7 ms·

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

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.
  - studentrob 9y ago
    > 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 Actually, the Peace of Westphalia, described in the linked article, included a provision allowing freedom to practice their faith outside of the established state denomination [1], > "shall have the free Exercise of their Religion, as well in publick Churches at the appointed Hours, as in private in their own Houses, or in others chosen for this purpose by their Ministers, or by those of their Neighbours, preaching the Word of God" [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
- palra 9y ago
  That's almost a word-for-word restatement of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" essay in A Critique of Pure Tolerance, which is essentially stating that Tolerance is only a great good so long as it means tolerance for Marxist ideas and that no leftwingers should ever be tolerant towards rightwing views.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Interesting, so, in a way, one's precept of tolerance is a meta-ideology in and of itself?
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years training both men and women. They do enjoy solving technical problems, but with time find them boring if left to solve them alone. But let them work in pairs or in groups, give some interaction, and the spark of interest is back. Most guys just didn't care or preferred to do it on their own. I was happy with the performance of both sexes, and to say one is better than the other is really sexist. But to state that they're different? I'm sorry, but we're born this way, there's nothing wrong with it!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
    I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.
mc32 9y ago
The important thing is whether it's company opinion or worker opinion. I used to work in part time blue collar-ish jobs to put myself thru school. Lots of the people there were older blacks and whites who had very little schooling beyond secondary school --you may or may not be able to imagine their opinions on people not their race, women, fat people, non hetero, etc. It's not pretty to have those views, it's not pretty listening to people's uninformed opinions, but so long as it's not the company and those people are not directly affecting your promotion or success failure, I don't see an easy way out of that issue. If those companies were to fire people for non conforming opinions, they'd be left with skeleton crews, if any. Blue collar and near blue collar jobs give you a different perspective on life. In some ways I think Democrats have alienated some of their die hard constituents because of their failure to recognize that blue collar workers don't have the same mindset urban hipsters and political advocates have.
pokemongoaway 9y ago
It seems that your whole comment doesn't work if you don't mischaracterize the whole situation. Please quote the original racism and/or misogyny. And yes, someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion, then how are you so different from a white who wouldn't go to school anymore after the first black joined? This example is closer to reality than yours, I think!
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? I think a more direct parallel here would be if you cited such research, and then drew the conclusion that IQ translates directly into better performance in a specific role such as leadership. The memo author made claims that aren't supported by the research he cites. It isn't a mischaracterization to say he questioned the aptitude of women in certain roles without having the science to back it up. That's a problem -- not a legal one, but a "how to work well with others" one.
- SamBam 9y ago
  > Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion... OP didn't say he would quit because one of his colleagues held a (in his example) racist opinion, but would do so if the company just turned around and said that black employees should just be "more open-minded" to those opinions. You can separately debate whether the original memo was as bad as OP's racist example, but in the context of OP's example I think he'd be perfectly in his rights to leave if the company was supporting such an opinion.
  - dopamean 9y ago
    Thank you. I realize no that it's easy to think that I believe the made up scenario I presented is the same as what happened at Google. That wasn't my intention. My point was to answer the question (that pretty much no one has even attempted to answer) of how do you include people in an organization who hold views that are so counter to what many others in the organization believe. And not just different views but views that are thought to lead to real world negative consequences.
camus2 9y ago
> I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions. The solution is entrepreneurship, that's all. Be your own boss as soon as possible during your career so you can manage your business the way you see fit. If you want to hire more black people then hire more black people. If you want to hire more women then do so as well. That's also true with the person that got fired. If he thinks Google's policies are detrimental to productivity, then he has to put his money where his mouth is and go start a business where he can implement his own hiring policies. The guy should have quit then publish his paper, because he can't expect some kind of political neutrality in a clearly progressive-leaning business.
- gurkendoktor 9y ago
  > If he thinks Google's policies are detrimental to productivity, then he has to put his money where his mouth is and go start a business where he can implement his own hiring policies. That only works if you are good at entrepreneurship and management in general. Most developers aren't (me included), so I think changing jobs to a more compatible company is the better option. At least that's what I tell myself - punishing bad management decisions by quitting jobs/projects seems to be the most effective way of changing how software development is run. > The guy should have quit then publish his paper I think for those who agree with him, his getting fired only proved his point. If he did it the other way around, nobody would have even read the paper.
xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
What would be a better comparison is someone in the NFL saying racial diversity is stupid, black people tend to be better at sports. Stop trying to bring in Japanese and Chinese men to meet a quota. The QB is gonna get sacked (and possibly injured) because you are using metrics that don't apply to the job to judge fitness for the job.
asdfologist 9y ago
No, the company should critique the hell out of his memo and explain logically why it's wrong.
- Balgair 9y ago
  I mean, maybe yeah. But companies aren't there to hold writing workshops and poetry slams. They are there to make dollars. Or at least that is what their shareholders think. That stuff is for your knitting circle or brewing bash, maybe for a Univ. class even, but not for work at a private company. Legally a company can fire/hire in CA on a whim. Morally? I don't know, but I think that you should know not to talk about super inflammatory stuff in company wide emails/group-chats/etc by about 8th grade.
morgtheborg 9y ago
> Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Only if they had been so close-minded to not consider that possibility before and are now convinced when this new evidence is presented after doing their due diligence to verify it (good luck with that). Seems more likely the truth of the guy's points are irrelevant and the programs the company provides to minorities exist for a bottom line that takes into account the company's reputation (which, in this case, he seems naively unaware of as a relevant component to decision-making). > Should they tell all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to that opinion? Open minded in what way? Open minded as in "engage with it", well, probably. There are explanations for studies that show differences between races (and women) that aren't biological. It's worth it to look at the studies and ask yourself what you think the most plausible explanation is based the available data if you haven't already. > 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. As a woman in tech who has also lived extensively overseas in cultures where women are considered inferior (at worst) and "separate but equal" in terms of domain at best, I find the best way to engage with these kinds of thoughts/opinions is directly. Sure, there is indeed a marked difference when you look at men and women. Fact. I don't want to be someone who turns my head from facts. However, who knows what amount of that difference is nature vs nurture. Nature leaves us little room for improvement, nurture leaves a lot; why would we choose, because it would indeed be a choice, to assume the gaps are intrinsic to the sexes and limit our ability to close what are unfair gaps when it comes to prestige and pay? Further, if they ARE nature, then the few women who do have that interest + talent are entering into a profession that wasn't really designed for them and it makes sense they'd benefit from more support. Why would we deny them that? What, exactly, is the problem with the diversity programs even given the assumption a group as a whole tends to on aggregate not be as well suited? Anyway. As someone who holds a fair amount of opinions that aren't PC, if I want to not be fired for them then I need to give other people the same right to offend with opinions as long as their actions are appropriate.
- dopamean 9y ago
  Thanks for the reply. You're pretty much the only person that attempted to answer my question.
doubleshame 9y ago
Please allow me to honestly engage with you and break this down. You're a black man at Google. There is a study that says that ON AVERAGE across a large population of people, black men are relatively uneducated and relatively underperform on a particular aptitude test. It is a known fact that although the larger population has 50% black people, only 10% of Google employees are black. Now, let's assume that the common intention is to ensure equal OPPORTUNITY for all men. Please assume good faith for the purposes of this demonstration. One fine day, you wake up to see an article posted by a white man that makes the following claims - on average white men perform better at the standardized test (link to study) - the standardized test tests similar skills that are needed for programming, and is similar to the Google interview - therefore fewer black men get through the interview - further, it is unfair to just give black people extra marks to pass. it leads to bad performance at work and diminishes the achievement of a black man who got in on pure effort Now, a black man who cares would - ask, wait a minute, why are blank men underperforming on the tests? Perhaps we skills fix our schools and colleges! - point out flaws in the article (study is bad because... / AA is good because... / Other assumption is wrong because...) These are engaging with the article in good faith. A person interested in equal opportunity would not do the following - burn the white man. Arrrggghhh! - oh no that guy shared a study that shows that the black community is behind and points out what could be the problem. Let's shoot the messenger. - falsely assign ecological bias to the article: white man said that all black men are bad programmers (not true, he was talking about populations) These engage with the article in a manner that damages your goal of equal opportunity for black people. Look for the opportunity to find systemic biases and problems and correct them. Assume good faith. Don't be blind to something that makes you feel bad (and it shouldn't!) And therefore seek to burn it down without a thought.
- dopamean 9y ago
  I think you've made some incorrect assumptions about who I am and what I think about these issues. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll leave a few points so we're on the same page: I have been involved in the hiring process at more than one tech company and it was apparent that there were far, far fewer women in the pipeline than men. Even if we hired every single person who applied the balance would still lean very heavily toward men. Again, this is just in my personal experience. I don't believe it is the job tech companies to do extra work to hire more of any underrepresented group in the industry until the problem in the pipeline is addressed. I think the argument that there is something biological about women that makes them less interested in tech comes from what amounts to pseudoscience at best and that argument shouldn't be validated because it gets in the way of solving the problem with the pipeline. I have never (and would never) advocated for any group of people to be given "extra marks to pass" in a situation where their ability to do a job is important. I don't think the author of that memo at Google should have been fired. Though I do understand how from a corporate standpoint they felt that they had to. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the "person interested in equal opportunity would not do..." I didn't do those things. I'm not blind to anything and I think all I did in my comment was ask a pretty simple question that you didn't even attempt to answer.
vivekd 9y ago
So let's say someone wanted to put forward diversity policies at a workplace to create a more equal number of black and white workers. Perhaps the reason citied is that discrimination has led to disproportionate representation of the races. My question is should people be allowed to present counter argumenents to the alleged discrimination and need for diversity. Should people be able to present data such as different levels of education attainment among races as explanation for lack of diversity? Would that be among the perspectives that are morally reprehensible? If so, then isn't this whole diversity and equality thing not really an idea so much as some sort of new state religion that must not be questioned and is not subject to factual discussion or analysis.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
Is your argument if you take a statement and alter it fundamentally to make it about race and the new altered statement is offensive then the original statement was offensive?
ilaksh 9y ago
Because such a large percentage of people have had to deal with bias, there are laws against it and Codes of Conduct etc. So they had to fire him to prevent lawsuits. In less public disputes people may be able to get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's legal. Sexism, racism, ageism, etc. are not legal in most workplace contexts but still unfortunately very popular.
EJTH 9y ago
Why should a company do affirmative action based on race? Isn't that kind of racist? I hope we go back to the days where an individuals merits had more to say in a recruitment process than their skin color.

