Well, the CA Democratic Party's official position is that you should have supported Prop 16, which would have unbanned race based affirmative action (racism) [1].
> Sure, yes, this is fine.
It is not fine. Myself and many others reject this sort of practice. California voters rejected Prop 16 by a 15 pt margin. It is illegal under federal discrimination laws to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. It is racism, plain and simple. Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral. Pretending you are morally superior by discriminating against minorities through affirmative action is just as bad as white supremacy.
This sort of "it's fine" attitude is why Trump got elected. And before you accuse me of being a white cis-male, I'm not white.
> You should really read those links better
> Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though.
I quote from the article: "Managers had dipped into the discretionary funds more often for women engineers, creating a pay gap for men in the same job category". This is literally the sort of DEI affirmative action sexism I was mentioning. You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against because women being underpaid fits your political narrative better. One of these things is a direct result of Google's internal policy to discriminate against "overrepresented" minorities like Asians and one of these things is not.
[1] https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-Propositi...
Right, so you lied when you said that they were prioritizing promoting women, which is false, and is completely unrelated to what you quoted in the article.
>You also coincidentally ignore the fact that Asians were discriminated against
No I didn't. I literally mentioned them. Me pointing out that you did entirely ignore the discrimination against women (because it does in fact completely invalidate the point you were going for) isn't ignoring Asians. Like I keep saying, its not zero sum. I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups.
> Just because you are (I presume) white and liberal and you aren't affected by such policies does not make them legal or moral.
I'm confused, so please explain it to me:
If I'm white, and these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones, how could I be unaffected?
Promotion or bonus, do the details really matter? In either case, Google's internal DEI initiatives caused managers either directly or indirectly to favor women. You can't just set diversity KPIs and expect managers to respect anti-discrimination law. Incentives matter.
> completely invalidate the point you were going for
That Asians are systemically discriminated against by affirmative action? That affirmative action is wrong and racist/sexist? That Google systemically discriminates against Asians through its DEI initiatives?
> I am capable of believing that it is possible to dsciriminate against multiple groups
Correct, it is possible for women to have been discriminated against by sexist managers and for another set of managers to have discriminated against men and Asians through DEI programs. One of these things is a program promoted by Google and one is not.
> its not zero sum
So why don't you give up your job to a female person of color then? Headcount is zero sum. If you favor specific minorities, other people get less spots. That's zero sum by definition.
> these policies favor nonwhite people over white ones
That's where you've got it wrong. Affirmative action doesn't favor nonwhites over whites, it favors specific nonwhites (mainly blacks and latinos) over Asians. If you look at the stats before and after the University of California system banned affirmative action, the proportion of whites stayed about the same [1]. That's what I mean by "you aren't affected by such policies". When you implement affirmative action, it's Asians taking the hit for your moral grandstanding. As a white person, you have no right to come and lecture us minorities about "diversity" and "equity" and "inclusion" when your own policies are racist.
[1] https://www.dailycal.org/2018/02/02/prop-209-affirmative-act...
There's a bunch of other nonsense in your post (like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent, or the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more), but like this feels extra egregious.
Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing. You'll notice also that California is aggressively trying to implement affirmative action to disadvantage Asians despite Asians being only 15% of the population in CA.
Are you claiming that affirmative action doesn't disadvantage Asians? Because that is demonstrably false, as evidenced by SFFA vs Harvard, the data out of the UC system before and after Prop 209, and comparing the racial makeup schools of similar caliber that do and do not utilize affirmative action.
> like suggesting $400 and $30,000 are equivalent
I never mentioned any numbers in my post. Please don't lie.
> the completely made up claim that managers were being encouraged to pay women more
It is a fact that Google managers used internal discretionary funds to pay women more. It is also a fact that Google managers have diversity KPIs they are encouraged to meet as part of their performance: "At Google, we measure the progress against these [DEI] goals with various metrics across hiring, progression, retention, and inclusion" [1]. I will let you come to your own conclusion as to how the latter could lead to the former.
[1] https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/future-of-marketi...
