8 ms·

It's incredibly ironic that a company that apparently cares about diversity enough to have a "Vice President for Diversity" fired an employee for presenting an

It's incredibly ironic that a company that apparently cares about diversity enough to have a "Vice President for Diversity" fired an employee for presenting an opposing viewpoint - to their diversity policy of all things. Further evidence that Google and the other large institutions don't actually give a rat's ass about "diversity". Diversity has absolutely nothing to do with diversity of thought, and is only concerned with normalizing racial/gender composition to present the illusion that discrimination and biological variation are non-existent (except for discrimination against males, whites, and Asians, because for some reason it's not considered discrimination if it affects them). It's not about doing the right thing, it's about PR - hence the decision to cave in to whatever the pitchforks are demanding. It's a shame that honest criticism of diversity policies and gender issues is considered taboo enough to get someone fired. If we really cared about diversity, then we'd welcome opposing viewpoints and counter them with facts, not silencing. We have a culture of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism around certain topics that for whatever reason are considered sacred and not allowed to be challenged (ie. political correctness), and its disgraceful. Relevant video: Peter Thiel: What is Multiculturalism Really About? [1996] https://youtu.be/E6cxRYgqfHY https://youtu.be/E6cxRYgqfHY

shusson 9y ago
> We have a culture of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism around certain topics that for whatever reason are considered sacred and not allowed to be challenged (ie. political correctness), and its disgraceful. From a personal perspective I get where you are coming from, but from a professional perspective it makes no sense. There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there.
- someguydave 9y ago
  >There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there. Ways like not sharing your opposing viewing at all? From a professional perspective Google's management should have ignored the note. It's unprofessional to become wrapped up in minor drama (posting a note to a message board threatens nobody) and to act in carelessly hurried manner.
  - vyhd 9y ago
    Ways like described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802. No one should be surprised about the outcome of handling a nuanced, difficult, and highly culturally relevant topic so callously.
- just2n 9y ago
  That comes across as unfair by definition, but practically there are no such ways to do what you've claimed. It's unfair in the sense that this progressive or far left ideal is allowed to be pushed onto entire organizations and by the media as de facto "right" or "correct", which is inherently a political position and would likely offend anyone who disagrees with it. If these processes and programs should be publicly enacted on people who disagree with them, it's unfair then to disallow any discussion about them under an implicit threat of termination. Google just confirmed that threat is very real. I know many conservatives here (a classical liberal / libertarian mostly myself, which is far too "right leaning" for this area) who are actually scared of any political discussion due to this exact threat, even though those with the "correct" opinions can openly discuss them without any fear of repercussions. I don't think they should because inherently politics brings out discussion and debate, often vigorous forms of it, and that's not generally the best thing for the office, but because that discussion/debate is effectively banned here, it's completely fine to express leftist and socialist ideals publicly, even if in extremely poor taste. Secondly, if you were to decide to bring up issues with these programs with a person responsible (for instance in Google's case, this VP of diversity) you'd get a predictable dismissal, or they'd silently drop whatever issue you raise, which means you have no actual means with which to present these viewpoints. She publicly dismissed the entire thing without actually refuting any argument that was made, with language that effectively sounded something like "this is wrong think, and Google doesn't agree with this wrong think." You could do it outside of work, but you lose the context and the specifics of the program, and more importantly the impact any such discussion could have on your immediate environment. These discussions do need to be had, and where they're being had, the majority of even liberal minded people tend to agree with the author of this piece, but it's hard to know if that's a consensus (even at 500,000+ views for instance on each video on YouTube) or if it's just an echo chamber because even demanding rigor and evidence of the ideas behind diversity is taboo in far too many places. For instance tptacek can be found in these very comments essentially arguing that this topic of discussion isn't open because it's been decided. By whom? How can any discussion of highly debatable topics like this be had if people like him and Google are just going to say "it's not up for debate because I'm right" in order to shut down any discussion before it can even begin, hilariously in this case by likening this to discussing child labor or marital rape? It's nice to see logical fallacies are alive and very well with people who otherwise seem fairly intelligent.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Many people take offense so easily these days that I doubt it is possible to have a decent discussion about these issues without offending quite a few people. Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired.
