7 ms·

> I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume > that they should have free rein to debate company policies, > on company networks and on com

by lhnz 9y ago

> I don't really understand why Google engineers would assume > that they should have free rein to debate company policies, > on company networks and on company time...? The memo was in response to a request on the 'coffee beans' Google Group for input on diversity/hiring programs. A few months later he posted it into the 'skeptics' group and that is when the mob formed. Therefore, he was explicitly doing something that had been asked for. Because of this your argument is totally invalid.

wisty 9y ago
Now obviously, what he did was injudicious. If you are a white male and suspect a diversity program is going to fail (and there's a lot of evidence that many of them do fail, sometimes even with negative impacts on the people they are meant to help) then you would be wise to shut up. The same would be true if a religious owner asked employees what they thought of their religion. It's best to just avoid disagreeing without showing too much interest.
- cderwin 9y ago
  Sure, that makes sense in the short term. But if everyone did this, over a long period of time, two things would happen: (a) Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. and (b) Identity politics would achieve cultural hegemony. I agree that it would be wise to shut up if doing so had no long term effects (as in your example of a manager asking about religion), but that clearly isn't the case here. And in the case of (b), I would say that long-term effect is extremely undesirable, for both businesses and individuals.
  - wisty 9y ago
    > Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. I seriously doubt this will happen unless people criticize the failings of diversity programs, and diversity officer take this criticism seriously.
pavlov 9y ago
Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the context. It's very hard for an outsider to judge what is appropriate for a forum called "skeptics". In principle I would assume that same rules of conduct apply there as elsewhere in the company, but I wouldn't know.
geofft 9y ago
That's a fair point, and I agree that (if so; those of us who don't work at Google don't really know what's going on) the argument that he should have expected not to talk about this at all is invalid. That's useful context, thanks. However, I don't think this necessarily excuses him entirely. If there's a company-wide discussion group for future directions on tech stacks inviting input, and I write a long post arguing, in complete seriousness, that the best long-term tech stack for the company is to use Classic ASP on Windows NT 4.0, and I pull some stats about successful companies in the dot-com boom that used ASP, I think it is entirely reasonable for the company to re-evaluate whether they badly misjudged my critical thinking skills. I am not excused simply because they invited feedback from the whole company. Whether this particular post is a comparable situation is certainly debatable, but I think that we cannot simply excuse it by saying that feedback was requested.
- cderwin 9y ago
  I don't really think it is debatable. Just the fact the the memo and the firing were so controversial, in both directions, implies that a number of strong critical thinkers are on both sides of this issue. Assuming that is the case, it's not reasonable to use the memo as evidence of a lack of critical thinking. And I think we all know Google didn't fire him because they believed him to be incompetent. In fact, Google didn't even claim as much, they fired him for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes." How can we ever have a genuine conversation about the under-representation of women in tech if people with a certain "undesirable" opinion get fired for expressing it?
  - jacalata 9y ago
    Climate change is controversial. That doesn't indicate that there are strong critical thinkers on either side.
    - moduspol 9y ago
      Apparently the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that could result in unequal outcomes is also controversial. Although, to your point, that doesn't really require critical thinking. It just requires impressive mental gymnastics to dispute.

by lhnz 9y ago

wisty 9y ago

Now obviously, what he did was injudicious. If you are a white male and suspect a diversity program is going to fail (and there's a lot of evidence that many of them do fail, sometimes even with negative impacts on the people they are meant to help) then you would be wise to shut up. The same would be true if a religious owner asked employees what they thought of their religion. It's best to just avoid disagreeing without showing too much interest.

cderwin 9y ago
Sure, that makes sense in the short term. But if everyone did this, over a long period of time, two things would happen: (a) Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. and (b) Identity politics would achieve cultural hegemony. I agree that it would be wise to shut up if doing so had no long term effects (as in your example of a manager asking about religion), but that clearly isn't the case here. And in the case of (b), I would say that long-term effect is extremely undesirable, for both businesses and individuals.
- wisty 9y ago
  > Diversity programs would at some point stop being ineffective. I seriously doubt this will happen unless people criticize the failings of diversity programs, and diversity officer take this criticism seriously.

pavlov 9y ago

Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the context. It's very hard for an outsider to judge what is appropriate for a forum called "skeptics". In principle I would assume that same rules of conduct apply there as elsewhere in the company, but I wouldn't know.

geofft 9y ago

That's a fair point, and I agree that (if so; those of us who don't work at Google don't really know what's going on) the argument that he should have expected not to talk about this at all is invalid. That's useful context, thanks. However, I don't think this necessarily excuses him entirely. If there's a company-wide discussion group for future directions on tech stacks inviting input, and I write a long post arguing, in complete seriousness, that the best long-term tech stack for the company is to use Classic ASP on Windows NT 4.0, and I pull some stats about successful companies in the dot-com boom that used ASP, I think it is entirely reasonable for the company to re-evaluate whether they badly misjudged my critical thinking skills. I am not excused simply because they invited feedback from the whole company. Whether this particular post is a comparable situation is certainly debatable, but I think that we cannot simply excuse it by saying that feedback was requested.

cderwin 9y ago
I don't really think it is debatable. Just the fact the the memo and the firing were so controversial, in both directions, implies that a number of strong critical thinkers are on both sides of this issue. Assuming that is the case, it's not reasonable to use the memo as evidence of a lack of critical thinking. And I think we all know Google didn't fire him because they believed him to be incompetent. In fact, Google didn't even claim as much, they fired him for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes." How can we ever have a genuine conversation about the under-representation of women in tech if people with a certain "undesirable" opinion get fired for expressing it?
- jacalata 9y ago
  Climate change is controversial. That doesn't indicate that there are strong critical thinkers on either side.
  - moduspol 9y ago
    Apparently the idea that there are biological differences between men and women that could result in unequal outcomes is also controversial. Although, to your point, that doesn't really require critical thinking. It just requires impressive mental gymnastics to dispute.