63 ms·

Note to Google Employees from CEO Sundar Pichai

207 points by nimz 9y ago

sidcool 9y ago
I think this is a very good step in positive direction that the CEO is addressing the issue in public. Independent of whether I agree or disagree with the decision, I commend the blog.
- petre 9y ago
  Could be just whitewashing.
- aedron 9y ago
  I think it reads like typical corporate CYA double-speak, the opposite of brave leadership.
tokenizerrr 9y ago
> The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree ...So we've fired the person starting the debate? Am I missing something here?
- camperman 9y ago
  Yeah - a high caste Tamil Brahmin has fired someone for expressing the belief that not all people are equal :)
- pimmen 9y ago
  As the note basically says; starting a debate does not excuse you from suggesting that some of your co-workers are there because of a "lowered bar", your evidence being psuedo-scientific bullshit about the tech-skill distribution among minorities and women.
  - kbart 9y ago
    "your evidence being psuedo-scientific bullshit" *Citation needed.
    - pimmen 9y ago
      The fact that these engineers passed the same hiring process, consisting of problem solving, that other employees also were subjected to, and that these workers deliver enough value to pass the fitness evaluations? If you're suggesting they were subjected to different practices, contrary to what HR at Google is stating, then you better cough up evidence. Do the women and minorities at Google perform worse than White males?
      - kbart 9y ago
        I'm not saying that women or minorities are somewhat inferior (neither does the memo btw, if you've read it carefully), but there are fundamental differences among these groups, like it or not. Ignoring these differences only makes things worse, and no bar lowering, mandated positions of certain group etc. will help. Problems must be solved at the root causes, not fighting their consequences.
    - te_chris 9y ago
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-weapon-choice-women-google-manifesto-gender-difference-eugenics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silico...
      - imron 9y ago
        Counter citation: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... This part in particular is worth considering: "..if minds differ across sexes and races enough to justify diversity as an instrumental business goal, then they must differ enough in some specific skills, interests, and motivations that hiring and promotion will sometimes produce unequal outcomes in some company roles. In other words, if demographic diversity yields any competitive advantages due to psychological differences between groups, then demographic equality of outcome cannot be achieved in all jobs and all levels within a company."
- baltimore12 9y ago
  Yes you are missing something
koolba 9y ago
Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine: > At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions. Good luck with that. You can't take a guy out back and shoot him for speaking his mind, and subsequently expect others do so. I'm certain Google management knows this as well. They know exactly what they're doing and they're fine with it.
- se2 9y ago
  I believe you have misconstrued the message Sundar was giving. The difference between having the freedom to speak one's mind, and breaching a code of conduct that you sign when you agree to work for Google is clear cut in his note.
  - lagadu 9y ago
    By firing the employee they're effectively sending out a strong message about it no matter how they sugarcoat it.
    - cdubzzz 9y ago
      A strong message about breaking the code of conduct, yes. The message here seems abundantly clear and I have trouble understanding how it can miscontrued to be anything other than reacting to a clear violation. I can't even think of how to restate what is so clearly laid out in the note. I wouldn't rule out the potential that there is uneven enforcement of such violations, and that would make this action look questionable. But I don't know enough about Google's internal operations to get to that conclusion.
dsfjksdf 9y ago
"The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions." Maybe he missed the memo that the author has been fired? How is that encouraging for people with unpopular opinions?
- trevyn 9y ago
  Federal and California law protect your ability to discuss labor issues in the workplace -- this is CYA. See: https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-witchhunt https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-witchhu... (The outcome of the above story: the employee was rehired!)
  - uncle_d 9y ago
    Now that would be hilarious.
naturalgradient 9y ago
There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments: - We can debate anything - However, some views are too harmful to be debated - Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to debate/too harmful
- doubleshame 9y ago
  You missed the conclusion - you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as it's not something we say is harmful of course So much back and forth
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  The memo itself was incoherent. Many of its statements made sense for debate, and the author himself pointed out that you can't tell much about any individual from the general data, which I think has not been focused on enough. He seemed to think he was doing everybody a service and that his views were not detrimental to anybody. But the actual choices in how to express the generalities showed really bad judgement and overall apparently ran afoul of the code of conduct. People are definitely putting words in his mouth, but at the same time: An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. You might not instantly fire this person if he had chosen a way to express his ideas that didn't burn bridges with half the people who work there, if not more. This was not just "debate", it was maybe 80% debate and 20% attack on the credibility of all women in traditionally male professions. If he did not mean it come across that way, which I believe might be the case, then I feel sorry for him. And maybe he should have the opportunity to edit the memo to better reflect the debate he intended. But that's on him. He chose how to do this and what words to use.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. What is the best way?
    - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
octaveguin 9y ago
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
- nothrabannosir 9y ago
  (In case someone missed the reference: this is a comparison to Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign. People were spurred to speak their minds freely, but, after a few years, punished for dissenting.)
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough to be the majority. It doesn't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint is.. majority > minority. There is no debate, only angry people seeing what they want to see. Get angry first, ask questions later (or never) - just people being people. Googles response is simply to appease both sides as best they can, recognizing that one is the majority. The firing is enough blood to appease the stupid & intolerant, this post is to appease the rest.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough to be the majority. It doesn't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint is.. majority > minority. The operative phrase being, "loud enough". I.e. loud enough minority looks like majority.
retox 9y ago
A "Note to Google Employees" on a public site. Seems legit.
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  As you might have noticed the debate did not involve Google employees exclusively. It is of them that he is CEO, though. It would be quite megalomaniac to title it "To all ye of this planet, listen to me!"
jamesrcole 9y ago
By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not tolerate a diversity of opinions. That does not bode well for them, for a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive.
- onion2k 9y ago
  a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive So what? This action might be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it) but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run. To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who are openly racist write better code I still wouldn't believe Google should hire them.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    I've already covered the "So what?". I explained what I think the consequences are likely to be, and why I think that.
  - stormking 9y ago
    What makes you so sure that it's an "overwhelming majority of employees"?
- mattnewton 9y ago
  Actually I think you have it backwards. By not firing him, they would have done too little to distance the Google brand from the manifesto (and worse, people's third and fourth hand readings of the manifesto). That would cost them more potential and current engineers short term and certainly devalue the consumer brand more than sending a message that company wide memos like that aren't tolerated. They can't just take this sitting down.
- conradfr 9y ago
  Google has enough money to survive everything for decades. It may not be the case for smaller companies that love to copy what they do.
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Wow, I'm surprised to see the comments here being hateful towards this statement. I don't think it's contradictory at all. The stance he takes is that any subject is up for debate, so long as you don't step out of line with respect to the code of conduct. The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. Even as a particularly opinionated person myself, who would be likely to start a lot of shit at Google - even about diversity, I consider these limitations just.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  Not saying Google has to uphold everyone's 1A rights. Not saying dude who wrote the essay is correct either. But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct.
