I read the memo and this dude is a snowflake with a capital S.
He also represents the most troubling aspect of Silicon Valley: Objectivism and the “If I achieve success it is because I deserve it. Those who aren’t successful are because they are unworthy/lazy/etc.” mentality.
He says it is more important for people with his political ideology to feel comfortable expressing themselves than for there to be racial and gender representation. He quotes bunk science stating that women are underrepresented in engineering degrees because women’s brains aren’t cut out for it (essentially, not word for word).
His views and I am sure internal politicking were causing a problem and with that, he needed to be let go.
Ironically, if he were part of a union I am positive he would have been unfireable for the memo…
I cannot disagree with him completely though he was a little over-the-top. There are factors that effect racial and gender diversity that are not the fault of the employer. Women and minorities are less likely to study or excel at math and sciences because they are not properly encouraged and given access to the same level of training/opportunities at an early enough age. While this is an issue that we should address as a society, a company like Google should not be held accountable for a low number or poor quality of women and minority applicants. We need to address the social inequities that lead to the applicant pool being what it is, rather than burdening a corporation with correcting for our societies short-comings. Justice is not “tipping the scales” to balance them, it’s making sure all people have all the same opportunity to achieve the American dream. While we have come very far in this regard, we still have a ways to go. But I take great issue with hiring decisions being based on gender or race, even to benefit women and minorities. Hiring should be based on merit alone. Society is not served by forcing companies to hire a diverse group at the expense of merit.
I get what you are saying and can even endorse the ideals behind them, but there is a break in how I think they should be implemented.
For example: I agree that society has failed women and non-Asian/indian-subcontinent ethnic groups. There is very little push to get kids into STEM programs at an early age, which contributes to having fewer of those groups being represented in the job pool later in life.
Where I disagree is on this: If society isn’t nudged to do something about it, they won’t. If the white male hiring manager at Google (so to speak) interviews 50 applicants for a job, 40 being other white males, and 10 being a mix of racial and gender minorities, there will be higher than an 80% chance at hiring another white male, even with a level playing field. That is because people have a natural tendency to surround themselves with like-minded people who resemble themselves, even down to looks, religious affiliation, gender, and race. The other 20% of candidates aren’t really fighting over 20% of jobs, then, they could actually fight over less than 10% of jobs…if they are lucky.
Affirmative action hiring policies help all of society get a fair shake, and also goes on to further encourage members of all demographics to go into any field of study, once again for the benefit of all of society, not just for straight white Christian males like you and I.
My absolute favorite quote on this subject (and almost any subject) is: ‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression’
This is coming from a blonde haired, blue-eyed straight white male from a Christian family with two married parents who loved each other. I am the definition of privilege, even if we were dirt poor growing up. :)
California, the land of fruits and nuts and stifling free speech by Conservatives. Have you been following the U Cal Berkely riots of the students against free speech? Progressive Socialists cannot stand anyone who doesn’t think like they do and will go to great lengths to prevent free speech.
Good definition of a Liberal – A person whose rigid ideology dictates what other people are allowed to think.
California did not infringe on free speech the government had nothing to do with this. Here, one of the largest most successful companies in the world decided what is increasingly becoming mainstream conservative ideology is unacceptable in their company for making profit, and therefore the private company fired him.
The government has done NOTHING to harm his free speech. You don’t understand The Constitution on even the most basic level, stop commenting.
Like many conservative here, the guy was dishonest about his education too.
August 10, 2017 at 11:19 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
8
4
UW, I agree with the message of your post, but not the attacks. Let’s keep everything above the belt and focus on the message without clouding it with personal attacks, cool?
100% on point about free speech. This isn’t the government, and nobody is infringing on this guy’s right to free speech. He can keep saying these things all he wants, he just can’t do it as a Google employee anymore.
August 10, 2017 at 1:57 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
I didn’t make a personal attack; I stated a fact about his knowledge. If I was constantly writing about operating a nuclear reactor, and presenting it as fact, it would not be a personal attack if somebody pointed out that I was constantly wrong about the basics and had no idea what I was writing about.
