The Google memo firestorm

[WiseOne]

Google sounds a lot like my university!

I thought the article was trying to provide a thoughtful look at the diversity issue, made some good points, and was overall trying to be helpful. I do think that when you're writing something you know is going to be controversial, you should be careful about scholarship. The most inflammatory item in the memo (that women are more neurotic than men) references a Wikipedia page which in turn references a single paper reporting mixed results and some possibly sloppy statistics featuring our good friend, multiple comparisons.

I think the main message that there are reasons other than sexism for the lack of women in high-level tech positions is probably correct. I say that as a woman in a tech field (medical research) who has gotten fairly high on the totem pole (associate professor with tenure), without ever feeling like there were insurmountable roadblocks. This does require spending a lot of evenings and weekends working, which has garnered a lot of complaints from family and not exactly done wonders for my social life. I have endured a lot of men with big egos who treat me like I should be their maidservant, but I know that behavior is not directed specifically at me, and I just smile, pat them on the back, and avoid collaborating with them. If I worked at a company like Google, perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to get away from those situations.

Here's a link to the full memo, which I highly recommend reading instead of relying on news articles to form opinions:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... hamber.pdf

[Benko]

"I think the main message that there are reasons other than sexism for the lack of women in high-level tech positions is probably correct"

You don't need me to tell you that facts don't matter, only the agenda does.

[Maddy]

I think the main message that there are reasons other than sexism for the lack of women in high-level tech positions is probably correct.

Isn't it interesting that the two women who frequent this forum (at least the only ones I know of) agree on this point.

[Xan]

I think the main message that there are reasons other than sexism for the lack of women in high-level tech positions is probably correct.

Isn't it interesting that the two women who frequent this forum (at least the only ones I know of) agree on this point.

And yet the mere suggestion of such an idea makes the Silicon Valley snowflakes "literally shake with rage". I saw an article showing some of the response to the document in question and it really was flabbergasting.

[Mountaineer]

I think the main message that there are reasons other than sexism for the lack of women in high-level tech positions is probably correct.

Isn't it interesting that the two women who frequent this forum (at least the only ones I know of) agree on this point.

And yet the mere suggestion of such an idea makes the Silicon Valley snowflakes "literally shake with rage". I saw an article showing some of the response to the document in question and it really was flabbergasting.

Flaggergasting indeed is an understatement. I think us older (non-snowflakes?) are seeing what our educational takeover by the progressive side of the house has created. It is not pretty.

[Tyler]

From his letter:

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

What a crazy thought!

It's fine to disagree with his arguments and conclusions, but the fact that most articles now label him as "anti-diversity" is truly mind-numbing. The speed to which people jump to preferred narratives and demonize alternative viewpoints without critical thought only reinforces his point.

And for those reading all of the negative press and assuming his gender facts are all wrong, here's a good response from several social scientists. Long story short -- Like him or not, he's factually correct and clearly is well-educated on the subject.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013 ... s-respond/

In any case, from what I've read there's a very good chance he ends up with a huge wrongful termination settlement. Publicly shaming and firing an employee for offering internal feedback on what he feels are discriminatory hiring practices is a big no-no. I guess Google calculated that the cost for paying him off will be less than the cost of dealing with the mob.

[Tyler]

Google in one GIF

[eufo]

It's an interesting read for sure. I disagree with his suggestion about de-emphasizing empathy. The world already has an acute lack of empathy. So many people are deeply concerned with themselves with very little regard to others. I'm convinced this problem is getting worse each year.

[dualstow]

I think Sundar(?) had no choice but to fire him. He could have worded things better,as WiseOne said, but it is clear that the angry horde didn't even read the text.

[Tyler]

It's an interesting read for sure. I disagree with his suggestion about de-emphasizing empathy. The world already has an acute lack of empathy. So many people are deeply concerned with themselves with very little regard to others. I'm convinced this problem is getting worse each year.

Very true. IMHO, we need a lot less identity politics and a lot more empathy on all sides.

[WiseOne]

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808013 ... s-respond/

Interesting read. Thank you Tyler!

So this brings up an interesting question: why are there fewer women in high level tech jobs? The authoritarian/progressive view, imposed with the force of law, is that this is 100% explained by biased workplace and education practices. The author of the memo is simply trying to say that this is highly unlikely, and supports this statement by citing literature (via Wikipedia...ugh) documenting a biological basis for at least some of these differences. He then proposes that modifying the workplace to account for these differences might be a more constructive solution than affirmative action in hiring. With which I heartily agree.

I do think he oversells the biological differences between the sexes though. Just because they exist doesn't mean they're a big factor in the workplace. Also, it's impossible to distinguish the effects of biology (i.e. genetics, hormones etc) with cultural impacts, where I think the real meat and potatoes is to be found. In order to do that, you'd have to randomize newborns to be raised as girls vs. boys, then compare across the resulting 4 groups. I guess the current transgender fad might allow something like that comparison eventually. Either way, though, the end result is that women and men have very different priorities in life, in general, and society has different expectations of men vs. women. I think these are the reasons for the gender gap in tech - not any kind of systemic bias.