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    >But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct. I think people often expect 'free speech' in situations where I wouldn't. Like a collaborative working environment where you are all professionals trying to get work done. There is a subset of speech (so no longer 'free') that is appropriate for working professionally with a group, especially a group from widely diverse backgrounds. The exact boundaries change over time and between environments, but the idea of employers setting a baseline set of elections expectations inherently limits speech. Google supports speech within limits, and a person who gets that could probably have navigated the politics of talking about the legitimate issues in the memo without crossing that line. Working together in companies is weird. Codes of Conduct attempt to standardize expectations so that work can get done. Work is a special place.
    - mnglkhn2 9y ago
      Your argument seems to be that in an work environment opinions should be kept to one's self. Would that apply only to Republicans or to Democrats as well? It is an utopia to pretend that the workplace should be opinion-free. Especially since the workplace on purpose tries to blur the lines between personal and professional lives: dorms on campus, cafeteria, malls and dry-cleaning amenities on campus. If that's the direction business are going towards to then it is normal to accept that the employee comes with opinions attached.
la6470 9y ago
We all know that men and women are different but under no circumstances can you club a large section of population and say they are inferior in some respect ... hitler did it with the Jews, whites did it to the blacks , Japanese did it to the Chinese and history is rife with extreme examples of the Dangers of generalization of a large section of population. Our job as human civilization is to evolve positively and to survive by dispersion of empathy - not by corroding it every day and making a certain section feel weak and vulnerable. No matter what your point of view is there is no doubt the author of the article had touched a raw nerve deliberately which he could have easily avoided. Therefor Google is right to fire him and the majority is absolutely within their rights to condemn him.
thanksgiving 9y ago
A little off-topic but if you care about your employees, please make all salary and compensation information for any employee available to all employees (preferably make it public). Someone has to start doing the right thing.
k-mcgrady 9y ago
This thread seems to be a perfect demonstration of the problems when it comes to diversity in tech. People just don't seem to get it. I see the same thing in threads around big SV names sexually harassing women (and in those cases it blows my mind even more that people don't get that it's a problem). It seems like a lot of people are basing their opinions on logic (fine) but in a perfect world where everyone has equal opportunity, we live in a meritocracy, and people are judged solely on performance. Unfortunately none of those things are true and we need to manipulate things manually to ensure people are given equal opportunity.
- kenjackson 9y ago
  Agreed. Many engineers seem to think if it's true then thry can just say it. To them it makes logical sense -- st least when it suits them.
- Swizec 9y ago
  My favorite explanation of this effect goes like this: You have students in a classroom, sitting in 5 rows of 5 students. The teacher gives each student a crumpled ball of paper. Each ball is identical. The teacher then places a bin at the very front of the class and says "Okay, you each get one throw from your seat. If you hit the bin, you get an A" Equal opportunity. Everyone is throwing the same ball into the same bin, and everyone gets a chance to throw their ball of paper, hit the bin, and get an A. But some students are 5ft away and others are 30ft away. Suddenly not so fair. This comic also explains it well: http://imgur.com/gallery/h82vC http://imgur.com/gallery/h82vC
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > But some students are 5ft away and others are 30ft away. Suddenly not so fair. Employers don't know who came from privileged backgrounds and who didn't. Legally, they shouldn't even be asking about it. The concern isn't about whether employers should help people out. The concern is that the current rubric is too inexact. And that questioning the rubric is considered hateful.
  - MrF3ynmann 9y ago
baltimore12 9y ago
We all know that men and women are different but under no circumstances can you club a large section of population and say they are inferior in some respect ... hitler did it with the Jews, whites did it to the blacks , Japanese did it to the Chinese and history is rife with extreme examples of the Dangers of generalization of a large section of population. Our job as human civilization is to evolve positively and to survive by dispersion of empathy - not by corroding it every day and making a certain section feel weak and vulnerable. No matter what your point of view is there is no doubt the author of the article had touched a raw nerve deliberately which he could have easily avoided. Therefor Google is right to fire him and the majority is absolutely within their rights to condemn him.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
chvid 9y ago
I wonder about the internal workings of Google here; did he (Sundar Pichai) actually ok'ed the firing of the memo author? Is this text actually written by him or is it by some HR/communications person? It seems very coded and indirect.
ExploitsforFun 9y ago
SV has had major problems sheltering people in leadership who have used their positions to sexually exploit their female subordinates. Yet a mid level engineer publicly questions some of the company's diversity policies and gets fired. Many of publicly stated reasons about women leaving tech is predatory behavior by people in leadership. How about initiatives about getting rid of individuals like that.
- tp3z4u 9y ago
  It's totally fine for Sergey Brin to have an affair with his subordinate Amanda Rosenberg.
xedarius 9y ago
Know this, I'm cancelling my holiday just to show you and more importantly my manager exactly how serious this is. Just to reiterate, you've all made me cancel my holiday, you bad, me good.
swalsh 9y ago
The first thought that came to mind for me, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
spodek 9y ago
To Sundar Pichai: How could someone express the views the author felt without getting fired, while still promoting discussion? Is it possible, just possible, that Google's policies are counterproductive? If so, how would Google find out? By what process could someone change them? If such processes exist, why would someone the company valued enough to hire risk his job to send this memo? Is it possible that Google's environment does not accept some minority viewpoints despite your beliefs and attempts?
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  This precisely. It's a pity they'll never be specific in addressing exactly how these points could have been raised without sanction. As admitted, the (former) employee clearly felt the discussion was worth starting - why won't they provide concrete examples of how they would be preferred the issues be raised in this case? (It's a rhetorical question; of course, we know why they won't and can't do that.)
tryingagainbro 9y ago
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint) Define "safely" and maybe you can express your viewpoint. The good news is that Google ain't gonna shoot you after a 15 minute trial (including appeals) but you'll get fired and blackballed. (Google could at least give this guy FU money with a wink and a nod.) No company will hire you after rocking the boat....things have already been decided by those who scream loudest. WTF are you to question them now?
justusw 9y ago
Interesting. Was this submission kicked off the front page? I can't find it anymore except by using the search.
- sctb 9y ago
  It triggered the overheated discussion detector, which we've just turned off.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Idea: overheated discussion detector could probably run more efficiently the next few weeks by replacing the implementation with 'cat thread.xml | grep Google | grep -v technology'
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
andy_ppp 9y ago
A lot of comments already misunderstanding the excellent response by Sundar Pichai in the article. You obviously can't say anything you like at work. Google is offering diversity of opinion but there are things you can say that are just stupid and will get you fired. If you replace women in his essay with African American there would have been about 1 second between it being posted and it being taken down, with an escort out of the building and rightly so. I loved this talk from Sheryl Sandberg that touches on a lot of these issues, particularly the "joke" near the end, 39 minutes: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-develop-your-voice-not-your-brand https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-develo...
mnglkhn2 9y ago
Full, unedited document. Gizmodo did a hatchet job ar taking charts and links out. People should read it and then apply reason to it. Difficult when we get into cult-like mob mentality. James Damore document: [https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...]
andruby 9y ago
For those who, like me, missed the news that Google fired the author of the original memo, here's the HN discussion around that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787
polotics 9y ago
OMG, Cancelling his vacation? what message about work-life balance is the CEO sending? ;^)
