11 ms·

Well, there's at least 2 perspectives here. If the two people were fired due to race, gender, or even ethical opinion, this reaction is more than appropriate.

Well, there's at least 2 perspectives here. If the two people were fired due to race, gender, or even ethical opinion, this reaction is more than appropriate. If the two people were fired due to breaking established rules and processes, exfiltrating files or similar — this can very well backfire on minorities. It indirectly creates another hurdle to hiring a minority member if the company needs to consider that they can't viably fire them for breaking rules. I'm unaware of good public information supporting either perspective. And both the ex-employees and Google may be restricted from publishing sensitive information to support their cause. I'm not sure how to form an informed opinion on this, honestly.

ihsw 6y ago
Just like the #MeToo movement, such predatory behavior sets equality back years. Equity is ultimately a regressive ideology, both in practice and in theory.
probably_wrong 6y ago
I'm not following your second perspective. If I read you comment correctly, your second perspective would be "Gebru and Mitchell were fired with good cause, but people are rushing to their defense only because they are members of a minority". If that's what you meant, I would counterargue: I haven't seen anything in this saga that implies anything of the sort. Simplified, it is my understanding that people either defend the firing claiming that Gebru and Mitchell acted in bad faith or object to it claiming that their only fault was speaking the truth back to Google (who hired them to do so).
panic 6y ago
The idea of something “backfiring on minorities” as an entire group is part of the problem here. The fact that there was a backlash after someone was fired can’t be used as a justification for not hiring other people whose only relationship to the original person is “also some kind of minority”.
- Causality1 6y ago
  Legally, no. From a practical standpoint, people do whatever they think they can get away with.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Reasonably, no. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make. Most people are minorities.
    - imbnwa 6y ago
      In America? Are we cutting up the European-American demographic by gender and sexuality, cause that'd be the most immediate way for me to grasp this idea?
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Gender, sexuality, neurodivergence, “race” (however you define it), “caste” (however you define it), disabilities (however you define them, tbh, though it generally makes more sense than “race” or “caste”)… Either I just have a really skewed social circle, or most people are minorities in at least one category.
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    We have to resort to legal solutions because the sad truth is that you can't at all trust entire demographics to alter or even reflect on their ethical stance. I mean, there are enough people on this very board whose response to Black diversity initiatives in particular, is that they're too low IQ on average and therefore will be disruptive to team productivity and cohesion, despite people like Naseem Taleb going after IQ measurements.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Can you find any examples of HN comments that have suggested Black people are too low IQ on average and will be disruptive? I really doubt such a thing exists.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I don’t think this is an example of “can’t viably be fired”. They don’t seem to be saying Google or its employees are banned from the conference; they just don’t want Google’s money. (And Gebru used to be on the executive committee for this conference, so it can’t be a surprise to Google that they might be on her side.)
- eqvinox 6y ago
  I wish you were right, but IMHO you need to take the devil's (racist's) advocate position here. Even an average not-really-racist but-slightly-prejudiced ("non-woke") HR manager can look at this and go "oh, Google got f_cked so hard for firing these two minority members... I really don't want to possibly end up in that situation"... and, even if that's certainly discriminatory thinking, it's not "wrong" on the pure logical level. And even worse, it's unlikely to be noticed and very hard to fight. The decision not to hire someone won't come with an explainer why, and proving discriminatory practice there is quite hard. ... and the HR manager may even do this subconsciously! In that case noone is even aware discrimination is happening. (Which is why blanking applications is so important!)
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I have no doubt that there are bad consequences to the attitude that anything which happens to anyone is about their race. I just don't think that this particular happening is an example.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
geofft 6y ago
It is, unfortunately, a pretty common thing in our society to have rules that are selectively enforced. How often did the NYPD stop-and-frisk a trader walking down Wall Street? In that case, the pressure isn't so much "don't hire minorities" as "don't be more stringent about enforcing your established rules and processes on certain groups of people," which is a great pressure. Gebru has spoken publicly about the allegation that she broke processes. See this thread: https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1335017526112227329 https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1335017526112227329 Notably, the official description of the process includes the sentence, "There is no such thing as the perfect policy. Fortunately Googlers like to do the right thing. Please do that here—read the policy and do what makes sense."

