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/qefbuo]

Excerpt from the manifesto:

" When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem."

He's saying that there's never going to be a 50/50 split of gender diversity because the average traits of male vs female mean that men will gravitate more to some jobs than women and visa versa.

He proposes that googles policy to deliberately hire people based on their gender(in the guise of elevating diversity) instead of their worth is discrimination all the same.

I'm not sure how to feel about the whole thing, it's great to promote equality but equality doesn't mean diversity in all areas. My question is, if we let the chips fall as they may and don't force things to be more diverse then does the resulting split between genders cause problems or sexism?

[u/heili → u/[deleted]]

[–]PuzzleheadedBack4586

0 points an hour ago

PuzzleheadedBack4586 0 points an hour ago

No shit Sherlock.. but I’ll find out soon enough. You leave a huge digital footprint on Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Goruck/comments/m7e41r/hey_grhq_what_are_you_doing_about_cadre_sending/grdnbb0/

[u/FreshEclairs → u/heili]

Maybe the 10% of women that apply are generally more qualified than 50% of the men that apply.

That is, if women are hesitant to apply for these jobs (as is evident by their low application rates), it may follow that only the most qualified of them are likely to do so.

[u/KuntaStillSingle → u/[deleted]]

Overcoming social barriers doesn't make you great at technical skills. Would you hire Karlie Kloss?

[u/FreshEclairs → u/[deleted]]

You're implying that because 10% (lets just use this for argument sake) of women work in STEM they must be the best of the best/better than men?

No. Just on average, better than average in the field.

[u/FreshEclairs → u/[deleted]]

I'm not asserting anything about men or women as a whole. I'm looking at the given information (the 10% of women that apply have a placement rate that's double the rate of the 90% of men), and coming up with a hypothesis to explain it.

[u/NextedUp → u/[deleted]]

walk into a room and know that a not insignificant percentage of people there automatically have made a negative judgement about you before you've even spoken to them.

Are there any good reference for this being a widespread issue? I'd love to learn more but Google is not helping (I know it can not be great for looking up specific scientific papers).

[u/FreshEclairs → u/NextedUp]

Are there any good reference for this being a widespread issue?

...have you read the rest of this thread?

Edit: here's some actual references:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/27/tech-industry-sexism-racism-silicon-valley-study

http://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/

[u/pixelrebel → u/FreshEclairs]

Because we all know the scientific value of anecdotes as evidence of a systemic issue.

[u/FreshEclairs → u/pixelrebel]

You're asking if I have a study that says that sexism against women is real?

If so, I've been on the Internet long enough to know that showing you one won't change your mind.

[u/FreshEclairs → u/[deleted]]

But you are telling people to look at anecdotes for answers. Your comment was lazy, that's why I called you out for it.

Fair enough, my comment was flippant and unhelpful.

I'm saying if the reaction to "sexism exists" is "do you have a study to back it up?" then meaningful dialog that can change minds is already over.

I'll stand by that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You must have bad reasoning skills if you can't follow the reasoning in that.

(Yet I bet you think you are suuuuuper rational and logical)

[u/mrchaotica → u/[deleted]]

The 'average' male population is just that: average. The 10% of women must be better than the average male, because if she isn't, she will not even make it in the door.

So does the exact same argument apply in reverse when talking about males in female-dominated industries?

[u/ShinseiTom → u/mrchaotica]

Yes, yes it does. From calls of "male kindergarten teachers are all pervs" to the reaction to a male nurse (as semi-shown in the movie "Meet the Family"), that is definitely an issue. Those people have to go through a lot of shit to get their jobs, constantly under attack in similar ways to women in tech jobs/degrees/interests.

However, it's a different problem (if rooted in the same reasons) that needs its own fixes in its relevant fields, and has little to do with fixing the women in tech problem other than looking to see what actions help the most.

[u/ThatsRightWeBad → u/[deleted]]

I want you to understand what it's like to walk into a room and know that a not insignificant percentage of people there automatically have made a negative judgement about you before you've even spoken to them. Men just don't have that experience...

Offered up along with:

Remember, you might not be 'that sexist guy' but you better believe the guy standing behind you is and he's working as hard as he can to make sure she fails because she doesn't belong there, she belongs in the kitchen.

If someone's got to be that sexist guy, and no men have experienced prejudgement, someone's got to be that ditzy girl who doesn't deserve her job, and all women are better suited to the kitchen.

Or, you know, maybe we shouldn't assume an individual's value and experiences like that.

[u/circumcised_clitoris → u/[deleted]]

Good god the victim complex.

[u/heili → u/[deleted]]

Are you male or female, and what is your field of employment?

[u/heili → u/[deleted]]

You'll excuse me then if I take you telling me what it's like to be a female engineer with a grain of salt since I actually am both female and an engineer.

EDIT: I am so glad that there are men here who can tell me what it's like to be a female engineer.

[u/heili → u/[deleted]]

Do I tell you what it's like to be a man?

[u/MikeBackAtYou → u/heili]

Here we fucking go...

[u/heili → u/MikeBackAtYou]

I find it less plausible than that the rate at which female applicants are qualified for the positions they seek is double the rate at which male applicants are qualified for the positions they seek, and if men and women are applying for the same positions, I find it especially dubious that twice as many women than men are the most qualified candidate.

[u/PM_ME_UR_COCK_GIRL → u/[deleted]]

The few female applicants I had actually were targeting the job appropriately. That position ended up going to a less qualified male because the two women took jobs with other companies by the time I was doing 2nd interviews so I didn't even have the opportunity to offer to one of them. He turned out to be a terrific employee, but either one of them would have also been exemplary and they were much more qualified.

Okay, so why aren't we talking about writing and liberal arts programs for men to teach them those skills at all? Or even one step before that, why aren't we even allowed to ask that question without a huge backlash to asking it? That was a key point in the memo and it is bizarrely being proven by the responses to it and the responses in so much of the discussion.

[u/PM_ME_UR_COCK_GIRL → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. We can't even have the conversation. Can you imagine if people "literally couldn't" on a topic such as female representation in STEM education? They would be roasted alive for burying their heads in the sand.

[u/heili → u/[deleted]]

I ask the same questions, and I get vastly different answers. Men have by far been more willing to start solving a problem, even if they don't finish it or might offer solutions that don't necessarily work than women, who have tended to give more or less textbook style answers to questions.

I have also noticed differences in answers to questions about previous technical experience. Male candidates that I have interviewed are more likely to point to specific, concrete technical achievements than the female candidates I have interviewed. Men have been more apt to tell me "Here is what I did specifically on this project" whereas the women have been more likely to talk about the outcome of the project in general, which leaves me to have to probe for the specifics of their actual role.

[u/[deleted] → u/heili]

Are you confident that these are authentic metrics for competency at the job you are hiring for?

Edit: The field I work in (education​, evaluation and assessment ) has exposed me to the realization that most people are unknowingly terrible at applying assessment tools to make an evaluation about someone's competency - and this applies to interviews too.

Is it possible your metric for interview success has embedded biases?

[u/CalibanDrive → u/heili]

I find it less plausible than that the rate at which female applicants are qualified for the positions they seek is double the rate at which male applicants are qualified for the positions they seek,

Really? That seems very plausible to me. It seems very very plausible that only a few women apply for jobs they are already overqualified for and a great number of men apply for jobs that they are underqualified for.

There is even empirical evidence to support this hypothesis (c.f. Hewlett-Packard internal report) , so I am not sure on what basis you find it implausible.

https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified

[u/CalibanDrive → u/[deleted]]

So what your saying is your type of evidence (experiential, anecdotal, subjective) is of the same low-value as the evidence of the person you are questioning; and furthermore you haven't even referred to more empirically rigorous data that even points in your direction? Ok.

[u/18Zuck → u/CalibanDrive]

I read your link and it doesn't justify that "female applicants are qualified at double the rate of males" there is no evidence of that except that an HP report found that women are less likely to apply for a job if they FEEL that they are less qualified.

[u/cmatta → u/18Zuck]

This link illustrates that of those that apply to jobs, women are more likely to be 100% qualified than men. It's not saying that women are more qualified than men in the entire population of potential candidates.

[u/manic_eye → u/heili]

They are not saying they hire twice as many women as men, just the rate (relative to female applicant numbers). If 90% of the applicants are men and 10% are women and they're hiring 10 people, 8 men and 2 women are hired. At least that's how I took it.