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Actually, you may be joking but in all seriousness what message indeed.
Bearwithme 9y ago
This is pretty inspiring. It seems everyone is too frightened by such a small but very vocal minority who put feelings ahead of logic.
sol_remmy 9y ago
Government regulation is actually the culprit here. Google is being sued by the Department of Labor for violating a gender discrimination regulation: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... Google's response is driven by this lawsuit. They have antitrust regulations on one side, discrimination regulations on the other. Sundar is aware that the government could sue Google out of business.
zpq 9y ago
> Aug 8, 2017 > This note was sent to Google employees this evening. -Ed. I'm reading a note from the future. Incredible!
supremesaboteur 9y ago
This is the moment. Google used to be this dream place to work, not anymore. If other companies want to hire good conservative/libertarian engineers, they should motion loud and clear that they will not ostracize employees for having a differing political opinion
- Mangalor 9y ago
  The truth is, in most states, you can be fired for holding any opinion your boss doesn't like. Full stop.
  - bzbarsky 9y ago
    But California is not one of those states. See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...
cnlwsu 9y ago
Keep politics/religion out of work. Its one thing to rant on reddit at end of day, its another to broadcast it to co workers. What did he expect would happen? His little write up would change everyones mind? Both left/right are extremists these days and will never change. All you will do is alienate and anger a bunch of co workers for a few pats on back from "your" side. While the smart people will put heads down and get actual work done at work and talk politics at end of day at a bar with friends/family like the rest of the country.
- swalsh 9y ago
  I'd mostly agree with you, but this was not an "in general" opinion that he posted to some "off topic" list. It was a direct opinion about the policies of his company. There is no better place to disagree with your companies internal hiring policies, than on an internal mailing list.
  - novembermike 9y ago
    In fact, this might be legally protected speech. I don't know how applicable they are but there are a few old pro-union laws on the books that prevent people from being fired because they were talking about improving the workplace or because they discussed discrimination they reasonably felt was happening (it doesn't matter if it actually happened).
- Mangalor 9y ago
  False equivalency. The left at least advocates for inclusion, and asking your workplace not to discriminate is not "just as bad as" saying women shouldn't be able to be engineers.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > asking your workplace not to discriminate is not "just as bad as" saying women shouldn't be able to be engineers The former is exactly what the author of the memo did, and they got fired for it.
la6470 9y ago
https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F2726243-spike-lee-announces-date-time-for-colin-kaepernick-rally-at-nfl-headquarters#pt0-590408 https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacher...
protomyth 9y ago
Frankly, the CEO has more problems than this memo. Breitbart has been a garbage fire for a while, but if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake then Google is going to have some problems. This is really not the thing you want going on when you already have a government labor investigation underway. I wish anyone impacted luck. 1) http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-goo...
- Mangalor 9y ago
  Breitbart is fascist propaganda, you've made the world worse for sharing anything from them.
  - Tanegashima 9y ago
    Did you actually read the article or it’s just antibodies working? Actually I didn’t, but they provide with more sources to supplant their narrative than any other “legitimate news source” that I have encountered.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake You could share your thoughts on this rather than making a clickbait comment.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    I did share my thoughts (CEO has other problems, good luck to people impacted), and HN doesn't allow posting images so I posted a link to the article. Inc. Magazine https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.html https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.h... looks like they are verifying them although they did not print any.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  I don't know in what world whatever garbage comes out of Breitbart is anywhere near credible. It's garbage news for people who don't care about journalistic integrity. Nothing there can be taken seriously.
la6470 9y ago
BTW why is no one in NFL signing on Kapernick? There are always consequences for controversial actions. BTW the writer of the article is really young guy. Hopefully he will grow up one day.
ropman76 9y ago
The real issue is how much a corporation can enforce "correct" opinions among it's employees. This was an internal company forum. He expressed opinions that deviated from company policy (and from the sounds of it a lot of other employees at Google disagreed as well) and a lively debated ensued. OK that what sounds like a healthy thing to have happen and get ideas out there and agreed upon or shot down. However by firing him that sends a very clear message that any deviation from the norm will not be tolerated. That's not diversity, that is an attempt at moral conformity.
java_script 9y ago
This whole thing to me is a great example of why the "Facts don't care about feels" crowd is so disingenuous. Supporters of the memo writer talk about how scientific and logical he was being, yet he draws lines that are not supported by science at all. We barely know what things contribute to success of software teams at all, let alone the implications of evopsych biotruths on them. And all this pseudo-scientific reaching is for the grand purpose of saying current employees who came to the company maybe from outreach programs shouldn't have been reached out to. Which, objectively and logically, is a dead-stupid thing to argue in an internal company-wide memo.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
Many here seem to feel sorry for the fired employee. We don't need to tolerate intolerance. Nobody cries for the Nazis, for example. "Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact." [1] [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
- doubleshame 9y ago
  Only three sith deal in absolutes.
  - doubleshame 9y ago
    Actually this could be a single sith as well. Also you don't normally get more than two, so there's that.
- benchaney 9y ago
  The fired employee was not begin intolerant. He was disagreeing with company policy. The comparison to Nazis is completely uncalled for.
dopamean 9y ago
I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensible. Let's say someone at my company holds the opinion that black people are generally too stupid to do tech jobs and they write a memo to the company explaining that opinion. They cite sources that show how blacks underperform academically compared to other ethnic groups and go about it in a really professional way. Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Should they tell all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to that opinion? As a black guy at that company I would be really unhappy about that and I'd probably quit. I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions.
- ipsin 9y ago
  I thought Yonatan Zunger's essay Tolerance is not a moral precept [1] -- linked off his response to the "manifesto" -- did a good job of addressing this scenario. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376?gi=fc788fafdbf7 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
  - ballenf 9y ago
    Great article. I think a better metaphor than "peace treaty" describing tolerance would be "sect", however. And not in a pejorative sense, but used to recognize that there will be various self-organized groups with different definitions of tolerance and that membership in a group requires close adherence to a particular definition. And various sects may overlap to varying degrees. For example, a tolerant devout Christian and a tolerant devout Muslim may find themselves defining tolerance differently enough to find themselves in different tolerance "sects". Peace treaty is an interesting metaphor but falls short on many levels. Primarily because peace treaties are more focused on geographic separation (whether country-level or block-level) and agreeing on borders (keeping people apart), not about rules of behavior within a single community. Tolerance is the latter more than the former and is the preferred alternative to separation where possible. Using examples from the article the white "separatists" want a peace treaty -- well defined border for them to live free of the "threat" of racial diversity. Tolerant people want to find a way to build a community together, but understand the other side's goals are incompatible with this.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rsp1984 9y ago
This is definitely the best response to the memo that I've read. He clearly says which parts of the "manifesto" are an acceptable expression of opinion in the workplace and which aren't. I am very relieved that he didn't jump on the bashing bandwagon and dismissed the memo as a whole just because it contained some questionable and inappropriate parts. This makes it very credible that he's actually read the whole thing and thought about it. Something that I miss dearly with 99% of the other discussion contributers (e.g. [1] which is IMO just hate speech of a worse kind than the memo it responds to). I really thought I wouldn't write this but kudos and thanks to Sundar for such a balanced and well thought-out response. [1] https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rewrew 9y ago
