt the same way). The point was they didn't find that kind of "harassment" towards conservative employees problematic at all.
'Considering' isn't the same as 'exercising', though. Of course, you might reasonably ask what he has to gain by bluffing like that. Nothing comes to mind straight away.
I think so too. Either he got a nice severance package --ala Steve Jobs' "you're fired" firing random engineers and HR picking up the pieces and cutting nice checks to the no reason fires, or he's got a decent chance at a nice verdict from a wrongful termination suit due to the free speech implications, even if this is a private company. You still can't willy nilly fire someone and not expect a suit, specially in such a high profile case.
I'd be surprised if there was a lawsuit. It's really easy to argue that this memo is disruptive to the workplace and Google had grounds to fire him. You can have 5 reasons that are illegal to fire someone and 1 reason that is legal and you can just justify it with that one reason.
Well now, there's a reason to hire folks like me. "Dude, I'm an able-bodied middle-aged cis het white man. If you ever get tired of me, you can just show me the door. I've got no recourse. Legally speaking, this is as safe as it gets."
I just want to point out how funny it is that people are afraid of mass-hysteria.
Where are the adults in the room? Or anywhere, for that matter. Where are the people who make decisions without first considering the Satanic Panic? They certainly are not publicly visible in our global society at the moment. The handling of this issue is an indictment of calm and concerted leadership on the International stage. We are clearly missing our Leaders.
Surely firing him and dealing with the lawsuit is far less expensive than having to deal with the fall-out from SJWs? This seems like it's primarily a business decision rather than one based on keeping within the law or not doing evil.
Why? I don't think it's likely that the engineer's essay of nonsense was part of the company's next world beating invention, which means publishing it isn't part of any NDAs.
Because it led too mass-hysteria and a crap load of negative press from both liberals and conservatives. Why would you want to have someone who would sink the company to get someone that they don't agree with fired as an employee?
Okay...so he did it on company time...I can tell you most of the memes on Memegen were probably made on company time...so let's say they were made on company time, in the spirit of fairness and reciprocity, should the anti-conservative post authors be fired as well? They might have made a lot of conservatives uncomfortable and feel like they were being harassed.
I don't really understand how firing him is controversial.
He wrote a pathetic, juvenile manifesto that served only to reinforce and perpetuate gender stereotypes. To me, that absolutely falls under the umbrella of "creating a hostile work environment". He'd be a major liability if they _didn't_ fire him.
Companies are under no obligation to allow their employees to distribute their own ill-conceived manifestos that slam the company for its policies and promote a sexist view of the world. That's insane.
How was the memo pathetic or juvenile? He sourced all of his claims and himself has a Ph.D in Biology. What gender stereotypes did he perpetuate? In fact he specifically called against stereotypes.
It sounds like you didn't read the memo at all and only bought in coverage by fake news sites like Gizmodo.
He didn't actually cite anything, though [1]. He used a bunch of bracketed numbers [2] to look scientistic, but didn't actually provide [3] substantive evidence [5,7,8,6,5,4,3]
Also, I can "source all my claims" and vehemently defend the Nazis. "Source your claims" is the middle school grammar teacher equivalent of "provide substantive evidence and use careful language when writing publicly on sensitive issues". In other words, kinda juvenile.
FWIW I don't think people should be fired for political beliefs, but the actual memo wasn't "well-sourced" and was the author was clearly trolling. I've heard the whole "google is a utopia" thing, but I can't imagine posting something like that in a work context even in the most liberal office environment...
> and himself has a Ph.D in Biology
IMO this makes the whole thing much more embarrassing for the author [9].
--
[1] If by "cite" you mean provide evidence.
[2] It is perfectly OK to use bracketed numbers for footnotes as well as citations, of course. But footnotes are not citations.
[3] If you're going to appeal to authority, at least actually appeal to an authority other than "additional ramblings.
[4-8] Don't dare disagree!
[9] Especially copious footnotes presented in a way that implies they're citations.
>He didn't actually cite anything, though [1]. He used a bunch of bracketed numbers [2] to look scientistic, but didn't actually provide [3] substantive evidence [5,7,8,6,5,4,3]
What are you talking about? He absolutely linked to all his citations, the fake news Gizmodo stripped out all of his citations/links and graphs when they published the memo.
Considering it was the body text of the memo, and someone probably just copy/pasted it into an e-mail, I think what Gizmodo published was less fake than to call it "fake news."
There was a memo. Gizmodo thought they had the full text. They actually only had the body text. That's pretty darn close.
Okay, so your argument is that it's "fake news" because Gizmodo nefariously stripped hyperlinks while openly telling everybody about it? Or was that note added later?
I still think it's clearly attributable to ignorance rather than malice because presenting the text of a document is not uncommon to do; the fact that it changed the tone of the memo is unfortunate, but doesn't make the news "fake"
I did read the memo. It was extremely juvenile, and reminded me of the racist drivel that gets pushed on Facebook. Mixed into the stats he cites is a whole lot of hand waving and unsound conclusions, and it's clearly meant to push a sexist viewpoint.
Ok, can you be more specific about which parts you find to be racist or juvenile? I have read the memo as well and I have found it to be civil and well written and did not see anywhere it pushed for some kind of sexist discriminatory agenda.
Where do you think he did hand waving? Which conclusions of his do you think was unsound? Which particular statements of his you think was clearly meant to push a sexist viewpoint?
