Google internal memo distributed by employee, claiming reverse gender discrimination

[Dan Druff]

Bay Area tech companies tend to be liberal, and tend to err on the social justice warrior side of ideology.

That's why there's a lot of internal fighting within Google over a long internal memo sent within the company, accusing Google of coddling female employees. It also accuses Google of shutting out any discussion that disparity in pay, promotions, and hiring of female employees might be justified based upon ability.

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-t...eed-1797564320

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

The above is a summary by Gizmodo, but you can read the full text at the link above.

Opinions?

[Dan Druff]

This is a very interesting memo, and I suggest everyone read it.

I don't work at Google and can't comment on internal company culture or its diversity programs, but the guy who wrote this memo seems like an intelligent dude who makes a lot of sense.

He's not an alt-right misogynist, either. He's acknowledging that diversity at companies can be beneficial, and that programs meant to fight gender discrimination are necessary. However, he is frustrated with the left-biased ideological monolith Google has become, to the point where anyone wanting to discuss alternate viewpoints are shamed or fired.

Specifically, he feels that inherent differences between men and women, along with societal differences regarding each gender's willingness to have a poor work/life balance, are the primary factors affecting women's pay, salaries, and promotions.

He also suggests that Google should harvest the inherent strengths women have compared to men, and use those to their advantage, rather than looking to artificially force women into positions where they won't thrive as much. He's also concerned that more-qualified men are sometimes turned down for jobs or promotions, in favor of less-qualified women, simply to fulfill an arbitrary diversity quota.

Of course, these diversity issues (whether racial or gender) exist in every large company, and there are varying opinions on the matter within each company's workforce. However, the interesting thing about this article is the complaint about the critic-silencing culture at Google. He's not necessarily angry that Google's policies don't align with his personal opinions, but rather that he and others are not allowed to express them.

[Dan Druff]

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Wow.

Microaggression training?

No wonder this guy is so frustrated.

[Dan Druff]

Google's response (to employees):

Googlers,

I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.

Thanks,

Danielle

[snake_in_the_ass]

Entire Bay Area needs to get wiped off the map with a 10.0 earthquake. Bunch of fucking losers.

[Dan Druff]

The response from "Danielle" was crap. Here's the line which bothers me most:

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

Translation: You can share your opinions, but if we don't agree with them, we will brand it as "discrimination" and take action against you. Sooooo... anyone have any dissenting opinions?



Looks like Danielle is proving this guy right, at least regarding the part where he stated employees aren't allowed to question the diversity policies without facing discipline.

[JoeD]

I can easily see this happening in Bay Area tech cos. In any large corporate setting, and I've worked in a few in my lifetime, when it comes to expressing opinions, you ultimately always have to fall in line with management or you'll never survive. So while this guy may be smart and good at his job, and while I agree with some of his points, he'll most likely never survive in that environment.

Also, in before FPS blames the Jews for this problem.

[sonatine]

so an engineer making a tedious and ill advised blog post is now considered an 'internal memo' by virtue of what exactly?

[Dan Druff]

Also I do want to say that I personally know women who have suffered various forms of gender discrimination, including frustrating situations where men from other departments walk into a meeting room and automatically address them as the secretary or administrative assistant.

I'm not denying that there are certain challenges that women face in the workplace which men do not face.

However, the answer to these challenges does not come from hiring quotas, gender-based promotions, or silencing those with dissenting opinions regarding diversity policies.

[Dan Druff]

so an engineer making a tedious and ill advised blog post is now considered an 'internal memo' by virtue of what exactly?

It wasn't a blog post. He wrote up that essay, sent it to certain people within the company, and then one of them leaked it.

[sonatine]

the fact that you think that constitutes an internal memo is disconcerting.

[The_Lurker]

Simmer down now Todger

[Muck Ficon]

Also I do want to say that I personally know women

[Dan Druff]

the fact that you think that constitutes an internal memo is disconcerting.

What would you call it, then? A blog post is not accurate. A blog is something meant for the public. It's not even an internal blog, because it was sent to specific people.

[gimmick]

Didn't know it was a new thing that going against the will of the company you work for might get you in trouble. I can see how it's perfectly rational to cry about it. Silly emotional SJWs and their entitlement issues.

[peter mcneil]

Also I do want to say that I personally know women who have suffered various forms of gender discrimination, including frustrating situations where men from other departments walk into a meeting room and automatically address them as the secretary or administrative assistant.

I'm not denying that there are certain challenges that women face in the workplace which men do not face.

However, the answer to these challenges does not come from hiring quotas, gender-based promotions, or silencing those with dissenting opinions regarding diversity policies.

All this shit is what has moved me from being a life long lefty (liberal here in Canada) to the right. This shit is all insanity, fucking disease of the brain. There is a current addiction to outrage and appearing virtuous. I'm raising a little girl and I won't let her believe she's a victim of our society. The gender gap is bullshit, hiring quotas are bullshit. Yes she will occassionally be discriminated against in her life because she's a girl, but so what? Deal with it and move on. There's a benefit and burden to being either sex. By nearly every measurable metric men have it worse in our society.

I still believe black people in the USA to be the only remaining group that face legit discrimination although not nearly to the level lunatic groups like BLM believe. Glenn Loury always has wonderful discussions on the topic. He's a black economics prof at Brown University.

https://bloggingheads.tv/programs/glenn-show

[Dan Druff]

Didn't know it was a new thing that going against the will of the company you work for might get you in trouble. I can see how it's perfectly rational to cry about it. Silly emotional SJWs and their entitlement issues.

He wasn't attempting to go against the will of the company.

He was complaining that he and others are unable to express opinions that certain company policies are unhealthy/unproductive, and suggest revisiting them.

If you go to your boss and say, "I don't like how everyone takes lunch at 12pm. Lunch places are too crowded then. Let's change company lunch to 1pm", there's a good chance your idea will get turned down. However, your boss won't fire or discipline you for questioning the 12pm lunch time.

This guy's primary complaint is that Google has become an ideological monolith to where dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed if they question leftist/SJW policies.

[sonatine]

the fact that you think that constitutes an internal memo is disconcerting.

What would you call it, then? A blog post is not accurate. A blog is something meant for the public. It's not even an internal blog, because it was sent to specific people.

id call it an HR violation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/memorandum

if he had sent it to his manager, it could be considered a memorandum because ostensibly he could be attempting to draw focus to potential deficiencies in corporate policy. but the fact that it was presented laterally to a few coworkers suggests it was not meant to be anything but a collection of fedora flavored personal opinions. so yeah, blog was lazy because it wasnt intended for public use, but also not lazy because clearly this wasnt a serious attempt at presenting policy as much as it was someone being an attention starved edgelord.

[sonatine]

This guy's primary complaint is that Google has become an ideological monolith to where dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed if they question leftist/SJW policies.

Sorry but only someone who has never in his life held down a grownup job could ever agree with that take.

Unless you consider lawyers and insurance agencies to be SJW policy makers, you should shut it down.

[gimmick]

Didn't know it was a new thing that going against the will of the company you work for might get you in trouble. I can see how it's perfectly rational to cry about it. Silly emotional SJWs and their entitlement issues.

He wasn't attempting to go against the will of the company.

He was complaining that he and others are unable to express opinions that certain company policies are unhealthy/unproductive, and suggest revisiting them.

If you go to your boss and say, "I don't like how everyone takes lunch at 12pm. Lunch places are too crowded then. Let's change company lunch to 1pm", there's a good chance your idea will get turned down. However, your boss won't fire or discipline you for questioning the 12pm lunch time.

This guy's primary complaint is that Google has become an ideological monolith to where dissenting opinions are not allowed to be expressed if they question leftist/SJW policies.

It's not his place to question company policies and it's certainly not his place to suggest revisiting them. The company doesn't own him an explanation. It's not his money nor job. He thinks he's entitled to additional liberties because google allows some discourse. It's ridiculous to cry about it.

I doubt it's the first time he has mentioned this issue. He wasn't fired or disciplined. The company expressed their opinion on future discussion. Accept it or gtfo. Why do i even have to explain the most basic shit?