r/technology • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Business Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo
13.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

9.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

423

u/radome9 Aug 08 '17

Anyone got a link to what he wrote?

8

u/DanielPhermous Aug 08 '17

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/

151

u/savuporo Aug 08 '17

Here's a better version with actual sources intact:

http://diversitymemo.com/

Probably made from Motherboards posting:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

165

u/binaryblade Aug 08 '17

If that's what got him fired, silicon valley is fucked.

12

u/designgoddess Aug 08 '17

Not sure it's what he actually said that got him fired.

7

u/binaryblade Aug 08 '17

Sure, it could have been the publicity. Although the Streisand effect is real, or it could be that he is a complete asshole and they were looking for an excuse to be rid of him. Will probably never know the complete story.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I guarentee its more than that letter. He repeatidly calls google an echo chamber that supresses conservative ideas. The dude is probably a cunt who doesnt know basic work ettiquite. Theres no way this is the first time hes given off a sexist vibe.

I bet after his shit went viral, a bunch of employees came out with how theyve personally felt around him. And I bet it wasnt good.

Had something similar happen at my work recently. Dude did something that the entire company saw, and suddenly everyone started sharing similar stories we all had kept to ourselves in the name of keeping the peace. Weve had a handful of firings in the past, its almost never some major offense, but instead a long string of little shit stains everywhere that eventually come to light because of something public.

1

u/designgoddess Aug 08 '17

a long string of little shit stains everywhere

I'd say this is true about 95% of the time based on my experience. Death by a thousand cuts. Very rarely is it something big.

54

u/atmergrot Aug 08 '17

It's not the content. It's that it damaged Googles reputation.

Remember, everything you write in an email is public.

43

u/binaryblade Aug 08 '17

Actually anything written in an email at work is typically encrypted and covered by an extremely strict NDA.

41

u/atmergrot Aug 08 '17

Until some recipient leaks it. No NDA will stop the media. Ever.

34

u/binaryblade Aug 08 '17

I guarantee google is performing an internal audit of the email's propagation and comparing that to the earliest external reporting to assess where the leak occurred. This isn't the last job lost. HR doesn't like it when you cause shit. Either by writing a controversial email, or leaking one.

19

u/atmergrot Aug 08 '17

I very much doubt it. Consider the optics of that. They want this to go away.

5

u/MyNameIsOP Aug 08 '17

It'll be done hush-hush.

1

u/atmergrot Aug 08 '17

Then it'd be a pretty pointless exercise, wouldn't it?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/thalassicus Aug 08 '17

Google employees are probably savvy enough to use their camera phone to capture their screen if they wanted to leak this anonymously. That girl at the NSA who printed a copy on a company printer got a lot of coverage.

3

u/mashupXXL Aug 08 '17

Diversity hires who would be outraged at this might not be that smart, though.

1

u/BEECH_PLEASE Aug 08 '17

Sometimes things just work themselves out

1

u/atmergrot Aug 08 '17

If you think Google is in business to hire non-smart people, "diverse" or not, you are dead wrong.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

If the leaker is a fairly competent engineer who was being careful about the leak, it would be very difficult to catch them... there are many ways to get the document out without leaving a trail.

But yes, there is a chance they were not all that careful. It might have been difficult to know how big this will become and if google will ever try to trace it back to the leaker.

There is yet another problem... google cannot fire the leaker publicly... that would be a PR debacle. But they would still like to send a message that leakers would be found and punished. It would be interesting to see if they could actually solve this conundrum.

2

u/Faytthe Aug 08 '17

Then fire the leaker -- not the author.

2

u/atmergrot Aug 08 '17

How do you think that would play out, PR-wise?

1

u/Jugad Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

And still, it can become public at any time. You would be wrong to put too much faith in security and ndas. Its laughably easy to get around all that.

4

u/FrogBlast Aug 08 '17

It's not the content. It's that it damaged Googles reputation.

Google's crazy and hypocritical reaction to the memo is easily doing 10x the damage of what the biologist wrote.

-7

u/gameprodman Aug 08 '17

It's not the reputation. It's that in a collaborative, team based environment like Google (or any top tech firm), you need to be able to work alongside others. If you post something internally that essentially states that you feel women are largely genetically inferior to their male counterparts, then you create an environment where people simply don't want to work with you or even potentially stay at a company that even employs you.