  - shusson 9y ago
    Yeah I see your point, perhaps it's not so much about offending people but the way in which it was communicated.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired. I strongly disagree. If I want to cement my advantages of being a white male I'll propose anything that furthers that goal. My aim wouldn't be to offend someone, but it is still very real side effect of my goal. Discussing gender differences should obviously not be taboo, nor should other topics, but the motives behind the discussions should likewise be freely scrutinized.
    - hyperdunc 9y ago
      It is very difficult to correctly ascertain motive, especially when looking through an ideological lens. Pandering to offense takers encourages them to seek motives they deem aggressive.
      - croon 9y ago
        You're right, but maybe I phrased it badly. What I mean isn't that I should be able to in practice be offended with what I disagree with, but that blatant agenda pushing behind science that doesn't quite fit your agenda should be questioned. I'm not offended by facts, I'm offended by dishonesty. We probably don't disagree in concept, but perhaps on this specific case.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- faceplanted 9y ago
  I just don't want to hear some one's fucking opinions on an internal memo, that is so much not what internal communication tools are for.
  - mason240 9y ago
    It wasn't an internal memo. Marked down for spreading alternative facts.
  - yebyen 9y ago
    It was posted to a board called "pc-considered-harmful" Sounds like this memo is exactly what that board was for.
- RealityNow 9y ago
  I disagree. It's impossible to critique certain issues such as those pertaining to gender without offending people. But if someone is going to get offended because someone presented an alternative viewpoint to what they believe, than that's their problem. Imagine if we weren't allowed to debate, say, programming languages or SQL vs. NoSQL because one side needs to be coddled and can't take the heat. That's essentially what we're doing with "diversity" policies and gender dynamics.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vl 9y ago
>Further evidence that Google and the other large institutions don't actually give a rat's ass about "diversity". There is a market force pushing software companies into leftist positions (since influential demographics in the industry are strongly pro-left; also this creates positive feedback loop). In this context Google’s behavior is rational, and this guy tried to fight it with reason and argument (I was laughing hard when I was reading the manifesto) and got steamrolled in the process, proving the argument made in his memo by personal example.
- dublinclontarf 9y ago
  > There is a market force pushing software companies into leftist positions Yes, if you oppose or even voice disagreement you lose your job. I expect Googles behaviour in this instance was illegal.
  - revmoo 9y ago
    > I expect Googles behaviour in this instance was illegal. I very much doubt it. Companies can fire anyone for any reason as long as they're not part of a protected class. They made mistake firing him, though.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  It's not market forces. It's the fact that they hire so many new grads. Lack of mental/political/ideological diversity in universities leads to lack of diversity inside Google too (and Facebook and ...)
- lurker69 9y ago
  This market force might actually change in future. In this case it seems that James planned all this to happen and is gonna sue Google: > "$1 million in bonuses" was changed to "$100 million as a compensation" after Damore was "fired" by a Mr Kunda Píča whom I have never heard of; Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters. And about PR, while vocal left leaning activists might cheer decision to fire him, conservative and centrists media used this as great point to smear Google as leftist propaganda. This is great talking point for proving accusations that google manipulates search results to prefer certain political agenda. Recently Jordan Peterson caused quite a stir when his youtube and gmail accounts were revoked, YouTube decided it will start isolating videos with controversial views even if they dont brake ToS... This moves will be used by anti PC camp a lot to steer users to alternatives to googles products. Facebook and Twitter already pushed a lot of potential users away by similar behavior, alternative platforms are getting more and more relevant. Its hard to say if this vocal PC SJW activists are just vocal minority or actually majority talking with their wallets. Based on results of recent US elections and financial problems of some feminists and left leaning publications, and on majority of comments on uncensored pages; I would say that PC ship is probably sinking fast.
hyperdunc 9y ago
That video was 21 years ago but is more relevant than ever.
redditmigrant 9y ago
Diversity by its essence is about diversity, and hence accepting people who are opposed to diversity is antithetical to the idea of diversity. So this argument of accepting diverse viewpoints including those against diversity is non-sensical. The idea behind diversity is not to ignore gender differences, or racial differences, but to have the belief that skill and talent exists can come from anywhere. So these viewpoints that make generalizations about people because of their gender, race etc. serve to exclude the talent that can come from the non-white/male quarter. Now this person is probably a good engineer, but its fair to say his impact to computing will never be as great as Ada Lovelace, Anita Borg, Fei Fei Li etc. So if a viewpoint like his hinders the next Grace Hopper then firing him is a worthy price. The thing that the anti diversity warriors fail to understand is that their viewpoints are exclusionary to a whole swath of people, so please dont expect sympathy for your opinion when your viewpoint tells some people to go away just because of their gender/race.