Let's break down the reality of this situation as it currently stands: 1) You can't say what you want at work, period (there are no first amendment protections at work, just from the government). The person who posted the memo was naive and this memo from the CEO is corporate bullspeak to look good for outside PR. That's all this is, and if you take it for anything more you're also naive. For all intents and purposes it means nothing. 2) The company might be trying to make women feel more welcome by having the statement from the new diversity officer and the CEO, but I can tell you as a woman the LAST place I'd want to get a job right now is Google -- everyone is going to look at you like you only got your job because you're female; it's going to be extremely hard to get people to take you seriously. That's why, if you're going to hire only for diversity (not that I recommend it), do it in silence, don't tell the world, as it only backfires against those same employees you're bringing in. 3) If Google really wanted to get more females and minorities in its rank it should be looking at why it focuses so highly on only top rank schools (IF TRUE: MAY NOT BE-- SEE DISCUSSION BELOW) -- there's plenty of great, smart people constantly overlooked by Google because they can't see past their own biases in this area, which some would argue is a bigger barrier to diversity at Google than straight hiring by gender and race alone.
- anthonybullard 9y ago
  Only going to reply to your last point, this isn't my experience at all with Google. I work in SV, and get contacted by an internal recruiter at Google a couple times a year. What school did I go to? None. Ok, I have a certificate from the Defense Language Institute, but no degree. So I'm not sure this is a problem.
  - rewrew 9y ago
    And you may be absolutely right -- I'm going off what I've heard from young people anecdotally out of college who say they weren't given a second look because they weren't from MIT or Cal Tech. But perhaps that's only for entry-level positions, or perhaps my information is just plain wrong.
SJWDisagree111 9y ago
The word "neurotic" was the single thing that got this blown up. Had that not been used this would have skated by mostly unnoticed. I guess also got the author would also have been added to these blacklists. The author might as well have used the "B" word with all the SJW's around at Google.
- stefantalpalaru 9y ago
  > The word "neurotic" was the single thing that got this blown up. The funny thing is that it's a scientific term, part of the most useful personality model in psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
SJWDisagree111 9y ago
The word "neurotic" was the single thing that got this blown up. Had that not been used this would have skated by mostly unnoticed. I guess also got the author would also have been added to these blacklists. The author might as well have used the "B" word with all the SJW's around at Google.
CoffeeDregs 9y ago
What a bummer. This could have been "Kubernetes for organizations", how to manage diverse sets of containers-of-emotions/talents in a scalable fashion. There is so little nuance and quality thinking around this topic inside most organizations and Google could have done the community a great service by elevating and firmly grounding the discussion. And I think there are great discussions to be had that would lead to tech workers understanding and desiring diversity for actual reasons and not for PC/BS reasons. But now no one will raise the topic.
LARGEGALAXY 9y ago
Before even reading the link, I somehow knew that this was going to be a topic about "diversity" or workplace "harassment" against minorities or something closely-related to this agenda; my predictive knowledge is so advanced I feel like a genius, or maybe perhaps this propaganda is so prevalent in our society it has reached critical levels? In any case I am not reading a single sentence; the headline "diversity" already tests my patience.
lolgoogle 9y ago
Outside the Bay Area bubble, this is extremely damaging to Google's image.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
metaphorm 9y ago
This is the chilliest I've yet felt the chilling effect.
vivekd 9y ago
We have this thing called diversity policies, and some people agree with it, and some people disagree with it. The people who agree with it are free to present arguments about why workplaces are discriminatory and why diversity is valuable. But with this - I'm starting to wonder if the same is true for the other side. Are people free to post counter arguments showing that lack of diversity may be due to other factors such as difference in behaviour or tendencies? It doesn't appear that way.
camgunz 9y ago
The whole "across cultures" thing in that 1 (importantly, one) study is easily explained by a couple things: - men grow more muscle faster and that used to be important - childbirth used to be (and in many places still is) very dangerous for women Consequently most societies defined gender roles in similar ways, leading to similar effects across them. Or you can go even simpler and say they're more neurotic because their odds of being raped by a man are terrifyingly high. Or they get paid less than men and charged more for things like health care, car loans and mortgages so they carry a higher financial stress burden. Or their health plans are inadequate and they're worried about what will happen if that matters. Or they're being harassed in the workplace. Or you can dispute the premise entirely and say the standard for "neuroticism" was based on a culture created and still dominated by men. --- A lot of people are saying things like, "he didn't really write anything that was sexist or misogynistic", but women and people of color are far too familiar with fucked up policies justified by "biological differences". There are real, deep, life and death social problems right now caused by misogyny and they all stem from the fundamental idea that women have their role and men have theirs. What does this lead to? Health care policies that cost women more and don't even meet all their needs. Health care systems that service women less effectively than men (stroke symptoms are often missed in women, childbirth mortality rates in less progressive parts of the US, etc.), jobs that pay women less than men, laws that ignore or oppress women, etc. etc. etc. etc. And every time, it's justified with "women are just biologically different than men". Why can't you express such an opinion in the workplace? Because that opinion is responsible for the oppression of billions of women throughout the entire history of humanity. It's not at all like arguing for wind over solar, or honestly other political debates over private vs. public health care or whatever. When you're talking about social issues, you're talking about systems that have oppressed, brutalized and murdered unbelievable numbers of people, and continue to oppress people that you work with and see each and every day. They're not idle thought experiments or a curious hobbies. Treat them with the sensitivity they deserve.
funnyguys 9y ago
When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that particular gender all the more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is frowned upon – not just because of innate sense of right or wrong. Being white male, I bet most of us would never have faced any significant discrimination and please stop pretending that we know how other side feels. Some people are suggesting Google's stance on LGBT is alienating people - Really? So, people who advocate taking away LGBT people's rights and opposed to their ways of life are complaining of persecution?
funnyguys 9y ago
Any one even remotely thinks that the memo was right should read this : https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... There are some good points in the memo - like having training and support for men, but it was largely an exercise in casting doubt on the ability of certain subset of your co-workers to do their job.
cmurf 9y ago
Completely predictable. And I'm amused that the alt-right is currently flipping their shit over "PC nonsense" and calling for #boycottgoogle And this dumb bro thinks he has a legal case. I'm also amused with the pro-business anti-government types are the first to go wailing to the government for intervention on behalf of their first amendment rights which do not apply to an employer.
sandstrom 9y ago
He's basically saying the same thing that got Larry Summers axed as president of Harvard. [...] stomped Harvard University President Lawrence Summers for mentioning at a January 14 academic conference the entirely reasonable theory that innate male-female differences might possibly help explain why so many mathematics, engineering, and hard-science faculties remain so heavily male. At least this guy is in good company. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-fem...
Caveman_Coder 9y ago
When I worked at Google I saw far worse things being said about those who held conservative opinions on Memegen and eng-misc. The real issue is not that he expressed opinions that could be constituted as harassment, that happens all the time at Google, the only problem is that he dared to hold the "wrong" opinion, counter to the dominant culture.
nadim 9y ago
This site so janky on iOS.
EJTH 9y ago
> we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves By fireing them? Really?! I see a lot of criticism from people who didn't read the memo. Most people just fall for the sensationalist headlines of "OMG GOOGLE RELEASED ANTI-WOMEN MEMO REEE". The memo wasn't that bad. It tries to highlight some very real problems in this age of intersectional recruitment.