It's kind of an illogical argument anyway. If the gender gap were completely due to biases in the work & educational system, it would have been removed by now. The fact that it hasn't budged in decades, despite all the affirmative action measures, should tell you that this isn't the cause. In fact, changing the hiring bar for certain favored applicants only makes things worse. I know someone in my workplace who was hired against everyone's better judgment, purely for affirmative action reasons. It's pretty much the disaster we all expected it would be, but all the rest of us can do is quietly fix the worst of the problems without giving off any signs of being critical of said person, and live with it. In the meantime of course, this person is not exactly doing their affirmative action class any favors. If this is what's going on at Google, I can't imagine that it's an effective way to run a business.

[Maddy]

It was reported that a number of women were compelled to stay home from work due to feeling "uncomfortable" over the memo.

You couldn't make this up.

[ochotona]

My take on it is that Google is not a University or a debate society, it's a frickin' for-profit corporation, so the memo writer was really sticking his nose where it didn't belong, and got slapped for it, and he should've gotten slapped for it regardless of the subject matter.

I come from the traditional Texas oil and gas industry, and over here free spirits ruminating in public about what the Company should or shouldn't do get unemployed ASAP.

It's the height of arrogance and inappropriateness to damage the reputation of your employer just because you feel like it. I'd have fired him too. It's not like a true legally protected whistle-blower situation where people were at risk of getting hurt, like on a rig or in a refinery. These are HR practices he was kvetching about, for God's sake.

What a fricking snowflake.

[Xan]

My take on it is that Google is not a University or a debate society, it's a frickin' for-profit corporation, so the memo writer was really sticking his nose where it didn't belong, and got slapped for it, and he should've gotten slapped for it regardless of the subject matter.

I come from the traditional Texas oil and gas industry, and over here free spirits ruminating in public about what the Company should or shouldn't do get unemployed ASAP.

It's the height of arrogance and inappropriateness to damage the reputation of your employer just because you feel like it. I'd have fired him too. It's not like a true legally protected whistle-blower situation where people were at risk of getting hurt, like on a rig or in a refinery. These are HR practices he was kvetching about, for God's sake.

What a fricking snowflake.

Wasn't this an internal memo? I don't believe he published it outside the company.

[ochotona]

Who released it to the public? Anyway if he spammed all of Google with this, then that's stupid conduct. Your employer is not your personal soapbox. If he got fired for discretely sharing his opinion with a few select managers, then he's more a victim.

[Mountaineer]

Who released it to the public? Anyway if he spammed all of Google with this, then that's stupid conduct. Your employer is not your personal soapbox. If he got fired for discretely sharing his opinion with a few select managers, then he's more a victim.

I have a couple of additional questions after reading the memo one more time. Perhaps I missed the answers?

1. Did he write the lengthy memo on his own time or Google's? Maybe he was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do if he used Google time to write it.

2. It seemed like he was trying to help Google with the memo by pointing out something that could be made better. Why would that be an issue, assuming Google hires people to think and not just be robots?

3. What does his contract say about what he is allowed to write and communicate within Google?

[Tyler]

He posted it to an internal Google discussion group, and (whether you agree with him or not) can make a legit argument that he sought to make constructive suggestions on how to better promote diversity within the company -- an activity protected by both federal and state laws. Apparently it stirred up a lot of internal debate, at which point someone else leaked it to outside websites (very likely violating company policy) in order to instigate the SJW storm. It worked, he was fired, and now people are also leaking the emails of other engineers who dared agree with him. Google needs to get control of this fast, or there may be a crapload of lawsuits on the way.

[Xan]

Who released it to the public? Anyway if he spammed all of Google with this, then that's stupid conduct. Your employer is not your personal soapbox. If he got fired for discretely sharing his opinion with a few select managers, then he's more a victim.

I have a couple of additional questions after reading the memo one more time. Perhaps I missed the answers?

1. Did he write the lengthy memo on his own time or Google's? Maybe he was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do if he used Google time to write it.

2. It seemed like he was trying to help Google with the memo by pointing out something that could be made better. Why would that be an issue, assuming Google hires people to think and not just be robots?

3. What does his contract say about what he is allowed to write and communicate within Google?

Here's Google's response:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/07/googl ... mo-author/

They go out of their way to say that they have no problem with anything other than the content of the memo. He was fired for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace".

[Mark Leavy]

It's really not that hard. On average, men and women are relatively equal. But the standard deviation is higher for men. Thus, at the the 3rd sigma you have noticeably more male idiots, criminals, deviants and morons. Also, on the other end of the graph, you have noticeably more male savants, poker players, CEO's and quants.

If you are in the business of hiring right hand side 3rd sigma - you end up with a few more males than females. It's not exclusive, it's just statistics.

If you are in the business of incarcerating left hand side 3rd sigma - you end up with a few more males than females. It's not exclusive, it's just statistics.

