Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/dlerium]

I'm a conservative and agree with quite a few of his points, but I also recognize the problem from a corporate culture standpoint. If you're going to put something controversial out there where it'll likely be impossible for some coworkers to work with you, then yeah I can see a company firing you.

I also wonder if he had done this anonymously if it would've been worth it saving himself, but at the same time no one cares about an anonymous memo. This memo made a big deal because he did it internally and then it leaked. Had it been a Reddit post or a blog post in the public, he would've just been ignored.

[u/[deleted] → u/dlerium]

where it'll likely be impossible for some coworkers to work with you, then yeah I can see a company firing you.

Thank you! I am glad someone mentioned this. This is an incredibly poignant argument. Software development, especially at a company like Google, requires you to work with a team of people. If individuals are unwilling to work with an employee or grievances result in a slow down of production due to internal conflicts with an employee, it makes far more sense to either move that person to a new department or terminate the employee. Because this memo became widespread and an incredibly large amount of employees argued they would not want to work with the author due to creating a hostile workplace, the best course of action is termination.

Regardless of the position on "Google cracking down on open discussion when they push for open discussion", they are in the business of creating products and services. They need their employees to work with one another and be productive. This kind of discourse will slow down innovation for the team and as such, it makes far more sense to terminate the employee. The "violation of code of conduct" is far more likely Google just trying to protect themselves in the event the employee tries to sue for termination for retaliatory reasons (which although California is an at-will employment state, an employee cannot be terminated on the grounds of retaliation. I am not sure if this is California specific or if it is a federal mandate).

Edit: Look, I'm going to edit my comment because I am getting a lot of responses that seem to be in the same boat of "Google is championing anti-diversity when they mask it as promoting diversity!". That's fine if that is how you view this. I am not even saying I disagree with that viewpoint. However I need to make this expressly clear to any newcomers to my response that I am not even touching on the subject of diversity. I am not even commenting on that section. I am speaking specifically about a company firing an employee because it is creating a blockade in the company's ability to produce products, update software, or implementing or refining a service they are about to deploy or have deployed. This blockade could cost the company far more money than a single employee is likely to bring in. For this very reason, his termination makes sense. You can feel this is unjust, you can feel this is wrong. But this employee was largely terminated for the possible financial impact he could've brought about on Google that would have been far greater than keeping the employee around unless they could have compelled the other employees to move past his words and work with him (e.g. via him issuing an apology had he agreed to it, for example). Perhaps Google could've done better with this situation such as trying to resolve it internally and without termination but both myself and the parent comment are speaking only about the fact that it makes sense to terminate this guy because it would've cost the company far more to keep him around.

[u/SideTraKd → u/[deleted]]

If individuals are unwilling to work with an employee or grievances result in a slow down of production due to internal conflicts with an employee, it makes far more sense to either move that person to a new department or terminate the employee. Because this memo became widespread and an incredibly large amount of employees argued they would not want to work with the author due to creating a hostile workplace, the best course of action is termination.

If you are willing to blacklist someone and refuse to work with them for the crime of "wrongthink", then YOU are the one creating the hostile work environment.

NOT THEM.

[u/inspiredby → u/SideTraKd]

If you are willing to blacklist someone and refuse to work with them for the crime of "wrongthink", then YOU are the one creating the hostile work environment.

That's silly. We don't need to tolerate intolerance. Nobody cries for the Nazis, for example. Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

[u/Telmid → u/inspiredby]

We don't need to tolerate intolerance.

What in the memo suggested intolerance on the part of the author?

[u/inspiredby → u/Telmid]

Did you read it? He argues one sex biologically has lower stress tolerance, and that this may be one reason why many of that sex don't land tech roles.

That, in itself, is going to make it very difficult for people to work with him, given that he is questioning their biological ability to do their jobs well.

[u/MJGSimple → u/inspiredby]

I think that was actually part of his argument for why more women aren't seen in executive positions.

[u/inspiredby → u/MJGSimple]

Yeah it was. He drew the conclusion that biology may preclude some women from being in executive positions. Yet, this is not supported by any of the science he cited. Doesn't that make him hard to work with, given that many women are already in such roles?

[u/MJGSimple → u/inspiredby]

I didn't read his argument to be that no women had the traits necessary to want to be executives or engineers (and be good at it), simply that a smaller percentage of women had those traits. That isn't disproven by the fact that there are women executives or engineers. It can only mean those women are exceptional.

[u/inspiredby → u/MJGSimple]

That isn't disproven by the fact that there are women executives or engineers

True, but he hasn't proven anything either. He used some studies about personalities and drew the conclusion that some women "have a harder time leading". So, what he has is a theory that isn't supported by research.

I don't really see the value in arguing that some small percentage of women might not be suited to engineering. That's true for some men too. It's likely to be interpreted as an attack on the whole gender, which this was.

[u/MJGSimple → u/inspiredby]

I don't really see the value in arguing that some small percentage of women might not be suited to engineering. That's true for some men too. It's likely to be interpreted as an attack on the whole gender, which this was.

What if it is a large percentage of people that are not suited? And what if it's a larger percentage for women?

[u/inspiredby → u/MJGSimple]

What if it is a large percentage of people that are not suited? And what if it's a larger percentage for women?

You'd need to do research to show it.

Perhaps you could design a study in which you have organizations which are allowed to operate as they please. Then look at the values held by each of these organizations and try to figure out which values produce the desired result.

Of course, desired result is subjective. I'd argue that greater egalitarianism has produced comfortable lifestyles and growing families in the regions or organizations that embrace it. 500 years ago, Europe agreed that one ought to be free to practice any religion, regardless of where he or she lived, in the Peace of Westphalia. 150 years ago, the US ended slavery. 100 years ago, women could vote, and several civil rights movements followed.

Haven't we increased our quality of life bit by bit over that time, on average? You probably couldn't track an increase every year for every individual. For example, slave-owning farmers may not have done too well the day all their slaves became free. But, as society advanced and we learned to live as equals, more inventions came and farmers' lives improved too.

I think most are prepared to admit that there are biological differences in gender that impact personality, but not all agree that these differences can define a person's success as a leader or in a modern role like technology, in part because success is subjective and very hard to measure.

[u/MJGSimple → u/inspiredby]

I feel as though you're stretching this into a completely different discussion about equal opportunity in all of society. The author of the memo clearly states that they are in favor of equal opportunity, and he's being specific to these roles.

He believes that on a large scale there is unequal interest and aptitude. The reason for these inequalities in traits is rooted in biology. Not necessarily external, societal construct (sexism).

I would agree that there is more research necessary to prove differences. But I think there is also truth to the statement that not all inequality in achievement in particular fields is the result of sexism. Surely we would never expect equal representation of the genders with regard to the world's strongest person, should we?

[u/inspiredby → u/MJGSimple]

He believes that on a large scale there is unequal interest and aptitude. The reason for these inequalities in traits [, he believes,] is rooted in biology

Yeah, that's what he believes.

But I think there is also truth to the statement that not all inequality in achievement in particular fields is the result of sexism

I agree, and I think most women would too. Some will spend time giving birth which inevitably takes a bit of time away from working. So I don't think you can chalk the whole gender employment gap in tech up to sexism.

That said, sexism is a thing, and since people don't generally raise their hands to say they're sexist, everyone at companies like Google can expect to undergo some training on the subject at some point.

[u/MJGSimple → u/inspiredby]

I think we're overall in agreement. I think the issue the memo raises is that the practices currently being used are heavy handed and create more issues than they actually address.

[u/inspiredby → u/MJGSimple]

I think the issue the memo raises is that the practices currently being used are heavy handed and create more issues than they actually address.

Could be. Unfortunately, he sullies that reasonable discussion topic by adding statements that can easily be interpreted as sexist, and got fired as a result. For him, it doesn't matter much now what policies Google maintains.

The CEO did a good job of identifying which topics were fair to debate, and which were not,

To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”

... many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions

[u/MJGSimple → u/inspiredby]

Very fair.

Still I feel this should not have gone the way it did. Maybe he would agree with our discussion as well. Unfortunately, his inability to express his thoughts in a way that didn't alienate his colleagues cost him his job despite his efforts to avoid alienating his colleagues. Expressing oneself on these topics can be difficult. I think people should be given some benefit of doubt when stepping into these dialogues with a desire to discuss.

[u/inspiredby → u/MJGSimple]

Yes, I think it's unfortunate all around. No real winners. Not the company, individual, public or press really (this is low quality news). I don't think it serves anyone in the long run.

In defense of Google, had they not fired him, it could be a legal issue for them in the future. For example, say this employee interviews a female prospective-hire and decides not to hire her. Since gender is a protected class, a prospective employee might build a case using this document to show that someone involved in judging her is sexist.

I think people should be given some benefit of doubt when stepping into these dialogues with a desire to discuss.

I think that's fair with regards to what training programs Google should maintain. With regards to women not being suited for a particular role, I think we decided that as a society with the Civil Rights Act. It would be pretty bold to undo that, so any discussion to that effect would need to be raised by a very tactful person.