On top of that, this guy attacks liberals as a group almost every day, blacks, millennials, Muslims, and about 2 dozen other groups constantly he should be criticized.
August 10, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
I agree, but if we devolve into criticizing each other about education levels and lying about our experience, etc, this is going to turn into the mess we had a week ago and beyond.
I have already noticed an intense slowdown of posts from Yogi, agent, and the like because they can no longer rile anyone up if we aren’t responding to their trolling.
“Don’t feed the trolls” turns out to be the best anti-troll pesticide available.
All I am saying is, the strength of your post would not have been lessened without that extra comment, so why not leave it out? :)
August 9, 2017 at 3:00 pm
integrity matters says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
2
Doug – I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Affirmative Action policies. They have outlived their usefulness in this day and age. They were definitely necessary 40-50 years ago, but society (in the majority) has turned the page. Affirmative Action is now being used to fulfill diversity “numbers”. It was intended to give any person, regardless of race or gender, the equal opportunity for a job or promotion, based on merit.
Simply choosing a person, especially a less qualified person, because of their race or gender is still discrimination. All of society is not helped if it is still at the expense of forced discrimination. That is not a fair shake.
I have witnessed in business and through family and friends, more qualified people NOT getting a job or promotion because a minority with less experience was chosen for Affirmative Action reasons. In the situations where skills were “equal”, I think it would be fairer to flip a coin to determine the winner, than choosing based on race or gender.
Regarding the STEM programs, I think they are important but “caution” those promoting them to think of that as a panacea to create a population and push them into a certain profession. Those subjects should continue to be taught independently and on an integrated basis. The students that gravitate and excel with the STEM curriculum can continue in that path.
Lastly, thanks for your quote. Here is one for all of us to think about “Equality is not a privilege, it is a right. Privilege (entitlement) is not a right. A person has the right to be treated equally, but they are not entitled to equal possessions.”
Thanks for your metered and careful response. I have considered and experienced many of the same problems you have. I just can’t agree that equality at a root level (education opportunities) will ever matter if there is still a systemic problem (racial/gender perception barriers to hiring equality practices) at a corporate level.
Affirmative Action should never discriminate against a white person because they are white, but should allow for and encourage minority hiring when they are equally qualified. By no means am I ever saying, “Take a lesser qualified minority instead of a more qualified white person), but a much larger proportion of minorities are coming out of ivy league and other prestigious institutions with degrees than are getting hired on to their chosen career.
You and I both have anecdotal evidence of people we know (myself included), who have been passed on for promotions due to a company trying to “meet diversity quotas” or hire diverse in general, but I cannot say for certain that I was passed on in favor of someone less qualified. I may have imagined I was better qualified/more knowledgeable/more experienced, but everyone inflates their own abilities and experience above another’s, it is in our nature.
And if the other candidates had similar amounts of experience/ability, then who am I to say that I “deserved” that job and they didn’t? I still landed on my feet, and in many ways, due to the systemic bias in favor of someone like me. My next move was to my current position, where I have been for several years.
I only got this job because I knew someone who worked here, and he recommended them to me. I only got my last job because my brother had worked there in another department. My job before that was due to a referral from another employee, as well.
The idea is this: Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups don’t get that leg up. Nepotism and relationships are everything in the corporate world, and if they don’t get that initial push into a job, (whether that be via a referral from another employee, through diversity-minded hiring practices, and so on) then how can they expect to ever get in? They can get all the degrees and certifications that they want, but if there is no one there to actually push for hiring them, than their unemployment rates will stay inordinately higher than whites from similar educational and socio-economical backgrounds.
The Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank did a study a couple of years ago that showed blacks had double the unemployment rate as whites controlling for level of educational attainment. This includes no diploma, high school diploma only, some college, and college graduate.
