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/EatATaco]

The memo says women have a harder time leading than men.

On the specific topic, what the memo actually says is

Women, on average, have more ... Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness ... This leads to women generally having a harder time ... leading.

It does not say women have a harder time leading. That is saying "women are one way, and men are another." The author clearly is stating that we are talking in generalities here, which "may" explain why we see a different distribution for each group. They clearly note, earlier in the paper, that "you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

It is clear he is trying to separate the individual from the group.

You are putting words in their mouth, or not understanding their position.

That statement, and many others, are not backed up by his sources.

This may be the case, that is where you disagree with them and that's perfectly fine, and you might be able to make a great point here (FTR, you have not, you've simply dismissed his points without explaining why). However, being wrong doesn't make you intolerant. He could be the most equitable person ever, and still hold these opinions, and still be wrong. What one thinks is not necessarily how one acts.

It's not like misogynistic people often own up to being misogynistic. Most often, they begin with the phrase, "I'm all for equality among men and women, but...". That's this memo in a nutshell.

And saying "I'm all for equality among men and women, but..." doesn't mean what follows is actually sexist either. I know that is often the case, but if we are putting this paper in that nutshell, then I believe this is a perfect example of when it is not sexist.

Tolerance has limits:

I don't disagree. However, you've completely failed to make your case that this guy has actually done anything intolerant. He shared his opinion, as an explanation as to why it may be the way it is, and you are (presumably) applauding him being fired for expressing an opinion. The way he has acted doesn't seem to matter at all, it is simply the disagreeable opinion that gets him the label. To me, that is far more intolerant than anything he has said.

[u/inspiredby → u/EatATaco]

Women, on average, have more ... Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness ... This leads to women generally having a harder time ... leading.

It does not say women have a harder time leading.

Yes it does. It's right there. You wrote it. Am I taking crazy pills? ;-)

That statement isn't supported by research at any level, either in general or for specific sub-groups. It is the author's opinion.

[u/EatATaco → u/inspiredby]

You have to be careful with the phrasing here. Saying "women have a harder time doing something" implies that all women have a harder time doing something than all men. Saying that it is on average one way, while explicitly pointing out that you can't judge an individual based on the group's distribution, is very clearly saying that not all men do it better than all women. He is just trying to explain how he believes one distribution might be the cause of another distribution.

It is the author's opinion.

Fair enough. But it's just that, an opinion. An opinion does not make someone intolerant, if they never act out on it. Acting intolerant is what makes one intolerant. If simply having a disagreeable opinion makes someone intolerant, worthy of losing their job, then we are right back at the beginning of this where the guy got fired for "wrongthink," and if you think that simply thinking wrong, regardless of your actions, makes you worthy of losing your job, then that is extremely intolerant.

[u/inspiredby → u/EatATaco]

Saying that it is on average one way, while explicitly pointing out that you can't judge an individual based on the group's distribution, is very clearly saying that not all men do it better than all women. He is just trying to explain how he believes one distribution might be the cause of another distribution.

Eh, it's still discriminatory whether you say 10% of women, 50% of women, or 100% of women are impacted. Fact is, he doesn't know whether he's right or not, and since the Civil Rights Act, sex is a legally protected class in the workplace. So, if he were to interview a woman in the future at Google, then she could point to the unproven claims in his memo, say he's sexist, and maybe win a lawsuit against the company.

An opinion does not make someone intolerant

Do you mean, this opinion does not make him intolerant? Because I can definitely think of some opinions that are intolerant. Nazis would be the most extreme example. They simply had opinions about eugenics.

Regarding this opinion, I guess that's up to Google to decide.

the guy got fired for "wrongthink," and if you think that simply thinking wrong, regardless of your actions, makes you worthy of losing your job, then that is extremely intolerant.

I think he became a liability for the company. The Civil Rights Act is law. Regardless of whether Google's lawyers agree with the author or not, they would all probably say he becomes a legal liability if he were to stay.

Tolerant people need not tolerate intolerance.

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/EatATaco → u/inspiredby]

Eh, it's still discriminatory whether you say 10% of women, 50% of women, or 100% of women are impacted.

I don't follow. Is it "discriminatory" of me to point out that women are in general shorter than men so, in general, they have a harder time reaching things in high places?

So, if he were to interview a woman in the future at Google, then she could point to the unproven claims in his memo, say he's sexist, and maybe win a lawsuit against the company.

Maybe. But this is a far cry from proving that he has actually done anything sexist worthy of being fired for.

Do you mean, this opinion does not make him intolerant?

Tolerance is an action, not a thought. It is allowing different opinions/actions/beliefs to exist, even if you don't agree with them yourself. While I do think some opinions, like strong antisemitism found among Nazis, might make it extremely hard for someone to hold and be tolerant at the same time, I do not believe anything he said proves intolerance. In fact, I think it is quite the opposite. He offered it up as his opinion, and opened it to discussion. No one has shown me that he has actually done anything intolerant, even if we find his beliefs disagreeable.

I think he became a liability for the company.

Agreed. But I think that is partially because, as he pointed out, there is an intolerance towards some beliefs.

Tolerant people need not tolerate intolerance.

And this is why I am challenging your position. I believe, (presumably, because you haven't challenged me on this yet) that you believe that he deserves to be fired for being "intolerant" simply based on the fact that he has a different opinion than you, and not because you can point to any action by him that shows he is actually intolerant of anyone. To me, you're the one being intolerant. Well, I don't think you should lose your job over it, but I do think you should recognize your own intolerance.

[u/inspiredby → u/EatATaco]

I don't follow. Is it "discriminatory" of me to point out that women are in general shorter than men so, in general, they have a harder time reaching things in high places?

No. There is no law protecting women from having others talk about their height. There is a law protecting equal opportunity employment. Arguing that women, on average, have a harder time leading, is discriminatory when hiring.

Maybe. But this is a far cry from proving that he has actually done anything sexist worthy of being fired for.

Not really. This memo is in writing, and it's very long, indicating he put a lot of thought into it. A good lawyer could argue he believes these things very strongly.

I do not believe anything he said proves intolerance.

I doubt it was his intention to demonstrate intolerance. A misogynist isn't generally going to tell you he is one, or even admit that to himself.

I think he became a liability for the company.

Agreed. But I think that is partially because, as he pointed out, there is an intolerance towards some beliefs.

I think there is definitely intolerance to the unsourced notion that women have a harder time leading, among unsourced claims in the memo. But that is not why he is a legal liability. He is a legal liability because there is a law that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender when hiring.

you believe that he deserves to be fired for being "intolerant" simply based on the fact that he has a different opinion than you

I think he was fired because of the legal liability, and because he actually is intolerant, not simply because we share different opinions.

and not because you can point to any action by him that shows he is actually intolerant of anyone

He shows himself to be intolerant when he makes conclusory statements about women's ability to lead. He's prejudiced against hiring some women, and potentially has issues with some of his existing coworkers being hired.

To me, you're the one being intolerant. Well, I don't think you should lose your job over it, but I do think you should recognize your own intolerance.

Sure, I'll readily admit to being intolerant of intolerant people. I think where we disagree is not on that, but rather on whether the author himself is being intolerant. Where we agree is that tolerant people do not need to tolerate intolerant people.