Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[dupe] Ex-Google recruiter: I was fired because I resisted “illegal” diversity efforts (arstechnica.com)
481 points by kbwt on Mar 2, 2018 | hide | past | web | favorite | 414 comments




This one has been flagged out also. It’s beginning to look like HN really doesn’t like this story, since it’s the third time in the last 24 hours they’ve blown it off the front page.


We actually turned the flags off on that story at one point to allow the thread to stay on the front page. Eventually the flamewar detector demoted it; we sometimes turn that off, too, and am not sure why we didn't do it there. Still, once a story has 300+ points and 300+ comments, reposts that contain no significant new information are obviously duplicates. If we didn't moderate them that way, the front page would be mostly dupes. If you think HN gets mad about politics, imagine how mad they'd get about that.

The HN community is divided on divisive topics. It would be surprising if it weren't; any large-enough population sample is going to reflect divisions in the society at large. (Societies, actually; HN is mostly international, and the people posting here are coming from wildly different assumption sets.)

Unfortunately, each side seems to think the community is dominated by their enemies and that the moderators are secretly suppressing theirs. That's not true, but alas that does not matter, as you can see in the subthread below. One side is sure that we're politically correct thought police; the other side that we're misogyny- and white supremacy-enablers. The irony is how united they both are in that sort of logic. None of it has anything to do with what we actually think, believe, or do.


Sorry, it just felt like the story was being buried when I could see no good reason to. I personally didn’t want to get involved in the conversation (which is like walking on eggshells for me), but was interested in reading the comments.

Raising a dupe flag of an article that has been demoted for any reason doesn’t make sense to me. That means each story has only one chance, no matter the source, rather than seeing it through. If someone comes in, doesn’t see the article on the front page when they think it shouldn’t be there, they will naturally resubmit because they can’t see the conversation occurring.


That's the way a popular site with 30 slots on its front page has to work. For any hot story, there are a zillion me-too follow-up articles like the arstechnica one above. Since the story is hot, they'll all get upvoted. If we don't mark them as dupes, they take over. I guarantee you the community doesn't want that. In fact, almost everything we do is determined by the community pressure that happens if we don't do it.

This does mean that a hot story will get a big discussion yet many readers never see the thread. But that's true of every thread; it follows from the structure of the site. The way around this is to use HN search to find the discussion, or links like https://news.ycombinator.com/active and https://news.ycombinator.com/lists. Edit: or just look at the second page!


I understand what you are saying, but in this case the story isn’t represented at all on the front page. If the story was allowed to have its run, then, sure, see that discussion, but if it was flagged off or demoted for some reason, I don’t see how the dupe flag is serving s purpose.

I did learn about /active, which might be better than the front page for my purposes. I probably wouldn’t have said something if I was looking there instead.


Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest. It is very common on HN for articles that does not agree with or points out problems in the prevailing viewpoint to be blown off the front page.

I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are.


Issues that can't be discussed can't be solved, they only grow larger.

I once would have thought that this would have been somewhat obvious.


I used to think HN was one of the better forums, but after recently trying to post a rebuttal to this [0] with multiple experiences from my workplace, and seeing my response vanish moments later, alongside the speed to which these threads have been flagged out of visibility (whilst anecdotal stories concerning women still rank very highly despite having far less age and far higher votes), I've lost faith both in the moderating abilities and the community to self-regulate.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16502359


I vouched that one (and this) for ya, buddy.

I don't think either were particularly strong positions or poorly spoken.

It probably doesn't help that the automated rulesets here aren't kind to downvoted first posts by new users.


There are some anti-abuse features on HN which cause some new accounts to be banned when they're created. Such comments will be marked [dead], not [flagged][dead]. I suspect that's what's happened with both 'hncensorship and 'throwaway12395 (though I didn't see the status of the latter's comment before it was vouched). Some people get caught by this feature unintentionally: if they suspect this is the case, the mods have been very open about whitelisting such accounts. You can email them via the Contact link in the footer.

Note that this is different from people being flagged or down voted by members because of content. I can imagine it's very frustrating, but they are different behaviors. In one, specific action has been taken by members; in another, one has been caught by automated anti-abuse measures.


> I think this is emblematic of how tyrannical some of the people subscribing to the prevailing Silicon Valley viewpoint are.

Why invoke the "tyrannical" rhetoric in respect to clicking a "flag" link on a website? It's not that big of a deal. Not everything is an attack by the Silicon Valley elite, all sorts of interesting topics get booted off the front page and there is always someone with a particularly strong opinion in the comments who has to exclaim why their personal issue is the bane of the HN hivemind (a hivemind that underpins a decentralized conspiracy to destroy free speech in order to avoid confronting the unavoidable conclusions of your air-tight argument). Sometimes stuff just gets flagged, it happens on both sides of every controversial topic ranging from blockchains to booth babes.


HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups. This topic in particular clearly is and also garnered a lot of interest. Arguably a majority might actually be interested in discussing this topic as they might be perceived as a majority and be potential targets of this kind of discrimination. When an ideologically possessed social justice minority then in violation of HN policy and the interest of the audience remove it from the frontpage that is problematic.

It is also disingenuous to say this happens to articles on the prevailing viewpoint to the same degree. Articles on Damore and Fowler was plentiful, and they were not voted off the frontpage. The sin of oppressing critical viewpoints in the valley falls squarely on the social justice warriors.


> "HN policy states that topics should be relevant to tech and startups."

Something along these lines is often-cited, but isn't supported by the guidelines or by comments by the moderators.

From the guidelines:

> "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Discussions on contentious issues very quickly devolve on HN: it's not built to support them well, and many members recognize that. You're right, these are important issues and they should be discussed, but HN empirically has not been proven to be a good place to do so. And rehashing the same arguments time and again is almost the definition of not interesting.

Your posting via a throwaway account is anecdotal evidence of this. That's not a judgment, that's just a reflection of how it is. Likewise your assumption that curation on HN is due to "an ideologically possessed social justice minority": that's not a assumption that engenders the foundation of good faith that discussion on contentious topics desperately needs. Regardless of other factors at play that make discussions like this difficult (and I agree they're myriad), this is one that is destructive, rather than constructive.

And please don't confuse this stance as normative. Hopefully we'll figure out better ways to use things like online forums for working through issues, but we haven't done that yet. Want to have better, deeper discussions on difficult topics? One thing you can do yourself is conduct yourself in a manner that makes that possible. Build a reputation with a regular account so people can trust that you're engaging in good faith, and assume that people are behaving reasonably for reasons that may not be clear to you or you may disagree with before deciding that they're unreasonable.


That’s very reasonable. Maybe there are new functionality that can be implemented to at least bring back to the frontpage flagged articles of interest to the majority?

I think there needs to be a punishment function for ideologically motivated flagging and maybe even other actions done by such a minority, so that it cause the articles to stay on the frontpage longer when brought back in order to dissuade the behavior.


There's already such functionality, for both of the things you mention: emailing the mods to bring it to their attention. The mods have been known to disable flags for submissions.

That said, bringing up again "ideologically motivated flagging" ignores other reasons people may be flagging, such as the belief that such discussions aren't constructive on HN, independent of one's ideological or political position. And the mods do punish those that abuse flags and votes and submissions and comments. (And many who are so penalized think it's applied unfairly to them, from every ideological persuasion. Or that it's done ideologically rather than for incivility or other abuse.)

Here's how I'd break down my position in a nutshell:

- These are important topics.

- These are topics I think need to be discussed.

- HN empirically has not been a place where such topics have been interestingly and constructvely discussed.

∴ Such topics are for the most part best discussed elsewhere (i.e., not HN).

What I read from your comment is that you think these topics should be discussed (which I agree with) and should be discussed on HN, which I don't because I don't think that HN is structurally fit to handle such discussions.

So, with that, I think there are two questions that I would like you to address:

- Do you think HN as it is now is the place to constructively have these discussions?

If you answer yes to this question, then you and I disagree, and as I noted upstream, I think the evidence is on my side. If you answer no, the next question is

- Do you think HN should be a place to constructively have these discussions?

If you answer yes, what would make HN a place where such discussions could take place? There are certain things I think are criticial to being able to discuss contentious topics constructivelly. Those include being able to identify over time the people you're engaged in discussion with. This doens't mean know absolutely: pseodonyms are fine. However, you can't get very deep into a discussion on contentious issues if you aren't able to take others on good faith, and you can't do that without establishing some kind of reputation. Repeatedly using throwaways works against this.

Likewise, there needs to be a common understanding of civility. The definition of civility isn't universal, and changes from forum to forum (both online and in real life). There's quite a bit of disagreement on HN of what constitutes civil behavior, which again makes it difficult to dig into contentious discussions constructively: a shared understanding of civility allows people to engage on equal footing. This isn't a failure of any one group or perspective. It's just a reflection of human nature. This isn't different from real life: there are some topics you discuss with your family, others with your friends (and different groups of friends), others at work. Each has their own norms that allows those different topics to be discussed constructively.

It also means that that each point shouldn't be relitigated again and again. That sucks all the air out of the room and gets in the way of people having interesting discussions on a whole host of other interesting, non-contentious topics which HN explicitly has as a goal. This is really no different than if every discussion boiled down to a language flamewar or similar repetition. It's not healthy for the forum.

This isn't an exhaustive list, but I think it captures some of the important characteristics that make constructive discussion on contentious topics possible. You may disagree.

HN, for better or worse, isn't built like that. It wouldn't be HN if it were substantially different. I'd love to see a forum that makes such discussions possible. I don't expect (nor necessarily want) HN to be that place.