207 points by nimz 9y ago

I think this is a very good step in positive direction that the CEO is addressing the issue in public. Independent of whether I agree or disagree with the decision, I commend the blog.

petre 9y ago
Could be just whitewashing.
aedron 9y ago
I think it reads like typical corporate CYA double-speak, the opposite of brave leadership.

tokenizerrr 9y ago

> The past few days have been very difficult for many at the company, and we need to find a way to debate issues on which we might disagree ...So we've fired the person starting the debate? Am I missing something here?

camperman 9y ago
Yeah - a high caste Tamil Brahmin has fired someone for expressing the belief that not all people are equal :)
pimmen 9y ago
As the note basically says; starting a debate does not excuse you from suggesting that some of your co-workers are there because of a "lowered bar", your evidence being psuedo-scientific bullshit about the tech-skill distribution among minorities and women.
- kbart 9y ago
  "your evidence being psuedo-scientific bullshit" *Citation needed.
  - pimmen 9y ago
    The fact that these engineers passed the same hiring process, consisting of problem solving, that other employees also were subjected to, and that these workers deliver enough value to pass the fitness evaluations? If you're suggesting they were subjected to different practices, contrary to what HR at Google is stating, then you better cough up evidence. Do the women and minorities at Google perform worse than White males?
    - kbart 9y ago
      I'm not saying that women or minorities are somewhat inferior (neither does the memo btw, if you've read it carefully), but there are fundamental differences among these groups, like it or not. Ignoring these differences only makes things worse, and no bar lowering, mandated positions of certain group etc. will help. Problems must be solved at the root causes, not fighting their consequences.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-weapon-choice-women-google-manifesto-gender-difference-eugenics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silico...
    - imron 9y ago
      Counter citation: http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... This part in particular is worth considering: "..if minds differ across sexes and races enough to justify diversity as an instrumental business goal, then they must differ enough in some specific skills, interests, and motivations that hiring and promotion will sometimes produce unequal outcomes in some company roles. In other words, if demographic diversity yields any competitive advantages due to psychological differences between groups, then demographic equality of outcome cannot be achieved in all jobs and all levels within a company."
baltimore12 9y ago
Yes you are missing something

koolba 9y ago

Quoting Sundar Pichai (Google CEO), emphasis mine: > At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo—such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all—are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions. Good luck with that. You can't take a guy out back and shoot him for speaking his mind, and subsequently expect others do so. I'm certain Google management knows this as well. They know exactly what they're doing and they're fine with it.

se2 9y ago
I believe you have misconstrued the message Sundar was giving. The difference between having the freedom to speak one's mind, and breaching a code of conduct that you sign when you agree to work for Google is clear cut in his note.
- lagadu 9y ago
  By firing the employee they're effectively sending out a strong message about it no matter how they sugarcoat it.
  - cdubzzz 9y ago
    A strong message about breaking the code of conduct, yes. The message here seems abundantly clear and I have trouble understanding how it can miscontrued to be anything other than reacting to a clear violation. I can't even think of how to restate what is so clearly laid out in the note. I wouldn't rule out the potential that there is uneven enforcement of such violations, and that would make this action look questionable. But I don't know enough about Google's internal operations to get to that conclusion.

dsfjksdf 9y ago

"The author had a right to express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions." Maybe he missed the memo that the author has been fired? How is that encouraging for people with unpopular opinions?

trevyn 9y ago
Federal and California law protect your ability to discuss labor issues in the workplace -- this is CYA. See: https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-witchhunt https://www.recode.net/2016/6/2/11845456/nest-google-witchhu... (The outcome of the above story: the employee was rehired!)
- uncle_d 9y ago
  Now that would be hilarious.

naturalgradient 9y ago

There is just no winning in the following chain of arguments: - We can debate anything - However, some views are too harmful to be debated - Whoever is most vocally outraged decides the boundary between open to debate/too harmful

doubleshame 9y ago
You missed the conclusion - you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as it's not something we say is harmful of course So much back and forth
oddlyaromatic 9y ago
The memo itself was incoherent. Many of its statements made sense for debate, and the author himself pointed out that you can't tell much about any individual from the general data, which I think has not been focused on enough. He seemed to think he was doing everybody a service and that his views were not detrimental to anybody. But the actual choices in how to express the generalities showed really bad judgement and overall apparently ran afoul of the code of conduct. People are definitely putting words in his mouth, but at the same time: An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. You might not instantly fire this person if he had chosen a way to express his ideas that didn't burn bridges with half the people who work there, if not more. This was not just "debate", it was maybe 80% debate and 20% attack on the credibility of all women in traditionally male professions. If he did not mean it come across that way, which I believe might be the case, then I feel sorry for him. And maybe he should have the opportunity to edit the memo to better reflect the debate he intended. But that's on him. He chose how to do this and what words to use.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > An incoherent companywide memo is not the best way to start a debate on a sensitive topic. What is the best way?
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago

octaveguin 9y ago

Let a thousand flowers bloom.

nothrabannosir 9y ago
(In case someone missed the reference: this is a comparison to Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign. People were spurred to speak their minds freely, but, after a few years, punished for dissenting.)

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough to be the majority. It doesn't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint is.. majority > minority. There is no debate, only angry people seeing what they want to see. Get angry first, ask questions later (or never) - just people being people. Googles response is simply to appease both sides as best they can, recognizing that one is the majority. The firing is enough blood to appease the stupid & intolerant, this post is to appease the rest.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Moral of the story: stupid angry lynch mobs win when they are loud enough to be the majority. It doesn't matter how uninformed the majority viewpoint is.. majority > minority. The operative phrase being, "loud enough". I.e. loud enough minority looks like majority.

retox 9y ago

A "Note to Google Employees" on a public site. Seems legit.

dullgiulio 9y ago
As you might have noticed the debate did not involve Google employees exclusively. It is of them that he is CEO, though. It would be quite megalomaniac to title it "To all ye of this planet, listen to me!"

jamesrcole 9y ago

By firing the employee, Google is sending a strong signal that they will not tolerate a diversity of opinions. That does not bode well for them, for a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive.

onion2k 9y ago
a restrictive intellectual environment is anathema to the kind of intelligent people they want to hire to keep the company competitive So what? This action might be damaging to Google's bottom line (I doubt it) but that's actually less important that running a company in the way the overwhelming majority of employees want it to be run. To use an ad absurdum argument - if it could be demonstrated that people who are openly racist write better code I still wouldn't believe Google should hire them.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  I've already covered the "So what?". I explained what I think the consequences are likely to be, and why I think that.
- stormking 9y ago
  What makes you so sure that it's an "overwhelming majority of employees"?
mattnewton 9y ago
Actually I think you have it backwards. By not firing him, they would have done too little to distance the Google brand from the manifesto (and worse, people's third and fourth hand readings of the manifesto). That would cost them more potential and current engineers short term and certainly devalue the consumer brand more than sending a message that company wide memos like that aren't tolerated. They can't just take this sitting down.
conradfr 9y ago
Google has enough money to survive everything for decades. It may not be the case for smaller companies that love to copy what they do.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

Wow, I'm surprised to see the comments here being hateful towards this statement. I don't think it's contradictory at all. The stance he takes is that any subject is up for debate, so long as you don't step out of line with respect to the code of conduct. The guy who was fired was way out of line, far beyond any reasonable limits to topics of discussion. Even as a particularly opinionated person myself, who would be likely to start a lot of shit at Google - even about diversity, I consider these limitations just.

