Don't confuse diversity in the workplace with diversity of opinion. If someone passed a memo that said blacks are under represented in cs because their brain... As far as I am concerned we want diversity of opinion on issues that are in controversy. That women aren't as capable as men of being engineers isn't one if them. That ship has sailed. Sending out such a memo in the workplace should get you fired. That's not an "over reaction," its a statement if intent in the context of the modern workplace.
You are on a very slippery slope though. If someone who works for me said, "Women may not be as fit for the CFO job as a man based on men having a higher aptitude for leadership" that would constitute the definition of creating a hostile work environment for woman. That thinking would lower morale of women workers and likely result in many of them leaving. THe fact that he used the word may doesn't soften it. Black people may be better at sports and may not be as smart. Is that ok? What if I quote a scientific study showing that runners from a certain region in Africa show a statistically significant trend to win races? That is essentially what you are defending here. This is what this guy is doing. He's using science to espouse cultural stereotypes about women and the reason they don't advance. I respect you as a poster but I am puzzled that you don't see this side of it
Right. I'ma put my all opinions in simplest points I can, so I don't have to re-quote comments -- The guy had issue that "Its always Sexism Sexism SEXISM!" He saw something different about female admissions than the accepted norm. Its the CORE REASON for the memo to even get made. {Me: I can agree "Sexism" can get over-concluded. Another question to ask is: If Leftist Tolerance is indeed SO accommodating and welcoming of all women and minorities, if they are the solution, then why is there STILL a PROBLEM with hiring women? Doesnt make sense all the open-minded colorblind gender-blind acceptance isnt brining in the people.) -- But while its the core reason, its not HIS MAIN MOTIVATION to write. The irony is while he tried hard to appear objective and impartial, he VERY much put PERSONAL FEELINGS into it with his disapproval of Google Echo Chamber and Leftist Zombie-fication. THATS what got him in trouble I believe -- It simply got too POLEMIC. Its like, is this just about hiring of females - Or is it about ANY disgruntled feeling YOU have about your company and general society? He fed RIGHT into the "My Team vs Your Team" party divisiveness going on. -- My opinion, he'da done better to keep the socio-political commentary out of it. {Even if he's right on some things. He mistakenly thought "Well I'm going against the grain here about women - Lets include in EVERYTHING I'm against!". -- On a 10-scale of termination where 8 gets you let go, JUST the WOMAN issue ALONE is a 6. He added all the grumbling about politics and basically talked sh** about his own company. For most thats a 3, for him a 2 cuz he kinda dialed back with rational points. But it all still adds up in termination. The political talk wasnt the worst part, but its what increased the controversy. AGAIN one last time, ME I'm about looking at SOMETHING OTHER than "Sexism / Misogyny". I'd say mostly societal norms that exacerbate a SMALL biological difference into a bigger difference.
Of course the same Biological Reasons can get used AGAINST MEN M: "You are biologically built toward non-tech non-engineer work" W: "You are biologically built toward being a non-gentleman, sexist discriminating pig." Argument OVER. Biological Reasons NEGATED
Hmmm, the original document written by the Googler is linked to in that article in its original form. I hadn't read that before, just a leaked copy of the text with links to references removed: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf That is interesting, because a lot of the early criticism over the memo was that his claims appeared totally unsubstantiated and made up. The HuffPo article offers a nicely laid out rebuttal to the argument made by the memo and is definitely a worthwhile read. It starts with: "Damore’s memo was well-researched ― and he’s right that science suggests that men’s and women’s brains are different and have different strengths. But while the latest scientific research on the subject supports some of his claims, it doesn’t support his conclusion." It says that he "ignores the possibility that high levels of sexism and sexual harassment in the tech industry contribute to women’s anxiety and stress levels, rather than a simple biological inclination toward neuroticism." I don't believe that is strictly true, since his argument from the beginning wasn't that sexism and harassment don't exist, but rather we shouldn't assume that gender gaps in the industry are necessarily 100% due to that. However, by not sufficiently acknowledging the evidence for the existence of sexism and harassment and its harming effect, one is easily left with the impression that he doesn't consider that at all a significant problem. I understand and accept why that would agitate people who are primed to be agitated by any man offering his opinion about women. The article links to an article by David Schmitt, a psychologist who's findings the Googler cited in his memo. The HuffPo particle says the he misunderstood his research and made leaps that were unwarranted. I think it's fair to say that he didn't sufficiently temper his points as a trained psychologist might, but actually it seems to me that Schmitt agrees with the memo's core thesis: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences "Perhaps it does" ... From the Googler's TLDR: "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership." ... ... The last paragraph there is interesting. He seems to be suggesting an irony there though he doesn't comment on it further -- "internal discussion boards intended for open conversation about diversity and science-based thinking" are nevertheless not the right place to "openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance, and might lead to less than 50% of technology employees being women." As I wrote earlier in the thread, I find it bothersome that discussing actual science should be treated as off limits in a place like Google where the employees are highly educated and presumably science-literate. That this bothers me is, according to @SamFisher , evidence of my "mannosphere leanings". Maybe? I mean, I hope not but I don't presume myself to be wholely absent of bias as much as I wish to be (there I go being "sanctimonious" ). But I do maintain that the Googler was right -- both the left and right very clearly have their blind spots when it comes to accepting and dealing with thoughtful scientific discussion.
I agree with you that he shouldn't make a statement like that, both for the reason you gave and also because it would be irrational to even evoke that as part of the decision making process. If you are considering applicants for the CFO job, any such generalizations/stereotypes that might have some basis in the field of psychology becomes negligible in comparison to each individual's actual qualifications and merits that are presented to you. Again, and I've stressed this over and over, using these gender stereotypes to make any sort of judgment on individuals is wrong, and I believe he said this. If they have no bearing on assessing the value of individuals, why even bring them up you may ask. The only reason is that it might be a partial explanation for why the representation isn't proportional when looking at data in the aggregate. I do not support making more out of it than that. Does that sound reasonable, or are you still puzzled by my position?
Here is a video of the 2005 debate I referenced earlier in the thread, between two experts in the field who are faculty colleagues at Harvard -- Stephen Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke. It is directly relevant to the thread topic.
Then we are just interpreting what he is saying differently durvasa. I see you feel he is making a logical argument that is rational. I see him rationalizing his bias. THis is how I read what he is saying. "Diversity programs need to be questioned because they don't account for the fact that there are differences between men and women - and that there may be a biological basis for why more men are in leadership positions and in tech. Liberals aren't accepting on these ideas and thus create diversity programs which may be unnatural" To me, this is his point. And I think it's a sexist point.
Don't blame Google for the "non-parity" in gender representation - they play within the scope of the rules allotted by the law (hopefully). I'd reckon that foreign student enrollment in CS has shot up since 2000 and that it has mostly been male - therefore possibly explaining most of the decline in the share of degrees awarded to women.
I haven't followed this story very closely and haven't read the memo in question. Given it's size frankly I probably won't get to it. In general I agree that citing biological gender differences as a reason for differences in percentages of women in hi tech positions and leadership is inherently problematic. As others have noted most studies have shown little to no difference in intentelligence including areas of problem solving. Further we cannot ignore historical biases that have long limited the opportunities for women. Even if legally and throughcompany policy those barriers don't exist thereare still inherent biases among older management and also few women role models and mentors that women coming into the profession can benefit from. All of that said I'm still uneasy with the idea of the author losing his job just on the basis of his views especially if Google had encouraged employees to express their poltitical, cultural and scientific views. The author's views may be incorrect and he may have expressed them inelegantly but if he could otherwise do his job and had a good track record at his job then I would've let him keep his job. I might've encouraged him to attend sensitivity workshops and invited him to do more research into the subject but I think just having those views shouldn't preclude him from employment.
Thanks for chiming in; I always enjoy reading your take on things. From what I've learned since this story came out, there does appear to be strong evidence of sex differences in cognitive abilities and preferences in the field of psychology. But what is debatable is the extent to which it is "nature vs nurture", and there is no consensus on that question. Outside of academic circles, it is a touchy subject politically and the fact that he brought it up in the workplace while simultaneously taking a somewhat strident political position bothered people, understandably. Of course, Google can't say they fired him for being conservative or complaining about a company-wide liberal bias, since they profess to permit this. But, at least to me, that obviously played a huge role in his firing. My question related to the point you raised is when exactly does offending others become a fireable offense, in an internal web community where expressing different opinions (even minority ones) are supposedly encouraged? A related question is would it have been possible for him to have shared his opinion on this topic, while citing the same evidence (which people are free to counter with opposing evidence), but in a manner that would not have offended people and would have allowed him to keep his job? Or was the evidence he referenced simply "off limits" in a workplace setting, irrespective of its presentation?
Employment is at will...and people get fired for far less. He must have know the potential consequences - if you become a distraction the company doesn't stand-up for the distraction - more often than not they eliminate the distraction.
So alt right mysoginist, racist pigs are out in force harassing Google employees with hate filled garbage. What a surprise.
That answers why he was fired, not whether the firing was justified or, in the long run, wise. The appropriate response would be to counter his argument with opposing argument/evidence to dispute his claims and show how gender bias/discrimination remains a pervasive problem in the industry. That would serve both as a powerful defense of women in the industry as well as a defense of free speech and open dialogue on challenging subjects. Of course, that would put them in somewhat of a bind, considering they are currently defending themselves against a discrimination lawsuit. So they took the easier path of firing him. In doing so, they basically validated his main criticism of the company and made themselves look like hypocrites with regard to trying to promote diversity of ideas and open conversation.
Another interesting take and critique on both the memo itself and the Internet reaction to the memo: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...-memo-wrong/US4NlaIvQ00UdsyofYbMyM/story.html
He made a sexist statement. You may not agree with it or feel science backs it up, but others including myself see it as clearly sexist. Google saw it as sexist and that is their right to make that judgment. Sexist, racist, whatever...it's a workplace. You go there to accomplish the company's mission in exchange for compensation...not to express views that are damaging to the company. diversity isn't about promoting ignorant viewpoints. It's about encouraging a mix of culture and perspectives. There's room at google for conservatives just as there is room for liberals on wall street. But sexism and racism should not be tolerated even if presented in a thoughtful way.
The woman doing the interview came across sounding really stupid with the questions she asked. I'm not sure it's her fault, but damn, she can't be happy about that assuming she possesses the self awareness required to see it.
