Comments and behaviors that make a protected class feel like that, even if made as "jokes" or "facilitators of open dialogue", are not permissible.
It's not a cut-and-dry case. I wouldn't bet on a lawsuit either way, excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.
I don't really understand this. It's not like female engineers at Google had never noticed how few of them there were until this memo was published. Obviously you're a deviation from the average in some way if you're one of a few X in a large group of mostly Y.
I might be biased since my experience with data analysis gives me an above average internalization of the concept of "in aggregate", but I disagree with this assesment. The fact is, as a matter of aggregates, by my demographics [0], I am "in aggregate", more likely to be a drug addict, rapist, misogynist, and terrorist. There are some people who do hold these aggregate statistics against me personally, but they are very rare (or at least, avoid the circles where they will see me); and I would not suggest that any who observes or discusses these aggregate traits holds them against me personally.
The beginning of the memo spends a paragraph (and illustrative diagram, which was removed from in the original article) making this exact distinction.
>excepting the fact that Google's lawyers are probably the better lawyers in a legal tussle.
Google's lawyer's are probably also willing to settle out of court. I doubt there will be a trial unless he want "unreasonable" compensation, or to make a political point.
[0] Based on my current understanding; I have not verified any of these beliefs.
That memo very intentionally dove into issues of identity within certain subgroups. You can't expect members of those subgroups to just unemotionally detach themselves from perfunctory qualifiers. He clearly wrote that some personnel decisions were inappropriately made to those of lesser competence. If you're a women or a minority, he may have been talking about you. With a smidge of empathy - a concept he does not appreciate - you can see how that may read to someone from those groups.
Also, why you do you accuse me of taking it personally? I do not. I also would never tell anyone they should take it personally. But I can understand why they would, and we know some people have. It seems presumptuous to me that we should tell those most-implicated by this memo dealing with emotionally-charged topics directed toward subgroups they are a part of (that have historically not been treated fairly) that they shouldn't take it personally. That does not mean I think Google will prevail in a lawsuit (which probably won't happen as a settlement seems most likely) based on the publicly-available facts.
> The way to examine that possibility is to examine the process and have a discussion about what is fair and proper, not shut down the conversation and exile anyone who brings it up.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all!
> By the way this is exactly what is happening from the other side: white males are supposed to be unfairly advantaged.
That is the allegation, yes. At Google, it may be true, it may not be true. If you feel white men are disadvantaged because there are no special avenues just for them to find coaches/mentors, etc., then fine. I'd disagree that such things disadvantage white men because they don't need or benefit from those specialized avenues the way minority groups do, but that's a different debate.
If white men are in fact being held to a different standard of job performance for same roles at same levels, then yes, that's unethical and illegal. I would not and do not support that, and have personally (in my real-world job) redefined hiring criteria that did this. I have actual skin in the game here.
> I don't hear your side denouncing those sorts of arguments on the basis that it might make some of those white males feel bad to bring up the argument.
Ah, this is "my side." You've turned this into some sort of culture war. I haven't advocated for this person's firing, and I don't state that it was either the right or wrong thing to do as I'm not close enough to the situation. But because I don't immediately take up the banner for him, I'm on the "other side."
Give me a break. This isn't cut-and-dry stuff. That was my original point, and indeed my first sentence in the thread. It was not "this guy is a sexist/racist and everyone who agrees with him needs to shut up."
edit: take not volleyball, but chess. Let's take top1000 players by ELO, is it Ok to note that most are male?
What are we going to do to solve this problem? Perhaps we should encourage more women in chess and train them better from all early age.
Chess is sexist! Why do we even encourage things like chess in this enlightened age.
And only a sexist person would bring up chess in this discussion. Atone!
/s
Exhibit A: top chess players.
Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
It's easy to say things are "not impossible." It's not impossible that were society restructured to systematically favor the current (vs. innate, whether ostensible or in fact) female gender roles that women would significantly outperform men on more mental tasks than they do today. No, it's not impossible. It is highly speculative based on many assumed truths.
In truth, I don't have an issue with the belief or implication that women and men think differently. I do take issue that one is superior to the other based on present-day conditions. Men used to be better doctors. Men used to be better dentists. Men used to be better lots of things, when you took a snapshot in time. But, as barriers to entry were removed, and the gender balance began to change, and more women were participating in developing the next generation, and shaping the roles they were now participating in, the innate capability gap seemed to disappear. That may not be a phenomenon that repeats itself in every occupation, but I don't think we can say that about technology yet.