There is still several systemic barriers that go into preventing employment for blacks and other minority groups. Taking away affirmative action will only damage them further as they already struggle to gain access to the same equality that whites do.
August 9, 2017 at 4:29 pm
TxLady says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
As a former manager at a very large P and C carrier, I can tell you how Affirmative Action worked there. Each quarter we were handed a list of Affirmative Action goals. XX female in grades X to X and XX minorities in grades X to X. We were then “encouraged” to hire the candidates that fit the goal, even if they were not the best candidate for the job, so we could meet the goal, report it back to the government and get our points for filling those Affirmative Action numbers. We would then each get a memo telling us what goals had been met for the previous quarter. If we were ahead of goal, then there were no goals and we got to hire the best candidate. If we needed to fill a number though, we filled that number. Sad, huh? Can’t even get the best person for the job, because someone had to have a box checked on a form saying I hired this or that person. Another part of the system involved firing for cause someone from the Affirmative Action goal group. Darned near took an act of congress, had to get signed off on so many levels of management all the way to the home office, even if the person was just a low level clerk with a few months on the job. Fire for cause a non Affirmative Action employee, no problem, local approval only required.
August 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
10
2
TxLady,
That is the exact wrong way to go about Affirmative Action. and must have been a terrible place to work at with such misguided practices. You sure it wasn’t Wells Fargo? :P
August 10, 2017 at 9:32 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Doug,
Thanks for your response. I think we are mostly on the same page. It has been increasingly difficult for anyone to find a good job, which is why there is so much “under employment”. It usually takes a recommendation from someone else to get a semi-professional to professional type position. I believe the percentage of college graduates obtaining a job that is aligned with their degree is very low.
I will admit that I have become increasingly skeptical of both right and left leaning reports. The “devil is in the details” and I have found too many situations where the information was manipulated to “prove” the point of the author. I am not saying that is the situation with the above report, because I have not thoroughly reviewed and vetted it. I am only saying that I am cautious with regards to how valid the claims are.
Thanks again for your polite and well thought response.
August 10, 2017 at 10:34 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
2
TXlady, I would be interested in reading about this please cite the law that was forcing your company to hire underqualified minorities over qualified white people. Also, how did your company redeem their points? Thanks.
August 12, 2017 at 3:47 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I am glad you brought up EPI’s bias, because it is apparent that they are left-leaning, and are definitely worthy of scrutiny.
Unfortunately, a red flag was raised with your own link. I found their information on EPI troubling, and moved on to look at a lot of other organizations. It was clear something was amok. Every single organization that favors left-wing policies was regarded as either “radical” or “agenda-driven” and so on, while any right-wing organizations they covered had nothing but praise for their advocacy and leadership.
Then, I researched the group behind it, the “Center for Organzational Research and Education” and found out they are lobbies for Big Tobacco and the Fast Food Industry.
Another deadgiveaway is the .com address in lieu of .org. Then, they run or have run all sorts of really strange pseudo-scientific propaganda sites, and their initial and continued funding come from groups like Phillip Morris, Anheiser-Busch, Casino operators, processed meat manufacturers, etc.
Like I said, I don’t doubt that the EPI may be left-leaning. A right-leaning group, for example, probably wouldn’t publish the data I found at all, in all fairness, since it wouldn’t fit a right-wing “post-racism” narrative.
The data is out there from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other governmental and non-governmental groups.
I feel no malice in the link you provided me and don’t blame you for posting it. Like I said, I believe the informational part of what they said about EPI, but I have to put a ton of scrutiny on their analysis, due to their heavy bias and outright slandering against any left-leaning policy think-tank or organization.
With that being said, I do not concede my point, since there is other hard data to back it up. I am not at all absolving anyone from screwing up their own lives with drugs, an anti-educational attitude during their schooling years, petty crime, and so on. But they are going against a stacked deck from the minute they are born, from reduced access to positive health care, to worse-off schools with lower funding due to the way schools are funded with property taxes, to crumbling infrastructure where they live, to a hostile job market for professionals to anyone named JaMarcus, Shalonda, Geordi La Forge and so on.