Each of these is getting longer than the last, so I'll try to refrain from commenting more on this, at least until I find a publisher. ;)


> Do you think HN as it is now is the place to constructively have these discussions?

I see your point about the fitness of a platform for challenging the prevailing viewpoints in Silicon Valley, and for making sure that people can develop rapport and reputation that makes them accountable. Those are all great points.

We would agree fully if HN banned all articles on contentious topics or unapologetically allowed all viewpoints with all the mess that brings.

Where I think we differ is what the right action is when highlighting a viewpoint that cause social dissonance. My opinion is that giving the stage only to people that shout the loudest when opposing viewpoints speak is a terrible choice, as in general the most extreme people are the loudest and I doubt those represent the majority. We gave the stage to the extremes in communism and fascism, and it didn't end so well. We do not need to repeat that experiment again.


While I appreciated your clarity with regards to the instant dead-ing, I think your response here shows a disconnect with the reality of taking a position counter to the status quo on many of these issues.

To associate viewpoints with your real identity that regularly involve a spectrum of mob justice and workplace dismissals seems foolish in the current climate. If you doubt such a climate, I'd ask you to examine the post which you un-deaded, observe that it is now re-flagged and re-dead, and I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified.

Even on my primary account wherein I substantial reputation, I would not touch threads like this with a ten foot pole, let alone express my honest opinions. My livelihood is far too important to risk even over a topic which I consider as worthy of discussion as this.

I'd also address your statement that this is "the same argument time and again". This (OP) is material evidence coming out that adds critical depth to an issue that thus far has been painted as very uni-directional, and is, in my opinion, going to influence the next N years of tech workplace culture in dramatic ways. If HackerNews can't handle this well, why can't we take this as impetus to think deeply about that? (With the additional datapoint that discussions "on this topic" that support the status quo seem to be maintained, whereas those that oppose it vanish, so I might suggest the topic itself spawning unproductive discussions isn't the problem)


> *"I'd ask you honestly if you as a moderator think that is justified."

To be clear, I'm not a moderator. My comments are a reflection of what I've seen on HN with respect to what works and what doesn't.


You sound exactly like the "ideologically possessed social justice minority" you're castigating.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946450

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868884

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14682604


The difference is that I believe in a sense of justice and recourse, and that is something social justice warriors do not believe in for their actions. I also believe that evidence can prove me wrong, which is clearly outside the realm of social justice warriors. I continue to seek out evidence when forming my opinions, and do not form ideas uncritically in my head.


When I searched "google", this story didn't even show up in the first page of "popular". I had to sort by date to even find it.


https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/google/google?...

First story, at least in my feed. It has made most of the news sites, since the story keeps getting flagged off the front page, expect more submissions of the same topic because people aren't aware of existing discussions.

Marking a submission as a dupe of a previous post that was flagged away is just wrong.



At this point I expect actions like this from people holding the prevailing viewpoints in Silicon Valley whenever someone with a different viewpoint dare speak.


Do you know of an uncensored forum that is better for discussing these issues? Is Slashdot better?


Gab.ai at the moment is the least censored social network to discuss this issue.


If you believe in reason I suggest reading the Quilette [1] and if you have an academic background you can join the Heterodox Academy [2].

[1] http://quillette.com

[2] https://heterodoxacademy.org


Unfortunately no. However, I do not personally use reddit etc.

I think we need to do everything we can to highlight injustices in the power applied to force only one viewpoint to be heard. In addition to this social justice warriors need to receive negative social and life repercussions for their tyrannical actions.


> In addition to this social justice warriors need to receive negative social and life repercussions for their tyrannical actions.

You realize this is exactly a description of 'social justice' and it is exactly this that is the problem


We as a society agree to state sanctioned consequences that are similar to actions unacceptable to individuals. The difference is that there need to be a sense of justice and recourse, which social justice warriors don’t think should apply to their actions. Acting like a social justice warrior in the workplace should for instance be a firable offence, and things like doxxing should receive severe punishment.


This is now officially beyond parody.


Why? Social justice actions that should be firable offenses that have been brought to light are;

- blacklists of workers that have the wrong viewpoint

- explicit race and gender discrimination

- using power to enforce that no one can express an opposing viewpoint

All actions that hurt those that are affected in material way.


Just for posterity, since even after 1 day I'm 50% LOLing at this and 50% still mildly annoyed: because you accused me in another subthread of being equivalent to those that would send their political enemies to the Gulag, when the sum total of what I do is click the Flag button on an HN article. Perhaps sometimes (e.g., now) I might also make a post criticising people with whom I disagree.

The consequences of my doing this are so mild, I just don't accept that this is worthy of serious condemnation. If you want to think the worse of me for doing it, be my guest - but nobody's going to get packed off to the Gulag, nobody's going to get sacked, nobody's going to get sent to Coventry. In fact, even once flagged, the discussion is still there. It's just not on the front page any more. Even once flagged, there are numerous other venues where this discussion could continue! And indeed, part of the reason I click Flag is to encourage this discussion to take place in those other venues rather than here.

Meanwhile, you advocate real-life consequences with material repercussions for those whose ideology you oppose.


Accusations in a lawsuit, even when they happen to support your preconceived biases, aren't the same thing as proof. Yes, the complaining parties in various lawsuits have levelled accusations of that (or, on the last case, substantially narrower accusations of which that description appears to be a somewhat hyperbolic generalization.) But anyone who can afford a court filing fee can put any accusation they want in a lawsuit.


There are screenshots in the suits of concrete messages from people claiming they do each of these actions. At this point the question seems mostly to be about if this is systematic or just individual actions.


> There are screenshots in the suits of concrete messages from people claiming they do each of these actions

Screenshots, without evidence of provenance, of anyone saying anything are trivial to create; they aren't evidence just part of the accusations.


There is a lot of smoke for there to be no fire. However, who knows. Personally I have seen the same behavior where I work so I am not surprised if this is all true.


Voat is the least censored forum I know of, but has the unfortunate problems of the communities it's become famous for. That being said, perhaps that should start being a point in its favor from how much aggressively the "HN immune response" seems to be shutting down any attempts to call out the blatant whitewashing here.

After watching how aggressively my comments were marked dead, I turned on "Showdead" and came to the realization that the dead comments were far often more substantial than those allowed to persist; at the very least it may be worth others doing the same if they want to keep trying to utilize this platform.


> Personally I wanted to discuss the article yesterday, but it was moved off the front-page too fast despite high interest.

You can discuss things that aren't on the front page. You aren't entitled to have what you want to discuss features on the front page, OTOH.


The frontpage of HN is quite useless, I go directly to /active it shows the most discussed thread, a better metric than upvote in my opinion.


I didn't know that existed, /active sounds very useful!


Awesome, thanks - I just got bingo!

I don't know if you're aware but articles can move off the front page because people (like me) flag them (as I did). If enough people flag it, off it goes.

Sometimes the article sticks around, and obviously mine was a minority voice. Sometimes it disappears, probably because, I expect, most people are like me: we've seen this stuff discussed before, and the discussions are, on average, poison - or, worse, repetitive and dull.

So, flag. Flag, flag, flag. (That's what I think to myself, anyway. Actually, I only get the option of flagging it the once.) I make no bones about this, and I won't apologize for my actions, because I have nothing to apologize for. I vote according to my principles and mine alone. If these principles happen to be shared by others, great. If not, that's fine too. Democracy in action.

(Well... I do admit that I give the discussions a quick skim, just on the off-chance I might see tptacek in action. My guilty pleasure! There's also the chance that somebody might actually, you know, make a good point, but I don't worry too much about that because my experience is that the risk is very low...)


So what you are saying is that you are the kind of person that would have send people to the Gulag for having a different viewpoint. Good job.

I am sure this feels pleasant as long as your viewpoint is in power. Tyrannies rarely stay that way though, so good luck.


We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines.

It's pretty rich to go on about censorship and then pull a move like this. If we don't ban you, then comments like yours destroy the site, but if we do, you can do the "help help did you see he just repressed me" bit from Monty Python.


My understanding is that the flag button merely makes it more likely the discussion will vanish off the front page, and there is no punishment for the participants.


Even if that is correct it does not make it a just way of fighting for your cause. Voting for articles on the front-page of HN is equivalent to a vote in a democracy. If you removed the opposing party candidate from the ballot you might reach your short-term goal, but at the cost of a functioning democracy.

In this case the article was marked as a dupe, but this specific article was not posted twice and previous articles on the subject was quickly voted off the frontpage by people like you despite high interest. This didn't happen to articles critical of Damore, so this seems to be exclusively a social justice tactic.

Edit: explained better why talking about voting is relevant as an analogy


I expect the moderators, or whoever it is that looks after this stuff, decided that since it was discussing the same case as the other articles then it counted as one in principle.

Sometimes multiple articles relating to a particular issue are posted. When these links don't attract much discussion, this isn't much of a problem. But when they do, it's probably best to try to centralize the discussion, lest the entire front page get filled up multiple copies of the same stuff.

This has happened before in the past and it's a bit dull if it's something in which you have zero interest.


Those articles were all flagged off the front page, not many people got the chance to see them in the first place. Whoever claimed this was a dupe was just being dishonest and possibly malicious.


I understand your point that if a submission hasn't been widely seen subsequent submissions shouldn't be marked as a dupe. That said, HN is curated, both by the mods and members. It's not purely a popularity contest or a democracy. Members may (and do) disagree on the curation methods, but the curation methods don't require a certain threshold of visibility for any given piece before taking effect.