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.
- studentrob 9y ago
  > 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 Actually, the Peace of Westphalia, described in the linked article, included a provision allowing freedom to practice their faith outside of the established state denomination [1], > "shall have the free Exercise of their Religion, as well in publick Churches at the appointed Hours, as in private in their own Houses, or in others chosen for this purpose by their Ministers, or by those of their Neighbours, preaching the Word of God" [1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
palra 9y ago
That's almost a word-for-word restatement of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" essay in A Critique of Pure Tolerance, which is essentially stating that Tolerance is only a great good so long as it means tolerance for Marxist ideas and that no leftwingers should ever be tolerant towards rightwing views.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Interesting, so, in a way, one's precept of tolerance is a meta-ideology in and of itself?

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

Did the author really say that women are too stupid? No. He used his words rather carefully. What might have angered some people is his statement that women are more interested in people/relations while men are more interested in things. regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? I can totally understand the author on this as I spent several years training both men and women. They do enjoy solving technical problems, but with time find them boring if left to solve them alone. But let them work in pairs or in groups, give some interaction, and the spark of interest is back. Most guys just didn't care or preferred to do it on their own. I was happy with the performance of both sexes, and to say one is better than the other is really sexist. But to state that they're different? I'm sorry, but we're born this way, there's nothing wrong with it!

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
unityByFreedom 9y ago
> regardless of whether it's true, and if it is, whether the reasons are inherent or cultural - how is that bad? Because it is bad to lie? The memo says women have a harder time leading. That conclusion is not supported by any of his sources. He is judging their aptitude there, so I think dopamean's example is reasonable.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  I'm not sure it's a lie. What he actually says: > Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. Now, these are discussed in the first paragraphs of the WP article he referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#... At least one of the sources is reputable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). So you can't really accuse him of lying.

mc32 9y ago

The important thing is whether it's company opinion or worker opinion. I used to work in part time blue collar-ish jobs to put myself thru school. Lots of the people there were older blacks and whites who had very little schooling beyond secondary school --you may or may not be able to imagine their opinions on people not their race, women, fat people, non hetero, etc. It's not pretty to have those views, it's not pretty listening to people's uninformed opinions, but so long as it's not the company and those people are not directly affecting your promotion or success failure, I don't see an easy way out of that issue. If those companies were to fire people for non conforming opinions, they'd be left with skeleton crews, if any. Blue collar and near blue collar jobs give you a different perspective on life. In some ways I think Democrats have alienated some of their die hard constituents because of their failure to recognize that blue collar workers don't have the same mindset urban hipsters and political advocates have.

pokemongoaway 9y ago

It seems that your whole comment doesn't work if you don't mischaracterize the whole situation. Please quote the original racism and/or misogyny. And yes, someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion, then how are you so different from a white who wouldn't go to school anymore after the first black joined? This example is closer to reality than yours, I think!