If they get the nod over someone like me with similar qualifications, good on them for overcoming a mountain of obstacles, when I may have only had a molehill, in a manner of speaking. I hold no malice for that. Personally, if I were a business-owner, that is the exact type of person I would hire: resilient, longsuffering, able to overcome huge odds, and diverse enough to give me a different perspective than what I am used to.
August 14, 2017 at 10:45 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Doug Fisher – Thanks for the additional info and research. As I said in my previous post, I am becoming increasingly skeptical of both right and left leaning reports.
Hopefully, I will get the chance to review some of the other data you mentioned. Thanks again!
August 11, 2017 at 5:55 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Most of the factors he cited are outdated, trash, pseudoscience. Here’s a basic rundown. Many of his citations were dubious sources from Wikipedia. It’s just not reality.
I think that it’s a sad day when a person’s opinion will get them fired when that opinion is simply not aligned with the main-stream politically correct versions of same. To suggest that everyone is the same is ludicrous. To suggest that there aren’t inherent biological differences between genders is equally ludicrous.
If the ‘powers that be’ at Google disagreed with this employee, why not do so in the same medium that the original memo was posted. Do so in writing. Make it clear that ‘we the board’ or whatever, do not agree with ‘Bob’s’ opinion, but he’s entitled to have one.
I get that there comes a place where an ‘opinion’ can’t be ignored or tolerated, but ……..I find it hard to believe that this memo crossed that line. In my humble opinion, it was a knee-jerk reaction that will stifle any notion of independent thought that isn’t aligned with that of the boss.
There is a difference between having an opinion and pioneering a destructive social stigma. If the employee had voiced his opinion to the board in a conversation, he probably would have been told that his views were inconsistent with company goals and nothing would have occurred. However, he sent the stigmatizing document to multiple employees who were not the board; almost trying to educate and teach other employees on his warped notions. Multiple articles and journals decades ago were publishing similar articles about certain races being less intelligent than others, and that was their opinion also. Racism and Sexism is not just an opinion. It affects others negatively throughout their lives for just being born with a skin color or gender.
…”the stigmatizing document.”..stig·ma·tize
1. describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.
Wow ! You certainly lumped in a world of crap that had little to nothing to do with my comment. Decades of racism ? The man (unless he identifies as something other than male) that wrote the memo was stating why, in his opinion, there were fewer women in tech companies. He may be right. Perhaps you could tell us why there are fewer women automobile mechanics ? Is it taboo to recognize ANY differences between the genders ? I suppose that ‘being stigmatized’ is a choice. They read someone’s opinion and decide that they are grievously offended….or should be.
Frankly, I think people have become entirely too thin skinned. Everyone is looking for a reason to be offended. If you opined that I was too dumb to be posting on this message board, I wouldn’t report you to the moderator and I wouldn’t lose so much as a wink of sleep.
If you choose to let someone else’s opinion affect you negatively throughout your life, that’s pathetic, nothing else.
I have several observations regarding this article and situation:
1) Except for a “remote” connection to EPLI coverage, why is IJ reprinting this Reuters story considering the recent statements that the users elevate insurance discussion and limit political discussion? Isn’t this article somewhat “baiting” us into a political discussion?
2) I find it ironic that “diversity” is the goal of our society, yet, when it comes to opinions, diversity is not acceptable when those opinions differ from those left leaning organizations that have an opposing opinion.
3) The left leaning Reuters article is “suspiciously” slanted with “expert opinions” downplaying the potential case the ex-Google employee has. I wonder how many labor lawyers out there thinks he has a real case. Calif is an “at-will” employment state, so there is probably little recourse, except that the Calif Labor Law is very liberal in other situations. If he was otherwise a adequately performing employee with no other performance issues AND his opinion is why he was fired, he may have a good case, especially if:
a) he was not in a (mgmt.) position that his opinions would affect others, or
b) If in such a position, there is no evidence that his opinions actual caused any discrimination against anyone.