[sweetbthescrivener]

So, a clinical psychologist from the University of Toronto who has had his own trouble with being mobbed by Social Justice Warriors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA) interviewed this kid in a way that really shows the human side of what is going on. It is much more interesting than how this is being spun:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEDuVF7kiPU


Text version of relevant quotes here from zerohedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-0 ... etings-and

Peterson: "Why did you do this?"

Damore: "About a month and a half ago, I went to one of our diversity summits, all of it unrecorded and super-secret and they told me a lot of things that I thought just were not right."

Peterson: "Ok, what do you mean 'unrecorded and super-secret?'"

Damore: "Most meetings at Google are recorded. Anyone at Google can watch it. We're trying to be really open about everything...except for this. They don't want any paper trail for any of these things."

"They were telling us about a lot of these potentially illegal practices that they've been doing to try to increase diversity. Basically treating people differently based on what their race or gender are."

Peterson: "Ok, why?"

Damore: "Because I think it's illegal. As some of the internal polls showed, there were a large percentage of people who agreed with me on the document. So, if everyone got to see this stuff, then they would really bring up some criticism."

Damore: "I actually published this document about a month ago; it's only after it had gone viral and leaked to the news, that Google started caring."

"There was a lot of upper management that started to call it out and started saying how harmful it is. This sort of viewpoint is not allowed at Google."

Peterson: "Yeah, what sort of viewpoint exactly? The idea that there are differences between men and women that might actually play a role in the corporate world? That's an opinion that's not acceptable?"

Damore: "Yeah, it seems so. And there's a lot of misrepresentation by upper-management just to silence me, I think."

Peterson: "What was there rationale for firing you exactly? What was the excuse that was given?"

Damore: "So, the official excuse was that I was perpetuating gender stereotypes."

[WiseOne]

I agree with Tyler. I'm amazed that Google hasn't (apparently) made any effort to stop the leaks, or go after the leakers - who are the ones who violated company policy.

And I very much hope that Damore sues Google. We've been evolving for years now to a situation where it's accepted that someone can be fired for expressing a dissenting opinion. Doing so publicly with specific reference to the corporation does potentially cross a line as it's akin to slander or libel, but expressing opinions internally doesn't qualify. A lawsuit would bring this issue up for public debate and examination, and I say it's about time. Until that happens, I consider myself (and anyone else who is employed by a corporation, whether private or non-profit) to work in a hostile environment where it's dangerous to express opinions of any sort. Not good for productivity, personal health, or society. If I worked at Google right now, I'd refrain from participation in any chat rooms, informal discussions, or email chains on anything but strictly work-related topics. I bet a lot of people there are doing likewise.

[jhogue]

WiseOne,
As an academic, I suppose that you are aware that Larry Summers was—in effect—forced out as president of Harvard back in 2006 for expressing virtually identical views as the Google memo writer.

If it could happen to one of the Clintons’ favorite economists, it could happen to anyone in academe—and now apparently in prominent corporations too.

[Greg]

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-da ... gle-2017-8

Good article on this topic.

- An expert in California labor law tells Business Insider that Damore has a better chance of winning his case than people may think.
- That's because Damore's case is NOT about free speech, discrimination, or his rights as an "at-will" worker.
- Damore filed under a section of the law that deals with protecting statements made by workers' rights activists who have questions about wages and conditions.
- Google may have difficulty establishing that he broke the company's code of conduct because he used message boards the company provided to allow employees to discuss these issues, and because his manifesto repeatedly states he favors diversity and intended to "increase women's representation in tech."

[Maddy]

That's because he filed his complaint against Alphabet (Google's corporate parent) under a provision of the National Labor Relations Act that protects workers' rights activists. . . [T]he provision governs what workers are allowed to talk about in the workplace about pay, conditions, promotions, and other practices. The law was crafted to protect the right of union organisers to discuss pay rates with their colleagues, and more recently to protect anyone asking questions at work about who gets paid what, and why.
* * *
The crux of his claim is whether Google penalized him for raising concerns about working conditions (i.e., unfair treatment of white men?)" Sharpe said. "Whether the manifesto really constitutes a 'concern about working conditions' and whether he was acting for the good of others will be the dispositive issues.

It shouldn't be too hard to find a female witness or two who will testify that Google's policies demean and oppress women by treating female employees as per se incapable of performing in the same "rough and tumble" environment as men, and that these policies perpetuate damaging stereotypes that have limited women's opportunities for advancement.

[WiseOne]

Interesting take, Maddy. That's exactly right, although I can't see that opinion getting very far in a public courtroom.

Seems to me that if you want to increase minority representation, the key is to get to them before they're applying for the job, because you want them not only to get the job but to be able to do it competently. That's a much harder job. How do you combat systemic problems with minority cultures and neighborhoods? And is there even really a problem, if an entire group is underperforming at the corporate workplace? Society as a whole is not 100% about supplying full time workers to corporations.