15 ms·

Good. I get that HN is not into this, but this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex.

• okabat 9y ago
  I see nothing of the sort in his original document. Could you add some quotes to back up your claim?
• throwgoog452 9y ago
  > this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex Did you read the essay? He certainly did not make that claim. Population averages are not statements about individuals. This is pure censorship.
  • Sleeep 9y ago
    Um, so? I censor myself at work every single day. If I routinely said some of the not so polite things that I sometimes think about my colleagues and (especially) customers I'd be fired. This is called "playing nice with others" and I learned it as a child. I also sometimes think about topics that would be inappropriate in an office environment (such as sex) and I censor myself by not saying what I am thinking. We even have an Internetism for that concept - NSFW. None of this is new - we are expected to conduct ourselves appropriately for the current situation. It's just how society works. I didn't even read the document in question, I just have a very hard time with people getting riled up about being "censored" at work. It's work, what exactly do you expect?
    • microwavecamera 9y ago
      I agree. It's a job, you're there to work. A workplace isn't a venue to stand on your personal soapbox and air your opinions, be disruptive and waste company time.
      • weberc2 9y ago
        I swear I read exactly that in a job posting for diversity director...
        • smt88 9y ago
          Diversity is good for companies. Diverse companies are more profitable. Regardless, your clever analogy doesn't apply. Companies are welcome to be political in their own environment. They own it. Employees are not. They're employed at-will.
          • weberc2 9y ago
            Maybe, but that doesn't immunize them from criticism, especially when they purport to value diversity and free speech but silence critics. Anyway, the financial benefits of diversity are almost certainly overstated. I don't know why we can't just say, "we're hiring diverse people because we think it's the right thing to do".
            • dnh44 9y ago
              In a thousand years archaeologists will write papers on our civilisation and the god we worshipped called Market. About how we obeyed the laws of Market, appeased the Market when it was unhappy, and how we had faith that Market could solve all problems. As a society we've been trained or perhaps tricked to suppress our sense of justice and fairness In Gabor of money.
              • weberc2 9y ago
                Seriously, what does this have to do with anything?
  • refulgentis 9y ago
    He's implicitly claiming some of them shouldn't be there, or he believes that miraculously every single women at Google clears the bar for desirable traits in a programming without affirmative action. Come on now, which one do you think he believes? He made it pretty clear, clear enough that pretty much no one would want to work with the dude.
    • davemp 9y ago
      I'm sorry, you can't just say the man is "implicitly claiming" anything. Espectially when his career was so negatively effected. Support your claims with direct quotes or keep your slander to yourself.
      • halostatue 9y ago
        The man in question claimed that some large portion of folks are hired under diversity programs which supposedly “lower the bar”. That is, those people don’t deserve to be at Google, and he doesn’t believe that they are qualified. That’s in his own words, and I would have fired him a hell of a lot faster than Google did, because I will not have my team disrupted by a prima donna.
        • manfredo 9y ago
          This is not what the document stated. Here is the quote about "lowering the bar" in its original form: > Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate The author deliberately narrows the scope of this sentence stating that the hiring practices decrease the false negative rate, not increasing the false positive rate. Stating that the false negative rate is lowered for diverse candidates is to say that qualified, non-diverse, candidates are rejected at a greater rate than qualified and diverse candidates. It is not stating that unqualified, diverse, candidates are accepted at a greater rate.
          • celtain 9y ago
            He literally says that those hiring practices can effectively lower the bar. Sure, maybe he's saying that the bar for white/Asian men is higher than intended rather than that the bar for women and minorities is lower than intended, but you can't honestly argue that he isn't saying that women and minorities could be clearing a lower bar than white/Asian men.
  • jetpks 9y ago
    > The harm of Google’s biases > I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: > * A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates > * Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate ^ Isn't that exactly what the author is saying?
    • blusterXY 9y ago
      He's criticizing discrimination on the basis of race (and gender), not advocating it.
      • evolve2017 9y ago
        I think you're doing contortions here. He says that Google 'has created' (past tense) a discriminatory hiring practice. Presumably his coworkers were hired in the past and not the present or future. Thus, the hiring practices that prevailed when his coworkers were hired were discriminatory, per the author.
        • blusterXY 9y ago
          There is no question that Google has discriminatory hiring practices. The only question is whether you think discrimination is a good thing. Apparently you do.
          • evolve2017 9y ago
            There's a lot to be said about the current trend of privileged (read Western, perhaps wealthy, perhaps white, perhaps male) people to bemoan whatever concessions are made to the minority group but I'll leave that aside. I believe that everyone should have a fair shot at a good career. I can't even begin to talk about how that is not the case in America - if we disagree here, I'm not sure we'll ever come to agreement. It's not clear that the workers favored in this alternate pipeline are incompetent (which is really the implication that everyone is making). What is clear is that people with their perspectives are not as prevalent in the technology field. Perhaps companies are recognizing a) the value of multiple perspectives or b) the structural difficulties that deny some people the same 'fair shot' we all have. I'll leave you with this. The SAT should be a test of one's aptitude, perhaps readiness for college. If some individuals receive years of tutoring, but others have to go to the library to get test preparation, is our metric for college readiness fair? Maybe you'll say yes, but if we were talking about any other thing (cars, experimental models, you name it) we would clearly recognize these two groups had different pre-test levels of preparedness.
  • cthulha 9y ago
    > This is pure censorship No, it is not censorship. He can say those things. He just can't pretend to be an effective team member if this is what he believes about his coworkers and he is unwilling to learn from others.
    • eej71 9y ago
      I'll half agree in that you are right, it is not censorship. But I think the caustic judgement of him and his words don't seem to match up with the text that I've read.
      • smt88 9y ago
        A lot of people seem to think the reaction to his words was too strong. But that's the point of being more cautious at work than you are in your personal life. You don't know how people will react. Most people are uncomfortable even identifying their choice of political party at work.
      • zzalpha 9y ago
        Which demonstrates something interesting, here: It's clear this essay is a Rorschach test. For some, it's simply a critique of ineffective hiring practices. For others, it's veiled sexism dressed up with statistics to lend it an air of legitimacy. Seen that way, this is a pretty interesting social science experiment, albeit at the expense of his job (if not his career)...
    • weberc2 9y ago
      To be clear, he said nothing of the sort.
      • cthulha 9y ago
        You are looking only at the words in document. What about the behaviour before / during / after publishing it?
        • throwgoog452 9y ago
• boothead 9y ago
  I did not get that meaning from reading the memo. And I really don't understand how anyone could. Could you point out the part in the memo where he stated bluntly that many of his colleagues shouldn't be there because of their sex?
  • danso 9y ago
    6th page, under the subhead "The harm of Google's biases" https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html#document/p6 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...
    • lettergram 9y ago
      Below is the relevant section (although I don't see how anyone's saying they aren't good enough to work with): I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices: - Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5] - A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates - Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate - Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) - Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6] These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.
      • moises_silva 9y ago
        > but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google. I've seen smart people pointing at 'evidence' on both sides of the discussion. Your claim that can 'irreparably' harm google is equally baseless IMO.
• ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Doesn't a policy of preferentially hiring certain groups necessarily imply that employees who are part of those groups are less capable? Like, helping folks pass the bar implies that they aren't above it - otherwise, why would they need help?
  • hardwaresofton 9y ago
    Yes, except for the case where they are already past the bar but not being considered because of biases of people doing the hiring. I think that's the case that the prevailing amount of diversity-related efforts try to solve. You're right though, and it's actually really insulting to insinuate that certain groups need help passing the bar. You can easily identify people who think like this if you ask a question (politely) like "would you hire a candidate that was more 'diverse' but less technically skilled than another candidate?". People who would choose the more "diverse" candidate but without a principled reason are probably just virtue signalling. Note that 'diverse' can mean anything -- like comparing a developer who used to work in construction before being turned on to programming to a developer who came out of an ivy school (assuming they have comparable skill levels).
  • freshhawk 9y ago
    In an imaginary utopian meritocracy, yeah it would. Since we live in the real world however ...
    • halostatue 9y ago
      Funnily…both concepts (“utopia” and “meritocracy”) were satirical before people started taking them seriously…
      • Mz 9y ago
        People also wrote fiction about traveling to the moon for a very long time before it actually happened. And Star Trek is credited with inspiring a lot of modern developments that are now ubiquitous, like cell phones and automatic doors. (The automatic doors on Star Trek were being pulled open using ropes by hidden prop guys. The actors had to walk confidently forward as if they expected them to open when this was not guaranteed. They sometimes smacked right into them)
• lsniddy 9y ago
  The essay was a honeypot, and you all took the bait
  • prawn 9y ago
    I did wonder about that. Applicants to YC submit their profile name. Many people list their identity and public projects in their profile. Responses here would make interesting fodder for a works-well-with-others algorithm.
• mvdwoord 9y ago
  So you're going to ask management what they are going to do about someone who is stating well accepted scientific facts [1]? I hope we never become colleagues. [1]http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-...
  • halostatue 9y ago
    It’s pretty easy to find at least one scientist who will deny global warming, or that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. That doesn’t make that scientist right any more than these (all male, all white) scientists. The assertions of the author of the screed are not well-accepted, and they are not facts. They are conjecture, and the author attempted to make universals out of primarily American ways of thinking and ingrained ways of discrimination.
    • ctlby 9y ago
      But they are well-accepted, and they have been for decades. If scientific consensus is any measure of truth, you should be defending his propositions with the same fervor you would global warming. Anything else is just science denialism.
      • nxmehta 9y ago
        They are? That's news to me. Several of the studies he cites on biological differences in genders are well accepted, so far as I know the field. But the key conclusions that he draws from those studies (and really, the entire point of the memo) don't have any direct scientific support that I know of. Perhaps I am missing some key references. Care to provide citations for some of these? "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things ... These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics." There's a citation for the first part. What's the evidence for the conclusion drawn? "Neuroticism ... This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Citation for why neuroticism leads to fewer women in high stress jobs? How about the entire "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap" section? That contains stuff like this: "Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things" "Women on average are more cooperative" "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average" Each of these statements (which at least hit my radar of being scientifically supported from the literature I know) is followed by some suggestions on how to improve the workplace for women. Implicit, of course, is that these aggregate scientific differences are somehow responsible for the gender gaps in tech. Any citations for why the quoted statements explain anything at all about gender differences in tech, rather than say, other STEM fields (biology? medicine? they have very different gender gaps). It would be great to have the references I'm missing, because without them it sure appears the author is citing well accepted studies in order to make it look like his unsupported conclusions have "evidence".
• bronz 9y ago
  you didnt read his memo. please cite the passage where he says that he doesnt believe females should be there. point to where he says this, whether he did so directly or as an insinuation, and explain exactly how it means that he wants females out of google, please.
• thaoo 9y ago
  he never said that. i've seen your take repeated by others. all he was saying is that maybe the 'natural' balance of women/men in tech isn't 50/50. he said nothing about those who made it into the company. people like you, who can't understand simple arguments, are what got him fired.
  • sctb 9y ago
    There's no room for personal attacks like this on Hacker News. If you're interested in having a thoughtful and more inclusive discussion on the topic, this isn't how you do it.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• curiousDog 9y ago
  He certainly did not say that in his essay. I agreed with a few points of his (ex: acknowledging that even men who choose to should be included in stress/anxiety management programs instead of having them be gender specific. Make things a two way street.). Although, he did go full /r/theRedPill in certain parts which he probably shouldn't have.
  • foolfoolz 9y ago
    and this is why they had to fire him. he can make 9 good points but 1 bad one and the only outcome is termination. i think google did the right thing. if this memo was 1/3 as long and only talked about censorship and diversity strategy, and left out the gender pseudoscience, he would probably still have his job. it was totally unnecessary to try and rationalize with uncited generalizations
    • mr_spothawk 9y ago
      > gender pseudoscience you're saying he was putting it forth, or addressing it?
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
• mc32 9y ago
  So should we also ask how they confront the people who feel free to pin all bad things on white males and white privilege whether relevant, provable or not? I've come across a few people from these companies and it's not that hard to come across people who have strong biases against whites and white men in particular. Sadly it's become a way to signal you're in the in-group. Diffusing hostilities isn't achieved by becoming the thing you're trying to overcome.