4) If having a different or opposing opinion is grounds for allegedly creating a “hostile” work environment, that is a very dangerous precedent because that is “life” in many, if not most work environments.
Good one integrity. The Progressives really lined up against this guy, didn’t they? God forbid if someone has a different viewpoint. Hope he pursues and forces a big settlement out of them and maybe they will change their tune.
If he was in a managerial position, knowing his positions on believing that women are not suited well for engineering positions (from bunk science long since disproven), why would he give a woman a chance at a job working alongside or under him? The discrimination is clear in that respect.
Studies have actually shown that telling someone they are bad at something actually leads to them performing worse. So what happens to the women and minorities that he works alongside or throughout the company? Someone with negative and false beliefs can be a bad apple and can be a form of discrimination and even bullying, believe it or not. It is not direct, and may not even be intentional, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an effect.
My point is that there should be other evidence (i.e. performance related or factual discrimination) to render termination. Society is going down a slippery slope if we are simply judged by our opinions. Differing opinions is a part of diversity. We sharpen others when we disagree. If we are all forced to become “like-minded”, we are now a cult.
I definitely agree to that ideal, 100%, no matter how outside the norm someone’s opinions are.
The memorandum that got circulated was what did him in. If we was willing to write a 10-page memo on something like this, then you could assume he was also a very outspoken guy in general. People who worked closely with him probably already knew how he felt, and that, too, is totally fine if kept within the confines of trusted relationships.
News spreads fast, however, and when you put your ideas out as a solution to a perceived problem, you are taking ownership for them. It would be a similar situation if he replaced “women” with “gays” or “Jews” or “Muslims” or “Evangelicals”
Couldn’t that create a hostile work environment? Every single person on this planet is entitled to their thoughts, but once you make them public, companies have a right to protect their employees, even from just the perception of bullying or intimidation, etc.
Studies have shown a direct correlation between job performance and someone’s perception of their own abilities. If someone is on a team telling others that women aren’t good at what they do, or that blacks and Hispanics only got hired to fill quotas, also making them less “deserving,” then you are affecting job performance and then the way others will see those people could be affected, too, snowballing the comments’ effects several times over in a vicious cycle.
The guy had to go, period. No worries, though. He is a straight, white, educated male with relevant work experience in Silicon Valley, I am 100% certain he will land on his feet.
He wasn’t forced to become like minded. In fact, instead of trying to make him change his mind they used their right to fire him, and he is welcome to go to any business that will have him, with his mind untouched.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words – and/or your inane opinion – will never hurt me.”
Sounds to me like some snowflakes need to toughen up a bit.
August 14, 2017 at 10:29 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Funny, anybody who isn’t far right is a snowflake, but the second some racist, ignorant right winger gets his feelings hurt, even if it’s a true state they whine forever and try to get comments deleted. Losers.
Yes Doug this creates a hostile work environment,and he should have been fired immediately. In top of that, the guy was pushing BS pseudoscience, and is an engineer,he’s not competent to do his job. He also lied about his qualifications and education, like many right wingers here, specifically Yogi, on his social media accounts so it’s very possible he did when he applied to his job too.
August 14, 2017 at 10:56 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
UW – That is one amazing crystal ball you have. You can look into everyone’s hearts and motives. You actually know how well this guy performed his job and that he was incompetent. How bad is Google that they would allow him to continue as an employee when he was so incompetent.
Newsflash…You’re not God and you don’t know Jack about anyone on this site, their qualifications or education, especially what type of people we are. Your opinions about the people who post here are not fact based but are judgments based on your own bias.
It’s a shame that you cannot have a normal discussion to discuss the issues without hateful rhetoric.
August 14, 2017 at 7:04 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
UW – It appears that you’ve got some serious issues (anger, comprehension, memory).
