7 ms·

> Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered arou

> Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Assuming you're asking in good faith: because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar. Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is.

tracker1 9y ago
I suffer from imposter syndrome all the time... but that's on me, not someone else. If you hire someone because of diversity alone over someone with a higher level of merit, then that was wrong. Also, telling someone that they were hired for diversity reasons alone is probably a bad move as well. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to get more women into tech, or into trash collection, or construction, or every other male dominated occupation, or men as nurses, etc... however, that doesn't mean having to change the rules for men or women. And pointing out that there are differences between men and women shouldn't instantly start of with a storm of hate. "the average woman is shorter than the average man" ... "typical misogynistic cis white male patriarchal bullshit" ... I'm not saying that everyone is volatile and prone to fits of excessive rage in response, but it really feels like there's no place for civil discussion or discourse with a growing portion of the population.
- threeseed 9y ago
  You know you are being completely hypocritical, right ? You abhor discrimination during hiring. But yet you want to be able to discuss the differences between men and women in order to use them to discriminate.
  - fche 9y ago
    > in order to use them to discriminate [citation needed]
  - tracker1 9y ago
    When did I say that I want to be able to use differences between men and women to discriminate? I said that hiring on diversity over merit was wrong. That's it... I never said anything about sex in terms of merit. The only place any discussion of sex or diversity belongs is in terms of messaging and in terms of possibly promoting jobs that are disproportionate to natural propensity towards a given role. If you can't discuss, review, document, test or otherwise examine bias in terms of nature, environment, upbringing, educational exposure and other factors, then you can't force equilibrium at the end of a long process. You can't hire 50% women in an industry, where only 20% of those educated for that field are women. Also, so long as choosing a field of study or work is voluntary, the best you can do is maybe have a more fair representation of a given gender in a given field that doesn't show only above average looking women wearing glasses with a few geeky quirks, then relegate them to more personality quirks, or make them less capable over time. And MAYBE it's okay to have a field where most of the people in that field are of a given sex. I don't see the SJWs trying to get women into garbage collection, or throwing a fit over the gender bias in nursing.
    - deadc0de 9y ago
      You're missing the point that there is a positive feedback loop at the source of the problem. The reason that women (or minorities for that matter) don't get into some fields of STEM is because there are no role models that tell them it's a good idea to do so. So there is a chicken and egg problem, and the only way do break the cycle is to give priority to such minorities. Is it fair to the members of the majority? Perhaps not. But in the end, I believe, it will justify the investment. Consider it a small price to pay for the millennia of oppression.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        No there isn't positive feedback loop at the source problem and no giving priority to minorities does not make any sense. You don't have to. There is enough fight over the talent that anyone who actually has talent will get a job. Having worked in tech for 20 years and hired and fired all sorts of people I am unconvinced there is a problem in tech as big as it's being claimed. The idea that you can only have role models if they are your gender is really really absurd and if people are really falling for that then they have a problem not the tech-scene. There is no actual evidence that diversity in gender does anything for a company besides creating more complex work environments. There are far more important types of diversity to strive for.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    There's a difference between the two words, "reason" and "justification". I think you're confusing the two; if someone talks about X as a reason for Y, you think they're using X as a justification for Y. It's complicated by the fact that sexist & racist people will try and use reasons as justifications, that they will use their misunderstanding of statistics to short-circuit decision-making in a faulty and biased way. But we shouldn't outlaw talking about reasons all the same. The reason we shouldn't outlaw talking about reasons, in spite of the risk of odious people using them as justifications, is that you would otherwise proceed unscientifically. Reasons relate to theories about the world, and if you discard reasons, your theory about the world is wrong.
    - didgeoridoo 9y ago
