3 ms·

It's very odd that you admit you didn't actually read the document. Does it cause you physical pain or something? You then judged it based on a bunch of re-tel

It's very odd that you admit you didn't actually read the document. Does it cause you physical pain or something? You then judged it based on a bunch of re-tellings, believe it says something it doesn't and that this is somehow virtuous and worthy of proclamation. Kind of discouraging. It didn't say Google should stop encouraging women to apply. That's simply not true. It did say it should stop giving women specific non-encouragement based advantages, like letting them proceed even after failing an interview when a man would have been dropped. It also said lots of other things. Why don't you read it yourself, and then judge it based on that?

stevenwoo 9y ago
There is an interview type where gender (or even attractiveness/height/race which can bias folks) is not taken into consideration - when orchestras have auditions with the candidates that perform behind a curtain. Obviously there is some component of interviewing for a technical position where one is attempting to assay the candidates suitability for the work environment that is not compatible with this, but it's a pretty foolproof method (if no one is cheating) of making sure the interview process is gender/race blind at that stage. Off the top of my head, this lead to more women being hired for orchestras.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  The problem Google has is not the interviewing process itself (mostly). The problem is recruiters are told to try and close the gender gap. They find various ways to do this that may or may not be legal, but are at least morally questionable, like "reducing the false negative rate" as he puts it by letting women take more interviews despite a failing performance, like active discrimination in favour of women (and thus against men) and so on and so forth. Even if interviewers had no idea who they were interviewing, which is possible but logistically awkward (Aline Lerner posted some data on this), the recruiters would know, and they're the ones making the decisions around how the recruiting process proceeds.
gribben 9y ago
Did you even read the memo? He explicitly asked to end the programs Google has set up to encourage more women and minority students to study Computer Science because they weren't a good use of resources. There is no lower bar or quota. All of the diversity programs he mentioned are to encourage more applications.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Yes, I have done. He actually asked for something different - for programs and classes to remain but for the exclusions based on race and gender (i.e. no men allowed) to be eliminated. He also pointed out that even Google's resources are finite, and thus the costs and benefits of diversity programmes should be judged rationally, e.g. he suggests that mandatory 'unconscious bias' training doesn't seem to have made any difference. So is it worth requiring it? These are reasonable questions anyone can ask.
danpalmer 9y ago
I got 4-5 paragraphs in and felt that it was just going to make me angry or upset if I carried on, so I didn't think it was worth it. It's not that I didn't want to read another viewpoint - if well done I like my views being challenged, but this was not that.

stevenwoo 9y ago

There is an interview type where gender (or even attractiveness/height/race which can bias folks) is not taken into consideration - when orchestras have auditions with the candidates that perform behind a curtain. Obviously there is some component of interviewing for a technical position where one is attempting to assay the candidates suitability for the work environment that is not compatible with this, but it's a pretty foolproof method (if no one is cheating) of making sure the interview process is gender/race blind at that stage. Off the top of my head, this lead to more women being hired for orchestras.

peoplewindow 9y ago
The problem Google has is not the interviewing process itself (mostly). The problem is recruiters are told to try and close the gender gap. They find various ways to do this that may or may not be legal, but are at least morally questionable, like "reducing the false negative rate" as he puts it by letting women take more interviews despite a failing performance, like active discrimination in favour of women (and thus against men) and so on and so forth. Even if interviewers had no idea who they were interviewing, which is possible but logistically awkward (Aline Lerner posted some data on this), the recruiters would know, and they're the ones making the decisions around how the recruiting process proceeds.

gribben 9y ago

Did you even read the memo? He explicitly asked to end the programs Google has set up to encourage more women and minority students to study Computer Science because they weren't a good use of resources. There is no lower bar or quota. All of the diversity programs he mentioned are to encourage more applications.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Yes, I have done. He actually asked for something different - for programs and classes to remain but for the exclusions based on race and gender (i.e. no men allowed) to be eliminated. He also pointed out that even Google's resources are finite, and thus the costs and benefits of diversity programmes should be judged rationally, e.g. he suggests that mandatory 'unconscious bias' training doesn't seem to have made any difference. So is it worth requiring it? These are reasonable questions anyone can ask.

danpalmer 9y ago

I got 4-5 paragraphs in and felt that it was just going to make me angry or upset if I carried on, so I didn't think it was worth it. It's not that I didn't want to read another viewpoint - if well done I like my views being challenged, but this was not that.