Marking a submission as a dupe serves a different purpose: it provides a pointer to the "canonical" submission for a given discussion, and not just for those that have spent some threshold of time on the front page.

You may very well disagree with the effects of HN curation in general or for this submission in particular; however, I think it's valuable to recognize that marking submissions as dupes and flagging/downweighting are independent.


Marking of a submission as a dupe that was previously itself flagged off the front page is patently dishonest. Of course, HN is curated, its members can curate however they want, for whatever reasons they want, and those reasons are not always going to be good ones, which in this case they obviously aren't.


You can’t both flag an article on a topic off the frontpage so few in the audience see it and get to claim that another article on the topic is a dupe for the audience.


That one is paywalled and was flagged to death, and now this one is a "dupe."


And also this one, which was flagged to death: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16500834


Yep. I posted a link in that one too, so, fingers crossed, the people interested in discussing this will be able to find one another.


I have to say, as an Asian male I found this comment by dirtyid in the article to be succinct and all too true:

> "Pour one out for Asian males. Get screwed by affirmative action in education, media representation and now employment but can't get screwed on dating apps."

Asian men constantly get grouped as a single entity when it comes to tech and aren't considered an added element of diverseness within the industry despite Japan, China, Korea, India, etc. being quite different from one another.

Then you look at industries where Asians are under-represented and you can read articles from actors like Steven Yeun who talk about how they rarely get offered roles and when they do, it's often for roles that stereotype their ethnicity. For example, I just watched Annihilation and the only Asian actor they had in it of course had a broken English accent despite the fact that in real life, the actor actually has a British accent.

Pull up an article on diversity in the U.S., and chances are if you search "Asian" in the article you'll get 0 results.

I've always looked up to tech because it's a realm where we Asians are judged by our skill level and output, not the color of our skin or how attractive we look. It's a realm that rewards people who study hard and work tirelessly to refine their craft. And so it's absolutely frustrating to hear that we're too successful and that people scale back our representation despite the fact that they never happens for us in other industries.


You can use this sort of thing as a measuring point; when something like this is overlooked and inconvenient, you can tell they're making statements based on their agenda (the trend in the MSM, which is why you can see public trust dropping in them; they're not all stupid, they know it's not consistent). On the other hand, you've got people that make statements based on principle, and even if you still disagree with them, you feel it would still be nice to hang out with them, like they didn't establish their relationship with you by trying to lie to you through selective truths?

The cost of raising agenda above both principle and truth comes at the cost of a massive amount of people and freedoms, and their pretty statements about caring about any group of people don't hold water. (I'm looking at you SJWs and Aryan Supremacists)


As an Asian male this article also frustrates me. Google has always been a company I've wanted to work for but if this article is true and Google discriminates against Whites and Asians in their hiring process then they're not the dream company I previously believed they were.


I'm here to report to you that unfortunately they are not that company. I hear they used to be everything the nerds dreamed, but as the company grew, the original culture was unable to defend itself.


Oh, and check out their incredibly diverse board of directors: https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/company-officers/GOOG...

/sarcasm


Go to FaceBook, they still retained hacker spirit, at least for time being. You can meet a lot of previously frustrated Googlers there.


I like Facebook as an engineering organization, and was tempted when I was heavily recruited there. Problem is, many feel Facebook the social media company is making the world a worse place in many different ways, and their leadership had their head in the sand. Otherwise, I'd love to work there.


If you are a $race $gender, Google will hire you. The diverse candidate pool just means you need to work harder on your resume, interviewing skills, etc - since there's more competition.


It's because Asian's don't "need" the diversity agenda to help them that they are screwed over by it's policies. You aren't useful to them.

Your last paragraph is an explanation for why "tech" is becoming increasingly under attack by the diversity industry.


> Asian men constantly get grouped as a single entity

As an immigrant who came to the US from a poor Eastern European country just a few years ago I feel the same about being labeled as "white". It blows my mind that for many people a guy of British descent who was born in the US and a woman from Russia who speaks very poor English are both just "white".


Well, it's obviously because as a white slavic person you have never been under oppressive slavery like a wealthy black immigrant from Africa! /s


It's not just between foreign whites and American whites. Take a wealthy, white, highly-educated person from Connecticut, and a dirt-poor, white, high-school dropout from rural W. Virginia.

Both have "white privilege".

And so the poor, under-educated W. Virginian who claws his way up to being a self-educated programmer will be disregarded by Google along with the wealthy Connecticuter.

That simple fact bothers me immensely.


As a white Irish guy from New Mexico, this attitude irks me as well. No, I'm not the same as every other white guy out there. (I have far more interesting "gringo" stories than a white guy from Connecticut.)

No one should be judged or labeled by their skin color or ethnicity.


"Hire people not due to the content of their character, but by the gender they identify with and the melanin in their skin" #civilrights2018


Hey, a fellow New Mexican! Don't see too many of those on here. Would love to hear your stories.


As a white Irish guy from New Mexico

But see https://nypost.com/2017/11/17/apples-diversity-chief-lasts-j...

No one should be judged or labeled by their skin color or ethnicity

Agreed, and that includes “all X are the same”.


People don’t care about Asian males (and I am one) because they’re the highest earning demographic in the country. In a country where you die if you can’t afford health care, it’s quite reasonable to take the tack that economic challenges are in a different league than dating challenges.

Combatting discrimination isn’t about some platonic abstraction. It’s about money, wealth, jobs, health and criminal justice outcomes.

And when economic concerns are implicated (e.g. advancement into leadership roles), I definitely have seen the media address Asians. E.g. https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202779428743/.


Agreed, and it's a failing of humanity that we lump people together based on their appearances. That ironically includes the people who try and "fix" discrimination.


I would say that only applies to the people who try to fix discrimination by using group-identity-based adjustments. I'd think that attempts to fix discrimination that focus on forming shared identity (replacing the old categories) would not be susceptible to the same problems.


In psychology this is referred to as the common ingroup identity model for reducing intergroup bias. There are indications that the effects achieved are only temporary in nature, and negative outcomes can result from the loss of the overridden identities.


It probably depends on the scale. If you try to form a new in-group identity over a short time in a smallish group against a background that reinforces the existing categories, then I can believe the effects will be temporary. However, if the group is larger, the background identities weakened and de-emphasized, and enough time given, I think it'd work.

My impression is that current "anti-discrimination" attitudes actually reinforce the existing categories, even more strongly and explicitly than had been done before. There's a lot more labeling and "reasoning" through labels going on in places where it seems very counterproductive.


all of what you said is true, and that's why i (asian male) will always run my own business, no matter what the perceived opportunity cost may be, because it's nothing but a mirage.

counting on the white establishment, political right OR political left to give us any kind of a leg up or break is foolish in the extreme. this google episode is a perfect example of why. because we are merely 5% of the US population, we are treated as naive pawns by two sides in a larger game of ideological chess.

i contribute financially to asian-interest causes i deem worthy, but i'm under no illusion of this changing in my lifetime. the american social fabric is configured heavily against us and will be for at least one more generation, likely another 2.


You're conflating issues, and that's fine because you're frustrated. But we are over-represented in tech, and not anywhere else. There are obvious systems-level hiring problems that this company has and they're trying to fix that. It's so strange and selfish to hear "they should not try and fix this".


Well, that's not quite what he's saying. Remember, nobody is even claiming that underrepresented groups are actually applying and getting turned away - the statistics just suggest that they never even show up in the first place. Yet the suggested fixes are always like the ones in the linked article: turn away the people who _do_ show up until some underrepresented people come in to take their place.


google is based in California, which in 1996 passed proposition 209 which essentially ended affirmative action in education.

and how many hispanics, women or blacks do you see in movies or tv?

google is multi-national company with billions of users so it makes sense that they value having people of different skin colors and gender.

with a more diverse workforce maybe things like this[0] would not happen

[0]https://twitter.com/jackyalcine/status/615329515909156865


Given this (correct) understanding of what "diversity" really means in American culture, why do you think it is that Asian-Americans overwhelmingly vote for pro-diversity policies?


There's a time dependency in some of this. What "diversity" is, even from a purely left-wing perspective, has changed a lot within my lifetime. I was born in 1978, and when I was growing up, the left-wing diversity perspective focused on "race blindness", MLK's dream about his children being measured by the quality of their character and not the color of their skin, and that sort of thing. Now... well... I know a lot of you on HN are very, very leftist; how does that sound to you now? I'm serious about that question. I'd guess a lot of you, if you were careful and thought about it, would have a hard time answering that question, because it isn't a "right wing" perspective, but it certainly isn't a left-wing perspective any more, which now focuses intensely on looking at people by their identity groups, to a degree that (very, very much no sarcasm here) greatly exceeds anything like the KKK, who merely looked at your race, rather than race, gender, disability status, and all the rest of the intersectional categories. The idea that anyone can be race-blind is seriously heterodox stuff now; grounds to get one instantly accused of not just racism, but subconscious racism.

There's a lot of people still operating under the assumption that the older meanings of the terms are in use, because most people have better things to do than to stay up-to-date on this sort of stuff when they've got lives to lead and their own problems, not to mention the fact that there's some deliberate obfuscation that tends to go on.


There's a very easy answer to your question. It's the understanding that bias/implicit bias exists and needs to be overcome.

The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society.


"The MLK quote is such a red herring. It's a nice statement, but what one guy said 50 years ago doesn't define a culture or society."