ihsw 6y ago

Just like the #MeToo movement, such predatory behavior sets equality back years. Equity is ultimately a regressive ideology, both in practice and in theory.

probably_wrong 6y ago

I'm not following your second perspective. If I read you comment correctly, your second perspective would be "Gebru and Mitchell were fired with good cause, but people are rushing to their defense only because they are members of a minority". If that's what you meant, I would counterargue: I haven't seen anything in this saga that implies anything of the sort. Simplified, it is my understanding that people either defend the firing claiming that Gebru and Mitchell acted in bad faith or object to it claiming that their only fault was speaking the truth back to Google (who hired them to do so).

panic 6y ago

The idea of something “backfiring on minorities” as an entire group is part of the problem here. The fact that there was a backlash after someone was fired can’t be used as a justification for not hiring other people whose only relationship to the original person is “also some kind of minority”.

Causality1 6y ago
Legally, no. From a practical standpoint, people do whatever they think they can get away with.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  Reasonably, no. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make. Most people are minorities.
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    In America? Are we cutting up the European-American demographic by gender and sexuality, cause that'd be the most immediate way for me to grasp this idea?
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Gender, sexuality, neurodivergence, “race” (however you define it), “caste” (however you define it), disabilities (however you define them, tbh, though it generally makes more sense than “race” or “caste”)… Either I just have a really skewed social circle, or most people are minorities in at least one category.
- imbnwa 6y ago
  We have to resort to legal solutions because the sad truth is that you can't at all trust entire demographics to alter or even reflect on their ethical stance. I mean, there are enough people on this very board whose response to Black diversity initiatives in particular, is that they're too low IQ on average and therefore will be disruptive to team productivity and cohesion, despite people like Naseem Taleb going after IQ measurements.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Can you find any examples of HN comments that have suggested Black people are too low IQ on average and will be disruptive? I really doubt such a thing exists.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I don’t think this is an example of “can’t viably be fired”. They don’t seem to be saying Google or its employees are banned from the conference; they just don’t want Google’s money. (And Gebru used to be on the executive committee for this conference, so it can’t be a surprise to Google that they might be on her side.)

eqvinox 6y ago
I wish you were right, but IMHO you need to take the devil's (racist's) advocate position here. Even an average not-really-racist but-slightly-prejudiced ("non-woke") HR manager can look at this and go "oh, Google got f_cked so hard for firing these two minority members... I really don't want to possibly end up in that situation"... and, even if that's certainly discriminatory thinking, it's not "wrong" on the pure logical level. And even worse, it's unlikely to be noticed and very hard to fight. The decision not to hire someone won't come with an explainer why, and proving discriminatory practice there is quite hard. ... and the HR manager may even do this subconsciously! In that case noone is even aware discrimination is happening. (Which is why blanking applications is so important!)
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I have no doubt that there are bad consequences to the attitude that anything which happens to anyone is about their race. I just don't think that this particular happening is an example.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

geofft 6y ago

It is, unfortunately, a pretty common thing in our society to have rules that are selectively enforced. How often did the NYPD stop-and-frisk a trader walking down Wall Street? In that case, the pressure isn't so much "don't hire minorities" as "don't be more stringent about enforcing your established rules and processes on certain groups of people," which is a great pressure. Gebru has spoken publicly about the allegation that she broke processes. See this thread: https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1335017526112227329 https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1335017526112227329 Notably, the official description of the process includes the sentence, "There is no such thing as the perfect policy. Fortunately Googlers like to do the right thing. Please do that here—read the policy and do what makes sense."