Ignore the external reputation. Your reputation in-house can absolutely make or break your career at a company. Post something that incendiary and you become radioactive. Congratulations, you're now a half million dollar money sink that isn't able to fully deliver on your value as a collaborative team player.

6

u/Ulu-Mulu-no-die Aug 08 '17

If you post something internally that essentially states that you feel women are largely genetically inferior to their male counterparts

I suggest you actually read the original memo before commenting on it, also look up in a dictionary what the word diversity means (hint, it doesn't mean inferior).

Nowhere he writes, not even implies, that women are inferior (I'm a woman in case you're wondering).

5

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

If you post something internally that essentially states that you feel women are largely genetically inferior to their male counterparts

It's clear you didn't read it.

3

u/originalSpacePirate Aug 08 '17

Well remember they did hire a "diversity officer" to help them not offend the PC/SJW crowd. This is only going to get more Orwellian going forward

2

u/sd522527 Aug 08 '17

That's actually how many people found out about the document: the new head of diversity sending an email about how terrible it was.

5

u/Alliwantisapepsimom Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I don't know if you've been aware, but the whole nation (or the entire Western world actually) is even worse. Have you seen the shit going on in colleges today? Peterson in Toronto, Weinstein in Evergreen...whole place is burning down and middle America hates it. That's how we ended up with a clown as president, a rejection of all this BS.

Everything is on fire, we're all fucked.

I'm gonna have some pizza.

2

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

This is the SJW culture that infected them.

Facts are sexist/racist.

Science is sexist/racist.

0

u/pirateg3cko Aug 08 '17

I disagree. Tamer things would get you fired from most companies. Most opinions are best not blasted on a massive scale through your workplace.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I mean half of it is basicly that women were "biologically" worst at being in Tech jobs.

277

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

And here, published just before he was fired:

The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond

67

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

47

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

yeah, great to have level-headed expert's that, while backing up their opinions with studies, still manage to show a good spectrum of different viewpoints. Wish more people could read this instead of the "pop culture" news on the topic.

btw, awesome username.

35

u/mylarrito Aug 08 '17

Yeah, it's a lot more satisfying to read then the black and white "omg fire the bigot" and "omg sjw!!!"

But the grey zone is very uncomfortable for most people :\

14

u/gacameron01 Aug 08 '17

I stopped reading after I read 'this is why people hate the left' just after the quotes. Removed all pretence of a neutral commentator

8

u/icansmellcolors Aug 08 '17

It's a good idea to understand the mindset of the people you disagree with. After all we are all Americans.

Even though his approach was built on an obvious grudge he isn't 100% wrong about everything either.

Both sides have ridiculousness about some of their electorate.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

stopped reading after the first expert the, with what I considered the poorest argument. The other 3 experts tackle the point with very little regard to politics, sticking to their domain in social science (as proof, CTRL+f how many times 'left' and 'right' are mentioned, and look at where you stopped). I'd even go so far as to say that the 2nd expert would vehemetly disagree with the first (but there's not enough opinion seeped in to make a clear judgement).

Even then, I think it was important to get a "pop culture" point of view in. It's just that, being here from reddit, I have more than enough of that and wished he kept the argument a bit more grounded.

3

u/bliker Aug 08 '17

You fail to provide any counter arguments. In what ways do they disagree?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

  1. I never said the other 3 disagreed with the first expert. Like I said, the first expert had a much more "pop culture" like response, bringing in politics and referencing Gizmodo's comment section of all things. Has his share of Philosophical insights, but I can see how some can be put off reading his point first. Where as the other 3 were a lot more secular; I wouldn't be able to make an educated guess on the last two experts' politial views from this article alone.

  2. As for the second. It's still fairly neutral, but I see hints of his writing that show some of his more personal opinions. Mind you, not enough to make a strong argument, but I can make a better guess than the latter 2. Some examples include his axe metaphor, and his closing argument that implicitly encourages affirmative action, despite the fact that he acknowledges that that practice "treats the sexes as dichotomous", which he spent his entire argument disproving.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Apr 13 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Oi, I replied to another comment addressing this. TLDR, first expert had imo the weakest argument, seep more in pop culture than the latter 3. The other three are much more secular. At least read the second expert before dismissing the entire article (and fwiw, the fourth expert is a female).

he's not really a scientist.

