5 ms·

Well, nothing in this story suggest they do. They might have an inconsistent review process, like pretty much most processes in these companies - from interview

Well, nothing in this story suggest they do. They might have an inconsistent review process, like pretty much most processes in these companies - from interviews to promotions. Let's see how many people follow her and leave Google Research due to their practices. My prediction is zero.

kenjackson 6y ago
That’s the beauty of modern discrimination. You never come out and say you’re discriminating. Rather you just apply the rules selectively. An inconsistent process is the best best way to discriminate. My prediction is you will see some people leave Google due to this. Likely those who worked closest to her. Apple is already extending interest.
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  There is no evidence they applied rules selectively. What I meant by inconsistent process is that it's subjective. These process usually say something like "Two L6+ need to approve...". Then it's assigned to someone and that person can spend 2 minutes or 2 hours on it. Paper reviews are esp prone to that. How likely your paper being accepted is often more of a factor of who reviews it than how good the paper is. The main thing for me is that it was clear the paper would have been published eventually. I've seen it many times - reviewers ask for some changes. Authors make the changes, Reviews are happy. Paper is published. The reviewers didn't ask for anything that would make the paper weaker, nor did they ask to remove any content. I'm guessing she was so mad because they were external people on the paper and pulling the paper out would make her look bad.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    Other Google researchers have stated that they’ve never had their papers internally reviewed based on the criteria she did (lit review for example). Just for things like corporate sensitive information. If no one else in Google history has had the same criteria used, that seems selective to me.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Maybe I'm not understanding the argument. But why do people think she was let go? My understanding is she wrote a paper critical of certain aspects of Google's business. They asked her to retract it for revisions because they didn't think it was fair to Google which believed it had made advancements relevant to her critiques. She thought this review was unfair so she wrote an unprofessional message to an internal group and submitted an ultimatum/resignation. Which google accepted. Do you believe that corporations generally accept ultimatums? Do you believe the message she sent out would never be a fireable offense? Do you believe she was let go because she was black or female?
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    > Do you believe she was let go because she was black or female? Possibly. I do think it is likely that she isn't fired if she was a white male. In my experience, people have more patience with people who are in their "in-group". This goes beyond race/gender -- just look at sports fandom for an example. Isn't it odd that players for the team you cheer for can do no wrong, but as soon as they're traded then they start doing a bunch of bad stuff, even the stuff they did while on your team actually now looks kind of bad. In the tech industry role/team/company/race/gender are probably the biggest in-group delineations. > Do you believe that corporations generally accept ultimatums? Yes they do. The most common ultimatum is given before employment, where candidates will often give a minimum salary/benefits they will take for the job. I've seen and even been involved in these negotiations where a candidate states that they will not go below this offer, period. And then we counter with a number below that but provide some other incentive we think may counter it. There are other ultimatums I've seen in the workplace. For example, "I can't work with XYZ or I'm leaving the team". I don't think I've ever seen the response come back as, "good luck finding a new team". It's always been to dive deeper into the relationship. In fact I issued an ultimatum many years ago where I said I couldn't travel any more due to a personal issue or I'd have to find new employment. I guess you could say they yielded to my threat. I like to think that I was just being honest and they helped find a way that I could still help the team, especially since I only traveled a couple of times per year. > Do you believe the message she sent out would never be a fireable offense? I can imagine it being listed as a firing offense in some handbook. I can also imagine that others who have written damning emails have gotten away with no more than a slap on the wrist (or less).
- ioctrl 6y ago
  That's another beauty of modern discrimination: it's unfalsifiable. From everything made public, her behavior constitutes a fireable offense at any company I've ever worked at, regardless of skin color. And there is precedent for non-PoCs being fired for posting unprofessional messages to internal message boards. So why would you consider her actions permissible?
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    I’ve seen similar emails and never anyone fired from them. People have tried to claim equivalence with Damore and they are so night and day different that I struggle to believe the comparison is in good faith. The main difference is that the most egregious emails are often from technical leaders attacking those much lower in the pecking order. Regarding the beauty of modern discrimination that you note. Plaintiffs in these cases almost always lose, because it is almost unprovable and the bar is high (being called the n-word for example isn’t sufficient). Being unfalsifiable provides little solace if there is no consequence to the discrimination.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ioctrl 6y ago
      You've seen an employee send out an email to colleagues instructing people of color to stop their efforts to improve the company, claiming the internal review process was an act of racist discrimination and dehumanization, and essentially calling their work a lost cause? You've seen this followed up by threats to resign from the company if the anonymous reviewers' identities aren't revealed? And all this following prior threats of litigation against the company within the past year? And you saw this from men or non-persons of color who were not fired? Obviously not, but if you do have examples that are sufficiently comparable in your mind, feel free to describe them and make a case. As it is, you're again falling back on unfalsifiable claims. And I'm still curious to know why you'd expect a company not to fire someone in this scenario?
      - 6y ago
- int_19h 6y ago
  Modern? It's a trick that's probably as old as discrimination itself. Here's a rare case of an American judge speaking openly about this - the quote is from a 1941 Florida Supreme Court opinion (Watson v. Stone): "I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. ... It is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. ... There has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested." Note, by the way, that this also references the other common trick - you can also make rules that are seemingly not arbitrary, but are easy enough to challenge for those with the right knowledge and/or means.