You misunderstand my point entirely. I am not "advocating" for that position today. Nor am I not advocating for it. I am staying neutral on the "ought" in this series of posts.

I am saying that when I was 10, that was the "left-wing" position. Many people still think it is, because they don't keep up with all this stuff. As you are rather handily demonstrating, it is not today. (I was a bit concerned when I mentioned it that people would just be contrary and deny the patently obvious fact that it is no longer an acceptable left-wing position, but now I don't have to worry about that.)

I will also say that the prickliness you've been programmed to fire back with, as evidenced by the rest of your thread, is a non-trivial part of the problem. You've been left unable to understand what anyone is actually saying, instead of what you think they are saying, as evidenced by your reaction to what I wrote. You may prove me wrong by replying to this without bulldoggedly arguing about whether implicit bias exists. Should you succeed I promise to acknowledge that.


Race-blindness was never the left-wing position, unless your definition of left wing is maybe the feel-good commentary of prominent elected moderate Democrats, who had to appeal to the majority rural white populists. I don't think many or any prominent minority civil rights leaders led on any sort of color blindness platform.

In fact, the 70's and 80's were all about embracing blackness.

If i were prickly, i'd be making insinuations about you personally.


Initially, I said you failed. But that's a bit harsh. You succeeded in the letter, but failed at the spirit.


This "You were born into implicit bias/racism" shtick sounds an awful lot like religion's "You were born into original sin" shtick. The fix is almost identical too: give us money, attention, and spread the word, or else you're extra double-plus ungood and we'll shame you harder.


So you deny that implicit bias exists? Implicit bias has shown to affect areas as dry as medicine to scientific research, yet racial bias is somehow made up?


My objection, at least, is that I think for both of jerf's eras, the intended end state is still a race-blind society. And it seems perverse to map out a course to that goal that explicitly requires us to be conscious of race.


So you think it is possible to condition people to look at another person and have them never consciously or unconsciously understand them to be white, black, asian, or any other race?


No, and I don't think that's what's sought.

I think what we're looking for is that it's just another attribute, no different from whether the person has blue or green or brown eyes, or what style shoes they're wearing.

In a conversation with my boss the other day, a newly-hired AWS engineer came up. I've met him just once, and helped him get situated because his desk is near my team. I realized that although I'd interacted with him to that degree, I had absolutely no recollection of what his race was (describing him was a logical part of that conversation). I think this is what's sought.


As he says, because they do get screwed in all the other sectors. They do happen to be in the "privileged majority" only in tech, so there they see redressing as a negative, but only there (or rather, here).

The ideal answer is not to completely drop any diversity effort, but on one side (the "revolutionaries") to recognise where they turn into zealotry, and on the other ("the entrenched", of any type) to accept they might have to lose something to gain something.


because the alternative is to vote for an overwhelmingly pro-white party.


Thanks for sharing this. I hadn’t heard this specific perspective before.


Yep. Two former world powers each making up 20% of the world , India and China, are grouped together as "Asian" in the US


Be So Good They Can't Ignore You.


> Be So Good They Can't Ignore You.

That's pretty much the story of Asian Americans (and Jewish Americans, for that matter).


>I've always looked up to tech because it's a realm where we Asians are judged by our skill level and output

Do you think model minority or "Asians are good at math/science" stereotypes have any impact here?


You are entirely correct that despite immigrants being the largest source of diversity in tech, all diversity and inclusion programs in tech misclassify immigrants into US demographic categories from the EEO-1 Instruction Booklet [2] that underpins all diversity and inclusion programs.

For instance all of the following are categorized as white Americans; my German colleague, my French colleague of Iranian descent, my Iranian colleague, my white american colleague from Colorado, and my Iraqi colleague.

Silicon Valley recruits outliers from around the world. Applying US demographics to an industry where ⅔ [1] of the workers are immigrants does not make sense.

[1] https://jointventure.org/images/stories/pdf/index2018.pdf

[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2007instructions.c...


Iranians are considered white?!


Many of them consider themselves white. Actually, some Kurds are beyond white:

https://aliozturk.deviantart.com/art/Kurt-kizi-Kurdish-Girl-...


Yes, according to my Iranian colleagues.


The USA is a capitalistic society. We only pretend to look at diversity as something that should be egalitarian. Asian Americans don't have a large enough base to provide capital for any of these areas for people to see them as beneficial.


> In April of 2017, Google’s Technology Staffing Management team was instructed by Alogna to immediately cancel all Level 3 (0-5 years experience) software engineering interviews with every single applicant who was not either female, Black, or Hispanic and to purge entirely any applications by non-diverse employees from the hiring pipeline. Plaintiff refused to comply with this request.

Good for him. Google is now excluded from the "dream" companies I'd want to work for.


Google is the first big company that I actually rejected after receiving an offer from them. I had a really bad experience, and just felt like the company was looking for things I am much more qualified from.

I was interviewed by engineers who were all just recent college grads, no managers, tech leads, or anyone I felt were probably more qualified to interview me. The environment felt toxic. Most people I talked to looked unclean, like they just got out of bed to work. Had red eyes like they were tired. And the workplace was just not as clean as I was hoping. There were a set of dirty plates in the conference room I was interviewed in, and no one bothered to remove them the entire time.

From people I have talked to, my experience was pretty unique, and most people have had good interviews there. But even as an outlier, I don't like the chance of it being exactly like my experience. Things like this really put stuff in perspective for me though. I still went through the entire process, but in the end, rejected the offer. I wouldn't want to work in an environment like Google's, it feels toxic, and engineers feel like they are overworking themselves to death.


Actually your experience is not unique; you could see on Googlers in Mountain View or Zurich that many of them are one step from a burn-out, they are also often crammed next to each other in larger noisy rooms; most of them seemed pretty stressed out, not joyful, starting from receptionists. Such a huge contrast in attitude comparing to Microsoft (content/happy) or Facebook (high-energy).


I too rejected a job at Google after feeling like they just wanted to pigeon-hole me, so to speak. But, as a former Microsoft employee as well, it's not all sunshine there either. While experiences tend to vary, there I was crammed in a small, loud room with too many other people who I'd argue were more complacent than content. Similarly, I've had colleagues at Facebook describe it more as "exhausting" than high energy.

I've come to the opinion that, unless you're a "famous" engineer, or very senior one, that can command a lot of respect and autonomy, most of these "dream job" companies are going to feel a lot more like a well paying sweatshop. At least, that's been my experience as someone with only several years in the field.


I do feel like Google and co are riding on their reputation a lot - one they built up some years ago with promises of e.g. three meals a day and high pay and only hiring the best and such. I got one recruitment mail which basically said something to the degree of "hi I'm from Google, please apply here". Not convincing.


Don't forget the 20% time, which is long dead. That was the one thing that really made them seem unique to me.


Yeah, it depends on the project usually. It's like what you are hearing from people at XYZ (a higher rated company on Glassdoor than FB/GOOG I don't want to mention by name) who left to Google and 50% of them returning back after ~1 year telling everyone how much it sucked there :D

I really think you should stay in such a company for 1-3 years, build your cash cushion (i.e. stage 1 booster) and then lift-off (make your own startup using connections you made).


> people at XYZ who left to Google and 50% of them returning back after ~1 year

If only it were possible to access the data Linkedin has on employee flows. You could get an idea on which companies are actually enjoyable places to work at versus ones that people are fleeing.


> recent college grads, no managers, tech leads

I've just completed an onsite at Google MV and this stood out to me, too. This is Google's famed incredibly tough bar to pass? Out of six companies that I interviewed with in the area, Google's interview was the easiest.

I was also shocked at the lack of social skills from the interviewers. Most seemed to be 40-year-old college grads who had never left the Google campus. One interviewer arrived 20 minutes late, badmouthed the company and apologized in advance because I would probably get rejected.

It really lowered my opinion from "wow this is famous Google I'll be with superstars" to "oh maybe I'll tolerate it for childcare benefits and comp but with an expectation to shift offices in a few years".


Is strange the US being such a litigious country that they let "civilians" with apparently no training interview people.

I worked for a FTSE 100 company and unless you had passed a hard 3 day residential course you could not interview anyone.


That’s really unprofessional and disrespectful for a company like google.


Having read about (but not been through) the Google process, the idea is that you get interviewed by people who would be working for and with you, not (just?) people above you. Is that possible here?


Maybe you failed the test that you were supposed to remove the plates :-O


It's not his job to remove the plates.


Interview task: Implement dirty plate & cutlery classifier.


That's the joke.


As a black IT professional, I tend to leave the demographic information blank on applications because I want to avoid the racial implications of my application. I don't know if I'll be dismissed because I'm black and I don't want to be an affirmative action hire either.

I made it to the 3rd round of interviews with Google back in 2012. Maybe if I had told them I was black, I would have gotten the job.


If including your race gives you a leg up, then I think you should do it. I saw a whole lot of casual racism when I was in college, and if that was indicative of the experience of others then you don't owe the rest of us shit.


The ultimate goal from my perspective should be to eliminate implied tribal biases, rather than band-aid them. There's a fair bit of negatives with trying to force the issue with quotas, in my opinion -- by hiring on grounds other than merit, it might even perpetuate the bias. Those hired might for instance be thought of as "second class hires" within the company from the get go. So despite the casual racism that unfortunately exists, I can see why the poster leaves his or her race off applications.

In other fields, hiring can probably be done by ways that try to heavily reduce bias, and get similar increases in diversity without, from what I can see, the negatives of quotas. Some orchestras for instance have used "blind auditions" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_audition) for quite some time, with a noticeable increase in diversity as a result. I see in the Wiki that some tech companies are experimenting with this approach. I'd strongly prefer this sort of system over what Google has (if the details described in the lawsuit end up being true).


I would leave that information off because I had no way of knowing if it would be a help or a hindrance.

If I apply to Google in the future, I will probably include it.


Oh man! The irony of this. Diversity hiring doesn’t help anyone. What if you had gotten the job and your peers thought you were only there because of being Black. They don’t take your technical arguments and code seriously?


I can't help what other people think.

I know my craft and I'm good at what I do. Code that I wrote as an intern was in use for many years (to the best of my knowledge, it still is) at a former employer.


Unrelated, but this reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwMzZtU5H7I


It reminds me even more of the 'Woman Engineer' scene in Silicon Valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dek5HtNdIHY


Sigh, don't perpetuate this. Being an underrepresented candidate may (or may not) help you with getting your foot in the door for an interview, but no one is getting hired if they're unqualified.


I was qualified for the position but I got the impression that Google was just going through the motions. They got around to interviewing me a year and a half after I submitted my resumé.


I'm surprised that people still view Google as a cool place to work.

It seems to me that ship sailed years ago. They are a giant corporation reliant on one monopoly product to fund everything else.

Employees usually are stuck with some tiny part of a component in a system. The office perks are nice, but are you really going to do interesting work there anymore?


Google has produced some amazing software and continues to do so. I work with Kubernetes and Angular 2, both of which originated there. The quality of design, implementation, and documentation is a model for accomplishment in computer science. As an engineer it's hard not to envy the folks that got to work on those projects.

So...I think it really depends where you work. That's true of all big companies as far as I can tell.


Kubernetes is the product I’d mention, if I were making this comparison.


The free food & other perks will keep their "cool" image going for a while. But it's certainly dipping.


They were the first to do it in the 2000's, but now isn't every SV company doing that already?


Apple doesn't do free food. The Steve quote is "if you can't afford it, you should ask for a raise".


I'd just caution you not to buy in too much to the narrative presented by one side of a law suit.

You'll pretty much never see a more one-sided presentation of a situation. It may bear out or it may not.


Bear in mind though, the lawsuit is a one-sided presentation held up against millions of dollars of PR investment in publishing an image about how great it is to work there.

Yeah, reality probably falls somewhere in the middle, but the default narrative is already slanted incredibly far the other direction.


Unless the screenshots are faked, Google has racist/illegal hiring practices. There's no narrative here: just Alogna's own words being published publically.


Do you seriously think that Google is going to stop hiring white men?

What is claimed sounds like a completely crass method. Whether you like Google or not they typically do things in a fairly data driven method even with their hiring.

It is also blatant discrimination that as others claim would be fairly easy to prove in court. This would be stupid.

For Google to be both crass and stupid seems unlikely.


Do you really want to work for a company where world-class work might not be that important for your career progress? Do you think a super talented high-achieving person with wrong gender/race should be expected to sacrifice their achievements for "common good" as defined by internal diversity officers? Do you think those diversity hires would be happy staying at junior positions and not pushing beyond their capabilities by non-merit related ways, not exploiting prevailing winds? I think second world countries would love to talk to you about how this turned out.

Obviously, interviews aren't that great indicator of success, especially in a company that tries to hire the best according to their criteria, so the overall medium-term effect might be small, but they do risk losing those people that could knock them out of the ring in the future, and making those people forever negative towards them. But maybe that's already taken into account and weighted in their internal decision tooling and they are fine with that.


"Do you really want to work for a company where world-class work might not be that important for your career progress?"

I think pretty much every company has employees who would say that there are definitely people who get promotions and bonuses for reasons that are not related to "world-class" work.


Yeah, which is sad to observe with increasing probability in what should be one of our industry's flagship. It's double sad as there is literally nowhere else to go as a regular employee with high ideals; our industry could have done better.


They will stop hiring level 3 engineer who are Asian and white according to this allegation. The discrimination against asians matters to me even if you're perfectly happy with it in your social justice utopia that discriminates against me.


Meaning the "asian and white" people will become more entrenched in the (I assume) higher levels, with minorities doing the junior work. Or am I missing the point?


Or the pipeline's shut off to access those roles. It really depends on how much hiring is done at that level vs. internal promotion to them.


Where does OP every say that he thinks Google is going to stop hiring white men?

There's an obvious case of discrimination and OP said he no longer views Google as a dream job.


> Do you seriously think that Google is going to stop hiring white men?

What kind of question is that? Maybe you should rethink it. Why would being discriminated against like this make me feel better if maybe some other white man gets a job? What are we fungible?


It sounds like it was one manager. Is that all you need to blacklist an entire company?


How a company deals with a bad manager is very important. Assuming you believe the accusations (1), the fact that Google wasn't immediately firing people and settling with the plaintiff is worse than the original complaint.

(1) A big if. I haven't seen any hard evidence yet.


I imagine that not believing the accusations (or believing other accusations - true or not - made by the manager against the plaintiff) play a large role in Google not rushing to settle. They'd be mad not to regardless of their politics if the course of events happened exactly as described.


To be fair, from the outside it is often hard to tell what is one manager and what is company culture.


The complaint is pretty detailed and compelling. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391847-18-CIV-00442...


It's not hard - if in this escalation the company would have facepalmed and fired the manager, than that would be the case of one weird manager; but if the company fires the recruiter and keeps the manager, then obviously that's the company culture they intentionally want to have.


For any organization this size, assume that there is a fair amount of variance from one division to another.


I hold all organizations responsible for their own actions, reguardless of size. Too big to fail is a poor concept, logically, ethically.


This isn't too big to fail, it's "a bad egg doesn't ruin the bunch." Whether that's the case here is arguable, but no one is saying they aren't responsible for their actions.


The saying is "one bad apple ruins the bunch".


Neither eggs nor apples come in bunches!


Is 'allowing for variance' up to and including racism and sexisism in hiring? Because it seems like you are giving them a pass, because there are many hiring managers.


If someone who worked for Walmart became a murderer, would you condemn all of Walmart as murderers? Promoting a culture of murder?

If that's too far removed from the actual job for you, how about if someone at Walmart acted in a sexist way in an interview. Would you condemn all of Walmart? Would you automatically assume there is a culture of sexism? Or would you at least entertain the possibility that Walmart employs thousands of managers, so it's not crazy to imagine that some of them might sometimes act in sexist ways, even without such a corporate culture?

You need more than a few instances to prove a claim of "this must be a cultural thing", IMO.


A Walmart shop could be an isolated environment where a bad person can prosper despite a generally contrary company culture, but it isn't an appropriate comparison for this case: important HR managers like this Alogna aren't many, even in a large company, and the higher level management who kept him and fired the recruiter is an even smaller part of Google. They must be assumed to be representative of the whole company.


I'm not saying that bad behavior should be dismissed. But I am saying that the larger the organization, the more potential there is for there to be a bad actor that doesn't match the overall organization's culture.

If the recruiter's accusation is indeed true, then we should ask questions about whether it is endemic to the entire organization. Though given the company's size—especially its growth through acquisitions (such as YouTube)—it's likely that the behavior is constrained to a single manager or department.


Well apparently the company stands behind the decision of its manager.


I doubt this single incident alone is the reason, but maybe the catalyst. Google and its unhealthy lust for diversity has been an increasingly frequent topic. Hell, someone got fired for posting an anti diversity rant last year. While his arguments were weak or flat out wrong, it's clear that Google is making a point to single out underrepresented minorities to the detriment of others who may actually be better candidates.


I mean, if it's the same memo in thinking of, it wasn't a "diversity memo" he was fired over, it was a manifesto that has been reviewed and agreed on as sufficient cause for his dismissal several times now.

In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers.

That's not a diversity memo, that's a sexist screed.


> In it, he argued that women were essentially worse at logical tasks than men, and further that this made them poor engineers.

No he didn't. He said they were inherently less interested in STEM, and speculated about a few personality characteristics from psych research that might explain why, but all of that is irrelevant. Damore explicitly said that you can't judge individual competence from a probability distribution, even if the distribution of competence of each gender were different (which they largely are not).

Here's a broad overview of the literature covering what Damore got right and wrong: http://heterodoxacademy.org/the-google-memo-what-does-the-re...

Turns out, he was right that women seem to have different interests. I suggest reading about the things vs. people hypothesis. You can get more women into STEM subfields that deal with people if you highlight those aspects. Hiring quotas and some of the other measures Damore was arguing against would indeed have no effect on gender diversity given these facts.


That is not what the memo said. did you not read it or is this what you think the writer meant even if he did not actually write that but you have some kind of mind reading abilities?


[flagged]


There are a couple of reasons people are so quick to claim other people didn't read the memo verbatim. The first being that the first major publication to run with it, and the biggest one here on HN, was the verge's article where citations and graphs were stripped away from it.

The other is that is it often given such uncharitable descriptions that people who have read it simply can't believe the hate levied at it comes from actually having read the thing. I've actually talked this whole topic through for hours back and forth with someone who is very against the memo, but even they they would call it a sexist manifesto. That sort of thing comes across as off the cuff criticism by people who haven't read the thing.


There are many people who’ve read it and reached the same conclusion about his claims. Simply accusing people of not having read it – or the other standard talking point of claiming that the citations somehow completely change the meaning – is a dishonest way to avoid engaging with those criticisms. If they’re wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate that or find a statement by Damore that he didn’t intend his words to be read that way.