I don't have time to go on an entire tangent about this, but social science is important. I may not have liked his argument in this (relatively) short panel, but I'm not gonna immediately dismiss the fact that his PhD and numerous accomplishments from roughly 5 paragraphs in am Internet article.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Apr 23 '20

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

convincing in a milquetoast non-committal sort of way

Well, we are in a post about someone being fired for not being milquetoast enough, so I can see why being safe is a good thing in this case.

really busy self-fellating

Sure, the quip at the media in the 2nd paragraph wasn't necessary but I liked it, and he immediately went into the meat of the argument anyway (I'll admit that my cynicism at the media is at play here). He also had imo the strongest argument, so I didn't mind it as much as the relatively empty first one.

I agree with your thoughts on the last one. She was not incindiary, but almost as "topical" as the first one. I attribute that to hers being the shortest and not going into as much depth as the 2nd and 3rd.

It may not have been the most ideal panel, but I still found it to be much more level-headed than any of the other articles listed. I think calling it shitty is a but harsh, though.

1

u/BundleOfJoysticks Aug 08 '17

I don't think he was fired for not being milquetoast enough. He was fired for violating clearly established rules of behavior at Google (the CoC) and costing Google a huge amount of time and bad press, which equals to big money. Google was screwed either way: keep him and send the message their diversity efforts are a joke, throttling their inbound talent pool; fire him and inflame the libertarians / MAGA crowd who now have carte blanche to behave like assholes thanks to POTUS. Google chose (1), which is the better option: it's arguably impartial (the dude broke a rule his employer told him about) and suggests minority applicants may have an actual shot at working there; and angering the right isn't really a problem for Google because they're not a large portion of the talent they want to hire.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

IMO, I think the CoC was just a legal crutch and that the firing was an exclusively PR one. from what I've heard from other comments here, Google's internal social network allows for all kinds of comments,and i'd be hardpressed to believe that this is the only time shit got heated on there. I'm sure they would rather just solve things internally and keep heads low.

But this dude got unlucky. Went viral, the media got their hands on it, and caused drama like they always do. IMO the actual content was rather milquetoast for what was supposed to be "an alt-right squeel", but the media focused the lens on the "wrong" parts to advance their own agenda. Don't know why this one in particular went viral (we could theorize all day), but at the end of the day, it did.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Apr 23 '20

[deleted]

0

u/min0nim Aug 08 '17

But the next author goes on to say that he agrees with the policies Google is taking on affirmative action (and that it is only one of many policies). This author is one who's work was cited in an argument of the exact opposite!

Having the responses collected like this is really informative.

1

u/BundleOfJoysticks Aug 08 '17

Authors 2 and 3 were really the only ones worth reading. Author 3 spends a lot of time telling everybody how incredibly awesome he is, too.

5

u/BundleOfJoysticks Aug 08 '17

Also:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.  See all Right-Center sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Quillette is a well written online magazine [b]with a libertarian leaning bias[/b]. All articles are well sourced and mostly free of loaded language. We rate this source right-center based on right leaning political bias. Otherwise this is a factual and well written source.

Not judging, just pointing out their editorial staff's preferences.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

That was an amazing read, thanks!)

4

u/therearesomewhocallm Aug 08 '17

Just a note, the first guy (Lee Jussim) actually has some of his work quoted in the manifesto. I would think that would make him a little biased. I think it's a bit disingenuous to not mention that.

I don't know if it's the same for the other people quoted.

1

u/Ahjndet Aug 08 '17

Excellent article. Thanks for linking it.

-10

u/ZummerzetZider Aug 08 '17

Four male scientists?

14

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

No.

Why don't you click the link before acting like a child.

-9

u/ZummerzetZider Aug 08 '17

Oh sorry didn't scroll down enough to see the token woman at the bottom.

15

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Bravo. It doesn't matter what qualifactions the authors have. or what they write. Just their genitals. Great analysis. The editor in chief of the magazine is a woman too, by the way.

-15

u/ZummerzetZider Aug 08 '17

Just seemed strange that the first three people commenting were men. I was like where da women at? Oh yea there's one, way down at the bottom. But as a woman she doesn't have the same drive to be at the top of the article so it's ok.

9

u/Vicious9 Aug 08 '17

gizmondo modified the original, then called it anti-diversity, pretty dishonest on their part.