What I'm not saying: men and women are innately equal at everything. What I am saying: relying on the analogy of physical tasks implies females are the disadvantaged group, where there is much more cultural noise that works to favor men on many sets of criteria.
> Exhibit A: top chess players.
There's no historical context to the game of chess that has traditionally favored men over women? This male-dominated mind game, taught by men, in ways that were honed around how men learn, in an environment that men were always welcome in, somehow has better results for men? Am I off-base here? I don't know the history of chess.
> Exhibit B: it is known that gender gap in tech is _higher_ in more advanced and liberal countries (i.e. it is higher in Sweden than in Thailand)
If you've got a reference for me I'd read it. I can't honestly react to this known fact without seeing the research behind it. I'm dubious that enough of the surround contextual variables were controlled for (e.g., size and maturity of the tech industry, workforce participation of the genders, etc.).
See, maybe there was. But you're claiming that this historic context is the sole explanation for all observable difference. This claim is non-falsifiable, so there's nothing to discuss - you will always claim more reasons which are impossible to (dis)prove. But real people have their lives ruined for even suggesting otherwise.
>> s females are the disadvantaged group,
Look. Females are disadvantaged in volleyball, right? Why can't they be disadvantaged in something else (and advantaged in something else still)? And do you realise that this does not say anything about specific individuals? Like, even if you know this 6'3" girl, women are still shorter on average. Before you say "how can you conflate physical and mental" - well, everything is physical, your engineering performance is the neurons doing their chemical jobs.
My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women. And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this.
You might want to read http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... for more at-depth discussion
I'm not claiming that, I don't know! And neither do any of us, at least presently. That is my point. We're effectively as far from falsifiability with my statement as yours. We don't know to what extent that systemic history exerts an effect, and to what extent it doesn't. Maybe given an equal history, women would be better! Or they'd still be worse.
> My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women.
Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that given an equal history where women were the advantaged gender, a women would be here arguing the same thing in the opposite direction.
We can argue a million things are possible, to what end? When it's all just speculation, the argument feels more like a philosophical exercise that challenges the fitness of one subgroup more-so than it an honest engagement of a meaty topic (fairly or unfairly). That's because it seems to normalize the idea of genetic mental weakness, even with acknowledging the lack of proof. And while it doesn't speak to any one individual, it can serve to create a perception that individuals from those groups are less capable as an a priori assumption. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, but it does make it challenging to do so, and people have their guard up for totally understandable and contextually-appropriate reasons.
> And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this.
I agree with that.
I have a hard time understanding how one could come to such a conclusion.
(In the following, "P(X|Y)" should understood as "the probability of X given Y")
Starting with probabilities: P(capable|your-gender-race-etc) != P(capable|you-being-you)
If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? Would it not be irrational to expect anything else (unless, I suppose, you have little faith in said hiring process)?
Strangely, there are people who respond the way you suggest:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employe...
In the video embedded in the article above, the Executive Editor of Recode responds with "I don't know about you, but I ate stress for breakfast and I like my big title at Recode." She and the news anchor then sarcastically tease each other for not being cut out for their jobs, as if anyone made a personal claim to that effect.
But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. What the author of the memo did express, however, was that he believed in the possibility of biological differences resulting in the distributions of capability of each gender being offset by some amount -- there's even a graphic of two normal distributions slightly offset right within the memo to help illustrate this point.
I won't go into any argument for or against this belief, as that's a deviation from the topic that you first rose. However, I will address the implications of this belief: suppose for the sake of argument that we, too, share this belief. What does this say about any given female colleague? At worst, we could say she might be one of a minority of women who share in both an interest in and ability to write software. However, this shouldn't evoke any ill feelings, as not only is the probability at hand just a number, it's also a number which does not apply to her as an individual: we have from observation (e.g. passing the interview, acing performance reviews, 1-on-1 experience, etc) that the probability of her being a solid engineer is 100%; that is, the probability of any one random woman possessing both the interest and aptitude in software development is irrelevant, and conflating that general probability with the conditional probability of your colleague being fit for her job would be irrational.
Now, here's where I ask you for your help: is there some angle that I'm missing here? I will admit that I tend to be more on the reptilian side of things, insofar as it behooves me to sequester my emotions; assuming agreement with my analysis (and if not, please do point out any flaws), is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual?
The one thing I might understand (even if I can't empathize with it) is the tendency for many to equate oneself with their "group", such that an expression that can be taken to be a slight against a group resembling themselves is taken as a personal attack. While I find it hard to imagine, I suppose what could be happening in such scenarios is that many people feel targeted merely by association. As a white man with an extensive background in dance, I suppose this could be like being offended by tropes like "most white men have no rhythm" -- for me, I'm not "most white men", I'm Charles Strahan: I've won two state German folk dancing competitions, I led the Latin dance club in my high school days, and I generally (I think) don't suck at dancing; I couldn't give a single fuck what someone says about "most white men", or "most blue eyed people", or whatever -- it doesn't apply to me. To broaden the scope a bit, the same goes for insults like "most men who dance are <insert inflammatory remark regarding masculinity>". Is this what I'm missing, or something else entirely?
> If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background?
You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions.
The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. When you combine the author's belief that certain sub-groups lack aptitude in general, and then challenge the validity and fairness of hiring/selection procedures, then you've effectively challenged the legitimacy of every diversity incumbent. Every single one. Or, it could be argued. I could also argue the opposite if I had to.
> is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual?
I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions. Further, when you're a part of a group that has historically been treated a certain way based on your association with that group (by choice or not), it is reflexively natural to view comments like the memo as having personal meaning. Finally, given the rest of the content of the memo, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that many of those remarks might indeed have bearing on an individual.
Just to be clear to anyone stumbling along this: I don't necessarily agree with what the author of the memo wrote, and I think he should have anticipated backlash and hurt feelings that resulted; however, I am interested in sussing out what he wrote and what he meant by what he wrote, as there seems to be quite a difference in interpretation among those who have read it. I raise these questions because I want to better understand the position of those who believe what he wrote was intended to be anti-diversity and/or supremacist, and I want to challenge my own comprehension and interpretation of what he wrote, and what it entails.
Also, I don't know how Google HR conducts their business, and I presume we're all expressing our views under the premise (that is, something taken to be true for the sake of argument, regardless of whether we otherwise believe it to be true or false) that his remarks regarding discriminatory practices reflect what he knows to be true of the hiring and retention policies, unless someone explicitly states that they reject the premise as absurd (which, I should note, has not yet been communicated here or elsewhere). This leaves for discussion whether his conclusion follows from his premise.
However, as stated earlier, I have no interest in arguing for or against the validity of his argument: I merely want to better understand what his argument is in the first place, and why we all seem to have come to a different understanding thereof.
> The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset.
Definitely. That's mostly me trying to understand post hoc why I'm not perturbed by analogous situations which do apparently offend others, with the presumption that my brain meat subconsciously works through the logic in a similar way and subsequently dismisses any emotional reaction. My thinking was that I might learn something by seeing how the other side of the coin views their internal workings; not that I could ask people to change the way they feel a given a particular stimulus.
> You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
From my interpretation of what the author wrote (I quote: "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."), it was my impression that he was explicitly addressing discrimination against the majority in favor of the minorities in the context of interviewing and performance review. If anyone felt subject to tokenism, I would think that would be a direct result of the (supposed, explicit) discriminatory policy (paraphrasing from the memo: pass on candidates from the majority, and in groups of similarly underperforming individuals, keep the minorities while firing those from the majority), not those who speak out against it and the implications thereof. Similarly, if I ever came to work for a place that, as it would later be revealed, was headed by a closeted white racist, I would feel like my being hired there was cheapened by the fact that I had been given preference over my non-white peers, just because I was born into this world with white skin; I wouldn't attribute my upset to the journalist who broke the story and pointed out, rightfully so, that this (hypothetical) employer gave me and the rest of the all white staff an advantage.
This is corroborated by accounts told by friends and others online, wherein they felt patronized when they discovered that -- say, the conference that invited them, or the employer that hired them -- might have done so due to their policy of imposing a strict representation quota (which was discovered not from hearsay and/or conjecture by a third party, but communicated directly to them by the organizers/hiring manager); their experience was spoiled because they felt reduced to their gender or skin color, rather than being there because they're acknowledged and respected as experts in their field (which they are).
With this topic being such a volatile one, I feel like I need to clarify: discriminatory hiring (and retention) practices and offering a leg up to the disenfranchised (say, by providing training, financial aid and any other supportive resources) are two totally different things, and its my understanding that the author was talking about the former. As just one example of the latter, seeing services like free daycare at tech conferences is incredibly refreshing, and I think that's just one small step among many, many more that should be taken to make tech more accessible.
Does my interpretation of the memo differ from yours in this respect? And, assuming a policy that, in writing, explicitly sets forth to give preferential treatment to those of a particular gender or ethnic background, wouldn't it:
1) be a logical (though certainly upsetting) inference from the policy alone that "if my gender/ethnicity matches what they're seeking, I might not have been hired solely due to my (perceived and/or real) fitness for the role"
2) and if so, wouldn't that inference be a fault of the policy makers, and not the person pointing out it out?
I should note that all of this is taking as a premise -- solely for taking the memo at its word so we may discuss its content and the implications thereof -- that Google has such a policy (I don't personally have a belief either way as I haven't seen their policies, but I don't dismiss this possibility because I do know hiring managers at other companies that have been in the position of outright rejecting non-minorities to meet hard quotas, strictly in accordance with company policy). What I don't hear is anyone suggesting that they take exception to the claim that Google has such a policy, and that the author is instead trying to put forward a damaging inference that isn't grounded in the letter of their hiring practices; if we take this alternative view as a premise instead, I would completely understand: it would be a dick move to imply that anyone was hired by their employer beyond reasons of fitness when the employer has no (known, explicit) policy for doing so. If this is key to why people are upset, though, no one is communicating it. If one disagrees with an argument because they believe it takes a falsehood as a premise (i.e. Google's supposed hiring policy), they must explicitly say so, otherwise people (like myself) will be confused at how we came to a different conclusion solely based on the rules of inference, and no constructive exchange of views can occur.
> The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. [...]
This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates", should we then fault the memo author for pointing out the demeaning, demoralizing consequences that you subsequently list, or the people responsible for patronizingly lowering the bar with respect to hiring and retention (again, this is a separate issue from providing assistance to the disenfranchised, as the latter implies nothing about the ability of the recipient of such assistance)? Or have I somehow got that backward: that setting lower expectations of performance isn't in itself demeaning, while suggesting that's the case is demeaning?
Now, if you're suggesting that you believe that the author is ascribing something to Google's hiring policies that isn't explicitly there, in ink, then I completely agree: that would be a seriously shitty thing to suggest that people are there just because they've had the bar lowered for them. That would be a deplorable notion to spread around. To say the least, I would be appalled if I ever heard a coworker suggest "Oh, Dan? Yeah, he's just here because of the color of his skin. Susan? She's just here because she's a woman". I would straight up lose my shit.
I don't know if my confusion stems from a difference in the premises held, a difference in my understanding of what those premises entail, or perhaps a difference in what I thought the author was arguing as a conclusion. Whichever it may be, I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions on what I might have gotten wrong!
> I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions.
I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group, have no desire to do so, and I don't care how people acknowledge my identity (so long as their actions don't impede my pursuits; otherwise, let them think and say what they may). I totally get that other people are different, though, and out of respect, I try my best to acknowledge and respect their identity in accordance with their desires.
Thanks again for your input! And sorry for the lengthy response. This stuff is subtle, and with it being an emotionally charged topic, I feel a certain level of care must be taken in fear of accidentally being taken the wrong way, and/or offending many people -- neither of which I want to have happen.
> This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates",
There is a near-0% chance that this is the case, because this is illegal (to say nothing of unethical). Outside of a +1 tiebreaker when all else is equal between two candidates, no HR/Legal team worth their salt would ever create or promote such practice.
> I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group
I think that's easiest to say when you're a majority group member, because your group feels "default" of sorts. There's research behind this, but it's not my area of expertise. When you're a part of a smaller group, one that has a history of being treated negatively based on observable (vs. internal) characteristics, it's quite a bit different.
I see. I suspect many are taking that improbability as a given, and because it's so seemingly obvious, they don't feel the need to point it out.
On the other hand, many others don't take it as granted that people (or worse, organizations) will follow the law and/or generally do the right thing. For example, assault and murder are illegal, which, if the law were to be followed, should prevent gun violence, and yet many want to tighten access to guns. Additionally, people often (in absolute terms, if not relative) do accidentally discharge guns -- whether out of momentary carelessness or general incompetence -- and in such cases homicide laws are of little utility (laws generally work by dissuading conscious intent, rather than making people hyper alert to precarious scenarios). Fraud is illegal, and yet we had the big Enron scandal in the early 2000s, which then led to yet more legislature (Sarbanes–Oxley). Sexual assault is a thing, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss any accusation as unlikely just because it's unethical and illegal.
I can see the sense in suspecting the odds of such discrimination is low, but I personally feel (as I suspect many others do) that the odds aren't negligible. Laws are broken all the time -- sometimes that's because the perpetrator thinks they're being righteous, sometimes because they're unaware, and sometimes because they see personal gain in breaking the law.
> I think that's easiest to say when you're a majority group member, because your group feels "default" of sorts. There's research behind this, but it's not my area of expertise. When you're a part of a smaller group, one that has a history of being treated negatively based on observable (vs. internal) characteristics, it's quite a bit different.
I can see that my own privilege might shape my perceptions in this regard -- thanks for pointing that out.
1. Giving multiple attempts at interviewing.
2. Once an interview is passed, a connection to a manager is ensured. (Supposedly, you can pass an interview but never get matched up with a manager to work under, in which case you won't actually have a job there)
It would seem there are three possibilities (though I'm open to alternative interpretations):
1. Damore is lying (or at best, misinformed)
2. Damore is telling the truth, but such discrimination is deemed ethical
3. Damore is telling the truth, and such discrimination is deemed unethical (and arguably illegal)
If what he says is true, I imagine there would be great outcry if the discrimination was instead in favor of white men, and so it would seem that leaves us with either possibility 1 or 3.
... unless one supposes that, for any unethical discriminatory act, there exists some sort of "counter-discriminatory" act that is then both ethical and somehow no longer discriminatory (a necessary condition for being both ethical and legal in business), despite clearly meeting the definition of the word "discriminatory". As is probably apparent, this strikes me as absurd. However, if one finds error in this reasoning, I'm certainly open to an explanation of what I'm missing.
He explicitly states that the overall trends contribute to the resulting distributions (eg. overall trend where men are more interested in tech-type things leads to resulting distribution where more men than women work in tech) but that this should not be misinterpreted as having any relevance to any given individual.
So if you're a woman working with or for this person, whose reading comprehension is roughly equivalent with that of your peers (and I'd expect no less at a company like Google), you would know that he explicitly does not view you as any less "fit" or capable, and so would not feel victimized or targeted in any way.
But his employment is at will, Google can terminate contract any time, and it is not Google who caused that damage, but news outlets and information leakers, who distributed these information..
[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms.
Computer programmers often make the mistake of treating other humans like cold, calculating machines. But they're not. They have emotions. Emotions, and past experiences, and history. And, unless you're in the extreme Asperger's spectrum of being unable to deal with other human beings, you should know, by age 15 or so, that there are certain subjects that are sensitive and that a company environment is not the place for them.
To help other potential programmers from destroying their careers, I'll post a short list of risky topics here:
* Politics * Race * The Holocaust * Sex
Any one of those could land you in hot water for creating a hostile work environment.
Nobody cares if you have scientific evidence that Jews make for inferior doctors, you don't post a memo claiming that in the company you work at. You just don't. Because you're working with other humans, not with machines, and you have to be smart enough to know what's acceptable office talk and what's acceptable poker night talk.
This Google Engineer is an idiot. I don't care whether he can "out-prgoram" me and code a complete OS in 2 hours. He's still an idiot. And deserves to be fired, because Google doesn't want to employ idiots.
It's okay to express an opinion that is targeting a group of people (conservatives/Republicans/Trump supporters/etc.) if you belong to the right ideological group (progressives).
Don't think for an instance that this is the first case of controversial content posted internally. It happened all the time when I worked there, just that the group getting targeted wasn't in the majority in the social dominance and power hierarchy.
If I say something like that, I will (rightly) become a social pariah immediately and nobody would want to be around me.
Same thing with that guy. Yeah, you can joke about Trump, and you can joke about Hillary's emails, but saying that women are inferior due to biology makes you an unpleasant human being to be around and I don't want to be in the same room as you, much less on the same team or the same company as you.
If they hadn't fired his dumb ass, it would have sent a very bad message to all of Google's women employees.
There was more than just "joking." There was a hostile atmosphere for a lot of my peers who voted for Trump, akin to how women might have felt after this latest memo. The thing was, that it was perfectly "acceptable" (within the larger "Google culture") to create an environment hostile towards conservatives, with no Management backlash (probably because a lot of them felt the same way). The point was they didn't find that kind of "harassment" towards conservative employees problematic at all.