      This is an extremely valuable insight, but I don't think it's the root cause of the screaming match we're currently observing. Some have already decided that the REASON for gender imbalance in tech is rampant bias and male privilege, which they have publicly committed themselves to stamping out. Whether or not this is true, questioning the validity of that reason is considered an attack on their identity and value system. Edit: I'm not sure it's clear from my comment, but to clarify, I am NOT SURE what the reason for the observed gender imbalance is. I'm not saying that it isn't bias/privilege/etc. I don't think the case has been proven one way or the other, but the personal attacks & utter misrepresentations I've seen used to try to shut down discussion is driving me pretty hard emotionally to one side at the moment.
      - barrkel 9y ago
        Sure. But I think the reason people are so attached to this explanation, I think, is that other possible reasons sound like justifications for bias. I think both good and bad people get confused between the two.
threeseed 9y ago
> because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar So ? That's the company's choice to make. Many companies take the longer term view that having a more diverse workforce is more important than hiring the most technically adept candidates. Especially since having different viewpoints can aid in innovation and creativity.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  The idea of gender diversity in a company itself being good has absolutely no evidence in reality. It all depends on what kind of company, what product industry etc. and it might not be about gender or minority diversity but something completely different. This is what I think is wrong with this whole discussion. Diversity has become a goal in itself yet no evidence to support it's positive impact.
- bluecalm 9y ago
  >>So ? That's the company's choice to make. It's not because discriminating based on sex is illegal. If you lower the bar for white people because you take long term view that having more white people in your workforce is more important than hiring the most technically adept candidates then it wouldn't be "your call to make". In fact you would be sued into oblivion and rightly so. >>Especially since having different viewpoints can aid in innovation and creativity. Yes, that's why the memo mentions diversity of opinions. You don't get that by discriminating based on sex or race. You could get some of it by not firing people for expressing their views though.
cbanek 9y ago
> Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is. I've actually heard where this exact thing has happened at Google, in a very high profile team. This isn't just a hypothetical, it's a reality.
- tracker1 9y ago
  And that's in incredibly poor taste to disclose... I'm not a fan of jobs going for reasons beyond merit, but it's not fair to the hire to put that on them... and I never meant to state that it is. I'm only saying diversity over merit is wrong.
  - cbanek 9y ago
    It wasn't even disclosure. The person that said it wasn't involved in hiring if I understand correctly, but basically didn't like the person and thought they were unqualified, and said that. I guess what I'm saying is when there's even a feeling that there is a system that is diversity over merit, people will assume that people they don't like who are minorities, are somehow less able to do their job, even when that's not the case.
    - tracker1 9y ago
      So having diversity metrics, and hiring based on diversity over merit will correct this how? In your example was the person in question hired because of their sex or race?
      - cbanek 9y ago
        I never said I believe in hiring based on diversity over merit, but I also don't mind looking for candidates in different places. I don't believe the person was hired because of their sex or race. But again, even here, all minorites have to prove it, while the majority are assumed to be there on merit.
cm2012 9y ago
But it's a fact that many companies and colleges lower standards to increase diversity attendance. I think this is a good thing, but it's not a false thing.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  We're talking about Google specifically and they have not lowered standards to increase diversity.
  - taneq 9y ago
    So what did they do instead to increase diversity? Do they pay disproportionately more to certain groups? Or do they have some other way to attract more 'diverse' candidates to achieve their quotas?
  - lsaferite 9y ago
    If the numbers are true and the gender distribution in STEM graduates is 80/20, and you are intent on increasing your number of female employees, you have two choices. You either lower the bar on the 20% or you raise the bar on the 80%. In the end, the net effect is the same. The employees from the 20% group had a granted advantage against the 80% group. The better solution is to change the 80/20 distribution of graduates. Personally, I'm unsure of the 'proper' way to accomplish that goal. Note: I find it interesting/disturbing/sad/telling that I've been sitting here for a long time contemplating if I should even submit this message since I use my real name here. The fact that we, as a society, have come to a point where we are afraid to even have this discussion really makes me sad. I respect every one of my colleagues deeply, male and female alike. The idea that someone could twist my words and paint me as a misogynist is beyond troubling.
    - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