CodeWriter23 9y ago
Not saying Google has to uphold everyone's 1A rights. Not saying dude who wrote the essay is correct either. But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct.
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  >But it's a lie to say Google's culture supports free speech when the cost of that speech is compliance with the tyranny of a Code of Conduct. I think people often expect 'free speech' in situations where I wouldn't. Like a collaborative working environment where you are all professionals trying to get work done. There is a subset of speech (so no longer 'free') that is appropriate for working professionally with a group, especially a group from widely diverse backgrounds. The exact boundaries change over time and between environments, but the idea of employers setting a baseline set of elections expectations inherently limits speech. Google supports speech within limits, and a person who gets that could probably have navigated the politics of talking about the legitimate issues in the memo without crossing that line. Working together in companies is weird. Codes of Conduct attempt to standardize expectations so that work can get done. Work is a special place.
  - mnglkhn2 9y ago
    Your argument seems to be that in an work environment opinions should be kept to one's self. Would that apply only to Republicans or to Democrats as well? It is an utopia to pretend that the workplace should be opinion-free. Especially since the workplace on purpose tries to blur the lines between personal and professional lives: dorms on campus, cafeteria, malls and dry-cleaning amenities on campus. If that's the direction business are going towards to then it is normal to accept that the employee comes with opinions attached.

la6470 9y ago

We all know that men and women are different but under no circumstances can you club a large section of population and say they are inferior in some respect ... hitler did it with the Jews, whites did it to the blacks , Japanese did it to the Chinese and history is rife with extreme examples of the Dangers of generalization of a large section of population. Our job as human civilization is to evolve positively and to survive by dispersion of empathy - not by corroding it every day and making a certain section feel weak and vulnerable. No matter what your point of view is there is no doubt the author of the article had touched a raw nerve deliberately which he could have easily avoided. Therefor Google is right to fire him and the majority is absolutely within their rights to condemn him.

thanksgiving 9y ago

A little off-topic but if you care about your employees, please make all salary and compensation information for any employee available to all employees (preferably make it public). Someone has to start doing the right thing.

k-mcgrady 9y ago

This thread seems to be a perfect demonstration of the problems when it comes to diversity in tech. People just don't seem to get it. I see the same thing in threads around big SV names sexually harassing women (and in those cases it blows my mind even more that people don't get that it's a problem). It seems like a lot of people are basing their opinions on logic (fine) but in a perfect world where everyone has equal opportunity, we live in a meritocracy, and people are judged solely on performance. Unfortunately none of those things are true and we need to manipulate things manually to ensure people are given equal opportunity.

kenjackson 9y ago
Agreed. Many engineers seem to think if it's true then thry can just say it. To them it makes logical sense -- st least when it suits them.
Swizec 9y ago
My favorite explanation of this effect goes like this: You have students in a classroom, sitting in 5 rows of 5 students. The teacher gives each student a crumpled ball of paper. Each ball is identical. The teacher then places a bin at the very front of the class and says "Okay, you each get one throw from your seat. If you hit the bin, you get an A" Equal opportunity. Everyone is throwing the same ball into the same bin, and everyone gets a chance to throw their ball of paper, hit the bin, and get an A. But some students are 5ft away and others are 30ft away. Suddenly not so fair. This comic also explains it well: http://imgur.com/gallery/h82vC http://imgur.com/gallery/h82vC
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > But some students are 5ft away and others are 30ft away. Suddenly not so fair. Employers don't know who came from privileged backgrounds and who didn't. Legally, they shouldn't even be asking about it. The concern isn't about whether employers should help people out. The concern is that the current rubric is too inexact. And that questioning the rubric is considered hateful.
- MrF3ynmann 9y ago

baltimore12 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

chvid 9y ago

I wonder about the internal workings of Google here; did he (Sundar Pichai) actually ok'ed the firing of the memo author? Is this text actually written by him or is it by some HR/communications person? It seems very coded and indirect.

ExploitsforFun 9y ago

SV has had major problems sheltering people in leadership who have used their positions to sexually exploit their female subordinates. Yet a mid level engineer publicly questions some of the company's diversity policies and gets fired. Many of publicly stated reasons about women leaving tech is predatory behavior by people in leadership. How about initiatives about getting rid of individuals like that.

tp3z4u 9y ago
It's totally fine for Sergey Brin to have an affair with his subordinate Amanda Rosenberg.

xedarius 9y ago

Know this, I'm cancelling my holiday just to show you and more importantly my manager exactly how serious this is. Just to reiterate, you've all made me cancel my holiday, you bad, me good.

swalsh 9y ago

The first thought that came to mind for me, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

spodek 9y ago

To Sundar Pichai: How could someone express the views the author felt without getting fired, while still promoting discussion? Is it possible, just possible, that Google's policies are counterproductive? If so, how would Google find out? By what process could someone change them? If such processes exist, why would someone the company valued enough to hire risk his job to send this memo? Is it possible that Google's environment does not accept some minority viewpoints despite your beliefs and attempts?

justinjlynn 9y ago
This precisely. It's a pity they'll never be specific in addressing exactly how these points could have been raised without sanction. As admitted, the (former) employee clearly felt the discussion was worth starting - why won't they provide concrete examples of how they would be preferred the issues be raised in this case? (It's a rhetorical question; of course, we know why they won't and can't do that.)

tryingagainbro 9y ago

At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint) Define "safely" and maybe you can express your viewpoint. The good news is that Google ain't gonna shoot you after a 15 minute trial (including appeals) but you'll get fired and blackballed. (Google could at least give this guy FU money with a wink and a nod.) No company will hire you after rocking the boat....things have already been decided by those who scream loudest. WTF are you to question them now?

justusw 9y ago

Interesting. Was this submission kicked off the front page? I can't find it anymore except by using the search.

sctb 9y ago
It triggered the overheated discussion detector, which we've just turned off.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Idea: overheated discussion detector could probably run more efficiently the next few weeks by replacing the implementation with 'cat thread.xml | grep Google | grep -v technology'
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

andy_ppp 9y ago

A lot of comments already misunderstanding the excellent response by Sundar Pichai in the article. You obviously can't say anything you like at work. Google is offering diversity of opinion but there are things you can say that are just stupid and will get you fired. If you replace women in his essay with African American there would have been about 1 second between it being posted and it being taken down, with an escort out of the building and rightly so. I loved this talk from Sheryl Sandberg that touches on a lot of these issues, particularly the "joke" near the end, 39 minutes: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-develop-your-voice-not-your-brand https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/sheryl-sandberg-develo...

mnglkhn2 9y ago

Full, unedited document. Gizmodo did a hatchet job ar taking charts and links out. People should read it and then apply reason to it. Difficult when we get into cult-like mob mentality. James Damore document: [https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncenso...]

andruby 9y ago

For those who, like me, missed the news that Google fired the author of the original memo, here's the HN discussion around that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787

polotics 9y ago

OMG, Cancelling his vacation? what message about work-life balance is the CEO sending? ;^)

justinjlynn 9y ago
Actually, you may be joking but in all seriousness what message indeed.