Given that I know the size of these discretionary funds, I can practically guarantee it didn't. For context, my manager recently stretched his discretion to the limit for a coworker, and was able to bend their salary by around half a percent. A few hundred dollars isn't going to retain anyone at a FAANG.
> Please read my comment again and try to comment in good faith. I never mentioned anything about affirmative action not existing.
No, but you did say it doesn't disfavor whites, it disfavors Asians. I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians.
If that was the case, then Google would not have been sued by the Department of Labor. Don't presume to understand what a manager is capable of doing when you are a mere engineer IC. The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about. Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers). A few hundred dollars is probably less than your team gets for a single social event. If retaining a woman would boost the manager's diversity KPIs, it's easy to see how the diversity KPIs would cause discriminatory retention bonuses.
> I'm asking who it disfavors when there aren't any Asians.
Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country? Even if locally there are few Asians, they are still discriminated against by affirmative action. If I'm an Asian in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky and I apply to Harvard, I still get screwed by affirmative action equally as much as the Asian applying from California.
The situation you're talking about where there are no Asians competing for a spot doesn't exist for jobs and schools with any level of selectivity.
Correct, Google was not sued by the DoL for overpaying women.
> Top performers routinely get discretionary refreshers of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of RSUs (on top of their regular annual refreshers).
Well aware ;)
> The fact that you believe the discretionary limit is a few hundred dollars indicates you don't know what you're talking about.
So what you don't appear to realize is that in the situation where Google found themselves to be overpaying women, this applied specifically to L4 SWEs, and only in regards to base salary. The difference was found to be around $400.
Just to be really, really clear here: your average L4's manager is probably an L6. There's significant restrictions on what such a manager can do with their discretionary comp, and 500-1000$ in base salary really is the upper limit for what they can do. Anything larger would require escalation to a director or a VP, and even there, the amount you can move a base salary is relatively limited.
I realize this makes the entire narrative you're pushing here fall apart, but that's the reason I think it's so important to make this clear to you. From someone who actually has knowlege of the circumstances, you're pushing a sexist conspiracy theory. Don't do that.
> Do you not realize that the <5% of Asians in your city are still applying to jobs and colleges across the country?
You're missing my point. You've claimed that white people are unaffected by AA. There's a university in Bumfuck. It has practically no Asian applicants, because the population is low. Are you claiming, categorically that every school like Bumfuck U is unable to engage in affirmative action because the don't have an Asian population to discriminate against? And if not, what group does their policy harm?
Wrong, because they paid out 9.7 million to 10k employees [1] which is more than $400. And it was not base salary, but discretionary funds. That information is straight from Google's public statement. And it was not only L4s; Google only cited L4s as being a particularly large contributor. Google also has an incentive to understate what the real damages were, since it has to pay out for discrepancies. Don't forget, Google was sued for pay fixing in a cartel with other tech companies. Please get your facts right instead of lying.
> Correct, Google was not sued by the DoL
They were sued by the DoL for underpaying women and for hiring bias against Asians. I mixed up the two cases there - but that doesn't change the conclusion.
Look, there are two groups in the DoL lawsuit: women and Asians. Women being underpaid/underhired is explained by sexism by managers. That's obviously illegal. Asians being underhired, on the other hand, is easily explained by Google's internal policy towards DEI and their DEI KPIs. That lines up with men being underpaid due to DEI policies. I might've mixed up the male underpayment survey and the lawsuit, but it doesn't change the conclusion that diversity KPIs can lead to managers illegally biasing decisions to boost their KPIs.
You literally stated yourself that it's possible for multiple instances of bias to occur at the same time. This is an obvious example of that happening.
> I realize this makes the entire narrative you're pushing here fall apart
The facts are: Google was sued for underhiring Asians. Google also found that men were underpaid due to use of discretionary funds. Google also sets diversity KPIs for their managers to meet, which affect managers' compensation. As you have stated in your comments, Google prioritizes resumes of "underrepresented" minorities. Do you really not see how these practices cause discrimination against Asians in hiring?
> every school like Bumfuck U is unable to engage in affirmative action
In these schools, affirmative action is generally not used because the school is not sufficiently selective for its use to have any impact on student demographics. My local community college accepts everyone. So yes, in practice, Bumfuck U does not use affirmative action.