      If the numbers are true and the gender distribution in STEM graduates is 80/20, and you are intent on increasing your number of female employees, you have two choices. You either lower the bar on the 20% or you raise the bar on the 80%. This seems to be the common argument against diversity programs, but it strikes me as statistically true only if we assume a very even distribution between STEM graduates and prospective employers. Given tech's reputation as being relatively hostile to women, a company could theoretically find ways to advertise to prospective women employees that their internal culture was more welcoming of them -- that, in fact, they wouldn't be subject to the sexism that the female engineers in the linked article all said that they routinely face. This doesn't require the company to have different hiring standards between genders, or to pay women more. It does require them to change their recruiting practices in ways that acknowledge they may have to make specific outreach to women and other underrepresented minorities, but that doesn't strike me as having to be inherently discriminatory.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
I was at an all hands meeting at a previous employer when the big boss was introducing new employees. After he introduced a new female employee, he went into a long speech about how diversity was important to the group. That was just super awkward, and whether true or not, made it feel like to everyone the employee he just introduced was a diversity hire. I think there are definitely a few companies out there who are playing with the hiring bar to improve diversity in an easy but ultimately harmful way. Probably not google, but these bad actors poison the well in these discussions, so to speak.
- gambiting 9y ago
  My sister was considering going into CS, until the career adviser at her school told her it's a great idea to go into CS since companies have gender quotas and someone will have to hire her so going into CS basically guarantees her a job. Yep. Not because CS is a popular field where there is a shortage of skilled professionals, but because she's a woman. She was so upset by it that she chose something else entirely.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Ya, a lot of crap like that is why the imposter syndrome has so much fuel. But we aren't really allowed to talk about it, and anyways, it involves bad actors acting in bad faith.
  - sgs1370 9y ago
    I think going into robotics, 3-D printing, or drones (but be prepared to work outside the US) is a much better field nowadays than CS/programming etc. (Of course, if you're so inclined healthcare/physical therapy is also a great field for the foreseeable future)
- ryanbrunner 9y ago
  One point that I do wholeheartedly agree with Damore on is that putting quotas in OKRs is a very bad idea. It's an easy feel-good number that can have all sorts of negative consequences. It casts doubt on every female hire, and IMO almost certainly invites bias in the interviewing process.
theseatoms 9y ago
You're making Damore's point. Stop selectively lowering the bar and this goes away.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  The bar wasn't lowered. That's the point.
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Great. Then there shouldn't be much controversy.
    - Blackthorn 9y ago
      When someone goes and says the bar was lowered, that's a tacit insult to all minorities in the company.
      - literallycancer 9y ago
        If it's not true, refute it. If it is, then it can't be an insult.
        Blackthorn 9y ago
        It was refuted. And the person making the insult was fired.
        jedmeyers 9y ago
        Who and where exactly refuted that point? I would like to read more about it.
literallycancer 9y ago
Being able to have a productive discussion should be more important than people's feelings.
weberc2 9y ago
Yeah, this is why bar-lowering policies are bad. If that's not what Google is doing, then Google should explain their approach to employees so said employee doesn't need to question his or her qualification unduly.
taneq 9y ago
> Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is. And this, I believe, is the strongest possible argument against discriminatory hiring practices. If I hire someone who's black, or female, or gay/bi, or any other 'protected group', I want them to know that I hired them for their ability, not to fill some quota. And the only way to do that is to hire based purely on ability. By setting 'diversity hire' quotas, Google's own HR department is telling anyone who qualifies for any of those quotas that they're not good enough.
- nodamage 9y ago
  Has Google actually implemented diversity hire quotas?
  - occultist_throw 9y ago
    Well... interesting. According to the PDF(0), it states on page 6, footnote 6 ...Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).... The smoking gun here is "which is illegal and I’ve seen it done"... Well, shit. That seems to answer your question, "YES". However... On James Damore's official website(1), it states the following from the same quote area. ...or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal)..... Which is illegal. No more claim of being a witness. How interesting. That would not validate your claim/question. (0) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... (1) https://firedfortruth.com/ https://firedfortruth.com/
    - taneq 9y ago
      (0) was written as an internal discussion piece by an employee at Google. (1) was written as a public statement by the center of the current moral panic. As such, it has to be hugely more careful about making unsubstantiated claims. Regardless of the truth of the matter, if he has no corroborating evidence of discriminating based on protected status, he can't make a public allegation of such without opening himself up to a defamation lawsuit.

tracker1 9y ago

I suffer from imposter syndrome all the time... but that's on me, not someone else. If you hire someone because of diversity alone over someone with a higher level of merit, then that was wrong. Also, telling someone that they were hired for diversity reasons alone is probably a bad move as well. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to get more women into tech, or into trash collection, or construction, or every other male dominated occupation, or men as nurses, etc... however, that doesn't mean having to change the rules for men or women. And pointing out that there are differences between men and women shouldn't instantly start of with a storm of hate. "the average woman is shorter than the average man" ... "typical misogynistic cis white male patriarchal bullshit" ... I'm not saying that everyone is volatile and prone to fits of excessive rage in response, but it really feels like there's no place for civil discussion or discourse with a growing portion of the population.

threeseed 9y ago
You know you are being completely hypocritical, right ? You abhor discrimination during hiring. But yet you want to be able to discuss the differences between men and women in order to use them to discriminate.
- fche 9y ago
  > in order to use them to discriminate [citation needed]
- tracker1 9y ago
  When did I say that I want to be able to use differences between men and women to discriminate? I said that hiring on diversity over merit was wrong. That's it... I never said anything about sex in terms of merit. The only place any discussion of sex or diversity belongs is in terms of messaging and in terms of possibly promoting jobs that are disproportionate to natural propensity towards a given role. If you can't discuss, review, document, test or otherwise examine bias in terms of nature, environment, upbringing, educational exposure and other factors, then you can't force equilibrium at the end of a long process. You can't hire 50% women in an industry, where only 20% of those educated for that field are women. Also, so long as choosing a field of study or work is voluntary, the best you can do is maybe have a more fair representation of a given gender in a given field that doesn't show only above average looking women wearing glasses with a few geeky quirks, then relegate them to more personality quirks, or make them less capable over time. And MAYBE it's okay to have a field where most of the people in that field are of a given sex. I don't see the SJWs trying to get women into garbage collection, or throwing a fit over the gender bias in nursing.
  - deadc0de 9y ago
    You're missing the point that there is a positive feedback loop at the source of the problem. The reason that women (or minorities for that matter) don't get into some fields of STEM is because there are no role models that tell them it's a good idea to do so. So there is a chicken and egg problem, and the only way do break the cycle is to give priority to such minorities. Is it fair to the members of the majority? Perhaps not. But in the end, I believe, it will justify the investment. Consider it a small price to pay for the millennia of oppression.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      No there isn't positive feedback loop at the source problem and no giving priority to minorities does not make any sense. You don't have to. There is enough fight over the talent that anyone who actually has talent will get a job. Having worked in tech for 20 years and hired and fired all sorts of people I am unconvinced there is a problem in tech as big as it's being claimed. The idea that you can only have role models if they are your gender is really really absurd and if people are really falling for that then they have a problem not the tech-scene. There is no actual evidence that diversity in gender does anything for a company besides creating more complex work environments. There are far more important types of diversity to strive for.
- barrkel 9y ago
  There's a difference between the two words, "reason" and "justification". I think you're confusing the two; if someone talks about X as a reason for Y, you think they're using X as a justification for Y. It's complicated by the fact that sexist & racist people will try and use reasons as justifications, that they will use their misunderstanding of statistics to short-circuit decision-making in a faulty and biased way. But we shouldn't outlaw talking about reasons all the same. The reason we shouldn't outlaw talking about reasons, in spite of the risk of odious people using them as justifications, is that you would otherwise proceed unscientifically. Reasons relate to theories about the world, and if you discard reasons, your theory about the world is wrong.
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    This is an extremely valuable insight, but I don't think it's the root cause of the screaming match we're currently observing. Some have already decided that the REASON for gender imbalance in tech is rampant bias and male privilege, which they have publicly committed themselves to stamping out. Whether or not this is true, questioning the validity of that reason is considered an attack on their identity and value system. Edit: I'm not sure it's clear from my comment, but to clarify, I am NOT SURE what the reason for the observed gender imbalance is. I'm not saying that it isn't bias/privilege/etc. I don't think the case has been proven one way or the other, but the personal attacks & utter misrepresentations I've seen used to try to shut down discussion is driving me pretty hard emotionally to one side at the moment.
    - barrkel 9y ago
      Sure. But I think the reason people are so attached to this explanation, I think, is that other possible reasons sound like justifications for bias. I think both good and bad people get confused between the two.

threeseed 9y ago

> because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar So ? That's the company's choice to make. Many companies take the longer term view that having a more diverse workforce is more important than hiring the most technically adept candidates. Especially since having different viewpoints can aid in innovation and creativity.

ThomPete 9y ago
The idea of gender diversity in a company itself being good has absolutely no evidence in reality. It all depends on what kind of company, what product industry etc. and it might not be about gender or minority diversity but something completely different. This is what I think is wrong with this whole discussion. Diversity has become a goal in itself yet no evidence to support it's positive impact.
bluecalm 9y ago
>>So ? That's the company's choice to make. It's not because discriminating based on sex is illegal. If you lower the bar for white people because you take long term view that having more white people in your workforce is more important than hiring the most technically adept candidates then it wouldn't be "your call to make". In fact you would be sued into oblivion and rightly so. >>Especially since having different viewpoints can aid in innovation and creativity. Yes, that's why the memo mentions diversity of opinions. You don't get that by discriminating based on sex or race. You could get some of it by not firing people for expressing their views though.

cbanek 9y ago

> Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is. I've actually heard where this exact thing has happened at Google, in a very high profile team. This isn't just a hypothetical, it's a reality.

tracker1 9y ago
And that's in incredibly poor taste to disclose... I'm not a fan of jobs going for reasons beyond merit, but it's not fair to the hire to put that on them... and I never meant to state that it is. I'm only saying diversity over merit is wrong.
- cbanek 9y ago
  It wasn't even disclosure. The person that said it wasn't involved in hiring if I understand correctly, but basically didn't like the person and thought they were unqualified, and said that. I guess what I'm saying is when there's even a feeling that there is a system that is diversity over merit, people will assume that people they don't like who are minorities, are somehow less able to do their job, even when that's not the case.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    So having diversity metrics, and hiring based on diversity over merit will correct this how? In your example was the person in question hired because of their sex or race?
    - cbanek 9y ago
      I never said I believe in hiring based on diversity over merit, but I also don't mind looking for candidates in different places. I don't believe the person was hired because of their sex or race. But again, even here, all minorites have to prove it, while the majority are assumed to be there on merit.

cm2012 9y ago

But it's a fact that many companies and colleges lower standards to increase diversity attendance. I think this is a good thing, but it's not a false thing.

Blackthorn 9y ago
We're talking about Google specifically and they have not lowered standards to increase diversity.
- taneq 9y ago
  So what did they do instead to increase diversity? Do they pay disproportionately more to certain groups? Or do they have some other way to attract more 'diverse' candidates to achieve their quotas?
- lsaferite 9y ago
  If the numbers are true and the gender distribution in STEM graduates is 80/20, and you are intent on increasing your number of female employees, you have two choices. You either lower the bar on the 20% or you raise the bar on the 80%. In the end, the net effect is the same. The employees from the 20% group had a granted advantage against the 80% group. The better solution is to change the 80/20 distribution of graduates. Personally, I'm unsure of the 'proper' way to accomplish that goal. Note: I find it interesting/disturbing/sad/telling that I've been sitting here for a long time contemplating if I should even submit this message since I use my real name here. The fact that we, as a society, have come to a point where we are afraid to even have this discussion really makes me sad. I respect every one of my colleagues deeply, male and female alike. The idea that someone could twist my words and paint me as a misogynist is beyond troubling.
  - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
    If the numbers are true and the gender distribution in STEM graduates is 80/20, and you are intent on increasing your number of female employees, you have two choices. You either lower the bar on the 20% or you raise the bar on the 80%. This seems to be the common argument against diversity programs, but it strikes me as statistically true only if we assume a very even distribution between STEM graduates and prospective employers. Given tech's reputation as being relatively hostile to women, a company could theoretically find ways to advertise to prospective women employees that their internal culture was more welcoming of them -- that, in fact, they wouldn't be subject to the sexism that the female engineers in the linked article all said that they routinely face. This doesn't require the company to have different hiring standards between genders, or to pay women more. It does require them to change their recruiting practices in ways that acknowledge they may have to make specific outreach to women and other underrepresented minorities, but that doesn't strike me as having to be inherently discriminatory.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

I was at an all hands meeting at a previous employer when the big boss was introducing new employees. After he introduced a new female employee, he went into a long speech about how diversity was important to the group. That was just super awkward, and whether true or not, made it feel like to everyone the employee he just introduced was a diversity hire. I think there are definitely a few companies out there who are playing with the hiring bar to improve diversity in an easy but ultimately harmful way. Probably not google, but these bad actors poison the well in these discussions, so to speak.

gambiting 9y ago
My sister was considering going into CS, until the career adviser at her school told her it's a great idea to go into CS since companies have gender quotas and someone will have to hire her so going into CS basically guarantees her a job. Yep. Not because CS is a popular field where there is a shortage of skilled professionals, but because she's a woman. She was so upset by it that she chose something else entirely.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Ya, a lot of crap like that is why the imposter syndrome has so much fuel. But we aren't really allowed to talk about it, and anyways, it involves bad actors acting in bad faith.
- sgs1370 9y ago
  I think going into robotics, 3-D printing, or drones (but be prepared to work outside the US) is a much better field nowadays than CS/programming etc. (Of course, if you're so inclined healthcare/physical therapy is also a great field for the foreseeable future)
ryanbrunner 9y ago
One point that I do wholeheartedly agree with Damore on is that putting quotas in OKRs is a very bad idea. It's an easy feel-good number that can have all sorts of negative consequences. It casts doubt on every female hire, and IMO almost certainly invites bias in the interviewing process.

theseatoms 9y ago

You're making Damore's point. Stop selectively lowering the bar and this goes away.

Blackthorn 9y ago
The bar wasn't lowered. That's the point.
- theseatoms 9y ago
  Great. Then there shouldn't be much controversy.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    When someone goes and says the bar was lowered, that's a tacit insult to all minorities in the company.
    - literallycancer 9y ago
      If it's not true, refute it. If it is, then it can't be an insult.
      - Blackthorn 9y ago
        It was refuted. And the person making the insult was fired.
        jedmeyers 9y ago
        Who and where exactly refuted that point? I would like to read more about it.

literallycancer 9y ago

Being able to have a productive discussion should be more important than people's feelings.

weberc2 9y ago

Yeah, this is why bar-lowering policies are bad. If that's not what Google is doing, then Google should explain their approach to employees so said employee doesn't need to question his or her qualification unduly.

taneq 9y ago

> Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is. And this, I believe, is the strongest possible argument against discriminatory hiring practices. If I hire someone who's black, or female, or gay/bi, or any other 'protected group', I want them to know that I hired them for their ability, not to fill some quota. And the only way to do that is to hire based purely on ability. By setting 'diversity hire' quotas, Google's own HR department is telling anyone who qualifies for any of those quotas that they're not good enough.

nodamage 9y ago
Has Google actually implemented diversity hire quotas?
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  Well... interesting. According to the PDF(0), it states on page 6, footnote 6 ...Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).... The smoking gun here is "which is illegal and I’ve seen it done"... Well, shit. That seems to answer your question, "YES". However... On James Damore's official website(1), it states the following from the same quote area. ...or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal)..... Which is illegal. No more claim of being a witness. How interesting. That would not validate your claim/question. (0) https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... (1) https://firedfortruth.com/ https://firedfortruth.com/
  - taneq 9y ago
    (0) was written as an internal discussion piece by an employee at Google. (1) was written as a public statement by the center of the current moral panic. As such, it has to be hugely more careful about making unsubstantiated claims. Regardless of the truth of the matter, if he has no corroborating evidence of discriminating based on protected status, he can't make a public allegation of such without opening himself up to a defamation lawsuit.