4 ms·

>Damore’s suit claims Google discriminates against whites, males, and conservatives The diversity numbers from 2014 show Google is 70% male and 61% white. Als

>Damore’s suit claims Google discriminates against whites, males, and conservatives The diversity numbers from 2014 show Google is 70% male and 61% white. Also isn't Google's interview feedback demo blind?

zzzzzzzza 9y ago
Why not use 2017 numbers, especially since diversity is often about achieving something close to parity with the general population: "56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander" (only US employees) "women make up 31% of all employees at Google" http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/ http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/
gambiting 9y ago
I don't see why a group that has the majority cannot be discriminated against. If Google said "we're only offering maternity leave to women" that would be a discrimination against men, even if there is more of them at google. Blind interviews have nothing to do with this.
- southphillyman 9y ago
  Is this the "what about white history month" argument? I don't see inclusion programs as discrimination against the majority. Neither does the majority of corporations or the US government. >Blind interviews have nothing to do with this Seems like hiring is decided by merit. Any diversity recruiting program seems like it's about outreach to identify underrepresented candidates but the bar is the same once those candidates are interviewed.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    >>I don't see inclusion programs as discrimination against the majority. Well, I guess there's a line between an activity specifically designed to include minorities and an activity specifically designed to exclude the majority. The first one is not discriminatory towards the majority - the second one obviously is. I am fairly certain there is a difference between the two, no? Going back to my example - if you specifically only offer parental time off to one gender, you are specifically excluding the other one. That's discriminatory, even if that other gender is in majority. If you run a black history month, you are not specifically excluding white or asian or any other history - you are just focusing on the black history month for now.
louithethrid 9y ago
If its such a horror- why not make up a company of theire own- instead of hijacking a pre-existing one? SJW Incooperated then can provide all the search the world ever needed, without a single with male.

zzzzzzzza 9y ago

Why not use 2017 numbers, especially since diversity is often about achieving something close to parity with the general population: "56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander" (only US employees) "women make up 31% of all employees at Google" http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/ http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

gambiting 9y ago

I don't see why a group that has the majority cannot be discriminated against. If Google said "we're only offering maternity leave to women" that would be a discrimination against men, even if there is more of them at google. Blind interviews have nothing to do with this.

southphillyman 9y ago
Is this the "what about white history month" argument? I don't see inclusion programs as discrimination against the majority. Neither does the majority of corporations or the US government. >Blind interviews have nothing to do with this Seems like hiring is decided by merit. Any diversity recruiting program seems like it's about outreach to identify underrepresented candidates but the bar is the same once those candidates are interviewed.
- gambiting 9y ago
  >>I don't see inclusion programs as discrimination against the majority. Well, I guess there's a line between an activity specifically designed to include minorities and an activity specifically designed to exclude the majority. The first one is not discriminatory towards the majority - the second one obviously is. I am fairly certain there is a difference between the two, no? Going back to my example - if you specifically only offer parental time off to one gender, you are specifically excluding the other one. That's discriminatory, even if that other gender is in majority. If you run a black history month, you are not specifically excluding white or asian or any other history - you are just focusing on the black history month for now.

louithethrid 9y ago

If its such a horror- why not make up a company of theire own- instead of hijacking a pre-existing one? SJW Incooperated then can provide all the search the world ever needed, without a single with male.