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> someone should legally be able to cite, for example, that Asians typically have higher IQs than others - don't you think? I think a more direct parallel here would be if you cited such research, and then drew the conclusion that IQ translates directly into better performance in a specific role such as leadership. The memo author made claims that aren't supported by the research he cites. It isn't a mischaracterization to say he questioned the aptitude of women in certain roles without having the science to back it up. That's a problem -- not a legal one, but a "how to work well with others" one.
SamBam 9y ago
> Besides, if you quit a huge company like Google because one of your colleagues holds an opinion... OP didn't say he would quit because one of his colleagues held a (in his example) racist opinion, but would do so if the company just turned around and said that black employees should just be "more open-minded" to those opinions. You can separately debate whether the original memo was as bad as OP's racist example, but in the context of OP's example I think he'd be perfectly in his rights to leave if the company was supporting such an opinion.
- dopamean 9y ago
  Thank you. I realize no that it's easy to think that I believe the made up scenario I presented is the same as what happened at Google. That wasn't my intention. My point was to answer the question (that pretty much no one has even attempted to answer) of how do you include people in an organization who hold views that are so counter to what many others in the organization believe. And not just different views but views that are thought to lead to real world negative consequences.

camus2 9y ago

> I genuinely don't understand how that's supposed to work and would love to hear some suggestions. The solution is entrepreneurship, that's all. Be your own boss as soon as possible during your career so you can manage your business the way you see fit. If you want to hire more black people then hire more black people. If you want to hire more women then do so as well. That's also true with the person that got fired. If he thinks Google's policies are detrimental to productivity, then he has to put his money where his mouth is and go start a business where he can implement his own hiring policies. The guy should have quit then publish his paper, because he can't expect some kind of political neutrality in a clearly progressive-leaning business.

gurkendoktor 9y ago
> If he thinks Google's policies are detrimental to productivity, then he has to put his money where his mouth is and go start a business where he can implement his own hiring policies. That only works if you are good at entrepreneurship and management in general. Most developers aren't (me included), so I think changing jobs to a more compatible company is the better option. At least that's what I tell myself - punishing bad management decisions by quitting jobs/projects seems to be the most effective way of changing how software development is run. > The guy should have quit then publish his paper I think for those who agree with him, his getting fired only proved his point. If he did it the other way around, nobody would have even read the paper.

xxSparkleSxx 9y ago

What would be a better comparison is someone in the NFL saying racial diversity is stupid, black people tend to be better at sports. Stop trying to bring in Japanese and Chinese men to meet a quota. The QB is gonna get sacked (and possibly injured) because you are using metrics that don't apply to the job to judge fitness for the job.

asdfologist 9y ago

No, the company should critique the hell out of his memo and explain logically why it's wrong.

Balgair 9y ago
I mean, maybe yeah. But companies aren't there to hold writing workshops and poetry slams. They are there to make dollars. Or at least that is what their shareholders think. That stuff is for your knitting circle or brewing bash, maybe for a Univ. class even, but not for work at a private company. Legally a company can fire/hire in CA on a whim. Morally? I don't know, but I think that you should know not to talk about super inflammatory stuff in company wide emails/group-chats/etc by about 8th grade.

morgtheborg 9y ago

> Should the company just say "well this guy made some good points maybe we should reconsider our diversity programs." Only if they had been so close-minded to not consider that possibility before and are now convinced when this new evidence is presented after doing their due diligence to verify it (good luck with that). Seems more likely the truth of the guy's points are irrelevant and the programs the company provides to minorities exist for a bottom line that takes into account the company's reputation (which, in this case, he seems naively unaware of as a relevant component to decision-making). > Should they tell all the black employees at the company that they should be more open minded to that opinion? Open minded in what way? Open minded as in "engage with it", well, probably. There are explanations for studies that show differences between races (and women) that aren't biological. It's worth it to look at the studies and ask yourself what you think the most plausible explanation is based the available data if you haven't already. > 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. As a woman in tech who has also lived extensively overseas in cultures where women are considered inferior (at worst) and "separate but equal" in terms of domain at best, I find the best way to engage with these kinds of thoughts/opinions is directly. Sure, there is indeed a marked difference when you look at men and women. Fact. I don't want to be someone who turns my head from facts. However, who knows what amount of that difference is nature vs nurture. Nature leaves us little room for improvement, nurture leaves a lot; why would we choose, because it would indeed be a choice, to assume the gaps are intrinsic to the sexes and limit our ability to close what are unfair gaps when it comes to prestige and pay? Further, if they ARE nature, then the few women who do have that interest + talent are entering into a profession that wasn't really designed for them and it makes sense they'd benefit from more support. Why would we deny them that? What, exactly, is the problem with the diversity programs even given the assumption a group as a whole tends to on aggregate not be as well suited? Anyway. As someone who holds a fair amount of opinions that aren't PC, if I want to not be fired for them then I need to give other people the same right to offend with opinions as long as their actions are appropriate.

