What I found unusual is that many of the initial stories about the memo had no quotes from the memo whatsoever.[1]
Is this SV PR doing a good job, or is it that it was impossible to verify the memo? From what I read, I did not see any mention of attempts to find, verify and link to/quote/distribute the memo in question.
Considering the main version of the memo that was circulated was doctored (and the article stated they had doctored it), I wouldn't put much stock into anyone having bothered verifying it. But I don't think that's the reason nobody has quoted the document, it's because nobody bothered to do their research.
"Professional" journalism really isn't doing it's job well at the moment. Everyone just copies the same article contents and titles, and nobody does any actual research. It's quite apparent if you read two articles by similar publications on the same topic -- they contain effectively the same contents which tells me that very little independent research is done.
There was a particularly striking recent example of this, when the director of the movie "The Red Pill" was being interviewed on Australian TV. The questions being asked of her came from people who clearly had only seen the movie trailer, and upon asking whether they had seen the movie (she had sent them links to stream the movie for free several times) they said they "couldn't get it to work". Which means that they objectively were conducting an interview without the faintest clue what the subject was.
I don't think it's safe to comment on these types of articles online. These comments are stored and indexed forever and whatever we say could be used against us at some point in the future.
You may think you are reasonably debating or discussing something, but you have to consider that someone in the next 50 years may review your post history and use it against you.
Theoretically, we would need to make throwaway accounts to have meaningful discussions.
That's essentially the problem that the article is trying to bring attention to - our culture of intellectual hostility.
The only way this will ever change is if people stop caving in to political correctness.
I realize it's a prisoner's dilemma in that individually it's in nobody's best interest to speak out, but that's an incredibly selfish mindset. We need to start valuing integrity and doing the right thing. It was never in any slaveholder's best interest to speak out against slavery, or in any white person's best interest to speak out against racism in a Southern community in the early 1900s after a lynching - but speaking out was the right thing to do and should be commended.
This is not the same thing, is it? From reading the comments in most forums, looks like people seems to at least partially support the contents of the memo and the guy for writing this. Also, he is not speaking out in support of the minority, he is insinuating that they may be biological not suited for the job.
<s>If only we could decide the characteristics and job of a person based on the person's birth, race and other things totally out of a person's control, society would be so much better.</s>
but that's not what he's saying at all is it? The memo says that the diversity initiatives that google puts in place (I presume trying to get close to 50/50 gender representation) is a bad idea because more men than women are going to be developers naturally, due to gender differences in interest or aptitude. That doesn't mean women can't be developers or that female developers are less capable - it means there are naturally going to be less of them. I don't understand why so many people are misreading what the memo author was saying. Is it wilful?
I read in comments from people who claimed to work for Google - diversity initiatives in Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female ratio in the applicant pool. Couple of other companies I know where number of employees are in thousands, the diversity initiative aims to achieve something similar. That does not seem like a bad idea at all.
Humans are complex beings. Is interest in a specific field or profession a function of only gender? Would not the surrounding environment, role models, religion, books read, experiences in life and various other countless factors affect a person's interest and character?
I don't think he was wilful. He was wrong to reduce a complex subject like human interests and behaviour into a simple statistical function.
> Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female ratio in the applicant pool.
This is a laudable goal only if gender isn't used to discriminate against candidates. Discrimination on gender and race is wrong, period. Discriminating against men, whites, and Asians is still discrimination, and is not ok.
Nobody's going to disagree with you that environment and the individual play a strong role in affecting one's character. These straw man arguments are getting old.
Just because women tend to be naturally more empathetic than men doesn't mean that men aren't fit to be psychologists. It just means that more women will pursue that profession.
Are there any studies that concludes empathetic people become psychologists (honest question as I do not know)? Or is it an assumption that we make because of the nature of the profession?
Also, is empathy a function of only gender - would not the surrounding environment, role model, religion, books read, experiences in life and various other countless factors affect if a person develops empathy?
> Are there any studies that concludes empathetic people become psychologists
I don't know, but it would follow from common sense that people who are better at X will be more likely to pursue a career where being good at X is beneficial.
> Also, is empathy a function of only gender
Definitely not. Empathy can most certainly be developed.
This dataset contains all stories and comments from Hacker News from its launch in 2006. Each story contains a story ID, the author that made the post, when it was written, and the number of points the story received.
This effect is accelerating. After a certain point, everyone will have so much dirt to dig up that a few out-of-context comments from years past won't prejudice anyone much at all. In fact, the absence of dirt might become a little suspicious.
Right. And just look at Trump. He adamantly denied Obama's U.S. citizenship, joked about grabbing women by the genitals, made fun of a war vet for being captured, mocked a disabled person, etc. His wife has nude pictures. They're president and first lady. People are fed up with political correctness, and the bubble is starting to burst.
This is why you don't tie your real life identity to your online one. Freedom of expression requires that you can't be persecuted for saying your piece.
Indeed. But I wholly expect that sometime in the next few decades machine learning will be able to identify real people and their online personas based on text patterns and such and not the current method that's based on leakage, or having a handle like "johnasmith" or something.
What you think is discrete today, may not be tomorrow.
Even today I'm sure Google and Facebook could identify you just based on traffic patterns (e.g., "chii" has lots of traffic on hacker news and then from the same location "john a smith" has traffic on facebook). They don't sell that info today, but perhaps in the future.
According to the article some of the things that will "and will get you socially lambasted"
"Any statement that perpetuates female stereotypes is sexist, even an innocuous joke (or even a misconstrued joke in someone else’s private conversation)"
"Prostitution is sexist against women" etc
Um wtf? No these are not appropriate in a work environment. If you want to have a place with meaningful controversial discussion that's not the work environment.
I'm a lady and I honestly would feel uncomfortable if people were discussing these things at work. I really could not care less what other people's opinions are on these issues but I know I'm there to do my job as best as I can no get siderailed into lengthy controversial and highly likely uncomfortable discussions.
Suggesting that Google needs to be a place to comfortably voice off your random ideas is pretty irrational. It really doesn't.
Anyway, what does that even look like tangibly? Unprofessional... uncomfortable. It would not result in people agreeing with each other more just becoming less likely to like one another.
That was simply a list of topics that PC culture has deemed indisputable and heresy to even question. The topic of whether or not they're appropriate in a work environment is a whole different discussion.
The Google memo was pertaining to their own company's diversity policy, and hence should be fair game for discussion. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, then the Obama quote at the bottom of the article summarizes my thoughts.
They appear completely related to what is heresy to discuss at Google. The section starts off with
"Some takeaways from this whole fiasco"
"Here are some of those politically correct assertions that take on almost religious-like qualities..."
And thus appear to be completely linked to the topic of the Google "fiasco". Very confusing way to present the article if they are not relevant.
College is a very different place than a workplace. I am not required to interact with anyone on my college campus. Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes.
The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what?
I only read the first part - and I'm no expert on these topics but I haven't experienced any exceptionalism within this profession as a woman. To the contrary, my code is out there in the open ready for scrutiny all the time. I truly believe this is a meritocratic profession. My understanding is that companies aim to hire equally qualified workers from more backgrounds of diversity. Even better, they have an economic incentive to do so.
Many of the time the people writing these things are looking for something to complain about. I haven't worked at Google but I haven't experienced this to be imbalanced in the way it's being portrayed.
I guess you can say the memo was put out there, and a discussion was had.
Apologies if the presentation was unclear, will see if I can make that clearer.
> Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I prefer workplaces, or any environment for that matter, where we all respect each other enough to be open to the discussion of any topic and not easily offended over stupid meaningless jokes. That does not mean that one has to share their political beliefs or be pestered to engage in controversial debate - but a culture where everyone has to watch out for every little thing they say because any non-PC mark could be misconstrued and used as grounds for firing simply because someone deemed it offensive is intellectually hostile, unhealthy, and not the type of environment I want to be in.
> The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what?
That's not why the author is upset. The author got fired.
The author was fired but I certainly wouldn't describe the reason as due to "any little thing they say". Most of the time people are fired for harassment, which can be nuanced but a normal company compliance training can get one up to speed.
The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his female coworkers who may feel he finds them potentially undeserving of their jobs or in excess supply, as implied by the article.
Sounds wonderful for the work environment, no? At the end of the day, Google is a company out to make money and build good culture in their company.
I respect your desire to surround yourself by those who aren't easily offended or too PC and I trust you will find many friends like that. However, that isn't really appropriate for the workplace where it's not your right to be treated well for any behavior.
Its an interesting topic to discuss but personally I think progress is with diversity. Not just for society but it benefits companies as well. I think they are seeing that and ultimately they are allowed to do what they wish.
The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as inappropriate.
If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself.
I'm a huge proponent of diversity in the sense of embracing people with different perspectives and ideas. Deciding that you need X% of females and Y% of colored people does not make you a proponent of diversity, except in the shallow sense of wanting some set of racial representation. The strongest advocates of this form of racial diversity in my experience tend to actually be the most hostile towards diversity of opinions - like all the people deeming this memo sexist who fail to bring up any coherent argument backing up their claims (since most of them never read the document).
And one of the points of the memo was that we need to de-moralize diversity and allow people to have an honest discussion over it (which he ironically got fired over).
As I already explained diversity of thought isn't appropriate in a workplace. If it were, that would mean bullying and teasing would be appropriate. The problem is where to draw that line.
Where Google drew this line was firing someone for implying some people were undeserving of their jobs due to the biological argument. This declaration breeds hostility and is an outright attack on the qualifications of his coworkers.
As far as I know, affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants. I agree with this and think it's great companies can make their own decisions.
I've applied to jobs for startups where I would have been the only woman on the small team and bro culture was strong. I don't fault them but I declined those positions. I've gravitated toward companies like Google and their diversity policies have attracted talent like me. Companies do this in their own self interest.
I just want to clarify I'm not at all offended that the memo writer wrote what he did. I would feel offended if someone I worked with felt like there were too many woman in their office while there were only 5% and I felt that they were all qualified.
Even measuring qualification is tricky as unless you are someone's manager. More often than not, I've witnessed men make poor assumptions unaware of their own prejudices. For example, I got accepted to a very good college. I was surprised as to how many men thought it was only because I was a woman. However I knew for a fact I got better grades than them. I simply didn't advertise mine.
Bullying and teasing is not diversity of thought. Diversity of thought means being open to people with different perspectives and opinions. Bullying and teasing is unacceptable.
The author did not state or imply that his co-workers were undeserving of their jobs. He was simply stating that biological differences may influence one's career ambitions.
For example: Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men.
This statement does not imply that men shouldn't pursue psychiatry, just that they're probably less likely to do so. I don't see how that statement is sexist.
> affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants
I'm not sure what the difference there is. Google calls itself an "affirmative action employer", and thus likely engages in the same kind of affirmative action that colleges do.
It's unfortunate that you've been the brunt of such prejudices. But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist.
A better and more fair way of promoting diversity is to keep the interview process strictly meritocratic and gender/race-blind, but engage in initiatives that help prepare underrepresented minorities (ideally from low income backgrounds) for the interview process and encourage them to apply. My one stipulation would be that these programs should be open to anyone, rather than being restricted by race/gender.
"Diversity of thought means being open to people with different perspectives and opinions."
Where exactly do you draw that line? As some thoughts are felt as hostile/ insulting to other people and enter grey territory. You can't really obligate people to be open to all thoughts - good luck with that.
What does that look like anyway within a workplace? If such a memo was sent out in my workplace and I had a slew of different thoughts on the topic, would I be allowed to spend work time to pitch my ideas to my coworkers and discuss them to my hearts content or simply send out a memo of my own? And then where does it end?
"Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men."
While that may be true statistically it's impossible to prove woman choose psychiatry because they're empathetic rather a myriad of other complex reasons. I can tell you as a woman, I don't think Biology plays a large part at all.
"But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist."
Affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and balance out the effect of existing prejudices and biases when interviewing etc. So the real question is do you think those prejudices exist and can be alleviated by affirmative action? I do and talking with the woman of the previous generation I would say we've come a long way thanks to affirmative action.
This is not just PC assertions. Generalizing characteristics of people based on their gender is harmful and exactly the reason racism is frowned upon.
If biological reasons can determine if a person is fit for a particular job, let us start deciding the traits of people based on the gender, race and blood samples and assign jobs based on that. If you haven't, please watch the movie Gattaca.
In the memo, he mentions that the gender differences "may" be the reason for the lesser number of women in technology. There are no studies which link the differences with ability to work as a computer programmer. I would prefer we do not impose labels or assume certain characteristics on people just because they belong to specific gender, race or come from specific background - especially when it is not something they control and when the link is tenuous.
My view was like yours before and the movie Gattaca was among the most important things that changed it. In short humans are far more complex and trying to say that a person may not be interested in software engineering just because the person is of specific gender is disservice to half the population and not helpful.
There is considerable controversy among social justice groups about how best to approach sex work. It is absolutely not verboten to suggest that sex work can be empowering rather than oppressive. Controversial, but certainly not forbidden.
Fair point. I do think that as a male you're not really allowed to say that "prostitution empowers females", it seems that only females are allowed to say that.
One time a woman working at a prominent NGO in human trafficking told me that prostitution was oppressive to the woman. I told her that although that may be the case some of the time, there are women out there doing it by choice. She got really angry at me and went on an emotional tirade.
It's definitely one of those "touchy" PC subjects where honest debate is difficult without being shamed and called "sexist".
You have a very valid point, but it's not exactly the issue at hand.
- The memo was posted in an opt-in group for these types of discussions.
- The issue is very lopsided. I have personally never heard of someone being fired over saying much more offensive statements in the other direction (ie: men are dense / white people ruin everthing / etc). I would have no problem with a zero tolerance policy as long as it were evenly enforced.
Google must be a pretty interesting place to work in with an opt in group for these types of discussions. I guess that could be good but it seems like their informality might be coming to bite them.
Maybe I've just been exceptionally good at picking professional places to work at but I've never heard comments like the ones you've mentioned. Why not go to HR? Those are pretty strong statements.
My understanding is our harassment laws are pretty strong. During a sexual harassment compliance training at one of my companies, I learned that the fastest growing sexual harassment cases are men suing men. (If I remember it correctly) for things like feeling pressured to have acted more manly. And they win. The laws in this country are incredible and add enormously to the productivity we have in our companies.
One thing I enjoy about working in tech is having the opportunity to discuss things other than work during breaks.
We often spend more waking hours with our colleagues than our friends and family, forming strong bonds and friendships.
I've been lucky enough to work with intelligent people originating from many parts of the world, and have enjoyed stimulating discussions that include geo-political and social issues.
While there are a myriad of reasons why one could feel bad about facing a day in the office, I personally find sexism and harassment to be particularly heinous, and indicates weakness of character more than a lack of ability.
Something I worry about is the possibility of a work environment where the free discussion and conversation I mentioned above is inhibited. Especially one in which "acceptable" conversation is not politically neutral, but instead favouring progressive viewpoints exclusively.
I hear you. That sounds very nice, but a work environment can simply never be the same as hanging out with a friend over lunch. There needs to be some way to discourage harassment and promote a positive, friendly work environment that values people for their skill set rather than other given irrelevant attributes.
Free discussion is just not appropriate at a work place - the line must be drawn somewhere and usually that means veering towards acting professional. There is ample opportunity to be yourself fully outside of this context.
Nothing has been more positive to me as a woman in tech than working in environments with professionalism. I got to focus on what I love to do, what I am best at. It works in the interest of companies too.
Professionalism itself is an evolving standard and a moving target. It varies wildly between companies, industries, cultures, and even regions within the United States. Professionalism used to mean 9-6PM M-F work with suit and tie or formal dress and strong hierarchical organizations. In some industries it still means that. The startup tech industry was sort of founded on a rebellious disregard for old standards of professionalism with flatter hierarchies.
At a company like Google, it appears that discussion on internal forums is actually an internal cultural virtue. Google's innovation and evolution as a company has probably depended on that very openness that we the general public are getting a peek into through these leaks.
An article I read on Wired showed images of these discussions. Apparently very progressive viewpoints are welcomed on the internal channels there. It would seem that any viewpoints that run counter to that worldview, however, are gradually being eradicated by shaming and firing those with alternative views.
What's unfortunate is that with the actions that have been taken...I think everyone loses. Fuel has only been added to this fire on both sides.
Honestly I don't think there is much fuel added on both sides. This argument is age old. Since I was in middle school boys were asserting to me that due to biological reasons I probably wasn't as capable as them as I was very competitive in math and science. When I went to college, we heard the same argument used by Larry Summers president of Harvard.
None of this is new, especially when I discuss it with my mother and grandmother. Same story, different colors.
What I hope is that other woman continue to do what I did- ignore those people. Youll never convince them because the biological argument is impossible to disprove. The statistics are on their side. Now are the statistics due to social conditions, expectations, belief patterns, and women who simply want to avoid these discussions and intimidations - or are they from biology?
There is no hesitation from my life experience that it is the former. First woman was allowed in Harvard in the 60s. This is only just getting started but expect more of the same.
You're completely misconstruing what Larry Summers and the memo's author said.
The memo's author outlined some gender differences, and offered suggestions based on these differences to make working at Google more appealing to women.
Here's the excerpt from Larry Summer's speech that the ignorant masses and agenda-driven feminists have misconstrued to confirm their biases and advance their agenda:
> "So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them."
He is not saying that women are biologically less capable of pursuing math and science than men.
Not going into the merits of any particular point of view, but it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest.
In most areas of political life factions work to recruit seemingly nonpartisan entities to advance their agendas. They go to great lengths to compellingly demonstrate how what they want is really good for everyone. Saying "I was elected by X so I'm doing Y" is only used as an argument of last resort.
But on diversity issues people get up on soap boxes and unabashedly advocate for their side. Arguments for diversity as a broader virtue are seldom advanced forcefully, and when they are there's usually not much of an effort made to reconcile that virtue with specific policy prescriptions. It's bizarre.
The end result is that you have a game of tribes and quislings, where facts don't matter and nobody agrees on what appropriate steps are to deal with diversity issues because the only thing people agree on is that everybody else is acting selfishly.
So here you have a guy who wrote a thing advocating for guys. The rest of the world views him as a sexist. Sundar fires him. The guys who agreed with the author of the manifesto view Sundar as a quisling. The rest of the world still views Sundar with suspicion as a member of Tribe Guy. Nothing improved, but lots of anger was generated. Eventually there will be something from Tribe X, and more or less the same thing will occur with roles reversed.
Is it so hard to consensus build on these issues that even bothering to frame the discussion better is a waste? Or is it just easier and more cathartic to be angry and build support that way?
> it's amazing to me how few people talking about identity or diversity work to ensure that their arguments aren't perceived as naked self-interest
I argue strongly for diversity etc. and I am a privileged high-earning healthy English speaking white dude - literally one of the easiest levels of life there is.
Of all the things the author mentions as being propped up by political correctness, this:
> Capitalism is the best economic system
sticks out like a sore thumb. I thought progressivism was more of a market socialism type affair? A disproportionate number of diversity quota advocates are open socialists or communists.
Open communists? Interesting, I've never met any of those. Perhaps Silicon Valley and California are a lot different in that regards to NYC, where declaring yourself a communist is sacrilege.
well I don't know the situation on the ground so well as I'm in the UK, but certainly online most of the PC types I've spoken to are avowed socialists (as in proper socialism, not the Republican definition) and a few are communists. Looking at the on-the-ground anti-free-speech protests that have become so iconic of the movement you'll see a lot of anarcho-communist symbology and tactics like the black bloc.
I don't understand this stupidity - the original dude who wrote this thing.
A company is not a place to air out your public opinion internally and expect no consequences. This is not the National Monument. This is not your open Mike night in your comedy club. This is not where you scream and run and then cry first amendment first amendment.
This is a place of work. Actual women work with this dude. Imagine how they would feel. Imagine the potential number of people he interviewed that were women or minorities.
Nobody's telling this sad dude what to do outside of work. He could very well go and participate in all far right movements as he pleases.
But to espouse a stupid thing as 'women are less capable' and expect NOT to be fired seems like he was playing with fire by first setting things on fire.
And let's not get started on 'did you ACTUALLY read his memo? He didn't say that on page 4 line 43' like this is some Tolstoy level philosophical meta writing. This is mediocre crap written by a dude looking for a reason to get offended and throw shit around - someone who I think probably landed on the wrong side of Reddit or 4chan often times.
Sorry. The most serious crime I think is his ingenious creativity that made the CEO and many well-respected people to actually read his crap. If I only had that talent, I would become a professional performance artist and quit software engineering.
This exactly - it was mediocre crap.
When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that gender more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is frowned upon – not just because of innate sense of right or wrong. If this is being politically correct, then damn right I am politically correct.
This reminds me of the movie Gattaca - let us start deciding the traits of people based on the gender, race and blood samples and assign jobs based on that.
Is this SV PR doing a good job, or is it that it was impossible to verify the memo? From what I read, I did not see any mention of attempts to find, verify and link to/quote/distribute the memo in question.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fi...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16111724/google-sundar-pic...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/08/google-fire...
The Federalist is the only site I found to apparently include the memo, though I did not fact-check the article: https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversi...