The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by kenjackson on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @12:42PM (#14971019)

I don't work at Google so its hard for me to say what the environment is like. That said, I would not have published this memo, had I believed the content, on a public work forum. In general I avoid any sorts of things like that on protected classes at work.

I would be open to going directly to HR to discuss it. I, for example, have done this to discuss team vs individual compensation at my job. While not the hot topic that this was, HR was super responsive.

In general, I think before you try to present on a public work forum one side of an argument about some biological subclass and their on average work ability/habits -- I'd think twice. Even with the absolute best intentions you can really isolate and offend people. And when this subclass is already a minority and less powerful, the effect can be compounded (at the end of the day, even the affirmative action programs are designed and implemented largely by white men).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by depressedpanda on Friday August 11, 2017 @04:01PM (#14993596)

Damore wanted to discuss a topic, and was fired after a vocal subclass reacted emotionally and called for his dismissal.

I think you might be wrong regarding which subclass is more powerful. It certainly wasn't Damore's.

The subclasses I refer to are not based on gender, but on opinion. If diversity based on superficial attributes is so important, why isn't diversity of opinion?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by kenjackson on Saturday August 12, 2017 @12:08AM (#14996413)

Diversity of perspective is important, but not of opinion. You want to build strong opinions using many different perspectives. Random opinions are not interesting nor useful.

Should Google start hiring more flat Earthers too?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by depressedpanda on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:17AM (#15007433)

If they are good at their job, sure, why not? Ironically, I doubt anybody would have been fired had they argued that the Earth is flat.

Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the distinction between perspective and opinion. Regardless of whether you think Damore presented opinion or perspective, it surely wasn't random.

To reiterate my previous point: considering how things played out, it's obvious that the subclass that you called 'less powerful' is actually quite powerful.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by humanrebar on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @12:47PM (#14971063)

Right, but if you were a boss and a member of your team published it, would you fire him? Why or why not?

I don't find rehashing the wisdom of his decision to speak his mind as important as how everyone else responds to it. That's where the real controversy is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by kuschku on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @01:34PM (#14971592)

If I already had several cases due to hiring discrimination against women breathing down my neck, and this person would at the worst point in time publish an article that casts a shadow over every hiring process he has ever been involved in, yes, I'd definitely fire him.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science by humanrebar on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @04:47PM (#14973432)

This person didn't publish an article, though. It was shared internally with (presumably) a receptive group of coworkers.

[ Parent | on HN ]