Sure thing. He says as such during his interview with Joe Rogan. If your claim is that he intends to present the idea that women are inferior in this field, that interview contradicts it.


Right, so that would be the thing to talk about rather falsely accusing people of not reading his original memo — it was certainly sloppy enough to be possible that the way many people read it was not how he originally intended.

If he's made direct statements rejecting biological determinism it should be easy enough to cite them — and it'd be useful to do so to avoid distraction when his supporters try to rehash the arguments in favor of that position.


You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me that anyone that has read the memo, and is not laying will not describe it the way DanHulton did. Seems to me that what ever conversation you want to have it should not be based on falsehoods.


I read it, and I think DanHulton described it in pretty much the same way I would. The charts struck me as lacking meaningful context, and loose correlations were treated as logical, causal relationships in support for discriminatory hypotheses, reading like a case study in how to fallaciously present opinion as fact through charts and statistics.


Are we counting reviews by pushing the same narrative that was being pushed by the people he originally offended? What I've seen is a number of scientists (in the specific fields that are related to it) backing his work, others attacking it, and all agreeing it doesn't rise to the muster of a peer reviewed paper/meta-analysis (though that seems a pretty insane bar to begin with).


Agreed on by whom? Did you even read the memo yourself?


If he was fired over it, absolutely.


Per the complaint it appears to be four managers in a row across two levels of management. With HR getting involved haphazardly at best.

Keep in mind that this is only one side of the story. There is little evidence to support the complaint. It's too early to draw conclusions.


Where there is smoke, there might be fire. Its not unlikeley related to KPIs set by high managment (given the news around Google in the past). And further down the food chain managers want to look good and do these things.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391847-18-CIV-00442...

It appears it was more than one. Possibly it was two.


That happens every day, in every industry. That's why selecting managers is so important.


This is a good point. There's a lot of negative press and truly appalling allegations swirling about Google, but it's near impossible to get an accurate idea of extent or even the truth of the situation from the outside.

Based on Reddit stories for a while, it seemed that even settin foot in the US was a near guarantee one would then be tasered, have their money taken by police officers, and then detained by agents from an unknown 3-letter agency and shipped to Guantanamo.

It's possible, though we have no way of knowing, that what's in this story is a case of a lone manager with an axe to grind. It's also possible that the attitude is pervasive.

It's likely best to withhold judgement and keep asking questions.


I work at Google. It is the most unpleasant place to work, largely because work evaluation is almost 80% politics (might be 100%). I am a senior engineer. You get stuck here because the pay you better than elsewhere, but I think it is a very bad and very sad place to work. My stomach curdles every morning before going to work and I wonder if it is worth it. Many of my peers talk in the same vein.

Please consider not working here, if you have other options (which you almost always do)


Friend - Get out.

Many of us have been there, and it is not worth that feeling in your stomach every morning, because it drains the life out of you, can cause all kinds of physical and emotional problems.

Go take a job somewhere else, where you might earn less - but will be less miserable - or maybe even happy.

Get out.


(throwaway account for obvious reasons)

I left Google a few years ago, and I did love working there, but unfortunately my experience was similar. I was on one of the non-software engineering ladders. The group I was part of grew very rapidly the first few years I was there. We were poaching the absolute best people from the best companies to come work on our team. It seemed like there was a new former principal engineer from MegaCo joining us weekly, and it was fantastic to be part of such a team.

But how people got promoted was sometimes a mystery, at least at first. Everyone knew who was the most productive, the most valuable. Yet the promotions too often appeared random. Because we were on a narrower, more specialized engineering ladder the promo committees consisted of the same handful of very senior engineers each time. After a while, it became clear to us that the people that worked with those engineers on the promo committee in their day-to-day ended up having their promotions approved. Those that didn't had far less chance.

This might not sound all that bad - if you're doing high-level work you should be engaged with high-level people. But it ended up becoming a patronage system: people would volunteer their support and time for the pet projects of those on the promo committee and in return they would get promoted. Engineers who weren't comfortable with such an arrangement ended up jaded and underpayed.

I saw one engineer who left a very, very senior position at a well-known company especially hurt by the realization that they would have to participate in this charade to move up. He/she had attempted to get promoted the right way a few times and failed. Under pressure from their significant other, they played the game and it visibly hurt their sense of pride. The promo committee members took turns jerking them around with various tasks for a year or so, but he/she got their promotion. The rest of us took notice.

I got the sense that this system was more comfortable to those who came to us from academia. I barely have a college degree myself so maybe I can't relate.


Google has an internal system which allows engineers to transfer to other teams. If what you described happened to me, I would secure a transfer and then report the situation to higher ups.


IIRC that works only if you never got a bad performance rating, then nobody would touch you internally and your chance to transfer within Google is lower than to move to another company to a better level.


If you transfer, you don’t get promoted


Can you tell me more about this? I have interviewed at google 2 times now. The first interview I bombed -- and I knew it. It was my first interview in near 10 years. The second interview I thought I aced. There was not a single answer I could not answer expect one about obscure hardware that nobody uses any more -- which I think was a test on how I handle not knowing something -- I ended up learning something neat.

The process took a long time -- much longer than the first interview or any of my other friends. And every time I talked to the recruiter I could tell something was up. At the end the recruiter confessed there was issues at the hiring committee and a unusual event of a manager getting involved. They seemed to indicate there was a fight about me being accepted. I have a unique skill set and am very qualified to work at google. I have over 15 years working the full stack. I write drivers for Linux, and design big cloud deployments -- I have the history and the background, so I would not be a gamble on any front. So I thought it odd that there would be an issue at this level, it was only later that I figured I was not diverse enough when a intern I helped train -- who happens to be diverse did get into google.

Anyways, with all the politics going on I am wondering if it is even worth responding to a current recurrent request.

My questions for you xxcode are the folllowing --

It sucks, but are there teams I can try and get on that would not suck? Somebody at google has to be doing good things and just be excited about working on the project they are working on.

I have a good job in Texas. It pays me $150k a year. I sometimes get bonuses and have a fairly good thing going with stock (not options, but stock). Is the money good enough at google to make it worth while?

Will living in CA/MV negate any gains in pay and benefits?

Is there any way to work at this company and avoid the entire diversity thing? I just want to write code and build awesome software that people enjoy using. Diversity -- while I care about it -- is not something I want to actively take cycles out of my life to solve -- there are fare more passionate people who are better equipped to think about these issues, I would rather write software.

Please don't think I am a horrible person. We here on this planet once, and writing code what I want to do with my life -- not everybody has to be a warrior for social justice.


I can't speak to most of the following, but I just escaped California for Texas and I'm fairly familiar with the numbers.

Per a recent news article (don't have it handy, but it was on HN so someone will probably post it), moving from SF -> Austin, holding salary constant, is a de-facto raise of $66,000 per year due to lowered cost of living.

And this is in _Austin_ which, I'm led to believe, has a very high cost of living relative to Texas. If you're somewhere else in Texas making $150k, your de-facto raise relative to California is even higher

Meanwhile, working at Google or another name brand company in SF, your total compensation is going to be anywhere from $200k to $300k. Working at a regular tech company in SF, depending on seniority, it's going to be $100k-$180k. Without giving specific numbers, I was making around $150k as a software engi with 6 years experience in SF, and I took about a 10% pay cut when I moved to Texas.

----

In short, if you're making $150k/yr in Texas, anywhere, you are doing better in terms of overall life (money after adjusted for stress/QoL), and if you're making $150k/yr in Texas outside of Austin, you are probably making more money in absolute terms than the typical Google employee. Please, do yourself a favour and stay in Texas

----

Edit: To add, a major part of why I moved out of California was because the politics was omnipresent and unavoidable. I have so many horror stories, things I would not believe to be true if I didn't witness them first-hand. And this is at regular normal tech companies. Companies that don't have the budget to spend on politics. Companies that risk their existence by spending money on things outside of their core business (read: the software they're building).

If you're like me, and you just want to do the job you're good at, do it right, and make a good wage, then California is not for you. It's not avoidable, it will drive you crazy. Maybe California will sort itself out five, ten years from now, but right now people are silently leaving in droves over it.

Please, for the love of reasonableness and moderation, stay in Texas and help us keep this place focused on the craft, instead of getting distracted by orthogonal social issues


Why don’t you work for google for a bit and experience it first hand. You can probably go back to your present job later if you want. As senior engineer at google, it is definitely 75%+ politics and project management and 25% technical competence. Depends on a group but perhaps if you are on a mission driven group like Brain etc, it can be better. I don’t know.

I would recommend joining a smaller group at google, and also one which has engineers who haven’t all been around at google for 5+ years.

Overall, it can be fun at times but relatively unfulfilling. Google pays above market though. I think if it paid market, almost 50% of tech staff would leave.

Product managers at google are also very political and if they are not, they get pushed out etc. I had one PM who always passionately argued about the user etc, and was eventually pushed out because he was not internally ‘aligned’. The product he was arguing against got cancelled this Friday after 2 years of work


Based on an article that went on HN a few days ago:

https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/

it seems luck (as in being the right person on the right project) plays a large factor (not the only factor, of course).


On the other side Google’s getting shamed for not being diverse enough. I’m sure many recruiters and hiring managers’ bonuses are tried to how many diverse candidates are hired.


In other words, this mess could be due to a lack of true leadership. They're reacting to one criticism then the next, without really having a coherent, defensible idea of their own.


Companies will always be shamed for not being diverse enough. Tis the call of outrage culture.


