2 ms·

This is an outrageous racist statement in itself. The idea that she reached her position because of AA is unbelievable. Getting into Google isn't easy, and the

This is an outrageous racist statement in itself. The idea that she reached her position because of AA is unbelievable. Getting into Google isn't easy, and the company doesn't give a rat's ass about diversity, HR statements and pablum notwithstanding. If any company has a reputation for hiring only talented people, it's Google. She got her position based on merit, like the overwhelming majority of Google employees.

thu2111 6y ago
The existence of affirmative action is not in any doubt, and it's not racist to suppose that some people benefit from it, given that's the entire purpose it exists for. the company doesn't give a rat's ass about diversity I have no idea how anyone could think that. It's famous for being obsessed with diversity to the extent that they publicly fired, slandered and screwed over a guy who wrote an essay saying maybe the company is approaching diversity the wrong way. This is a company in which managers have apologised for using the word "family" because it's supposedly offensive to LBGT people, in which they organise competitions which ban men (see Code Jam for Women), in which they fund female-only scholarships, which literally has a website called https://diversity.google/ https://diversity.google/, which puts "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities" at the top of its developer documentation, which labels businesses in Google Maps if they're women or black owned and a million other things that show this is a topic they think about all the time. As for merit, you're about a decade behind the times. Google was relaxing hiring standards for women in particular a long time ago. For example they could fail phone screens and be advanced to the next stages anyway, whereas men would just be dropped at that point. You can't be so strongly pro-diversity and not have that problem because ultimately the only way to seriously improve in your self-chosen metrics is to hire 'diverse' people aggressively.

thu2111 6y ago

The existence of affirmative action is not in any doubt, and it's not racist to suppose that some people benefit from it, given that's the entire purpose it exists for. the company doesn't give a rat's ass about diversity I have no idea how anyone could think that. It's famous for being obsessed with diversity to the extent that they publicly fired, slandered and screwed over a guy who wrote an essay saying maybe the company is approaching diversity the wrong way. This is a company in which managers have apologised for using the word "family" because it's supposedly offensive to LBGT people, in which they organise competitions which ban men (see Code Jam for Women), in which they fund female-only scholarships, which literally has a website called https://diversity.google/ https://diversity.google/, which puts "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities" at the top of its developer documentation, which labels businesses in Google Maps if they're women or black owned and a million other things that show this is a topic they think about all the time. As for merit, you're about a decade behind the times. Google was relaxing hiring standards for women in particular a long time ago. For example they could fail phone screens and be advanced to the next stages anyway, whereas men would just be dropped at that point. You can't be so strongly pro-diversity and not have that problem because ultimately the only way to seriously improve in your self-chosen metrics is to hire 'diverse' people aggressively.