- issa 9y ago
  Exactly. You either think women can be in tech or you don't. If you don't, there isn't really room for compromise, so the notion of an "open" discussion is a red herring in addition to being incredibly insulting.
  - lurker69 9y ago
    This memo doesnt claim at any point that women should not be in tech. It just presents some reasons why there are less women in tech than men. Reasons that are not only sexism and patriarchy. But it does claim that Google created environment, where people who dont perfectly align with left leaning echo chamber talking points, cant safely express their opinions anymore. And Googles decision to pander to left leaning echo chamber and fire the guy proved his point. If you actually read the memo, and not only misinterpretation of it on pro feminist blogs, you would see that he was very careful with words and there isnt single sentence showing his misogyny. All his controversial claims are sourced and he pointed out that this are not his personal opinions. He even used graphs to show that he doesnt approve generalizations based on average. https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-Screen-Shot-2017-08-07-at-65310-PM.png?resize=1050:* https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-S... What you are looking at is a clever guy (former chess champion), who pushed left PC SJW Google to shoot themselves in the foot. He knew what result will be. Google echo chamber activists bullied HR so they needed to fire him. Accusing him of things like misogyny, that cant be proved on court, is enough for character assassination in SJW echo chambers. But in court room where biased interpretation of his memo and words like "anti-women manifesto" or "anti-diversity screed" wont be allowed, he has the upper hand. He has all he needs to prove he was fired unfairly. > Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters.
chx 9y ago
That's just incredible. Is this what you believe? That there exists discrimination against white males? What world do you actually live in? It just so happens white males have more opportunities and if a company actively tries to give opportunities to those who do not have it then you cry foul. You are not pushed down while they are raised up.
- ryan-allen 9y ago
  The drinking game I'm playing right now requires me to take three chugs.
bowlofpetunias 9y ago
Only inside the tech bubble that includes HN do we still consider this hateful alt-right bigotry to be a valid "opinion" we should continue to tolerate. Nobody is silencing the bigot that wrote that manifesto. Google is simply pointing him to the door. Lucky for him, SV still has hundreds of misogynistic tech bro companies he can join.
- hyperdunc 9y ago
  Phrases like "alt-right bigotry" and "misogynistic" are becoming the red flags of an intolerant leftist ideology. By using them here it seems like you are attempting to marginalize and stigmatize those who consider the manifesto to make some decent points. Do you have any actual arguments against the manifesto, or do you think that formulating a reasoned response would help legitimize a point of view that you find abhorrent?
zarkov99 9y ago
Absolutely. Pichai had an opportunity to make Google stand out of the current insane PC mindset, as perhaps the Google of 15 years ago would, and instead chose to collaborate with the orthodoxy. So much for using data to evaluate ideas. What a disgraceful age we live in.
- steego 9y ago
  Who's to say Pichai hasn't used data? I think you may be presuming too much. If one thing is true, there's plenty of data to demonstrate non-merit based discrimination. For example, studies that send out the same resume with different names is a common source of data: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-... If you think discrimination only affects women and POCs, you'll be delighted to learn that from second tier law schools that signaled middle class were overwhelmingly the least likely to get called. Being a middle class women yielded 7x better chances and being a wealthy male yielded 13x better chances. Ironically, being wealthy as a woman put you as a disadvantage. https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-backfire-on-your-resume https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-b... This type of discrimination is real because our brains don't like doing rigorous evaluation. To save energy, we'll substitute in some heuristic and tell ourselves we rigorously evaluated a person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution Here's the point. Discrimination is real and it costs businesses money. It's like Moneyball. You can be like the Yankees and overpay for players that fit superficial molds, or you could actually be methodical like the 2002 Athletics and hire undervalued players their competitors discounted. There are real economic incentives to focusing on diversity, especially if you can demonstrate your employees are passing on qualified people for superficial reasons (right school, hobbies, similar to me, culture fit, etc.) The company that can successfully exploit an industry's hiring bias by targeting discounted groups and evaluating candidates rigorously will have the pick of the litter.

shusson 9y ago

> We have a culture of anti-intellectualism and dogmatism around certain topics that for whatever reason are considered sacred and not allowed to be challenged (ie. political correctness), and its disgraceful. From a personal perspective I get where you are coming from, but from a professional perspective it makes no sense. There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there.

someguydave 9y ago
>There are ways to present opposing viewpoints in a workplace without offending half of the people who work there. Ways like not sharing your opposing viewing at all? From a professional perspective Google's management should have ignored the note. It's unprofessional to become wrapped up in minor drama (posting a note to a message board threatens nobody) and to act in carelessly hurried manner.
- vyhd 9y ago
  Ways like described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802. No one should be surprised about the outcome of handling a nuanced, difficult, and highly culturally relevant topic so callously.
just2n 9y ago
That comes across as unfair by definition, but practically there are no such ways to do what you've claimed. It's unfair in the sense that this progressive or far left ideal is allowed to be pushed onto entire organizations and by the media as de facto "right" or "correct", which is inherently a political position and would likely offend anyone who disagrees with it. If these processes and programs should be publicly enacted on people who disagree with them, it's unfair then to disallow any discussion about them under an implicit threat of termination. Google just confirmed that threat is very real. I know many conservatives here (a classical liberal / libertarian mostly myself, which is far too "right leaning" for this area) who are actually scared of any political discussion due to this exact threat, even though those with the "correct" opinions can openly discuss them without any fear of repercussions. I don't think they should because inherently politics brings out discussion and debate, often vigorous forms of it, and that's not generally the best thing for the office, but because that discussion/debate is effectively banned here, it's completely fine to express leftist and socialist ideals publicly, even if in extremely poor taste. Secondly, if you were to decide to bring up issues with these programs with a person responsible (for instance in Google's case, this VP of diversity) you'd get a predictable dismissal, or they'd silently drop whatever issue you raise, which means you have no actual means with which to present these viewpoints. She publicly dismissed the entire thing without actually refuting any argument that was made, with language that effectively sounded something like "this is wrong think, and Google doesn't agree with this wrong think." You could do it outside of work, but you lose the context and the specifics of the program, and more importantly the impact any such discussion could have on your immediate environment. These discussions do need to be had, and where they're being had, the majority of even liberal minded people tend to agree with the author of this piece, but it's hard to know if that's a consensus (even at 500,000+ views for instance on each video on YouTube) or if it's just an echo chamber because even demanding rigor and evidence of the ideas behind diversity is taboo in far too many places. For instance tptacek can be found in these very comments essentially arguing that this topic of discussion isn't open because it's been decided. By whom? How can any discussion of highly debatable topics like this be had if people like him and Google are just going to say "it's not up for debate because I'm right" in order to shut down any discussion before it can even begin, hilariously in this case by likening this to discussing child labor or marital rape? It's nice to see logical fallacies are alive and very well with people who otherwise seem fairly intelligent.
hyperdunc 9y ago
Many people take offense so easily these days that I doubt it is possible to have a decent discussion about these issues without offending quite a few people. Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired.
- shusson 9y ago
  Yeah I see your point, perhaps it's not so much about offending people but the way in which it was communicated.
- croon 9y ago
  > Our mistake is prioritizing offense mitigation. So long as a person's primary intent isn't to offend then they should be able to say anything without being fired. I strongly disagree. If I want to cement my advantages of being a white male I'll propose anything that furthers that goal. My aim wouldn't be to offend someone, but it is still very real side effect of my goal. Discussing gender differences should obviously not be taboo, nor should other topics, but the motives behind the discussions should likewise be freely scrutinized.
  - hyperdunc 9y ago
    It is very difficult to correctly ascertain motive, especially when looking through an ideological lens. Pandering to offense takers encourages them to seek motives they deem aggressive.
    - croon 9y ago
      You're right, but maybe I phrased it badly. What I mean isn't that I should be able to in practice be offended with what I disagree with, but that blatant agenda pushing behind science that doesn't quite fit your agenda should be questioned. I'm not offended by facts, I'm offended by dishonesty. We probably don't disagree in concept, but perhaps on this specific case.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
faceplanted 9y ago
I just don't want to hear some one's fucking opinions on an internal memo, that is so much not what internal communication tools are for.
- mason240 9y ago
  It wasn't an internal memo. Marked down for spreading alternative facts.
- yebyen 9y ago
  It was posted to a board called "pc-considered-harmful" Sounds like this memo is exactly what that board was for.
RealityNow 9y ago
I disagree. It's impossible to critique certain issues such as those pertaining to gender without offending people. But if someone is going to get offended because someone presented an alternative viewpoint to what they believe, than that's their problem. Imagine if we weren't allowed to debate, say, programming languages or SQL vs. NoSQL because one side needs to be coddled and can't take the heat. That's essentially what we're doing with "diversity" policies and gender dynamics.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vl 9y ago

>Further evidence that Google and the other large institutions don't actually give a rat's ass about "diversity". There is a market force pushing software companies into leftist positions (since influential demographics in the industry are strongly pro-left; also this creates positive feedback loop). In this context Google’s behavior is rational, and this guy tried to fight it with reason and argument (I was laughing hard when I was reading the manifesto) and got steamrolled in the process, proving the argument made in his memo by personal example.

dublinclontarf 9y ago
> There is a market force pushing software companies into leftist positions Yes, if you oppose or even voice disagreement you lose your job. I expect Googles behaviour in this instance was illegal.
- revmoo 9y ago
  > I expect Googles behaviour in this instance was illegal. I very much doubt it. Companies can fire anyone for any reason as long as they're not part of a protected class. They made mistake firing him, though.
peoplewindow 9y ago
It's not market forces. It's the fact that they hire so many new grads. Lack of mental/political/ideological diversity in universities leads to lack of diversity inside Google too (and Facebook and ...)
lurker69 9y ago
This market force might actually change in future. In this case it seems that James planned all this to happen and is gonna sue Google: > "$1 million in bonuses" was changed to "$100 million as a compensation" after Damore was "fired" by a Mr Kunda Píča whom I have never heard of; Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters. And about PR, while vocal left leaning activists might cheer decision to fire him, conservative and centrists media used this as great point to smear Google as leftist propaganda. This is great talking point for proving accusations that google manipulates search results to prefer certain political agenda. Recently Jordan Peterson caused quite a stir when his youtube and gmail accounts were revoked, YouTube decided it will start isolating videos with controversial views even if they dont brake ToS... This moves will be used by anti PC camp a lot to steer users to alternatives to googles products. Facebook and Twitter already pushed a lot of potential users away by similar behavior, alternative platforms are getting more and more relevant. Its hard to say if this vocal PC SJW activists are just vocal minority or actually majority talking with their wallets. Based on results of recent US elections and financial problems of some feminists and left leaning publications, and on majority of comments on uncensored pages; I would say that PC ship is probably sinking fast.

hyperdunc 9y ago

That video was 21 years ago but is more relevant than ever.

redditmigrant 9y ago

Diversity by its essence is about diversity, and hence accepting people who are opposed to diversity is antithetical to the idea of diversity. So this argument of accepting diverse viewpoints including those against diversity is non-sensical. The idea behind diversity is not to ignore gender differences, or racial differences, but to have the belief that skill and talent exists can come from anywhere. So these viewpoints that make generalizations about people because of their gender, race etc. serve to exclude the talent that can come from the non-white/male quarter. Now this person is probably a good engineer, but its fair to say his impact to computing will never be as great as Ada Lovelace, Anita Borg, Fei Fei Li etc. So if a viewpoint like his hinders the next Grace Hopper then firing him is a worthy price. The thing that the anti diversity warriors fail to understand is that their viewpoints are exclusionary to a whole swath of people, so please dont expect sympathy for your opinion when your viewpoint tells some people to go away just because of their gender/race.

