7 ms·

> that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response

> that means that it's a topic that needs to be discussed instead of being censored and the author fired. Here is what CEO said on the about it in his response [1]: "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 author of the original memo wasn't fired because of trying to discuss the topic. He was fired because he violated Google's 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." If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. I see no problem with that. The freedom to discuss a topic also comes with responsibilities. As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." at any big company anywhere in the world? Regardless of scientific basis? It's an absurd expectation, unless you work at a company doing scientific research on that specific subject. [1] https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-sundar-pichai/ https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-...

Karunamon 9y ago
Then perhaps google should not solicit opinions on the matter, as they did in this case?
- kaden 9y ago
  They didn't solicit opinions on the matter, don't be dishonest.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Yes they did. The post was on an internal board which, if I understand right, was in response to a question by Google management about their diversity practices.
    - kaden 9y ago
      Are you dreaming? That's not how this went down at all.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  Does soliciting employees' opinions on a matter absolve the employees from continuing to follow the code of conduct?
humanrebar 9y ago
> If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, or illegal? Which part promoted biases? > As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." No, but that's because of my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management, not because I think that opinion is harassing, intimidating, or illegal. I suppose you could argue that it promotes bias, but then you'd have to make the case that it wasn't true. Otherwise it would be reality with the bias, right?
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, "Women on average have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." is one example. Just because something is true or a fact does not give some magical guarantee that people will not feel intimidated or harassed if that fact is presented in a certain way or in a certain context. And perhaps people who have lived an entire life of being discriminated against might not even care about the context. In order to make sure people don't feel intimidated, you need to use people skills, not science skills. You need to listen, you need to empathize, and ask questions. You need to be able to feel what someone else is feeling. Almost always this means in person. The opposite of blasting out a memo (which happens to insert some scientific facts) from behind your computer screen. Having good people skills often has little to do with science or even the truth. > not because I think that opinion is harassing, intimidating, If you can't see why a sweeping generalization about blacks (or any other group) can be harassing or intimidating, may I respectfully suggest you could use some education in the area of people skills? I'm saying that having come myself from a place where I had little respect for the soft skills involved in sales, marketing, diplomacy, charisma, leadership, and so on. You seem to have a great deal of respect for the truth and reality. Reality and truth also include feelings, and it's very rare that scientific truth helps anyone navigate how to make others feel like they are not being harassed or intimidated. > my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management Why would you have any expectation of fairness from them? It's nowhere in their job description, and they don't get paid to be fair. At place like Google, very often they are being paid because they have a smidgen of people skills the tech folks below them are so sorely lacking in.
sersi 9y ago
The main problem I see with that is that poll that says that a third of the employees didn't disagree with the memo. If there's such a large percentage that agree with it then it's time for discussion. It's not a minority opinion and that memo shows what a lot of people think but will not be afraid to express. So, instead of having open discussion on the topic which would help changing ideas, those opinions are being suppressed and the people holding them will be further radicalized.
- tchaffee 9y ago
  In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees. Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? > be afraid to express. They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of conduct. The code of conduct values some things over others, and a workplace free of harassment and intimidation is more important to Google than making sure no one is ever afraid of expressing an opinion. It might well be the opinion of some engineer in Google that all blacks should be called niggers. That engineer should rightly be afraid of expressing that opinion no matter how deeply held that opinion is, and no matter how many other employees share that opinion. > the people holding them will be further radicalized. Source?
  - sersi 9y ago
    Ok, where is the intimidation or harassment? He expressed unpopular opinion and unenlightened points of view but is there harassment? In another comment, you say it's the mention that women tend to have on average more neuroticism although you seem to acknowledge in that comment that it has basis in research [1]. If, as you say, it's a fact, then how can it be harassment? You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. There could be factors that could cause a statistical difference between genders due to physiology or due to culture (I disagree with the memo's author in his dismissal of cultural and parenting influences on gender behaviors) and any discussion of diversity would need to take those into account. Now, the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence but the leaked copies do not have that. [1] For the record, I haven't found the research on that and I'm rather skeptical of that result.
t00l2 9y ago
Wasn't this memo a reply to survey about diversity within Google? So they kinda asked for that topic themselves and there happened to be this one guy unkeen to jump into cheer pressure, trying politely and using best available to him science materials to defend his own belief? Also, "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]" is quite a bad title, I agree. But "On average we don't get much productivity return from pursuing black candidates specifically and here's why" is probably more acceptable, even if math cited is bad, then someone could just correct you - or would you not talk about this at all as well?
- tchaffee 9y ago
  > Wasn't this memo a reply to survey about diversity within Google? I don't know. Does anyone have a reliable source on this? > "On average we don't get much productivity return from pursuing black candidates specifically and here's why" is probably more acceptable, Just as bad. This has nothing to do with scientific truth or even how to better word scientific truth, although it's not surprising many HN readers like us tend favor answers that come from science. The problem domain here is mostly human relationships. There is just some shit you can't say in a workplace without making some employees feel intimidated or harassed. Right or wrong, most humans are emotional creatures more than they are rational creatures. Even the most scientific of us have far more built in cognitive biases than are useful for a purely rational view of reality. As an aside, choosing skin color as a grouping factor is almost always going to be wrong scientifically. If you want to talk about melanin, it might be a good grouping. But if you are trying to correlate skin color with a genetic or innate characteristic, you're firmly outside of biology and heading towards racism. If you can't find the the less obvious groupings that point towards actual causation, it's still not an excuse for resorting to correlation. If you can't group without resorting to correlation, don't group yet. > or would you not talk about this at all as well? If you find yourself leaning heavily on the scientific facts of other experts in order to support a controversial opinion in your workplace, you might do a favor to your future career to run your ideas past the touchy-feely people and get their reaction. Human resources, the sales people, marketing, etc. They'll give you excellent guidance that has nothing to do with scientific fact. And chances are it won't be "that's quite a bad title, here's how to re-phrase". In a case like this, the advice will often be "I would never say this at work, some people will be very offended." People and their feelings are pretty important. The shame here is that even the CEO of Google said that large parts of the memo were great talking points. If the guy had really cared about his ideas, he might have bothered to run them by some touchy-feely experts to delete the 5% offensive parts and he would still be around to move his agenda forward.