I wouldn't think of someone as "horrible" for not caring what color other people's skin is. That's a testament to the world we're in. If you don't actively and consciously take skin color into consideration, you're a bad person!


I don't think this anecdote is a good way to judge bias. Companies don't always want to hire the most senior and experienced person that interviews, and that's not always a bad thing.

Google already suffers from a lack of junior people (see the post from a few days ago from a Xoogler complaining that the work he was doing was not deemed promo worthy), so it's not necessarily a surprise that the hiring bar for junior engineers would be lower - they're junior engineers.

And this law suit alleges that Google discriminated against non-diverse candidates at the most junior level anyway.


I feel I must respond since I also moved from Dallas to SFO. Equivalent salary will be around 230ish for your 150. You may still struggle to buy a house because of competition. Just a head's up.


I feel the exact opposite. I love going to work everyday at Google. I get the way you describe at previous companies. Not at Google.


Maybe you two should compare where you work and what you do; Google's a big company with over 72.000 employees, it's highly unlikely everyone has the same experience worldwide.


Exactly, two engineers could have an entirely different experience based on their team. Engineers can transfer to different teams too, though that team will obviously look at the engineer's history of performance.


Two engineers on the same team can even have vastly different experience. Google is big enough that it attracts a huge spectrum of engineers and one person's hellish workplace is another person's bliss.


How long have you been working at Google and what's your position (if you don't mind the question)?

Both factors may make a significant difference in the judgment of "working at Google" (I don't imply anything, either negative or positive).


Please don't take this the wrong way, but attitudes like what you just described contribute to a toxic work culture--people sticking around just because of the money but hating every minute of it. It implies that people there are not just unhappy but will do/say things they don't believe in just to keep the paychecks rolling in.

Working at big companies like Google is not for everyone. Unless you have material reasons for staying--such as funding care of aging parents--wouldn't you be happier and more successful by taking your own advice?

p.s., I don't work at Google and don't ever want to.


Management is responsible for the environment that is created in a company.

Please don't blame employees that are complaining about stressful working environments - their plate is already full.


There is no victim. This isn't chattel slavery. OP can say no to shitty culture and find another job. Take some of that good money save up a 6 month emergency fund and GTFO. There is no reason you should be going into work everday with a curdled stomach.


There is no victim. This isn't chattel slavery. Women can say no to shitty culture and find another job. Take some of that good money save up a 6 month emergency fund and GTFO. There is no reason you should be going into work everday with a curdled stomach.


people should take ownership of the consequences of their actions, especially when those actions are part of their professional identity and are reasonably within their control. Google is by almost no account a "stressful" working environment in the sense that its employees are well paid even within the context of a wealthy developed nation, have the freedom to leave, have ample access to health care, sick days, and paid vacation, have a physically safe workplace with minimal to no risk of personal injury, have socially highly respected work that is building a foundation for whatever career future they want, etc. etc.

This isn't a field worker complaining about back-breaking labor conditions and wage theft, this a professional engineer at a top company who I certainly would not want on my team (I'm also a software engineer) if they're as checked out as they say, both for their sake and mine.

I've worked with plenty of checked-out paycheck/stock-vest campers, and their effect on team morale is palpable, and the damage they do during their remaining tenure is usually pretty severe.


"people should take ownership of the consequences of their actions, especially when those actions are part of their professional identity and are reasonably within their control."

That's a normative statement, which I personally agree with, along with the rest of your post, so this is by no means disagreement with anything you said. But it's really easy for people to rationalize away normative statements.

I prefer something a bit more direct: Nobody else is going to save you. Whether or not it "should" be your job to manage your own happiness is an interesting philosophical discussion that happens to have absolutely no bearing on your life, because in your real life, it's on you.

If you are that unhappy with your job, do something. Nobody else will.


Agreed and I did. I quit Google this Friday.


Congratulations on your determination. Many people don't have the fortitude to take such a step; while it may seem a bit silly, I recommend going ahead and taking a moment to allow a bit of pride in that, so as to encourage the brain bits that allowed you to do that.

I wish you the best.


So you don't see the problem as lying with the people who dictate stupid policies because they don't know what they're talking about? You think the problem is with the people who try to push back, realize that there's no future in it, and learn how to shut up and keep their head down? Uh...


Consider deleting this post. You can be easily doxxed from your HN post history; it's not worth it.


Once there's a reply it can't be deleted, only edited to remove the content. After two hours that's not even an option anymore.

Generally, I think it's good policy to be very guarded on the internet and/or change accounts often. There are all kinds of awful people out there, and you can't control who you may come across.


It doesn't hurt to try emailing the HN contact address hn@ycombinator.com asking to remove or edit a post after the time limit.


Which confirms what he said?


It's not only about malicious actors within the company; they might end up in some sort of external blacklist scrapped off HN that would complicate their life once they depart their current company. It's best to have 0 private opinion trace on doxxable accounts these days and usual VPN + Tor circuit.


Thank you. This is a good point. I deleted a submission that had my email address. Perhaps they will black ball me but I dont think I said anything that was libel or false. I just shared my opinions.


Seconded.


You are correct that if you work in tech create a throw-away account to discuss anything critical of the prevailing viewpoints. Many holding the prevailing viewpoints are tyrannical and have shown themselves willing to destroy the lives of anyone pointing out problems in their viewpoint.


It sounds like the best thing that could happen to them is to be fired.


Oh man. That is quite a twist to the Google of 2010. But I guess any company that crosses 10,000 people mark will have heavy politics.

Google makes so much money from ads, it doesn’t know what to do. Like Microsoft, so much middle management that from customer pain to engineers, requirements are loaded with a ton of personal agenda and political gain.


Reading this hurt. Life's to short. Quit. There are plenty of places that pay just as good or give you much more than just raw cash. If you've a family to feed (like me) I totally can get why you'd want to say. I know it's easy for me to say quit and find something else too. But please take it from a dumb guy who pities others that he feels are making the same mistake as he did. Quit. The world is too beautiful and miraculous to lose days to feelings like that.


Performance systems are always political and if you are unlucky driven by Dogbert in hr who's bonus is based on cutting the pay quanta.


I have nothing but loathing for performance evaluation metrics... which is partly why I’m a solo dev right now


I have avoided LargeCos for precisely this reason. Worked in one a long time ago and witnessed the same thing - this is hardly unique to Google.

Once companies significantly outgrow the Dunbar-number range[1], political processes are the only way to manage things, and it infects everything.

For me, my quality of life is worth the tradeoff[2], and I turn down headhunters from them AmaGoPleBook seemingly constantly. If you want to pursue your actual work, as opposed to refining your skill at signaling games, move to a smaller shop.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

[2] Another reason to keep debt low and personal commitments fluid - turning down a six figure raise because it would make life hell gets harder with both.


I found this shocking. How did this come to be? Don't places like Google reward people based on merit. Isn't it the hallowed ground for egalitarianism? I read an article about the hiring practices at Google that spoke highly about it.


Honestly, I'm not so surprised. A lot of stuff about employment Google reads like hagiographies. Maybe it was that way in the distant past, but its most notable perks (20% time, etc.) have been cut and it's big and publicly traded now, so rot has definitely had time to set in.


20% projects have been cut? I wish someone told me that before I started a 20% project which spanned multiple quarters, and still did well in my last performance review.

If an engineer isn't doing well on their 80% project, a 20% project might be frowned upon, that is true.


I guess the policy has changed. My impression was in the early days you could work 20% on your own stuff (no/few approvals necessary) and 80% on your corporate assignments. That's changed into something that, frankly, isn't very unique:

https://www.hrzone.com/lead/culture/why-did-google-abandon-2...:

> Why did Google abandon 20% time for innovation?

> In 2012 the firm began requiring engineers who wished to work on individual projects to run their proposals by their managers first. This was a significant change from the firm’s previous policy.

> In 2013 it was reported that managers had clamped down on staff taking ’20% time’ so as to avoid their teams falling behind in Google’s internal productivity rankings. Managers are judged on the productivity of their teams—Google has a highly developed internal analytics team that constantly measures all employees’ productivity—and so time spent on ’20% time’ projects would impact this.

2013 Google sounds like pretty much every other major company, in this area.


I think you can still do a 20% project. This was about the performance systems, and not about workload. Workload is easy peasy. Its almost a sinecure for most people because all you need to do is to optimize for promo.


The refrain I hear is that you can do 20% projects, but you have to do it on top of your 100% project, which isn't contradicted by what you say.


So that refrain seems to imply the 20% project must be done as additional work after spending 40 hours a week on the 100% project. My point was you actually can spend roughly 32 hours a week on your main project, if you are performing well, and then roughly 8 hours a week on your 20% project, and still get high performance ratings.


But do managers adjust their expectations of your main project to 0.8 of expected output?

Sure if you can get everything expected of you done in 32 hours, you can spend the remaining 8 on something else.


If you don't mind me asking... Why do you continue working there?


Pay attention to what people do more than what people say. People vote with their feet. A senior engineer at Google can easily get a high paying job anywhere else.


Imagine that you find a job that excites you, and you look forward to working on challenging stuff every week.

So the question you have to ask yourself is this: Is the difference in pay between these two jobs really worth it?

The times when I asked myself this question, the answer was always really clear.


a quick browse of your comment history suggests we'd enjoy working together. n3twork, mobile video games. san francisco. email me at erin@n3twork.com if you think you might be interested.


[flagged]


a much simpler explanation exists: their workplace sucks

(ex-Googler, have yet to read anything genuinely surprising in the past few weeks)


True, but it's also a very biased view with events that take place in most of large companies (you can find these reports for Amazon, Apple, etc. etc.) And yet others seem to get a free pass while Google is targeted by wrath of HN. Why?