issa 9y ago
Exactly. You either think women can be in tech or you don't. If you don't, there isn't really room for compromise, so the notion of an "open" discussion is a red herring in addition to being incredibly insulting.
- lurker69 9y ago
  This memo doesnt claim at any point that women should not be in tech. It just presents some reasons why there are less women in tech than men. Reasons that are not only sexism and patriarchy. But it does claim that Google created environment, where people who dont perfectly align with left leaning echo chamber talking points, cant safely express their opinions anymore. And Googles decision to pander to left leaning echo chamber and fire the guy proved his point. If you actually read the memo, and not only misinterpretation of it on pro feminist blogs, you would see that he was very careful with words and there isnt single sentence showing his misogyny. All his controversial claims are sourced and he pointed out that this are not his personal opinions. He even used graphs to show that he doesnt approve generalizations based on average. https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-Screen-Shot-2017-08-07-at-65310-PM.png?resize=1050:* https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-S... What you are looking at is a clever guy (former chess champion), who pushed left PC SJW Google to shoot themselves in the foot. He knew what result will be. Google echo chamber activists bullied HR so they needed to fire him. Accusing him of things like misogyny, that cant be proved on court, is enough for character assassination in SJW echo chambers. But in court room where biased interpretation of his memo and words like "anti-women manifesto" or "anti-diversity screed" wont be allowed, he has the upper hand. He has all he needs to prove he was fired unfairly. > Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters.

chx 9y ago

That's just incredible. Is this what you believe? That there exists discrimination against white males? What world do you actually live in? It just so happens white males have more opportunities and if a company actively tries to give opportunities to those who do not have it then you cry foul. You are not pushed down while they are raised up.

ryan-allen 9y ago
The drinking game I'm playing right now requires me to take three chugs.

bowlofpetunias 9y ago

Only inside the tech bubble that includes HN do we still consider this hateful alt-right bigotry to be a valid "opinion" we should continue to tolerate. Nobody is silencing the bigot that wrote that manifesto. Google is simply pointing him to the door. Lucky for him, SV still has hundreds of misogynistic tech bro companies he can join.

hyperdunc 9y ago
Phrases like "alt-right bigotry" and "misogynistic" are becoming the red flags of an intolerant leftist ideology. By using them here it seems like you are attempting to marginalize and stigmatize those who consider the manifesto to make some decent points. Do you have any actual arguments against the manifesto, or do you think that formulating a reasoned response would help legitimize a point of view that you find abhorrent?

zarkov99 9y ago

Absolutely. Pichai had an opportunity to make Google stand out of the current insane PC mindset, as perhaps the Google of 15 years ago would, and instead chose to collaborate with the orthodoxy. So much for using data to evaluate ideas. What a disgraceful age we live in.

steego 9y ago
Who's to say Pichai hasn't used data? I think you may be presuming too much. If one thing is true, there's plenty of data to demonstrate non-merit based discrimination. For example, studies that send out the same resume with different names is a common source of data: http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-... If you think discrimination only affects women and POCs, you'll be delighted to learn that from second tier law schools that signaled middle class were overwhelmingly the least likely to get called. Being a middle class women yielded 7x better chances and being a wealthy male yielded 13x better chances. Ironically, being wealthy as a woman put you as a disadvantage. https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-backfire-on-your-resume https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-b... This type of discrimination is real because our brains don't like doing rigorous evaluation. To save energy, we'll substitute in some heuristic and tell ourselves we rigorously evaluated a person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution Here's the point. Discrimination is real and it costs businesses money. It's like Moneyball. You can be like the Yankees and overpay for players that fit superficial molds, or you could actually be methodical like the 2002 Athletics and hire undervalued players their competitors discounted. There are real economic incentives to focusing on diversity, especially if you can demonstrate your employees are passing on qualified people for superficial reasons (right school, hobbies, similar to me, culture fit, etc.) The company that can successfully exploit an industry's hiring bias by targeting discounted groups and evaluating candidates rigorously will have the pick of the litter.