"Some takeaways from this whole fiasco"
"Here are some of those politically correct assertions that take on almost religious-like qualities..."
And thus appear to be completely linked to the topic of the Google "fiasco". Very confusing way to present the article if they are not relevant.
College is a very different place than a workplace. I am not required to interact with anyone on my college campus. Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes.
The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what?
I only read the first part - and I'm no expert on these topics but I haven't experienced any exceptionalism within this profession as a woman. To the contrary, my code is out there in the open ready for scrutiny all the time. I truly believe this is a meritocratic profession. My understanding is that companies aim to hire equally qualified workers from more backgrounds of diversity. Even better, they have an economic incentive to do so.
Many of the time the people writing these things are looking for something to complain about. I haven't worked at Google but I haven't experienced this to be imbalanced in the way it's being portrayed.
I guess you can say the memo was put out there, and a discussion was had.
> Additionally, a workplace works best without the friction of being a place for the discussion of politics or controversial topics. Let alone "innocuous" jokes.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I prefer workplaces, or any environment for that matter, where we all respect each other enough to be open to the discussion of any topic and not easily offended over stupid meaningless jokes. That does not mean that one has to share their political beliefs or be pestered to engage in controversial debate - but a culture where everyone has to watch out for every little thing they say because any non-PC mark could be misconstrued and used as grounds for firing simply because someone deemed it offensive is intellectually hostile, unhealthy, and not the type of environment I want to be in.
> The author is upset that he is not greeted with hugs and applause for his memo. So what?
That's not why the author is upset. The author got fired.
The author was probably fired for going through the wrong channel to voice this. Now not only has he attacked his company but he also alienated his female coworkers who may feel he finds them potentially undeserving of their jobs or in excess supply, as implied by the article.
Sounds wonderful for the work environment, no? At the end of the day, Google is a company out to make money and build good culture in their company.
I respect your desire to surround yourself by those who aren't easily offended or too PC and I trust you will find many friends like that. However, that isn't really appropriate for the workplace where it's not your right to be treated well for any behavior.
Its an interesting topic to discuss but personally I think progress is with diversity. Not just for society but it benefits companies as well. I think they are seeing that and ultimately they are allowed to do what they wish.
If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself.
I'm a huge proponent of diversity in the sense of embracing people with different perspectives and ideas. Deciding that you need X% of females and Y% of colored people does not make you a proponent of diversity, except in the shallow sense of wanting some set of racial representation. The strongest advocates of this form of racial diversity in my experience tend to actually be the most hostile towards diversity of opinions - like all the people deeming this memo sexist who fail to bring up any coherent argument backing up their claims (since most of them never read the document).
And one of the points of the memo was that we need to de-moralize diversity and allow people to have an honest discussion over it (which he ironically got fired over).
Diversity of thought > Diversity of appearance
Where Google drew this line was firing someone for implying some people were undeserving of their jobs due to the biological argument. This declaration breeds hostility and is an outright attack on the qualifications of his coworkers.
As far as I know, affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants. I agree with this and think it's great companies can make their own decisions.
I've applied to jobs for startups where I would have been the only woman on the small team and bro culture was strong. I don't fault them but I declined those positions. I've gravitated toward companies like Google and their diversity policies have attracted talent like me. Companies do this in their own self interest.
I just want to clarify I'm not at all offended that the memo writer wrote what he did. I would feel offended if someone I worked with felt like there were too many woman in their office while there were only 5% and I felt that they were all qualified.
Even measuring qualification is tricky as unless you are someone's manager. More often than not, I've witnessed men make poor assumptions unaware of their own prejudices. For example, I got accepted to a very good college. I was surprised as to how many men thought it was only because I was a woman. However I knew for a fact I got better grades than them. I simply didn't advertise mine.
The author did not state or imply that his co-workers were undeserving of their jobs. He was simply stating that biological differences may influence one's career ambitions.
For example: Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men.
This statement does not imply that men shouldn't pursue psychiatry, just that they're probably less likely to do so. I don't see how that statement is sexist.
> affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants
I'm not sure what the difference there is. Google calls itself an "affirmative action employer", and thus likely engages in the same kind of affirmative action that colleges do.
It's unfortunate that you've been the brunt of such prejudices. But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist.
A better and more fair way of promoting diversity is to keep the interview process strictly meritocratic and gender/race-blind, but engage in initiatives that help prepare underrepresented minorities (ideally from low income backgrounds) for the interview process and encourage them to apply. My one stipulation would be that these programs should be open to anyone, rather than being restricted by race/gender.
Where exactly do you draw that line? As some thoughts are felt as hostile/ insulting to other people and enter grey territory. You can't really obligate people to be open to all thoughts - good luck with that.
What does that look like anyway within a workplace? If such a memo was sent out in my workplace and I had a slew of different thoughts on the topic, would I be allowed to spend work time to pitch my ideas to my coworkers and discuss them to my hearts content or simply send out a memo of my own? And then where does it end?
"Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men."
While that may be true statistically it's impossible to prove woman choose psychiatry because they're empathetic rather a myriad of other complex reasons. I can tell you as a woman, I don't think Biology plays a large part at all.
"But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist."
Affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and balance out the effect of existing prejudices and biases when interviewing etc. So the real question is do you think those prejudices exist and can be alleviated by affirmative action? I do and talking with the woman of the previous generation I would say we've come a long way thanks to affirmative action.
Thanks for the discussion!
If biological reasons can determine if a person is fit for a particular job, let us start deciding the traits of people based on the gender, race and blood samples and assign jobs based on that. If you haven't, please watch the movie Gattaca.
So we should completely deny that there are differences between genders?
I strongly disagree that we should be denying reality.
My view was like yours before and the movie Gattaca was among the most important things that changed it. In short humans are far more complex and trying to say that a person may not be interested in software engineering just because the person is of specific gender is disservice to half the population and not helpful.
One time a woman working at a prominent NGO in human trafficking told me that prostitution was oppressive to the woman. I told her that although that may be the case some of the time, there are women out there doing it by choice. She got really angry at me and went on an emotional tirade.
It's definitely one of those "touchy" PC subjects where honest debate is difficult without being shamed and called "sexist".
The Google memo was pertaining to their own company's diversity policy, and hence should be fair game for discussion. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, then the Obama quote at the bottom of the article summarizes my thoughts.