I don't get why you feel the need to bring up Bumfuck U when whether a white person is affected by affirmative action for some school no one cares about doesn't matter at all. The largest damage done by affirmative action is being done at the most prestigious firms and schools. That is where it matters, and that's where white people are not disadvantaged by affirmative action's use but Asians are. Do you care if you're rejected from McDonald's because of your race? Probably not. But you do care if you're rejected from Google (as the DoL stated Asians were) or Harvard because of your race.
Do you disagree with the statement that 1) Asians competing for spots at prestigious firms and colleges are discriminated against by affirmative action and 2) white people competing for spots at prestigious firms and colleges are NOT discriminated against by affirmative action? Because that's what the statistics (SFFA v Harvard, UC system before/after Prop 209, etc.) show. And if you don't disagree with that, then you must come to the natural conclusion that affirmative action is racist against Asians and as a white person you are advocating for a policy that does not materially affect you but severely affects Asians.
As a side note, your patronizing tone and attitude towards this are not conducive towards reasonable conversation. Acting morally superior because you can advocate for a policy that doesn't harm you but gives you nice optics is textbook white privilege. Please check your privilege.
[1] https://www.blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/...
And 49% of those funds were paid out to a much smaller group of unrelated people, if you read to the next line.
> And it was not base salary, but discretionary funds. That information is straight from Google's public statement.
Yes, discretionary funds to adjust base salary.
> And it was not only L4s; Google only cited L4s as being a particularly large contributor. Google also has an incentive to understate what the real damages were, since it has to pay out for discrepancies.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that Google's DEI policies were causing managers to pay women to prevent them from leaving. I'm not the one getting confused here. Get your argument straight and stop bringing up unrelated distractions. I'll reiterate: as someone who was employed by Google in 2018 and affected by this policy, I was given a $400 raise, as were other affected swes I discussed with. It was $400. You're denial of this isn't factual. It's driven by a narrative that simply isn't there.
> Do you really not see how these practices cause discrimination against Asians in hiring?
No, I have absolutely no clue how Google underpaying men has anything to do with discriminating against Asians.
> Asians being underhired, on the other hand, is easily explained by Google's internal policy towards DEI and their DEI KPIs.
Ok so now you've changed your argument yet again.
> That lines up with men being underpaid due to DEI policies.
But contradicts women being underhired, and of course if you know anything about Google's hiring you'd know that (especially back in 2017) hiring decisions were made before a manager even knew anything about an applicant, so individual managers diversity KPI's couldn't affect the underhiring of applicants.
> You literally stated yourself that it's possible for multiple instances of bias to occur at the same time. This is an obvious example of that happening.
Sure, but the the whole conspiracy part is how this is related to diversity KPIs. In one instance you're saying that the diversity KPIs somehow resulted in women being paid more en masse (even though they were being paid less!) and in the other case they resulted in Asian men getting hired less even though it also led to women being hired less. You'd expect the impact to be like, somewhat similar in both cases, but you're arguing it had opposite effects.
> I don't get why you feel the need to bring up Bumfuck U when whether a white person is affected by affirmative action for some school no one cares about doesn't matter at all. The largest damage done by affirmative action is being done at the most prestigious firms and schools. That is where it matters, and that's where white people are not disadvantaged by affirmative action's use but Asians are. Do you care if you're rejected from McDonald's because of your race? Probably not. But you do care if you're rejected from Google (as the DoL stated Asians were) or Harvard because of your race.
It's pretty privileged (and weird!) to categorically reject the idea that people "in the middle" can lose out to even worse people from AA. Isn't that the entire way AA causes harm: by replacing some middling people from one group with ostensibly worse people from another group?
Like, do you think that someone who doesn't get into their stretch school is unaffected just because they're stretch is a state university and not Harvard? But here you're saying that actually harm only matters when it affects Asians. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it makes me question your motives.
> And if you don't disagree with that, then you must come to the natural conclusion that affirmative action is racist against Asians and as a white person you are advocating for a policy that does not materially affect you but severely affects Asians.