Bearwithme 9y ago

This is pretty inspiring. It seems everyone is too frightened by such a small but very vocal minority who put feelings ahead of logic.

sol_remmy 9y ago

Government regulation is actually the culprit here. Google is being sued by the Department of Labor for violating a gender discrimination regulation: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... Google's response is driven by this lawsuit. They have antitrust regulations on one side, discrimination regulations on the other. Sundar is aware that the government could sue Google out of business.

zpq 9y ago

> Aug 8, 2017 > This note was sent to Google employees this evening. -Ed. I'm reading a note from the future. Incredible!

supremesaboteur 9y ago

This is the moment. Google used to be this dream place to work, not anymore. If other companies want to hire good conservative/libertarian engineers, they should motion loud and clear that they will not ostracize employees for having a differing political opinion

Mangalor 9y ago
The truth is, in most states, you can be fired for holding any opinion your boss doesn't like. Full stop.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  But California is not one of those states. See http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

cnlwsu 9y ago

Keep politics/religion out of work. Its one thing to rant on reddit at end of day, its another to broadcast it to co workers. What did he expect would happen? His little write up would change everyones mind? Both left/right are extremists these days and will never change. All you will do is alienate and anger a bunch of co workers for a few pats on back from "your" side. While the smart people will put heads down and get actual work done at work and talk politics at end of day at a bar with friends/family like the rest of the country.

swalsh 9y ago
I'd mostly agree with you, but this was not an "in general" opinion that he posted to some "off topic" list. It was a direct opinion about the policies of his company. There is no better place to disagree with your companies internal hiring policies, than on an internal mailing list.
- novembermike 9y ago
  In fact, this might be legally protected speech. I don't know how applicable they are but there are a few old pro-union laws on the books that prevent people from being fired because they were talking about improving the workplace or because they discussed discrimination they reasonably felt was happening (it doesn't matter if it actually happened).
Mangalor 9y ago
False equivalency. The left at least advocates for inclusion, and asking your workplace not to discriminate is not "just as bad as" saying women shouldn't be able to be engineers.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > asking your workplace not to discriminate is not "just as bad as" saying women shouldn't be able to be engineers The former is exactly what the author of the memo did, and they got fired for it.

la6470 9y ago

https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Farticles%2F2726243-spike-lee-announces-date-time-for-colin-kaepernick-rally-at-nfl-headquarters#pt0-590408 https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbleacher...

protomyth 9y ago

Frankly, the CEO has more problems than this memo. Breitbart has been a garbage fire for a while, but if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake then Google is going to have some problems. This is really not the thing you want going on when you already have a government labor investigation underway. I wish anyone impacted luck. 1) http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-googles-sjw-cabal-blacklists/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/revealed-inside-goo...

Mangalor 9y ago
Breitbart is fascist propaganda, you've made the world worse for sharing anything from them.
- Tanegashima 9y ago
  Did you actually read the article or it’s just antibodies working? Actually I didn’t, but they provide with more sources to supplant their narrative than any other “legitimate news source” that I have encountered.
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> if the screen shots and messages in the article[1] aren't fake You could share your thoughts on this rather than making a clickbait comment.
- protomyth 9y ago
  I did share my thoughts (CEO has other problems, good luck to people impacted), and HN doesn't allow posting images so I posted a link to the article. Inc. Magazine https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.html https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.h... looks like they are verifying them although they did not print any.
Daishiman 9y ago
I don't know in what world whatever garbage comes out of Breitbart is anywhere near credible. It's garbage news for people who don't care about journalistic integrity. Nothing there can be taken seriously.

la6470 9y ago

BTW why is no one in NFL signing on Kapernick? There are always consequences for controversial actions. BTW the writer of the article is really young guy. Hopefully he will grow up one day.

ropman76 9y ago

The real issue is how much a corporation can enforce "correct" opinions among it's employees. This was an internal company forum. He expressed opinions that deviated from company policy (and from the sounds of it a lot of other employees at Google disagreed as well) and a lively debated ensued. OK that what sounds like a healthy thing to have happen and get ideas out there and agreed upon or shot down. However by firing him that sends a very clear message that any deviation from the norm will not be tolerated. That's not diversity, that is an attempt at moral conformity.

java_script 9y ago

This whole thing to me is a great example of why the "Facts don't care about feels" crowd is so disingenuous. Supporters of the memo writer talk about how scientific and logical he was being, yet he draws lines that are not supported by science at all. We barely know what things contribute to success of software teams at all, let alone the implications of evopsych biotruths on them. And all this pseudo-scientific reaching is for the grand purpose of saying current employees who came to the company maybe from outreach programs shouldn't have been reached out to. Which, objectively and logically, is a dead-stupid thing to argue in an internal company-wide memo.

unityByFreedom 9y ago

Many here seem to feel sorry for the fired employee. We don't need to tolerate intolerance. Nobody cries for the Nazis, for example. "Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact." [1] [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

doubleshame 9y ago
Only three sith deal in absolutes.
- doubleshame 9y ago
  Actually this could be a single sith as well. Also you don't normally get more than two, so there's that.
benchaney 9y ago
The fired employee was not begin intolerant. He was disagreeing with company policy. The comparison to Nazis is completely uncalled for.

dopamean 9y ago

I am a black dude from an upper middle class family that went to private school his whole life and I am very, very familiar with how it's possible to have great ethnic diversity but a severe lack of diversity in other areas (and how negatively that can affect things). Because of this I've often wondered how a company or any group of people can include perspectives that many other people find to be morally reprehensible. Let's say someone at my company holds the opinion that black people are generally too stupid to do tech jobs and they write a memo to the company explaining that opinion. They cite sources that show how blacks underperform academically compared to other ethnic groups and go about it in a really professional way. Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Should they tell all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to that opinion? As a black guy at that company I would be really unhappy about that and I'd probably quit. I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions.

ipsin 9y ago
I thought Yonatan Zunger's essay Tolerance is not a moral precept [1] -- linked off his response to the "manifesto" -- did a good job of addressing this scenario. [1] https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376?gi=fc788fafdbf7 https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...
- ballenf 9y ago
  Great article. I think a better metaphor than "peace treaty" describing tolerance would be "sect", however. And not in a pejorative sense, but used to recognize that there will be various self-organized groups with different definitions of tolerance and that membership in a group requires close adherence to a particular definition. And various sects may overlap to varying degrees. For example, a tolerant devout Christian and a tolerant devout Muslim may find themselves defining tolerance differently enough to find themselves in different tolerance "sects". Peace treaty is an interesting metaphor but falls short on many levels. Primarily because peace treaties are more focused on geographic separation (whether country-level or block-level) and agreeing on borders (keeping people apart), not about rules of behavior within a single community. Tolerance is the latter more than the former and is the preferred alternative to separation where possible. Using examples from the article the white "separatists" want a peace treaty -- well defined border for them to live free of the "threat" of racial diversity. Tolerant people want to find a way to build a community together, but understand the other side's goals are incompatible with this.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rsp1984 9y ago

This is definitely the best response to the memo that I've read. He clearly says which parts of the "manifesto" are an acceptable expression of opinion in the workplace and which aren't. I am very relieved that he didn't jump on the bashing bandwagon and dismissed the memo as a whole just because it contained some questionable and inappropriate parts. This makes it very credible that he's actually read the whole thing and thought about it. Something that I miss dearly with 99% of the other discussion contributers (e.g. [1] which is IMO just hate speech of a worse kind than the memo it responds to). I really thought I wouldn't write this but kudos and thanks to Sundar for such a balanced and well thought-out response. [1] https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rewrew 9y ago