Karunamon 9y ago

Then perhaps google should not solicit opinions on the matter, as they did in this case?

kaden 9y ago
They didn't solicit opinions on the matter, don't be dishonest.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Yes they did. The post was on an internal board which, if I understand right, was in response to a question by Google management about their diversity practices.
  - kaden 9y ago
    Are you dreaming? That's not how this went down at all.
tchaffee 9y ago
Does soliciting employees' opinions on a matter absolve the employees from continuing to follow the code of conduct?

humanrebar 9y ago

> If you intimidate enough employees via a widespread memo, you will get fired. Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, or illegal? Which part promoted biases? > As an example, would anyone expect to keep their job if they published a memo with "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]." No, but that's because of my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management, not because I think that opinion is harassing, intimidating, or illegal. I suppose you could argue that it promotes bias, but then you'd have to make the case that it wasn't true. Otherwise it would be reality with the bias, right?

tchaffee 9y ago
> Which part of the memo was intimidating, harassing, "Women on average have more neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)." is one example. Just because something is true or a fact does not give some magical guarantee that people will not feel intimidated or harassed if that fact is presented in a certain way or in a certain context. And perhaps people who have lived an entire life of being discriminated against might not even care about the context. In order to make sure people don't feel intimidated, you need to use people skills, not science skills. You need to listen, you need to empathize, and ask questions. You need to be able to feel what someone else is feeling. Almost always this means in person. The opposite of blasting out a memo (which happens to insert some scientific facts) from behind your computer screen. Having good people skills often has little to do with science or even the truth. > not because I think that opinion is harassing, intimidating, If you can't see why a sweeping generalization about blacks (or any other group) can be harassing or intimidating, may I respectfully suggest you could use some education in the area of people skills? I'm saying that having come myself from a place where I had little respect for the soft skills involved in sales, marketing, diplomacy, charisma, leadership, and so on. You seem to have a great deal of respect for the truth and reality. Reality and truth also include feelings, and it's very rare that scientific truth helps anyone navigate how to make others feel like they are not being harassed or intimidated. > my low expectation of fairness from corporate leadership and middle management Why would you have any expectation of fairness from them? It's nowhere in their job description, and they don't get paid to be fair. At place like Google, very often they are being paid because they have a smidgen of people skills the tech folks below them are so sorely lacking in.

sersi 9y ago

The main problem I see with that is that poll that says that a third of the employees didn't disagree with the memo. If there's such a large percentage that agree with it then it's time for discussion. It's not a minority opinion and that memo shows what a lot of people think but will not be afraid to express. So, instead of having open discussion on the topic which would help changing ideas, those opinions are being suppressed and the people holding them will be further radicalized.

tchaffee 9y ago
In my comment I quoted the CEO saying many parts of the memo are open to discussion. Discussion and debate comes with responsibilities, and one of the responsibilities per the CoC is that you do not intimidate or harass other employees. Is it unreasonable to say you are not allowed to intimidate or harass other employees? > be afraid to express. They should be afraid to express an opinion that violates the code of conduct. The code of conduct values some things over others, and a workplace free of harassment and intimidation is more important to Google than making sure no one is ever afraid of expressing an opinion. It might well be the opinion of some engineer in Google that all blacks should be called niggers. That engineer should rightly be afraid of expressing that opinion no matter how deeply held that opinion is, and no matter how many other employees share that opinion. > the people holding them will be further radicalized. Source?
- sersi 9y ago
  Ok, where is the intimidation or harassment? He expressed unpopular opinion and unenlightened points of view but is there harassment? In another comment, you say it's the mention that women tend to have on average more neuroticism although you seem to acknowledge in that comment that it has basis in research [1]. If, as you say, it's a fact, then how can it be harassment? You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment. There could be factors that could cause a statistical difference between genders due to physiology or due to culture (I disagree with the memo's author in his dismissal of cultural and parenting influences on gender behaviors) and any discussion of diversity would need to take those into account. Now, the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence but the leaked copies do not have that. [1] For the record, I haven't found the research on that and I'm rather skeptical of that result.

t00l2 9y ago

Wasn't this memo a reply to survey about diversity within Google? So they kinda asked for that topic themselves and there happened to be this one guy unkeen to jump into cheer pressure, trying politely and using best available to him science materials to defend his own belief? Also, "Blacks on average are [insert negative here]" is quite a bad title, I agree. But "On average we don't get much productivity return from pursuing black candidates specifically and here's why" is probably more acceptable, even if math cited is bad, then someone could just correct you - or would you not talk about this at all as well?

tchaffee 9y ago
> Wasn't this memo a reply to survey about diversity within Google? I don't know. Does anyone have a reliable source on this? > "On average we don't get much productivity return from pursuing black candidates specifically and here's why" is probably more acceptable, Just as bad. This has nothing to do with scientific truth or even how to better word scientific truth, although it's not surprising many HN readers like us tend favor answers that come from science. The problem domain here is mostly human relationships. There is just some shit you can't say in a workplace without making some employees feel intimidated or harassed. Right or wrong, most humans are emotional creatures more than they are rational creatures. Even the most scientific of us have far more built in cognitive biases than are useful for a purely rational view of reality. As an aside, choosing skin color as a grouping factor is almost always going to be wrong scientifically. If you want to talk about melanin, it might be a good grouping. But if you are trying to correlate skin color with a genetic or innate characteristic, you're firmly outside of biology and heading towards racism. If you can't find the the less obvious groupings that point towards actual causation, it's still not an excuse for resorting to correlation. If you can't group without resorting to correlation, don't group yet. > or would you not talk about this at all as well? If you find yourself leaning heavily on the scientific facts of other experts in order to support a controversial opinion in your workplace, you might do a favor to your future career to run your ideas past the touchy-feely people and get their reaction. Human resources, the sales people, marketing, etc. They'll give you excellent guidance that has nothing to do with scientific fact. And chances are it won't be "that's quite a bad title, here's how to re-phrase". In a case like this, the advice will often be "I would never say this at work, some people will be very offended." People and their feelings are pretty important. The shame here is that even the CEO of Google said that large parts of the memo were great talking points. If the guy had really cared about his ideas, he might have bothered to run them by some touchy-feely experts to delete the 5% offensive parts and he would still be around to move his agenda forward.