Left outraged by engineer's views on diversity

It is encouraging that you are willing to accept this as a starting premise.

You are arguing that pointing out biological differences and suggesting they may explain difference in realities or outcomes in the workplace is a sexist comment. Am I fairly summarizing your argument?

The reason I don't see it as "obvious sexism" is because it is a morally neutral inference. Making the extra leap -- therefore women don't belong and should just do something else -- that would be sexist. But that is neither said nor implied in the memo. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I'll present this analogy for your consideration. Suppose there were two categories of people -- X and Y -- that make up a basketball league. It turns out that there are more Y people than X people in the league even though the overall population of X and Y people is the same, and we are left scratching our heads as to why that might be. Someone looks at the larger populations of Y and X people and finds that Y people are on average 3 inches taller than X people. She thinks to herself: "Hmmm ... Y people tend to be taller than X people. Being tall is useful in playing basketball. Maybe that's a partial explanation for why there are more Y people than X people in the league?" Now, would you say that line of reasoning is offensive to X people, or is it a morally neutral conjecture? Perhaps you reject the premise that being tall is more useful at playing basketball, all else being equal, and the argument fails on that level. Again, even in that case, is it a case where the argument was just bad because of a faulty premise, or is it the case that the person making the argument is morally wrong? To me, it is quite clear that the argument remains morally neutral, even if the premise is deemed incorrect.

I will quote a line from Steven Pinker which I think offers good food for thought:

“Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.” (Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature)

You are effectively charging sexism here because someone is suggesting that men and women, as groups, may not be perfectly interchangeable at his company. But such a claim is a morally neutral empirical position. It may or may not be true, depending on facts of nature, but the claim has no connection whatever to equality or moral justice. The truly important moral principle when it comes to equality, which as I have pointed out the author of the memo recognized multiple times, is that "individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group."

With all the above said, maybe this is what you're really driving at. While the claim itself is morally neutral, the act of issuing such a claim in a space where others who are imperfectly rational may see it can potentially cause distress and emotional harm. That is always a risk one takes when dealing with actual human beings (though it is much less of a risk with some than others ).

On that basis, one could argue that the person should self-censor himself, even if the content of what he wants to say is completely morally neutral, for the emotional health of his work colleagues around him. At that point, it really just boils down to what we value more -- (1) giving individuals the freedom to express their minds when there is nothing inherently morally wrong in what they're saying, or (2) protecting the feeling of those around them to ensure a "safe workspace". In this case, I side with (1); perhaps you side with (2). If, in the end, you accept my preceding arguments but this is where we part ways, then I think we've taken this discussion as far as it needs to go and I'll be happy to end it with "Agree to Disagree!"

 

I can point you towards a large number of intelligent, thoughtful commentators who do not fit the bill of "angry white men" and who have defended the right of this person to share his document (however they may feel about the overall content) and defended portions of the document against the wild misrepresentations that have circulated in the media (especially in the immediate aftermath of it going viral).

You mistake self-righteous outrage at the expense of seriously engaging and (if you wish) dismantling the arguments put forward by the other side as a virtue. It is neither a virtue nor pragmatic if you actually care about effectively defending women's role in the workplace. It contributes to the divide in our society. You are, to put it simply, part of the problem of why Trump 2016 happened. So, you know, thanks for that.

 

Since you didn't respond to it in the prior post, can we agree on the following?

“Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.” (Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature)

It's not clear to me if you reject the above as a basic moral principle, or if you accept it but don't feel that it applies in this case.

The second half of your sentence -- the implication is that men are "superior" -- is really puzzling to me. "Superior" at what? If the argument is that men and women have different abilities/preferences, on average, and somehow this leads men on agerage to be more successful at some things and women on average to be more successful at other things -- how do you finally arrive at a blanket conclusion of "men are superior"?

Example: there was this interesting study published earlier this year that Medicare patients of female physicians have lower mortality rates compared to Medicare patients of male physicians. In sum, female doctors tended to follow a more by-the-book, evidence-based approach to health-care and that had a statistically-significant positive outcome on their patient's mortality rate. Perhaps there is some underlying average differences between men and women that would lead women, on average, to be more cautious and responsible when they have another person in their care that plays a role here? I don't know. Would putting that forward as a possible explanation be sexist? In my view, no. Would that mean a female doctor is superior to a male doctor? That would be an irresponsible conclusion for anyone to draw.

Is there a study that shows increased height provides an advantage in basketball all else being equal, or do you simply take it for granted that this must be true based on your understanding of the sport? I haven't seen any such study, and I suppose you haven't either -- so I'm guessing it is the latter. A person who knows little to nothing about basketball might object because it isn't so obvious to him that height matters. He might think you are being bigoted against people who may be naturally shorter. He might demand a full, peer-reviewed study to establish that height actually matters in basketball. What would be your response to such a person?

I hope it is clear that a study should not be necessary if there is a rational argument for why certain biological predispositions that one sex may have relative to the other, on average, would be advantageous in a computer programming field. Well, let's see. One piece of evidence he cited on males tending to be more interested in "things" while females tend to be more interested in "people" is pretty robust and well accepted. For someone who is a programmer (I am one, FYI), it is rather obvious how such a disposition would make it more likely for someone to want to get into programming, all else being equal. And that's not even mentioning all the other "nurture" pressures that tend to encourage young boys more into getting interested in machines/computers compared to young girls (whether you think that is "fair" or not is beside the point -- they exist today whether we like it or not). This is all quite obvious to me, so just as I don't see any moral issue in saying how increased average height plays a factor in the disparity of peoples X and Y in the hypothetical basketball league, I don't see it as a moral problem here either with regards to men and women and getting into computer programming. It doesn't mean men are "superior" (whatever that means), or that a woman who likes programming can't be every bit as good at it as a man.

More evidence, based on cross-cultural studies, is summarized here. One of the striking findings is that in countries with higher gender equality ratings, there is actually a larger disparity in the representation in STEM fields:

 

OK. I'll respond to some of what she said. Here she sums up her issue with the memo:

She talks about how she "feels" about the memo -- that it was an attack on her personally and to women collectively. I understand having such a "feeling", but I don't see justification in firing him on this basis because the document emphasized quite clearly that whatever general claims on population averages he was making said nothing about individuals and between men and women there is a lot of overlap. Her "feeling" glosses over this crucial part of the document. That's the problem with reacting via "feelings". It is not a rational. When demanding that someone else loses their job, the argument needs to be rational.

She says that his claim was "baseless". But I will insist, irrespective of her feelings, that there is supporting evidence for his claims. There is also supporting evidence to counter his claims. The fact of the matter is this is an area of research where experts disagree, but there are many who generally agree with his claims. My position is that you don't fire someone who is making empirical claims just because you disagree on the science, when there are legitimate experts in the area who support both sides.

I'll turn to a few other things she said:

I have a very different understanding on what "open culture of debate" means. I would like to think that's true, but his firing on (IMO) clearly illegitimate grounds says otherwise.

It's not merely possible. It is true, as we've since learned, and which she should know. On the flip side, would anyone have any fear about making an opposing argument that all disparities in the workforce are necessarily a result of gender discrimination/bias?

I agree with some of this -- he could have been smarter in how he shared his opinions/beliefs. She says the reason he got fired was because he chose to share his opinion in a "disrespectful" manner.

There needs to be a clearly defined threshold for when alleged "disrespect" becomes a fireable offense. Why would any conservative feel safe to voice their opinion, when invariably you have people on the left that believe core conservative principles are inherently disrespectful? On politically charged topics like diversity in the workplace, it is all to easy for one side to feel disrespected by the core beliefs of the other (e.g. many conservatives feel it is disrespectful to presume they discriminate against others based on their sex/race).

Another thing -- in this case, it is clear that he was not intending for his memo to be taken as disrespectful, given his continual emphasis of the fact that what he is talking about is averages which should not be used to pass judgment on individuals, his acknowledgment that gender bias does exist and diversity is a good thing (just going about it wrong), etc. It is not right, in my view, to claim someone else is being disrespectful and fire them over it, when they clearly made an attempt (even if you deem it a poor one) to be conciliatory and point out areas of agreement.

"They're all valid" ... just "need to do it in a respectful way". See above.

She misstates his argument, which is that biology may explain some the differences. Asserting that there is no significant evidence to back that up in the social sciences field is just ignoring (or being ignorant of) the evidence that is there. Again, people are allowed to disagree on the strength of the evidence -- which scientists do in this case. Just because you've taken a side, you can't fire someone else who has taken the other side. This flies in the face of her supposed support for "open culture of debate".

 

Which claim?

 

I would like to see male/female disparity throughout the world, across different STEM fields. I suspect there will be some interesting patterns that emerge.