kenjackson 6y ago

That’s the beauty of modern discrimination. You never come out and say you’re discriminating. Rather you just apply the rules selectively. An inconsistent process is the best best way to discriminate. My prediction is you will see some people leave Google due to this. Likely those who worked closest to her. Apple is already extending interest.

tinyhouse 6y ago
There is no evidence they applied rules selectively. What I meant by inconsistent process is that it's subjective. These process usually say something like "Two L6+ need to approve...". Then it's assigned to someone and that person can spend 2 minutes or 2 hours on it. Paper reviews are esp prone to that. How likely your paper being accepted is often more of a factor of who reviews it than how good the paper is. The main thing for me is that it was clear the paper would have been published eventually. I've seen it many times - reviewers ask for some changes. Authors make the changes, Reviews are happy. Paper is published. The reviewers didn't ask for anything that would make the paper weaker, nor did they ask to remove any content. I'm guessing she was so mad because they were external people on the paper and pulling the paper out would make her look bad.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  Other Google researchers have stated that they’ve never had their papers internally reviewed based on the criteria she did (lit review for example). Just for things like corporate sensitive information. If no one else in Google history has had the same criteria used, that seems selective to me.
JamesBarney 6y ago
Maybe I'm not understanding the argument. But why do people think she was let go? My understanding is she wrote a paper critical of certain aspects of Google's business. They asked her to retract it for revisions because they didn't think it was fair to Google which believed it had made advancements relevant to her critiques. She thought this review was unfair so she wrote an unprofessional message to an internal group and submitted an ultimatum/resignation. Which google accepted. Do you believe that corporations generally accept ultimatums? Do you believe the message she sent out would never be a fireable offense? Do you believe she was let go because she was black or female?
- kenjackson 6y ago
  > Do you believe she was let go because she was black or female? Possibly. I do think it is likely that she isn't fired if she was a white male. In my experience, people have more patience with people who are in their "in-group". This goes beyond race/gender -- just look at sports fandom for an example. Isn't it odd that players for the team you cheer for can do no wrong, but as soon as they're traded then they start doing a bunch of bad stuff, even the stuff they did while on your team actually now looks kind of bad. In the tech industry role/team/company/race/gender are probably the biggest in-group delineations. > Do you believe that corporations generally accept ultimatums? Yes they do. The most common ultimatum is given before employment, where candidates will often give a minimum salary/benefits they will take for the job. I've seen and even been involved in these negotiations where a candidate states that they will not go below this offer, period. And then we counter with a number below that but provide some other incentive we think may counter it. There are other ultimatums I've seen in the workplace. For example, "I can't work with XYZ or I'm leaving the team". I don't think I've ever seen the response come back as, "good luck finding a new team". It's always been to dive deeper into the relationship. In fact I issued an ultimatum many years ago where I said I couldn't travel any more due to a personal issue or I'd have to find new employment. I guess you could say they yielded to my threat. I like to think that I was just being honest and they helped find a way that I could still help the team, especially since I only traveled a couple of times per year. > Do you believe the message she sent out would never be a fireable offense? I can imagine it being listed as a firing offense in some handbook. I can also imagine that others who have written damning emails have gotten away with no more than a slap on the wrist (or less).
ioctrl 6y ago
That's another beauty of modern discrimination: it's unfalsifiable. From everything made public, her behavior constitutes a fireable offense at any company I've ever worked at, regardless of skin color. And there is precedent for non-PoCs being fired for posting unprofessional messages to internal message boards. So why would you consider her actions permissible?
- kenjackson 6y ago
  I’ve seen similar emails and never anyone fired from them. People have tried to claim equivalence with Damore and they are so night and day different that I struggle to believe the comparison is in good faith. The main difference is that the most egregious emails are often from technical leaders attacking those much lower in the pecking order. Regarding the beauty of modern discrimination that you note. Plaintiffs in these cases almost always lose, because it is almost unprovable and the bar is high (being called the n-word for example isn’t sufficient). Being unfalsifiable provides little solace if there is no consequence to the discrimination.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ioctrl 6y ago
    You've seen an employee send out an email to colleagues instructing people of color to stop their efforts to improve the company, claiming the internal review process was an act of racist discrimination and dehumanization, and essentially calling their work a lost cause? You've seen this followed up by threats to resign from the company if the anonymous reviewers' identities aren't revealed? And all this following prior threats of litigation against the company within the past year? And you saw this from men or non-persons of color who were not fired? Obviously not, but if you do have examples that are sufficiently comparable in your mind, feel free to describe them and make a case. As it is, you're again falling back on unfalsifiable claims. And I'm still curious to know why you'd expect a company not to fire someone in this scenario?
    - 6y ago
int_19h 6y ago
Modern? It's a trick that's probably as old as discrimination itself. Here's a rare case of an American judge speaking openly about this - the quote is from a 1941 Florida Supreme Court opinion (Watson v. Stone): "I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. ... It is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. ... There has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested." Note, by the way, that this also references the other common trick - you can also make rules that are seemingly not arbitrary, but are easy enough to challenge for those with the right knowledge and/or means.