First, I never said women were inferior. I said they are biologically different. That does not mean inferior. As a whole group, men naturally do some things better than women and vice versa. Women can outperform men in traditional “male dominated” employments and men can outperform women in traditional “female dominated” employments. There are physical and biological differences proven by science. I know you want to call it “BS pseudoscience” but isn’t it amazing that it is okay for you to debunk hundreds of years of known proven science with “other scientists” theories?
Second, check you memory, as well as this blog and others. You have me confused with someone else when it comes to civility. Want proof…just read the civilized discussion I had with Doug Fisher.
Third, you said “Reread my original comment, you misinterpreted what I wrote or can’t understand it.” Which “original” comment? They are all mostly incoherent, so interpreting them is not my problem. Take some ownership in what you say and how you say it.
Doug, I am going to assume you did not get to read the entire email because the entire point of the email was that everyone needs to be inclusive but, we should not be blinded by our own biases when and recognize that diversity in certain fields have a biological element to it.
He very eloquently laid out reasons why the disparities in professions are not exclusively due to sexism or racism but gave reasons for and against why race and gender (primarily gender) naturally occur. (i.e. women are not in certain professions simply because they do not want to be).
Additionally, he carefully and professionally called out Google for “limiting certain positions for certain genders and races”, which you just agreed was wrong.
His whole message was to listen to others viewpoints and not oppress them. He alluded that the current environment caused people to be afraid to express their opinions if they were different. Ironic that he was fired for it.
There is nothing in the email that is threatening towards women or other races and admitted he was politically a leftist.
In my opinion, he was fired because he scraped open some wounds that Google was trying to heal by pretending they didn’t exist. They needed to make an example of him that others with the same opinion would face termination if they did not conform to their thinking.
(For UW, yes, they ARE forcing their employees to be like minded. By firing him, they have drawn the red line.)
I can see your point in many ways, integrity matters.
I think where we diverge in opinion on the memo (which, yes is pretty innocuous and definitely NOT worth firing someone over) is how he doesn’t cite any data, whatsoever. He makes a ton of sweeping generalities and specific statements like a “everybody knows women are x, y, or z.” but doesn’t show his work. I would be more apt to be sympathetic to his reasoning if he backed up his definitive statements with scientific proof.
I do agree that he should not have been fired for what he wrote. I think once it became a problem and went viral, however, Google panicked due to public perception and left-wing outrage and folded to pressure.
I still think the guy is definitely an entitled and privileged SOB, but he does make many valid points, especially referring to purposeful programs intended only for women to succeed at Google.
I believe discrimination is wrong in all of its forms. I endorse Affirmative Action hiring when it is handled correctly, ie: when two candidates have similar skill sets, education, prior experience, etc. and if your company is as homogeneous as a bag of wonder bread, it would do wonders for society and your company to give preference to the diverse candidate. I do not endorse hiring an obviously weaker candidate to meet some arbitrary quota.
This is coming from a blue-eyed, blonde-haired straight man who has been giving a lot of leg up on my competition due to several advantages that were built for people like me.
August 11, 2017 at 11:24 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Doug,
Thank you so much for your reply and honest response.
I agree that I think Google panicked and felt they had to make an example of him.
By the way, you may have missed Gizmodo’s opening commentary stating:
“The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.”
I think he included the data he was referencing, but Gizmodo did not reproduce it within the article.
I came from a very modest upbringing. Both parents worked hard to support a large family, so income wise, we were on the lower end of middle class. My parent’s always kept our ego’s in check and would say “Rich people are no better than you are and poor people are no worse than you are. This applies to all people, regardless of race or religion. Who they are as a person is what really matters and you should treat everyone equally.”
August 11, 2017 at 11:30 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Interested – Please read the actual email that was sent. He was not “pioneering a destructive social stigma”.
By the way, it is obvious that there are biological differences between genders and races as a whole. Their is scientific evidence to support that, as well. This is not to say that a gender or race cannot excel or have an interest in an area that the “average” person in their gender or race does not.