dopamean 9y ago
Thanks for the reply. You're pretty much the only person that attempted to answer my question.

doubleshame 9y ago

Please allow me to honestly engage with you and break this down. You're a black man at Google. There is a study that says that ON AVERAGE across a large population of people, black men are relatively uneducated and relatively underperform on a particular aptitude test. It is a known fact that although the larger population has 50% black people, only 10% of Google employees are black. Now, let's assume that the common intention is to ensure equal OPPORTUNITY for all men. Please assume good faith for the purposes of this demonstration. One fine day, you wake up to see an article posted by a white man that makes the following claims - on average white men perform better at the standardized test (link to study) - the standardized test tests similar skills that are needed for programming, and is similar to the Google interview - therefore fewer black men get through the interview - further, it is unfair to just give black people extra marks to pass. it leads to bad performance at work and diminishes the achievement of a black man who got in on pure effort Now, a black man who cares would - ask, wait a minute, why are blank men underperforming on the tests? Perhaps we skills fix our schools and colleges! - point out flaws in the article (study is bad because... / AA is good because... / Other assumption is wrong because...) These are engaging with the article in good faith. A person interested in equal opportunity would not do the following - burn the white man. Arrrggghhh! - oh no that guy shared a study that shows that the black community is behind and points out what could be the problem. Let's shoot the messenger. - falsely assign ecological bias to the article: white man said that all black men are bad programmers (not true, he was talking about populations) These engage with the article in a manner that damages your goal of equal opportunity for black people. Look for the opportunity to find systemic biases and problems and correct them. Assume good faith. Don't be blind to something that makes you feel bad (and it shouldn't!) And therefore seek to burn it down without a thought.

dopamean 9y ago
I think you've made some incorrect assumptions about who I am and what I think about these issues. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll leave a few points so we're on the same page: I have been involved in the hiring process at more than one tech company and it was apparent that there were far, far fewer women in the pipeline than men. Even if we hired every single person who applied the balance would still lean very heavily toward men. Again, this is just in my personal experience. I don't believe it is the job tech companies to do extra work to hire more of any underrepresented group in the industry until the problem in the pipeline is addressed. I think the argument that there is something biological about women that makes them less interested in tech comes from what amounts to pseudoscience at best and that argument shouldn't be validated because it gets in the way of solving the problem with the pipeline. I have never (and would never) advocated for any group of people to be given "extra marks to pass" in a situation where their ability to do a job is important. I don't think the author of that memo at Google should have been fired. Though I do understand how from a corporate standpoint they felt that they had to. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the "person interested in equal opportunity would not do..." I didn't do those things. I'm not blind to anything and I think all I did in my comment was ask a pretty simple question that you didn't even attempt to answer.

vivekd 9y ago

So let's say someone wanted to put forward diversity policies at a workplace to create a more equal number of black and white workers. Perhaps the reason citied is that discrimination has led to disproportionate representation of the races. My question is should people be allowed to present counter argumenents to the alleged discrimination and need for diversity. Should people be able to present data such as different levels of education attainment among races as explanation for lack of diversity? Would that be among the perspectives that are morally reprehensible? If so, then isn't this whole diversity and equality thing not really an idea so much as some sort of new state religion that must not be questioned and is not subject to factual discussion or analysis.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

Is your argument if you take a statement and alter it fundamentally to make it about race and the new altered statement is offensive then the original statement was offensive?

ilaksh 9y ago

Because such a large percentage of people have had to deal with bias, there are laws against it and Codes of Conduct etc. So they had to fire him to prevent lawsuits. In less public disputes people may be able to get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's legal. Sexism, racism, ageism, etc. are not legal in most workplace contexts but still unfortunately very popular.

EJTH 9y ago

Why should a company do affirmative action based on race? Isn't that kind of racist? I hope we go back to the days where an individuals merits had more to say in a recruitment process than their skin color.