5 ms·

Which doesn't seem to be what was happening here though, or at least there's no indication to that effect. At the same time, the narrative that someone above h

Which doesn't seem to be what was happening here though, or at least there's no indication to that effect. At the same time, the narrative that someone above her in the management hierarchy decided to pull her research seems more plausible. In that case, I would tend to "Privacy for the Weak, Transparency for the Powerful." What you describe is the former, but this would seem to be a case of the latter.

jeffbee 6y ago
It's really hard to tell from this message what really happened. Why isn't it plausible that the paper in question was somehow upsetting to one of the dozens of people to whom the author circulated it? It reads to me like this person rejects the very idea that any criticism of their paper could possibly be legitimate.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  That's not the impression I get. First, for this to be a valid case of HR protecting someone who needs protecting, these complaints would have to come from someone who Gebru was managing and therefore have leverage on. I don't know the specifics, but it would stand to reason that she did manage some people, so that possibility can't be excluded for sure. But from the last paragraph it seems that she did actually try to address the points raised: > You write a detailed document discussing whatever pieces of feedback you can find, asking for questions and clarifications, and it is completely ignored. I wasn't there, but simply not addressing counter points doesn't fare well in the public's (read: my) eyes.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    I don't think modern HR policy really works like that. If one person complains to their HRBP that the speech or actions of another person at the company makes them feel personally attacked, derogated, or establishes a hostile work environment then the company will be forced to take that matter to the second person. HR isn't looking to setup an Oxford debate between persons A and B. They are required to resolve the hostile work environment allegation, else person A has an actionable complaint against the company.
    - GVIrish 6y ago
      Sure but HR wouldn't share the feedback on her paper and give her an opportunity to update it. Instead they demanded that she retract the paper. How is it fair or standard to make someone retract a paper because of anonymous and secret criticisms that the researcher isn't even given a chance to address?
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        That's just how HR works. It's there to protect the business. They get a complaint and a bunch of HR people and lawyers decide what needs to happen, and then they make it happen. It's not a debating society.
      - dash2 6y ago
        Actually, to be fair, anonymous referee reports are absolutely standard in academia, and they may be standard part of Google practice in this field - and if so that might be good practice. Waiving anonymity could compromise the integrity of the intellectual process.
        GVIrish 6y ago
        I could maybe understand the anonymity, but I don't see why the substance of the feedback that let to the whole paper getting retracted was kept secret at first. At least give the paper's authors an opportunity to update the paper. The reasons Jeff Dean cited in his email for the retraction sound like things that could've been fixable.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  That scenario still wouldn't be close to what the anonymity of the HR process supposedly exists for. Unless the research paper in question contained a footnote "oh, and BTW, <xy> is stupid".
- itronitron 6y ago
  >> Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, ... haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). Based on that I assume that the author was soliciting guidance from PR & Policy but didn't receive any. Someone higher up isn't doing their job effectively.

jeffbee 6y ago

It's really hard to tell from this message what really happened. Why isn't it plausible that the paper in question was somehow upsetting to one of the dozens of people to whom the author circulated it? It reads to me like this person rejects the very idea that any criticism of their paper could possibly be legitimate.

black_puppydog 6y ago
That's not the impression I get. First, for this to be a valid case of HR protecting someone who needs protecting, these complaints would have to come from someone who Gebru was managing and therefore have leverage on. I don't know the specifics, but it would stand to reason that she did manage some people, so that possibility can't be excluded for sure. But from the last paragraph it seems that she did actually try to address the points raised: > You write a detailed document discussing whatever pieces of feedback you can find, asking for questions and clarifications, and it is completely ignored. I wasn't there, but simply not addressing counter points doesn't fare well in the public's (read: my) eyes.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  I don't think modern HR policy really works like that. If one person complains to their HRBP that the speech or actions of another person at the company makes them feel personally attacked, derogated, or establishes a hostile work environment then the company will be forced to take that matter to the second person. HR isn't looking to setup an Oxford debate between persons A and B. They are required to resolve the hostile work environment allegation, else person A has an actionable complaint against the company.
  - GVIrish 6y ago
    Sure but HR wouldn't share the feedback on her paper and give her an opportunity to update it. Instead they demanded that she retract the paper. How is it fair or standard to make someone retract a paper because of anonymous and secret criticisms that the researcher isn't even given a chance to address?
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      That's just how HR works. It's there to protect the business. They get a complaint and a bunch of HR people and lawyers decide what needs to happen, and then they make it happen. It's not a debating society.
    - dash2 6y ago
      Actually, to be fair, anonymous referee reports are absolutely standard in academia, and they may be standard part of Google practice in this field - and if so that might be good practice. Waiving anonymity could compromise the integrity of the intellectual process.
      - GVIrish 6y ago
        I could maybe understand the anonymity, but I don't see why the substance of the feedback that let to the whole paper getting retracted was kept secret at first. At least give the paper's authors an opportunity to update the paper. The reasons Jeff Dean cited in his email for the retraction sound like things that could've been fixable.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
That scenario still wouldn't be close to what the anonymity of the HR process supposedly exists for. Unless the research paper in question contained a footnote "oh, and BTW, <xy> is stupid".
itronitron 6y ago
>> Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, ... haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). Based on that I assume that the author was soliciting guidance from PR & Policy but didn't receive any. Someone higher up isn't doing their job effectively.