4 ms·
You know, I actually thought Sundar's response to this whole thing was actually quite on point. He addresses the issue of needing to be able to discuss points i
by nyxtom 9y ago
You know, I actually thought Sundar's response to this whole thing was actually quite on point. He addresses the issue of needing to be able to discuss points in the memo that are open to discussion (such as the effectiveness of a policy and how to make things more inclusive for all); and at the same time addresses the hostile work environment that was produced as a result of the surrounding context. It sounds like moving forward there is a lot of work to be done to improve the culture and implement policies that can foster diversity of thought as well.
"
This has been a very difficult time. I wanted to provide an update on the memo that was circulated over this past week.
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
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.
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—while doing so in line with our Code of Conduct. I’d encourage each of you to make an effort over the coming days to reach out to those who might have different perspectives from your own. I will be doing the same.
I have been on work related travel in Africa and Europe the past couple of weeks and had just started my family vacation here this week. I have decided to return tomorrow as clearly there’s a lot more to discuss as a group—including how we create a more inclusive environment for all.
"
- peoplewindow 9y ago> They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent Yet he fired the guy. Ultimately he had to pick a side: freedom of speech or women who got upset by a bunch of links to scientific studies with a pile of social and cultural commentary on top. He picked the latter.
- pgsandstrom 9y agoFreedom of speech has nothing to do with keeping your employment when you start infected political discourse at your work.
- peoplewindow 9y ago"Infected" discourse, how sad. As if mainstream ideas you don't like are a disease that needs to be wiped out.
- nyxtom 9y agoIt isn't 100% fair, but the guy also stated that a systemic bias will likely create a negative (and one can conclude hostile) reaction rather than constructive discourse. It is safe to assume that if you can predict that there is likely to be a hostile reaction to your opinions due to context and systemic bias, there are other ways in which you might want to promote your ideas. Advancing stereotypes aside, given that he knew that this was the case, he went ahead and published the article anyway rather than conduct private conversations on the topic or explore the discussion in other constructive ways. Interestingly, he may have gotten a lot further in advancing constructive discourse by leaving it an open survey and reporting his findings on systemic bias. Rather than base his conclusions on his own naive assumptions, he could have conducted research and collect data from the internal Google employees and then reported his findings as objectively as possible.