There are lots of policies that I advocate for against or that don't materially affect me (or even are directly adverse for me, including the one we're discussing!). We live in a society, and I try to support policies that will be good for society, not just ones that will be directly beneficial to me.
Like I said, you are arguing in bad faith and quibbling over an honest mistake when I explained to you exactly why you're wrong. I've presented the evidence and you refuse to acknowledge it, so there's no more to discuss.
> Like, do you think that someone who doesn't get into their stretch school is unaffected just because they're stretch is a state university and not Harvard
Even if the scenario you're proposing existed (the acceptance rate at these state schools is well over 50%), affirmative action still wouldn't affect white people. Whites, for example, are admitted to Harvard at around the same rate that they are to the University of Washington Tacoma [1] [2] or to SUNY Stony Brook [3]. So regardless of whether you're talking about some random state school or Harvard, and regardless of whether affirmative action is allowed (as it is at Harvard and Stony Brook) or not allowed (UW), white people are admitted at around the same rate. In fact, in some state schools in the deep South, whites make up over 60% of admitted students, despite affirmative action being allowed there. That is by definition, unaffected by affirmative action.
> We live in a society, and I try to support policies that will be good for society, not just ones that will be directly beneficial to me
Affirmative action is bad for society. It is racist and reduces the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. It violates the Civil Rights Act and will hopefully be illegal come the next SCOTUS session. It makes some white liberals such as yourself feel better about yourselves, that's it.
The fact that you believe you know what's "good for society" and no one else (especially not minorities! [4]) is exactly the sort of white supremacy that progressives nowadays embody.
[1] https://studentdata.washington.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
[2] https://blog.collegevine.com/harvard-university-diversity-st...
[3] https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/irpe/fact_book/data_and_r...
[4] https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe...
You've cherrypicked examples. Look at UNC Chapel Hill or Georgia Tech or Duke or Tulane or Emory (granted not all are State schools). These schools have acceptance rates of less than 25%, and some lower than 10% and, and relatively small Asian populations, with white populations as high as 65% and in some cases more Black than Asian students. You're claiming that none of them engage in race-aware, holistic admissions processes, despite contrary statements on all of their undergraduate admissions websites?
> In fact, in some state schools in the deep South, whites make up over 60% of admitted students, despite affirmative action being allowed there. That is by definition, unaffected by affirmative action.
Wait what? Are you claiming that being overrepresented compared to the baseline population is evidence that a group is unaffected by affirmative action? If so than Asian students, who are overrepresented compared to population percentages at every school you've mentioned, are unaffected by affirmative action.
> The fact that you believe you know what's "good for society"
I'm confused, are you saying I should support policies I think are bad for society, or are you saying that it is white supremacy for me to have opinions that differ from yours?
I see higher white populations at those schools than the ones I cited, which would support my point that affirmative action does not disadvantage whites, since all 3 schools you mentioned use affirmative action yet they have higher white populations than schools which do not use affirmative action.
> You're claiming that none of them engage in race-aware, holistic admissions processes, despite contrary statements on all of their undergraduate admissions websites?
I made no such claim. In fact, the stats you've shown would further prove my point that whites are not disadvantaged by affirmative action, and that Asians are.
> Are you claiming that being overrepresented compared to the baseline population is evidence that a group is unaffected by affirmative action
When did I say overrepresented? I merely said the percentage of whites is the same between schools which do and do not use affirmative action, in both schools which are prestigious and those which are not. You cannot say the same is true for Asians.
> are unaffected by affirmative action
Except the evidence is overwhelming that Asians have to have higher SAT scores, stronger extracurriculars, and stronger profiles to be admitted compared to both whites and other minorities. Not only that, but Asians who received identical personality scores as whites/blacks from alumni interviewers were rated lower by Harvard admissions staff, in order to disadvantage Asians. See: SFFA vs. Harvard. Try to read from a source that isn't liberal this time around.
Your claim that all races must have equal representation to their proportion of the population ignores the impact of culture on outcomes. Why do black people dominate athletics? Maybe ask yourself if the NBA should have affirmative action.