If we are so PC about equality, we should make sure the MLB, NFL, NHL and college sports put an equal number of whites, blacks and Hispanics on their teams and make sure they get equal playing time.
Interested – you really liked your post, didn’t you ?? LOL. “….pioneering a destructive social stigma.” That is hilarious. Pioneering……hardly. Stigma. Stigmatized. New words I guess.
What a lot of people are not getting is this guy is an engineer and was writing an article from an engineering perspective. In other words he was suggesting a way to fix a perceived problem. Nowhere in this memo is he calling for revolt, insubordination, work stoppage or anything that would negatively impact the productivity or revenue of the organization. He presented and argument and an idea. For that he was fired? That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
I worked with a guy who thought women in the insurance workforce were the downfall of this industry. And he would say this in front of the women that he worked with. He was serious as a heart attack when he would say it.
Were people filing complaints about him? No they ignored him.
Saying an opinion in a conversation is different from publishing a ten-page paper presenting sexist information to educate fellow employees. In a conversation, someone does have the right to speak up and challenge him. With this paper, he injured Google’s reputation and also created an environment discouraging women from being effective members of the company. What woman would want to work under a person with views like this? Or a company that supports views like this?
I do not like Google because I think they track us way more than we know. I also think they are very close to being in bed with the spy agencies especially the NSA. Maybe Ed Snowden knows more!
I try not to use Chrome very much.
Will the left leaning businesses ever admit that they are intolerant??? Don’t think so.
BTW what does this have to do with insurance??? Maybe an EPLI exposure.
Let’s not stray from the topic at hand, please. Google is just like any other multi-national corporation: their money is in every pocket that will take it.
Wow Doug…….”Let’s not stray from the topic at hand, please.” Really? I am astounded that you felt it is your place to tell another poster something like that. Talk about bashing the 1st Amendment !!
If you don’t think someone else’s comment is on point, ignore it.
Despite the fact that the publication is called Insurance Journal, the writers and editors (not to mention most of the regular posters) have shown themselves to be very, very liberal. Not that it matters, except that, the insurance industry is traditionally and still is today, a very conservative industry. Maybe those of us in the industry need to find another source of related news and updates……leave this pub and it’s message board to the invaders.
That would be considered a conspiracy theory with zero proof or even hint of proof and not worthy of discussion on this topic. Please stay on topic for the good of the discussion at hand. Otherwise, I am sure we will wake up to a bunch of deleted posts and nobody will have gained any insight into anything.
I love all the articles in magazines and newspapers today that announce the superior attributes of women as leaders and managers. “Women are Naturally Better Collaborators”. “Women are Better Listeners”. “Women are More Nurturing”.
So, if women have superior attributes, if in fact women and men are still different, according to science, then what attributes do men have that are superior? (Am I fired for even asking such an obvious question?)
Women are just as tall as men. Women are just as strong. Women can do anything a man can do. Just hilarious, the PC cowardice. From people who claim they “believe in science”. Awesome.
I whole-heartedly agree……..but Google says, “No soup for you!”.
Women are better at having babies than men. Fired
Men have larger testicles than women. Fired.
Women live longer than men. Promoted.
The P/C Police are having their day right now. Just have to ride along till the next most popular thing comes along and replaces it.
Not a good time to be white or a male and certainly not both.
Whites are UNDERrepresented in bottom earnings quintile, and OVERrepresented in all other quintiles.
Blacks are OVERrepresented in lowest two quintiles, and underrepresented in top 3 quintiles.
Latinos are OVERrepresented in bottom THREE quintiles and UNDERrepresented in top 2 quintiles.
To even think that because you hear of a random, singular story once in a blue moon about a minority getting hired somewhere or into a school on a special scholarship or due to Affirmative Action means that whites are getting disproportionately screwed somehow is the most racially blind thing I have read in a long, long, long time.
Whites still have the upper hand and advantage in nearly every single demographic, period. Men still outearn women, even when controlling for things like time off for maternity leave, and other things.
