google employee's internal diversity memo goes viral

[dowie]

this was published in full yesterday but seems to have been picked up in mainstream media today - basically a (presumably white male) google employee has written a lengthly post about 'diversity' in google, some of what he's said is very off message as far as left wing feminist/identity politics types. He's presently anonymous to outsiders but given the media attention he's getting he seems to be the ****lord of the moment for the world's SJWs and I wonder if they'll be able to keep his name private for much longer.

While I think some of his conclusions are a bit risky (and potentially hint at alt-right type views) he also seems to have some quite legitimate and useful suggestions and his arguments aren't aren't all unwarranted.

He's argued for part time work (something that helps women/parents), he's argued that they should work to make senior positions less time consuming/stressful (again to encourage women), he's argued that programs focused on increasing diversity need to be critically evaluated and he's also argued against illegal discrimination (which is something that can be fostered as part of a drive for diversity).

The post isn't anti diversity per say but anti current approaches, though it doesn't seem to be framed that way in the media. The full text of the post is published by Gizmodo though apparently some hyperlinks and graphics may be missing so I'm not sure whether some of the rather controversial claims are unsubstantiated or whether the original internal post actually had links to back up his assertions:

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

now the reaction has been a massive **** storm it seems, some female googlers are publicly calling for him to be sacked on social media, some diversity VP has basically shot it down publicly and this post on medium from a former senior googler seems slightly chilling:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

[...]

But I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you. And the fact that you think this was “all in the name of open discussion,” and don’t realize any of these deeper consequences, makes this worse, not better.

Ironically his main argument was that google was a bit of an echo chamber... google provides these venue for employees to encourage open discussion and we then see that reaction publicly from a former senior googler! Supposedly the internal reaction is mostly against the guy too and rather than dealing with his arguments it mostly consists of virtue signalling albeit with a few posts saying he's been very brave for airing these views...

 

[dowie]

this is the official google internal reply:

Googlers,

I'm Danielle, Google's brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we've seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I'm not going to link to it here as it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we'll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, "Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. 'Nuff said. "

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that's why I took this job.

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

I've been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I've never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn't end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.

Thanks,

Danielle

https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en...ployees-must-feel-safe-sharing-their-opinions

 

[Dis86]

Interesting read. It sums up my experience in my last company where equality swings too far and becomes discrimination. Too many people who weren't the best candidate received promotions to positions beyond their ability simply because they ticked a certain box. That box was typically Female, Non-white, Disabled. I witnessed on a number of occasions the most competent and suitable candidates being overlooked simply because they were your typical white male and yet in another case a department which was wholly filled with women (internal document handling) having the one male applicant to the role of department manager refused because - and this is a quote from him - "they were afraid that putting a man in charge of a fully female department may affect the dynamic and lead to reduced work rates".

 

[Hotwired]

Too many people who weren't the best candidate received promotions to positions beyond their ability simply because they ticked a certain box. That box was typically Female, Non-white, Disabled.

Last time we saw someone being prioritised up the ladder we all knew she was getting boosted even if we weren't meant to and the opinion of her was less because of it.

Can't exactly think the best person got the job when you know for a fact that others were blocked from competing for the position.

 

[Angilion]

So this person spoke reasonably against fashionable prejudice and discrimination, emphasising individuality over group identity and equality of treatment over fashionable discrimination.

No wonder they're being so viciously targeted. People who challenge fashionable prejudice and discrimination always are and the more fashionable it is the harsher the response to challenging it.

At least the official response is sane, although meaningless.

 

[VincentHanna]

Too many people who weren't the best candidate received promotions to positions beyond their ability simply because they ticked a certain box. That box was typically Female, Non-white, Disabled. I witnessed on a number of occasions the most competent and suitable candidates being overlooked simply because they were your typical white male

Yep, it really makes sense for capitalist companies to promote people who can't do the job.

 

[Teknobry]

Yep, it really makes sense for capitalist companies to promote people who can't do the job.

Happens all the time in large organisations often where the role has no direct effect on profit.

 

[Steampunk]

Ironically, Google sort of proved his point that any view that doesn't agree with the "google echo chamber" is simply shot down and the author pilloried, instead of a discussion taking place. He may be wrong, he may be right, but if you're just going to crucify him without a discussion and reasonable exchange of views, then Google are failing where he says they are.

The ex-Google guy who says he would have had the author instantly sacked for offering his views (after being asked for them), shows the author has a point when he says that no dissenting voices will be brooked.

 

[VincentHanna]

So where is the post the guy wrote OP? It's about disingenuous to not include it.

Because everyone seems to saying that it said females shouldn't be engineers...

 

[dowie]

So where is the post the guy wrote OP? It's about disingenuous to not include it.

Because everyone seems to saying that it said females shouldn't be engineers...

try reading the OP a bit more carefully, in particular this bit "The full text of the post is published by Gizmodo" and then the relevant link to Gizmodo

 

[Dis86]

So where is the post the guy wrote OP? It's about disingenuous to not include it.

Because everyone seems to saying that it said females shouldn't be engineers...

Eh? It's the very first link.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I never got forced diversity. Lets end discrimnation by discriminating.... I know how to end murder, We kill everyone. Nobody can murder anyone if we all dead *taps head*.

Why do a certain number of black people/woman/etc NEED to work somewhere? don't you hire based on skills?

 

[Jokester]

So where is the post the guy wrote OP? It's about disingenuous to not include it.

Because everyone seems to saying that it said females shouldn't be engineers...

It's in one of the links in the OP.

 

[Dis86]

VincentHanna, making reading hard since 2017.

 

[Steampunk]

So where is the post the guy wrote OP? It's about disingenuous to not include it.

Because everyone seems to saying that it said females shouldn't be engineers...

The link is in the first post in this thread. He didn't really say that women shouldn't be engineers, he was much more nuanced and made lots of other points surrounding the issue of discrimination and gender bias. He actually said that people should be judged/employed/payed based on their skills and contribution, not their gender.

 

[VincentHanna]

Apologies, missed the link

That's a hefty document.

 

[Tunney]

Why do a certain number of black people/woman/etc NEED to work somewhere? don't you hire based on skills?

My experience of Google and other large tech companies is that they hire based on skills but they do encourage those outside of the normal tech-bro stereotype to apply. I don't have a problem with that.

Why do they need a diverse workforce? Because Google are a global company and have a diverse target audience.

Look at the problems Apple had when it released its HealthKit library for iOS. It was completely lacking the most important health tracking to women. A more diverse workforce (and leadership) would have created a better product.

 

[LeMson]

Our work promoted a blind guy into a job that needed working eyes, after 2 days he told them to get lost lol he wanted his old job back, so he got it

 

[FoxEye]

I think a bit like North Korea, this ideology has become so indoctrinated that no other viewpoints can be tolerated, voiced or shared.

These people want to criminalise every other school of thought. They want us all to die off. They will force their views into schools, companies, governments. Like North Korea, it doesn't make this ideology "right" or "correct" - but it will be enforced until there is no alternative.

And having viewed the comments on those articles, I'm struck again by the hatred for "cisgender white males". It is now OK to express hate towards us, and to say our viewpoints are inconsequential, and that all white males have no place in making rules or regulations re diversity.

In short: white males are bad, flawed, and unable to think correctly. Thus white males should be prevented from determining policies.

If you think I'm exaggerating, read the damn comments. "Cisgender white males" are now hated fervently by this ideology.

 

[V F]

VP of Diversity, this a new title?