It could be because we're in a thread discussing a court case about possible discrimination at Google...


It's because people think there is discrimination in tech against Caucasians.


Amazon has been highly criticized here. Apple much less so for reasons that aren't clear to me.


Mostly because Apple has legions of fanatics which are well established here. Apple gets criticism, you just don't get to see it unless you change your prefs to show flagged/dead posts.

It's ironic, because Apple fans were painted as carrying the sledge hammer of inconvenient truth, not acting like the grey drones who oppress all differences of opinion in the 1984 commercial.


Maybe there are actual people that feel this way? Crazy, I know.

Oh who am I kidding, it must be Russians.


Perhaps, but that user has been on HN since 2011 - not many posts though


Old social media accounts are available for sale exactly because they look more legitimate. (I'm just pointing a general fact, not that the user in question is a shill.)

I read an article describing the fenomenon, I can't find it now but there's plenty of interesting results if you search Google.


phenomenon*: Couldn't help myself.

I'd be surprised if people were selling HN accounts for this purpose, it's much easier to reach a larger audience, and have more impact, on a general social media site than HN. I wouldn't suspect the practice is likely to happen here.


Account created: 2011. You're suggesting someone was planning to smear Google on HN since 7 years ago?


People should check out the actual complaint [0]. It includes a lot of things the article doesn't including:

A screenshot of an email from Allison Alogna to "Team" stating

> Please continue with L3 candidates in process and only accept new L3 candidates that are from historically unrepresented groups.

Another stating in part

> And we should only consider L3s from our underrepresented groups.

It also tells us that this wasn't the first time the plaintiff had issues with his manager over this topic. He had the same issues with the previous manager, the previous manager was found by internally by Google to have retaliated against him for his complaints, and Allison Alogna was hired to replace that manager.

[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4391847-18-CIV-00442...


I don't understand how this didn't raise red flags from legal/HR.

From the article:

> In a statement, Google said [...] it has a "clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles[...]"

You can't have it both ways. You're either based solely on merit, or on merit and how non-male and non-white they are. Which is discrimination.

EDIT: Sorry -- Finding pools in "diverse" areas is fine, but dropping resumes in the bin when they are not "diverse" enough is not.

I hate that "diversity" has been politicized like this and I feel like it's one of the failings of the left's identity politics bent that will come back to bite them.

Getting minorities in your company to win some diversity points is great, but missing the actual benefit to society. The goal should be, for society, to equally encourage minorities to get STEM degrees and jobs so that companies don't have to play this stupid "look how diverse we are!" game.

And it won't happen overnight.

Companies should just hire on merit[1]; be completely blind to their workforce's background. They should enforce this neutrality like they enforce neutrality toward anyone's religion. "I don't care as long as you can do your job". If they are concerned about monoculture, then advertise and advocate in areas that they think will improve that. But just leave hiring to merit.

Eventually diversity will trickle-up. It shouldn't just be up to companies.

EDIT [1]: Yes, merit can be an ambiguous term. And I should have also stated they can hire based on "fit", which is another ambiguous term. But sorry, if your devote beliefs restrict you from using any electronic devices, then no, you aren't getting the web developer job. It's not a good "fit".


> You can't have it both ways. You're either based solely on merit, or on merit and how non-male and non-white they are. Which is discrimination.

Actually yes, you can. There are 2 steps in recruiting:

1. Find people who want to apply 2. Have them go through a hiring process to select which one you make an offer

You can seek diversity in step 1 and be completely merit-based on step 2.

If your step 1. is mostly ask your (currently overwhelming white male) engineers for referrals, of course you'll get a bunch of white dudes. You have to find other channels.

Diversity shouldn't be excluding people who happen to be part of the current majority, but enlarging your pool of candidates.

Also, the whole idea of hiring "merit-based" is a bit naive because you're not hiring people on a single objective metric. There are a bunch of metrics, most of them judged subjectively: technical abilities, adaptability, communication abilities, person easy to work with, and the list goes on.

So while Google definitely screwed up by trying to take the easy path to a more diverse workforce, you can seek diversity without excluding white dudes.


>You can seek diversity in step 1 and be completely merit-based on step 2.

What are your feelings on blocking all non diverse applications in step one and allowing only diversity candidates to proceed to step 2?


Yes -- I missed the "pool of candidates" part. I was assuming based on their defensive posture they were referring to the hiring manager dropping resumes of otherwise qualified individuals.


I think the challenge is how to correct for unconscious bias (e.g. the classic NBER finding that "black" names have to send in 150% of the resumes of "white" names to get the same interviews[0]) without over-correcting. When people think they're making objective, merit-based judgements, they are actually being racist, sexist, classist, etc.

So how do you fix this? One way is what you suggested: "companies ... should be completely blind to their workforce's background. This is doable in the interview process; for example a test which results in an offer if passed. (Though normal interview processes are not like this.)

But recruiting is more difficult, because right it involves humans reaching out to other humans who they judge to be a good fit. So being truly merit-based there requires some correction of one's own intuition.

I mean, if recruiters were really instructed to "purge the hiring pool" of non-diverse candidates then that's obviously pretty blatant. But I just wanted to note that being 100% merit-based is not easy.

[0] http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html


Trying to find a diverse pool is fine. You can recruit at historically black colleges, you can offer benefits like family leave or daycare that might appeal statistically more to women. You can try to show that your organization is not racist and will be welcoming to people of color.

It is fine to try and attract a diverse group of applicants, but after they apply, the basis of hiring should be who is qualified.


Yes, I agree. Perhaps I was not clear that this is what I meant.


Good luck defining and hiring purely on merit. Good luck separating merit from unconscious biases related to where you've seen merit previously. And typically most of what you've seen previously is people like you.

I've seen plenty of excellent computer engineers who started out as physics majors, or astronomers, or music majors...but they were universally white men (mostly because I've only ever been around white men in this business).

If a black woman came to me with a background in East Asian linguistics, would I naturally associate her with the success stories I've seen, or would I think she's unqualified and needs to get more experience elsewhere?

I suspect the latter.


> If a black woman came to me with a background in East Asian linguistics, would I naturally associate her with the success stories I've seen, or would I think she's unqualified and needs to get more experience elsewhere? > I suspect the latter.

Really? And you would not think that of a white candidate?

Frankly, I would be intrigued by anyone with a background in East Asian linguistics who taught themselves programming, and would be very careful not to quickly discount them.


Completely agree about missing the actual benefit to society of focusing on better education and opportunities for all. Amazing how quickly things can go off the rails when you start evaluating middle management off some metric like "number of diversity hires" which seems like a good idea but then backfires into something ridiculous like this. I hope this sets a fire under Google's management to keep better track of HR


Problem is that leaving companies open to lawsuits from individuals, organizations like the NAACP, and even from the DoJ.

Whenever the demographics of a company do not match the demographics makeup of society at large, then the company is legally on the defensive. And the fines can be BIG


This definitely changes the tone of things. That's pure discrimination. It would be one thing to set quotas that favor a group, it's another to exclude any group at all.

Sounds like someone above the manager is responsible for this and the manager is carrying out orders. You don't get a historic paper trail like that by not being told to continue on.


> It would be one thing to set quotas that favor a group, it's another to exclude any group at all.

Any sufficiently low quota is equivalent to exclusion (ie a quota of 1 is pretty much like a quota of 0, which really means "nobody"). The very notion of quota implies exclusion (of those who are "past the quota").


> It would be one thing to set quotas that favor a group, it's another to exclude any group at all.

Both of those are illegal.


Affirmative action is definitely not illegal, regardless of whether it should or shouldn’t be.


Affirmative action literally means the opposite of what you think it means. It means that there will be efforts taken to ensure no discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, sex, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 etc


That’s a very selective and intellectually dishonest defense. That was the original law, then extended by Johnson and taken in a different direction altogether by future leadership.

The current Department of Labor on affirmative action [0] clearly paints a very different picture that more accurately reflects the current meaning:

For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans.

And here’s the dictionary entry for “affirmative action:”

efforts to make education and employment available to people who have traditionally been treated unfairly, for example because of their race or sex, by giving them some advantages over people who have traditionally been more powerful

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/affir...

[0]: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact


How do you know what he thinks it means?


Not for jobs, but for higher education it is in a few states already. So there is precedent.


Another interesting thing there is that it's only L3's, which (it seems) are juniors / new people; you could argue that that too is discriminatory and it enables the "white male" stereotype to remain in leading positions while the "grunt work" is done by underrepresented groups.


My guess it that for more senior roles they do not have the luxury to be so selective.


Apart from the difference between not hiring aspirants and driving away old employees, the metrics of diversity are probably based on pure head count, not on having quotas on important roles (which would also be unlikely to be satisfiable).


Whenever there is a panel discussion, it is always a bunch of dudes.


Yeesh. Documentation of quotas and racial/gender discrimination in hiring. This is as clear-cut as it gets.


Thanks for finding this, this seems different than what the article alleges.

This actually seems more likely, since it lines up with what Google has said previously - that they do not alter the hiring bar for anyone, i.e. that interview/hiring committee is independent, but they do ask recruiters to focus on finding diverse candidates, and they have also said they coach diverse candidates about what to expect from interviews.

I think how this will play out depends on whether this applied to all recruiters in the company/all recruiters filling a set of specific roles, and/or if non-diverse candidates could still apply to Google and get into the funnel.


Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: