6 ms·

I respectfully disagree with you here. Why do I have to "own" inclusion and equality just because I disagree with the specific implementation? Why can't it be

I respectfully disagree with you here. Why do I have to "own" inclusion and equality just because I disagree with the specific implementation? Why can't it be the responsibility of the VP of Inclusion to figure this out in a way that doesn't blatantly favor one class of people over another?

kevingadd 9y ago
You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree - and removing them without advocating a replacement. Apply this same logic to any other workplace context and it should be obvious how unproductive it is. How far would you get in your day-to-day work if the only thing all your coworkers did is say "no"? Should the ACA - or health insurance in general - simply be abolished due to defects that you dislike, without a replacement? If the VP of inclusion isn't doing a good job up to your standards, should they just be fired? When Mr. Damore advocated for the removal of all these programs without providing concrete suggestions on how to replace them with better programs, he committed a similar error. (This is aside from the reasoning he used to try to justify it, which is another set of issues)
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  >You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree Can you justify this with data?
  - shadowmint 9y ago
    Do you really need internal statistics to prove that diversity programs increase the number of employees from the relevant demographics? Come on. It's self evident that it's working. Whether that results in effective outcomes for the business is a different matter; but if your KPI is just 'ratio of XXX in employees' there's no question its doing what it's literally designed to do.
    - stagbeetle 9y ago
      > Whether that results in effective outcomes for the business is a different matter No, this is the topic that is being debated in this chain and "It's self evident that it's working" is not sufficient to refute the point.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      While you're not doing this at all, I think there's sort of a conflation between diversity policies at specific companies and diversity in the industry when in reality they're totally unrelated. So I'm my opinion there's a lot of misplaced support for corporate diversity policies which are designed to benefit he corporation, not women or minorities. And the people being discriminated against under thes policies can't openly oppose them or they'll be accused of bigotry and probably fired.
      - kevingadd 9y ago
        I won't dispute the possibility of the scenario you describe, but the memo being discussed doesn't really fit this at all. The policies and programs he objected to are largely (if not entirely) things like mentoring programs and techniques for making the hiring pool more diverse. There can certainly be a blurry line in some places that makes it difficult to identify whether a given program has an (unintentional or otherwise) discriminatory effect but a lot of the stuff he objected to is very clearly positive assistance for people who need it, and not anything that harms men in his position.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Google's data suggests a modest increase this year over last year (a 1% shift in overall tech gender roles) with better improvements in leadership. They publish the data, so you can see. So evidently Google can demonstrate modest improvement. And it sure seems like the Guy Who Got Fired felt like he was seeing the undeserving and huddled masses approaching his ivory tower. But I'm not sure exactly what you'd like. On the one hand, "Someone needs to do something" and on the other "this blatantly favors one class of people." But I'm not entirely sure that last part is true. Google has quietly improved a lot of feminist hot-button issues that benefit men disproportionately in the last 3 years as well. For example, Google increased its paternity leave policy. I know because one of the folks I met while interviewing there was ecstatic about it. They've also taken a lot of steps to improve life for families. I know because while interviewing I toured the day care facilities. Hell, Google quietly helps employee kids get into nearby schools and funds (and even runs) after school activities. You don't even need a woman involved to trigger them, Google offers its -ternity leave to adopters as well. These things disproportionately benefit men by the simple fact that there are many more men in the workforce at Google, so any family related benefits or policies (and these are important, real issues that deserve to be solved) are really a massive win for men who want offspring. So this whole angle about biases towards "specific groups" is really just a terrible prism. While I'm not saying this is your angle, it's all too often used as a way to shut down any sort of concessions for minorities with unique challenges. And the business value is really, really clear: a larger workforce means more supply and less demand. From a large business's perspective, the 5 year operating costs of these programs is tiny compared to the savings a 5% reduction in minimum hiring costs would be.
    - stagbeetle 9y ago
      As the OP, I ask this in good faith, can you link me the data?
      - KirinDave 9y ago
        https://www.google.com/diversity/ https://www.google.com/diversity/ But you can google search for articles from previous years (google controls the comparisons so you can't free query the data).
shadowmint 9y ago
...because the 'VP of Inclusion' came up with the current plan, that you don't like. So how do you propose to move forward? If you leave to them, they're going to do nothing, and leave it as is, because objectively, by the metric, it's working, and increasing the relevant ratios. So you're basically advocating to someone that a) does not agree with you, and b) can demonstrate that their KPIs are excellent, to change their behaviour. Why would they? The only meaningful way to move forward to come up with a different solution, if you feel this one isn't working, because if since it seems to be working, just complaining won't change anything. You don't get change by just complaining and making sad faces; change happens by meaningful engagement with the problem; if you're not prepared to do that, face the facts; there won't be any change. (...and meaningful engagement obviously does not include distributing internal manifestos)
- tristor 9y ago
  > You don't get change by just complaining and making sad faces; change happens by meaningful engagement with the problem; if you're not prepared to do that, face the facts; there won't be any change. > (...and meaningful engagement obviously does not include distributing internal manifestos) I agree that change happens with meaningful engagement. The first step to meaningful engagement on complex issues is usually a discussion. Setting aside that it's incorrect to refer to the memo as a "manifesto", it is very much not obvious to me that this doesn't count as meaningful engagement. While I disagree personally with much of what was written in the memo, I find the response equally disheartening if not more-so. The backlash clearly displays that so many of those claiming to want meaningful engagement are interested in no such thing.
  - shadowmint 9y ago
    > it is very much not obvious to me that this doesn't count as meaningful engagement. Unfortunately you can't call posting a document full of your opinions and conclusions meaningful engagement. That's just meaningful self indulgence. To be fair, perhaps he thought it was, and was trying to do the right thing, and did it wrong? I'm prepared to go as far as giving him the benefit of the doubt on that front. ...but it was wrong. For all the reasons that have been posted extensively on this topic; but, specifically: engaging meaningfully with a topic means discussion; and although we're having a discussion now, that's because this forum allows it, which is not something that that internal memo allowed. Basically, tldr: Posting documents != meaningful engagement. Meaningful engagement means actually talking to people, organizing people into groups and delivering your message to the right people. All of that project managery stuff that people don't want to do. I get it. ...but you gotta do it. That's life. You don't just get to sit in a cave and pontificate and call it engagement.

kevingadd 9y ago

You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree - and removing them without advocating a replacement. Apply this same logic to any other workplace context and it should be obvious how unproductive it is. How far would you get in your day-to-day work if the only thing all your coworkers did is say "no"? Should the ACA - or health insurance in general - simply be abolished due to defects that you dislike, without a replacement? If the VP of inclusion isn't doing a good job up to your standards, should they just be fired? When Mr. Damore advocated for the removal of all these programs without providing concrete suggestions on how to replace them with better programs, he committed a similar error. (This is aside from the reasoning he used to try to justify it, which is another set of issues)

stagbeetle 9y ago
>You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree Can you justify this with data?
- shadowmint 9y ago
  Do you really need internal statistics to prove that diversity programs increase the number of employees from the relevant demographics? Come on. It's self evident that it's working. Whether that results in effective outcomes for the business is a different matter; but if your KPI is just 'ratio of XXX in employees' there's no question its doing what it's literally designed to do.
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    > Whether that results in effective outcomes for the business is a different matter No, this is the topic that is being debated in this chain and "It's self evident that it's working" is not sufficient to refute the point.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    While you're not doing this at all, I think there's sort of a conflation between diversity policies at specific companies and diversity in the industry when in reality they're totally unrelated. So I'm my opinion there's a lot of misplaced support for corporate diversity policies which are designed to benefit he corporation, not women or minorities. And the people being discriminated against under thes policies can't openly oppose them or they'll be accused of bigotry and probably fired.
    - kevingadd 9y ago
      I won't dispute the possibility of the scenario you describe, but the memo being discussed doesn't really fit this at all. The policies and programs he objected to are largely (if not entirely) things like mentoring programs and techniques for making the hiring pool more diverse. There can certainly be a blurry line in some places that makes it difficult to identify whether a given program has an (unintentional or otherwise) discriminatory effect but a lot of the stuff he objected to is very clearly positive assistance for people who need it, and not anything that harms men in his position.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Google's data suggests a modest increase this year over last year (a 1% shift in overall tech gender roles) with better improvements in leadership. They publish the data, so you can see. So evidently Google can demonstrate modest improvement. And it sure seems like the Guy Who Got Fired felt like he was seeing the undeserving and huddled masses approaching his ivory tower. But I'm not sure exactly what you'd like. On the one hand, "Someone needs to do something" and on the other "this blatantly favors one class of people." But I'm not entirely sure that last part is true. Google has quietly improved a lot of feminist hot-button issues that benefit men disproportionately in the last 3 years as well. For example, Google increased its paternity leave policy. I know because one of the folks I met while interviewing there was ecstatic about it. They've also taken a lot of steps to improve life for families. I know because while interviewing I toured the day care facilities. Hell, Google quietly helps employee kids get into nearby schools and funds (and even runs) after school activities. You don't even need a woman involved to trigger them, Google offers its -ternity leave to adopters as well. These things disproportionately benefit men by the simple fact that there are many more men in the workforce at Google, so any family related benefits or policies (and these are important, real issues that deserve to be solved) are really a massive win for men who want offspring. So this whole angle about biases towards "specific groups" is really just a terrible prism. While I'm not saying this is your angle, it's all too often used as a way to shut down any sort of concessions for minorities with unique challenges. And the business value is really, really clear: a larger workforce means more supply and less demand. From a large business's perspective, the 5 year operating costs of these programs is tiny compared to the savings a 5% reduction in minimum hiring costs would be.
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    As the OP, I ask this in good faith, can you link me the data?
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      https://www.google.com/diversity/ https://www.google.com/diversity/ But you can google search for articles from previous years (google controls the comparisons so you can't free query the data).

shadowmint 9y ago

...because the 'VP of Inclusion' came up with the current plan, that you don't like. So how do you propose to move forward? If you leave to them, they're going to do nothing, and leave it as is, because objectively, by the metric, it's working, and increasing the relevant ratios. So you're basically advocating to someone that a) does not agree with you, and b) can demonstrate that their KPIs are excellent, to change their behaviour. Why would they? The only meaningful way to move forward to come up with a different solution, if you feel this one isn't working, because if since it seems to be working, just complaining won't change anything. You don't get change by just complaining and making sad faces; change happens by meaningful engagement with the problem; if you're not prepared to do that, face the facts; there won't be any change. (...and meaningful engagement obviously does not include distributing internal manifestos)

tristor 9y ago
> You don't get change by just complaining and making sad faces; change happens by meaningful engagement with the problem; if you're not prepared to do that, face the facts; there won't be any change. > (...and meaningful engagement obviously does not include distributing internal manifestos) I agree that change happens with meaningful engagement. The first step to meaningful engagement on complex issues is usually a discussion. Setting aside that it's incorrect to refer to the memo as a "manifesto", it is very much not obvious to me that this doesn't count as meaningful engagement. While I disagree personally with much of what was written in the memo, I find the response equally disheartening if not more-so. The backlash clearly displays that so many of those claiming to want meaningful engagement are interested in no such thing.
- shadowmint 9y ago
  > it is very much not obvious to me that this doesn't count as meaningful engagement. Unfortunately you can't call posting a document full of your opinions and conclusions meaningful engagement. That's just meaningful self indulgence. To be fair, perhaps he thought it was, and was trying to do the right thing, and did it wrong? I'm prepared to go as far as giving him the benefit of the doubt on that front. ...but it was wrong. For all the reasons that have been posted extensively on this topic; but, specifically: engaging meaningfully with a topic means discussion; and although we're having a discussion now, that's because this forum allows it, which is not something that that internal memo allowed. Basically, tldr: Posting documents != meaningful engagement. Meaningful engagement means actually talking to people, organizing people into groups and delivering your message to the right people. All of that project managery stuff that people don't want to do. I get it. ...but you gotta do it. That's life. You don't just get to sit in a cave and pontificate and call it engagement.