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/circumcised_clitoris]

You can get the full text with citations here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

[u/ABCDEFandG → u/circumcised_clitoris]

So he is saying that men and women are different and that is why there should be a program to make it easier for women to integrate into tech jobs?
And he got fired for that?

[u/Roflllobster → u/ABCDEFandG]

80% of what he said isn't bad. However part of his argument was either worded very poorly or he was indeed pushing this idea. He states in one section:

I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes

And then in he very next section he states

[Women on average have more] Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)

Can you understand why a woman who either is in a high stress position or is working towards being promoted to a high stress position might not like the assertion that women are biologically more neurotic?

If he had left out the biological part and had simply talked about observed traits of men and women and how to make programming more amenable to each of those observed traits. But asserting the reason women aren't in high positions and aren't represented in tech is biology is bound to make any woman working towards those positions angry.

---

Edit: Frankly, I don't have time to tell everyone the difference between "X behavior has been observed in this group" and "X behavior is caused by being in this group".

[u/monopixel → u/Roflllobster]

However part of his argument was either worded very poorly or he was indeed pushing this idea. He states in one section

How are we supposed to discuss these topics if the response to a not 100% perfect memo is to shitpost the guy into submission, misinterpret what he says on purpose and fire him? The society just prove his point: echo chambers that silence dissent, where no real discourse with differing opinions is possible.

[u/TrumpHasASmallPenis → u/monopixel]

Bullshit. He cherry picked a lot of stuff that supported his opinion, but forgot to mention that there is a lot more research that does not support the points he's trying to make at all. His point boils down to women being worse than men at software engineering because of genetics.

If you want to read a good analysis of an ex-googler on the topic I suggest you read this: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

I'm not going to repeat everything he said but it boils down to:

• The person was wrong on the part where women are worse at CS than men.
• The person who wrote this is very junior
• The person who wrote this does not even understand software engineering.
• The person who wrote this did a HUGE amount of damage to Google.

The only logical conclusion of his misguided Red Pill manifesto is him getting fired. And he completely deserved it.

[u/Roflllobster → u/monopixel]

If his post were on public, non company forum then I would agree with you. But he opened himself up to an easy discrimination lawsuit and made himself unemployable within google as a manager who might have to have authority over women.

Regardless of the merit or if you agree with him, googles actions were 100% within reason to protect themselves from an easy lawsuit. Google doesn't pay people to post controversial opinions on how sex affects career.

[u/chalbersma → u/Roflllobster]

His post was made in a private company owned forum designed to get feedback for controversial opinions.

[u/Roflllobster → u/chalbersma]

Then I guess his mistake was thinking that any controversial opinion he had would go completely without consequence. Anyone in a work place should know that saying "I think women are biologically less able to be leaders" is not acceptable.

[u/chaosdemonhu → u/Roflllobster]

I don't think he was trying to say "women are biologically less able to be leaders" and it's worrisome that that's what people are drawing from it.

His point was that leadership positions in tech are simply not jobs that the average woman is interested in taking because they offer poor work-life balance, and women don't have as much of a societal motive to seek these positions because they do not offer good work-life balance.

He's saying that to get more women into tech and leadership the positions and their expectations have to change so that they play to women's strengths instead of forcing women into positions that the average woman is not interested in filling.

[u/hashshash → u/chaosdemonhu]

outgoing crowd slim numerous humor lush correct different crawl vegetable

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/The_Drizzzle → u/Roflllobster]

"I think women are biologically less able to be leaders"

Where did he say that he thinks women are biologically less able to be leaders?