> You literally just claimed to know what's good for society
No, I claimed affirmative action was illegal under the Civil Rights Act and racist. The difference here is that you are a white person, who is not affected by affirmative action, mandating that minorities, who are negatively affected by affirmative action, adhere to it. And you dismiss minorities' opinions as invalid and dismiss the fact that a majority of minorities say they don't want race to be taken into account in the workplace (see the Vox link in my previous comment). THAT is white supremacy: believing your own opinions about minorities, as a white person, while ignoring those same minorities telling you they don't want what you're preaching.
But this isn't true. Berkley is 25% white, Harvard is ~40% white, Tulane is 61% white. If what you said were true, all three would have similar white populations.
Let me try and clarify this for you one last time. Not all schools get them same population of applicants, so you would not expect all schools to get the same population of attendees. National target schools, and schools in areas with large Asian populations, may have relatively large Asian populations. But other schools, including relatively selective ones, in areas with smaller Asian populations, will not have many Asian applicants.
If such a school wants to engage in Affirmative action programs, it cannot do so by discriminating against Asian applicants, because it does not have an excess number of Asian applicants to discriminate against.
You have claimed previously that such a thing cannot happen, and that even if it did that it "doesn't matter at all". What I have shown are highly selective schools with applicant pools that have a relatively small number of Asians, and I previously demonstrated that such schools engage in affirmative action programs. This demonstrates that such schools disfavor white students when favoring minority applicants.
> Except the evidence is overwhelming that Asians have to have higher SAT scores, stronger extracurriculars, and stronger profiles to be admitted compared to both whites and other minorities.
Right, now apply the exact same argument to white applicants in comparison to other minorities in regard to the schools I mentioned like Tulane, Emory, Chapel Hill, etc. You would expect white students to be overrepresented compared to the baseline population (much as Asian students are in schools that they target), but they aren't, while Hispanic and Black students often are overrepresented.
So can you explain to me how precisely the same behavior is harmful racism against Asians when done by Berkeley or Harvard, but somehow doesn't happen, or if it does it "doesn't matter" when it's at Tulane or Emory and impacts white students?
I'll also mention that twice now you've accused me of white supremacy based solely on your assumption that I am white, and your further belief that a white person, I cannot be harmed by affirmative action policies. In reality, it appears that your actual belief is that affirmative action that harms white people "doesn't matter", and that because it "doesn't matter" a White person cannot be harmed by it.
> Your claim that all races must have equal representation to their proportion of the population ignores the impact of culture on outcomes.
I, uhh, I didn't make this claim.
> No, I claimed affirmative action was illegal under the Civil Rights Act and racist.
So when you said "Affirmative action is bad for society.", you didn't mean that ending affirmative action would be good for society? What's the option I'm missing?
> And you dismiss minorities' opinions as invalid and dismiss the fact that a majority of minorities say they don't want race to be taken into account in the workplace (see the Vox link in my previous comment).
I remain confused, I side with the majority on responses to the vox link. While I didn't explicitly state it here[0], my response there should make it clear that I also don't believe that companies should consider race when making hiring or promotion decisions. Like, I'm already on record saying the opposite of wat you think I'm saying. I've never said anything that implies otherwise, so I don't know why you're claiming that I disagree with minorities about this thing when I don't.
Like, it's also not a good idea to treat minorities as a monolith. While you clearly oppose Affirmative Action, 80% of Hispanic adults and 70% of Black adults do support them[1], so claiming that I am ignoring minorities simply because I disagree with you is to disregard, well, quite literally the majority of nonwhite Americans, who also disagree with you.
And that's fine! Minorities aren't monolithic and you're perfectly free to disagree with anyone you like, but please refrain from accusing me of white supremacy simply because I disagree with you, it's rude.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32186694
[1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/352832/americans-confidence-rac...
Wrong, because Asians overindex relative to their proportion of the population in higher education institutions which don't use affirmative action. That's a statistical fact. Even if you have only 5% Asian applicants, Asians could still represent a plurality of the qualified applicant pool that should be admitted.
> This demonstrates that such schools disfavor white students when favoring minority applicants
You cannot show that whites are disfavored when the percentage of whites at these schools is equal to or higher than schools which do not use affirmative action. That is basic science 101: you cannot show an effect exists when your stats show the opposite.
> while Hispanic and Black students often are overrepresented
Easily explained by the fact that those schools use affirmative action. Show me a school that doesn't use it with blacks overrepresented.
> done by Berkeley
Berkeley is banned from using affirmative action or considering race in admissions in any way. Please get your facts straight instead of lying.
> at Tulane or Emory and impacts white students
Your own stats show it doesn't impact white students at those schools.
> [1]
California, the most liberal state in the nation, rejected affirmative action by a 15 point margin at the ballot box. I have to question the legitimacy of your polling data here if it claims 62% support AA.
> please refrain from accusing me of white supremacy simply because I disagree with you
I accuse you of white supremacy because you are a white supremacist. You enforce views which discriminate against Asians and which do not discriminate against whites, and you do so with a tone of moral superiority. That is white supremacy.
Asian applicants also overindex relative to their portion of the population at higher institutions that do use affirmative action. This doesn't tell you anything!
And Asian applicants overindex more significantly at Chapel Hill than at Berkeley, relative to the state and local population, which is important, because both schools are mandated to accept around 80-90% in state students.
(And of course it's actually not clear that Asians overindex at UC Berkeley. The bay area is ~30% Asian, which is similar to Berkeley's demographics)
> You cannot show that whites are disfavored when the percentage of whites at these schools is equal to or higher than schools which do not use affirmative action. That is basic science 101: you cannot show an effect exists when your stats show the opposite.
Yes, you can, because as you yourself just said, the important thing is the acceptances relative to the candidate pool, and the candidate pool at these schools doesn't have a large number of Asians. You're (wrongly) relying on the base rate fallacy, which leads to an unsound and invalid conclusion.
And this makes sense, in areas where Asian students make up the plurality of qualified applicants, the schools will discriminate against them. But in areas where white students make up not just the plurality, but the majority of qualified applicants, schools will instead discriminate against white students. In all cases the goal is to reduce the most populous group and increase the least populous ones.
> Your own stats show it doesn't impact white students at those schools.
Only if you continue to commit the base rate fallacy.
> Berkeley is banned from using affirmative action or considering race in admissions in any way. Please get your facts straight instead of lying.
Yes, now, but you keep complaining about how it used to!
> California, the most liberal state in the nation, rejected affirmative action by a 15 point margin at the ballot box. I have to question the legitimacy of your polling data here if it claims 62% support AA.
Compare to recent measures in Colorado and Washington, which were basically 50/50. Politics is more complicated
> You enforce views which discriminate against Asians and which do not discriminate against whites
Again, this is simply untrue. White students are affected by such policies. As I've now demonstrated three or four times.
> and you do so with a tone of moral superiority.
Moral superiority meaning, what, exactly? That I disagree with you about a particular ethical question?
Most minorities themselves don't think it's fine: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe.... Hispanics oppose the practice 69-27, and Black people oppose it 54-37.
To put that into context, Hispanics are more unified in opposing taking race into account in hiring than they are in supporting Joe Biden. White liberals are imposing this practice upon them.
Google doesn't consider race or ethnicity (or gender or..) during the hiring or promotion process. Prioritizing someone's resume (e.g. giving them an interview first) because they're underrepresented is vastly different than hiring or promoting someone less qualified.
Correct.
> That means DEI programs
Let me know where in the democratic party platform it says that colleges should use race based affirmative action policies. We were discussing a particular minority aware funding program. You decided to bring up headcount, something no one else was discussing.
> I'm sure as an engineer at Google you would know that recruiters at your company will regularly favor racial minorities by prioritizing their resumes
Sure, yes, this is fine.
> and promotions.
Interesting bit of made up nonsense there though.
> Unsurprisingly, it was found that they were systemically underpaying men [1] and discriminating against Asian applicants [2].
You should really read those links better. Your first showed that a particular crosstab of engineers (that I belonged to, in fact!) were being systemically underpaid (by, if I recall, something like .25%). Your second link notes that Google settled both against Asian applicants, and against female applicants and employees. So, Google was, per your own source, systematically underpaying women (by a larger margin over a larger period) and their internal study failed to recognize that, and instead gave me a small bonus.