We are trying to be civil and have discourse here, but I can hardly even fathom what I just read. Have you experienced life outside of your bubble of existence, by any chance? Have you tried walking a mile in someone else’s shoes by chance?
Systemic racism and discrimination still exists, regardless of whether we had a black president or not.
So being out of touch is disgusting? How about uninformed ? Is that also disgusting ? Being wrong must warrant a more severe punishment and having a different opinion…….God forbid !
Doug, you don’t even know what I was referencing, yet you post, preach and pontificate away.
In our new ‘Politically Correct’ world, being a white male is paramount to being guilty without having done a thing. Every comment is parsed, examined and played backward on the turn table to make sure nothing offensive….to someone, somewhere, wasn’t uttered. The pendulum has swung just about as far to the left as it can go. If you can’t see that, Doug, then methinks that ‘out of touch’ might be a befitting description for you……but I wouldn’t say that. Granted, you can always play the ‘Denial’ card or some form of deflection, but it is what it is and I know it as does just about everyone else who ain’t afraid of the truth.
For the record, I appreciate your effort to back up your position, but since you had my comment completely wrong…..
And, I’m sure you know this, but statistics and any other ‘numbers’ that get thrown around in today’s information rich cyber world are not very reliable…comforting perhaps, but reliable, not so much…..there are stats and counter-stats to support just about any argument you or I might care to make – I place little credence in just about any of them for that reason and could, with little effort, produce stats to counter everything you posted above.
” We are trying to be civil and have discourse here, but I can hardly even fathom what I just read. Have you experienced life outside of your bubble of existence, by any chance?” Which part of this is the ‘civil’ part….? You don’t know much about me at all – almost nothing except a couple of completely misunderstood comments posted on a message board.
I hope you have a great weekend. Do you have plans to try to watch the eclipse Monday week ? Best.
Dismissing almost all statistics off hand, what a genius.
No, people here don’t know your whole life’s story; they do know you’ve called murdered black people “thugs,” and justified it because of that, insinuated that the Clinton’s murdered and intimidated witnesses, wondered who the N-Word could be offensive to since it is in rap music, called people like Ron stupid for their stance of gun control, call people who agree with almost 100% of climate scientists ‘uninformed lemmings drinking the Kool Aid,” constantly atack liberals and progressives as a group, and on and on.
But, as always you whine for “civilized discourse,” about just how inferior women and minorities and liberals, and anybody different than you are. But we can’t use science or data, because you will dismiss all of it offhand, without looking at it, as biased. You are like a parody account, but sadly think of yourself as a moderate, rational, informed, educated person.
August 11, 2017 at 3:05 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
Two thumbs up, Craig!
No one is saying that women do not have the capability to perform various jobs. We are saying that to arbitrarily try to “equalize” the number of men and women in certain positions for diversity reasons, is discriminatory.
Let the best person (regardless of gender or race) do the job based on the skillsets required for the job.
I read the memo and this dude is a snowflake with a capital S.
He also represents the most troubling aspect of Silicon Valley: Objectivism and the “If I achieve success it is because I deserve it. Those who aren’t successful are because they are unworthy/lazy/etc.” mentality.
He says it is more important for people with his political ideology to feel comfortable expressing themselves than for there to be racial and gender representation. He quotes bunk science stating that women are underrepresented in engineering degrees because women’s brains aren’t cut out for it (essentially, not word for word).
His views and I am sure internal politicking were causing a problem and with that, he needed to be let go.
Ironically, if he were part of a union I am positive he would have been unfireable for the memo…
I cannot disagree with him completely though he was a little over-the-top. There are factors that effect racial and gender diversity that are not the fault of the employer. Women and minorities are less likely to study or excel at math and sciences because they are not properly encouraged and given access to the same level of training/opportunities at an early enough age. While this is an issue that we should address as a society, a company like Google should not be held accountable for a low number or poor quality of women and minority applicants. We need to address the social inequities that lead to the applicant pool being what it is, rather than burdening a corporation with correcting for our societies short-comings. