5 ms·

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 som

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.

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.