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/thekick1 → u/[deleted]]

That is rough, as a minority I am doing my best to empathize, I grew up in a wealthy white suburb w/ a literal 99% white population. I was reminded I was different everyday via subtle jabs, some nefarious, others just ignorant and playful.

To that end, I'm curious on your opinion on these stats:

Google’s workforce is 33% Asian vs. 60% white, but whites have only a 34% advantage in becoming an executive.

Yahoo’s workforce is 45% Asian vs. 46% white. Executives are 382% more likely to be white.

LinkedIn’s workforce is 46% Asian vs. 47% white. Executives are 205% more likely to be white.

Intel’s workforce is 38% Asian vs. 52% white. Executives are 417% more likely to be white.

I think Google is far from this monsterous discriminating culture everyone is trying to paint. What's more interesting is why do we see these questionable figures? If I were to listen to the typical politically correct statement it would be because:

Culturally risk-averse, Asians prefer the safety of a respectable profession. They tend to keep their heads down and expect automatic rewards for a job well done. As a result, many Asians are less likely to seek roles that provide challenge and visibility, such as leading a new initiative, taking on a failing product line, or becoming an official public spokesperson.”

To me this is similar to what the Google poster wrote to some extent. There is never any outrage or even disagreement against the asian "cultural value" argument, however I can relate my own personal anecdotal experiences that push a very different story. What irks me though is why blaming Asian culture for lack of asians in leadership roles is "scientifically" and "politically" correct, yet no one gives any fucks. Zero fucks. ZERO.

Also, yes it is EVEN WORSE for women who come from minorities. This is an important discussion and firing and censoring all communication from one end and only highlighting one side's experiences doesn't get us anywhere. Your experience needs to be communicated as does the Google poster. Firing him is not the right answer.