Let's break down the reality of this situation as it currently stands: 1) You can't say what you want at work, period (there are no first amendment protections at work, just from the government). The person who posted the memo was naive and this memo from the CEO is corporate bullspeak to look good for outside PR. That's all this is, and if you take it for anything more you're also naive. For all intents and purposes it means nothing. 2) The company might be trying to make women feel more welcome by having the statement from the new diversity officer and the CEO, but I can tell you as a woman the LAST place I'd want to get a job right now is Google -- everyone is going to look at you like you only got your job because you're female; it's going to be extremely hard to get people to take you seriously. That's why, if you're going to hire only for diversity (not that I recommend it), do it in silence, don't tell the world, as it only backfires against those same employees you're bringing in. 3) If Google really wanted to get more females and minorities in its rank it should be looking at why it focuses so highly on only top rank schools (IF TRUE: MAY NOT BE-- SEE DISCUSSION BELOW) -- there's plenty of great, smart people constantly overlooked by Google because they can't see past their own biases in this area, which some would argue is a bigger barrier to diversity at Google than straight hiring by gender and race alone.

anthonybullard 9y ago
Only going to reply to your last point, this isn't my experience at all with Google. I work in SV, and get contacted by an internal recruiter at Google a couple times a year. What school did I go to? None. Ok, I have a certificate from the Defense Language Institute, but no degree. So I'm not sure this is a problem.
- rewrew 9y ago
  And you may be absolutely right -- I'm going off what I've heard from young people anecdotally out of college who say they weren't given a second look because they weren't from MIT or Cal Tech. But perhaps that's only for entry-level positions, or perhaps my information is just plain wrong.

SJWDisagree111 9y ago

The word "neurotic" was the single thing that got this blown up. Had that not been used this would have skated by mostly unnoticed. I guess also got the author would also have been added to these blacklists. The author might as well have used the "B" word with all the SJW's around at Google.

stefantalpalaru 9y ago
> The word "neurotic" was the single thing that got this blown up. The funny thing is that it's a scientific term, part of the most useful personality model in psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

SJWDisagree111 9y ago

CoffeeDregs 9y ago

What a bummer. This could have been "Kubernetes for organizations", how to manage diverse sets of containers-of-emotions/talents in a scalable fashion. There is so little nuance and quality thinking around this topic inside most organizations and Google could have done the community a great service by elevating and firmly grounding the discussion. And I think there are great discussions to be had that would lead to tech workers understanding and desiring diversity for actual reasons and not for PC/BS reasons. But now no one will raise the topic.

LARGEGALAXY 9y ago

Before even reading the link, I somehow knew that this was going to be a topic about "diversity" or workplace "harassment" against minorities or something closely-related to this agenda; my predictive knowledge is so advanced I feel like a genius, or maybe perhaps this propaganda is so prevalent in our society it has reached critical levels? In any case I am not reading a single sentence; the headline "diversity" already tests my patience.

lolgoogle 9y ago

Outside the Bay Area bubble, this is extremely damaging to Google's image.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

metaphorm 9y ago

This is the chilliest I've yet felt the chilling effect.

vivekd 9y ago

We have this thing called diversity policies, and some people agree with it, and some people disagree with it. The people who agree with it are free to present arguments about why workplaces are discriminatory and why diversity is valuable. But with this - I'm starting to wonder if the same is true for the other side. Are people free to post counter arguments showing that lack of diversity may be due to other factors such as difference in behaviour or tendencies? It doesn't appear that way.

camgunz 9y ago

The whole "across cultures" thing in that 1 (importantly, one) study is easily explained by a couple things: - men grow more muscle faster and that used to be important - childbirth used to be (and in many places still is) very dangerous for women Consequently most societies defined gender roles in similar ways, leading to similar effects across them. Or you can go even simpler and say they're more neurotic because their odds of being raped by a man are terrifyingly high. Or they get paid less than men and charged more for things like health care, car loans and mortgages so they carry a higher financial stress burden. Or their health plans are inadequate and they're worried about what will happen if that matters. Or they're being harassed in the workplace. Or you can dispute the premise entirely and say the standard for "neuroticism" was based on a culture created and still dominated by men. --- A lot of people are saying things like, "he didn't really write anything that was sexist or misogynistic", but women and people of color are far too familiar with fucked up policies justified by "biological differences". There are real, deep, life and death social problems right now caused by misogyny and they all stem from the fundamental idea that women have their role and men have theirs. What does this lead to? Health care policies that cost women more and don't even meet all their needs. Health care systems that service women less effectively than men (stroke symptoms are often missed in women, childbirth mortality rates in less progressive parts of the US, etc.), jobs that pay women less than men, laws that ignore or oppress women, etc. etc. etc. etc. And every time, it's justified with "women are just biologically different than men". Why can't you express such an opinion in the workplace? Because that opinion is responsible for the oppression of billions of women throughout the entire history of humanity. It's not at all like arguing for wind over solar, or honestly other political debates over private vs. public health care or whatever. When you're talking about social issues, you're talking about systems that have oppressed, brutalized and murdered unbelievable numbers of people, and continue to oppress people that you work with and see each and every day. They're not idle thought experiments or a curious hobbies. Treat them with the sensitivity they deserve.

funnyguys 9y ago

When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that particular gender all the more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is frowned upon – not just because of innate sense of right or wrong. Being white male, I bet most of us would never have faced any significant discrimination and please stop pretending that we know how other side feels. Some people are suggesting Google's stance on LGBT is alienating people - Really? So, people who advocate taking away LGBT people's rights and opposed to their ways of life are complaining of persecution?

funnyguys 9y ago

Any one even remotely thinks that the memo was right should read this : https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... There are some good points in the memo - like having training and support for men, but it was largely an exercise in casting doubt on the ability of certain subset of your co-workers to do their job.

cmurf 9y ago

Completely predictable. And I'm amused that the alt-right is currently flipping their shit over "PC nonsense" and calling for #boycottgoogle And this dumb bro thinks he has a legal case. I'm also amused with the pro-business anti-government types are the first to go wailing to the government for intervention on behalf of their first amendment rights which do not apply to an employer.

sandstrom 9y ago

He's basically saying the same thing that got Larry Summers axed as president of Harvard. [...] stomped Harvard University President Lawrence Summers for mentioning at a January 14 academic conference the entirely reasonable theory that innate male-female differences might possibly help explain why so many mathematics, engineering, and hard-science faculties remain so heavily male. At least this guy is in good company. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-fem...

Caveman_Coder 9y ago

When I worked at Google I saw far worse things being said about those who held conservative opinions on Memegen and eng-misc. The real issue is not that he expressed opinions that could be constituted as harassment, that happens all the time at Google, the only problem is that he dared to hold the "wrong" opinion, counter to the dominant culture.

nadim 9y ago

This site so janky on iOS.

EJTH 9y ago

> we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves By fireing them? Really?! I see a lot of criticism from people who didn't read the memo. Most people just fall for the sensationalist headlines of "OMG GOOGLE RELEASED ANTI-WOMEN MEMO REEE". The memo wasn't that bad. It tries to highlight some very real problems in this age of intersectional recruitment.