Can someone tell the crux of it?
Details is that the reason was bad "satisfaction score" but other people who were not fired had much lower scores.
We'll see how it goes.
I can't seem to copy paste from scribd, so from Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/google-su...
"""
The critics of Google’s effort to promote workforce diversity now include one of its own former recruiters, who claims in a lawsuit he was fired because he didn’t toe the line on rejecting white and Asian male job candidates.
The Alphabet Inc. unit had “irrefutable policies, memorialized in writing and consistently implemented in practice, of systematically discriminating in favor job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men,” according to the complaint filed in state court in Redwood City, California.
"""
I think the issue wasn't so much the discrimination but the retaliation when it was brought into question.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/03/01/google-a...
I agree, the history is quite fascinating. We've got white men who come from a culture that for centuries had an explicit pro-white and more specifically pro-WASP bias.
Part of the bias was to prevent Asians from immigrating to the US. This only changed in the 1960s when the National Origins Formula was abolished. The new policy allowed for skilled people, and people with family ties to the US (including war brides) to come in.
As a result, many of the new Asian immigrants came in with an education and skills. Many of them also come from a tradition with an emphasis on education.
In this way it's similar to the quotas that many colleges used to have on admitting Jewish students, many of whom come from a culture that emphasizes education. The idea of a "well-rounded student" and the SAT were put into place to bias the selection process towards educated WASPs, who could afford the prep schools the included topics like Latin and sports.
Now, I have to say "many" because "Asian" is more a term of geography than of culture. There are many different cultures in Asia. The Hmong people, for example, have a very different history in the US than the Japanese people. Many of the Hmong were poor hill farmers or war refugees with very little education, and in the US they have a high dropout rate and low levels of college completion. A policy which promotes cultural diverse representation but which rejects a Hmong man as being "Asian" because there are too many Chinese applicants suffers from its own sorts of built-in American prejudice of what culture means.
I also find it fascinating how women and Native Americans are also placed in the same bucket, to use your term.
The American interpretation of “diversity” considers a Ukranian immigrant and an upper-class WASP part of the same “privileged” cohort.
I think you have over-simplified the issue such that the result doesn't give a useful understanding of what's going on in the US.
There are far more than two cohorts, and there are multiple levels of privilege, not all of which are hierarchically arranged.
No long-time Bostonian is going to place Boston a blue blood (an example of an upper-class WASP) in the same cohort as a Ukrainian immigrant.
In a test for "is there hiring discrimination on the basis of skin color?" then certainly a Ukrainian immigrant and upper-class WASP would be categorized together ... in the current US context. (I say "current US context" because Finns were once considered non-white because of a presumed Mongolian heritage; Italians and Greeks of course were also considered not-white, even though most now consider them "white".)
But the US also makes it illegal to discriminate based on religion (a majority of Ukrainians are Orthodox) and national origin. For that they would be in different cohorts.
Certainly some Americans might only use a single, simple ranking system where all white men are put together. This lawsuit alleges just such an example.
But it is not the general American interpretation of diversity.
Note also that the alleged focus on "Women, Blacks, and LatinX" does not even consider that Native Americans might apply, so it sounds like this is a rather naive policy to start with.
Also, this lawsuit says nothing about the Google hiring practices involving non-Americans. It may be that a Ukrainian immigrant might have faced different obstacles than an American-born applicant with Ukrainian-born parents.
What I think you're seeing is that race and gender (however constructed) have been the most significant forms of discrimination in the US -- and of course in other countries as well. So those are the ones which are talked about the most.
I don't know what actually happened.