  • etchalon 9y ago
    The standard rule of thumb seems to be that it's okay to punch up, but not down. A minority can complain about a majority, but the reverse is frowned upon. The amount of "frowned upon" is amplified by the degree to which the minority the majority impugns has been historically hurt by similar opinions.
    • mc32 9y ago
      Just like the apocryphal rule of thumb, there is no rule of punching up (or down) It's either you allow punching or you don't. LKY knew this. Else you wind up with an opposition bigger than the affected who get fed up with things after the affected begin punching more then they should. See: dynamics of older and younger siblings.
      • etchalon 9y ago
        People seem to have an intuitive sense of punching up/down. There's an intuitive sense of abuse of power, and an allowance for people without power to use tactics which we'd abhor if those in power used. The idea "well, no one can punch!" is rhetorically clean, but pragmatically problematic. There is a long history of people who had to punch up to break a ceiling that should never have existed.
        • etchalon 9y ago
          The weirdest thing is watching what happens when one group thinks they're punching up, and everyone else thinks they're punching down. You see massive disconnects.
• 99mistakes 9y ago
  > over their colleague's right to a workplace where they're not judged by their sex, race, sexual orientation, or any other innate attribute irrelevant to their job performance. Right, that's what he campaigned for. And not hire people due to their sex, race, sexual orientation, or any other innate attribute irrelevant to their job performance...
• ebola1717 9y ago
  Yeah, Hacker News is a nightmare any time an issue like this happens, but I'm glad at least that some people out in the real world see this for what it is. This engineer deserved to be fired. I mean there's hundreds of of bro-y all-male "meritocratic" tech startups he can go join, so this still just a slap on the wrist.
  • hyperdunc 9y ago
    It must feel great to see things so clearly. The people on HN causing this nightmare surely deserve your contempt rather than your consideration.
• engi_nerd 9y ago
  You're not giving that a remotely fair reading. He literally calls for people to be treated as individuals while acknowledging and calling attention to traits that populations (read: large numbers of people) exhibit. I'm really having trouble finding anything to be upset about in his "manifesto". He's literally being fired for trying to start a serious conversation about a delicate issue.
  • AnotXOR 9y ago
    I think everyone is looking for the offense in the wrong places. The reason he got so many angry responses is because he didn't explicitly celebrate the left wing tenants of equity. He questioned the tenants in very reasonable places and that was all that it took. Scary times, these.
    • mr_spothawk 9y ago
      > he didn't explicitly celebrate the left wing tenants of equity in fact he pointed directly to the flawed logic that supports them. poor guy had no idea what was coming.
      • AnotXOR 9y ago
        That leads to my point, questioning one is tantamount to questioning it all, which is unforgivable and intolerable. You can see this by how many have hallucinated stances that the writer didn't even make.
      • rtx 9y ago
        Maybe he did.
      • peoplewindow 9y ago
        That guy seems smart. I bet he did know. He probably decided that he could either quit quietly or get himself fired. The latter opens up the possibility of lawsuits (and unemployment benefits, which he is unlikely to need, but if he finds it hard to get hired again quickly it may be helpful).
• acomjean 9y ago
  This: Its about the work environment. My partner was a female chip designer who after 25 years got out of the business (in start up, saved up for early retirement..) Being an early employee well compensated. She loved her work, but not the environment, which while not outright hostile, wasn't good. She's got thick skin. Its the environment thats keeping women out, not the work. If you don't think your getting a fair shake, you aren't going to stick around.
• weberc2 9y ago
  > this employee stated, bluntly, that they don't believe many of their colleagues should be there because of their sex. No, he started that Google's hiring practices are biased towards certain candidates. If that causes offense, it should be directed at those in charge of hiring practices, not the guy who reported them.
• vacri 9y ago
  > Happy where I am now, but future interviews will include me asking what management would do about this, and termination is the only correct answer. Why is it always scorched-earth and never something like retraining? You bemoan hostile environments, but then demand termination if a foot is ever put wrong.
• topmonk 9y ago
  When you engage in discriminatory hiring as a matter of policy, so called "affirmative action", you will invite people to judge those that are advantaged by that policy. The people who decided to implement this braindead idea are at fault for this. Not the guy who decided to voice what everyone else was thinking.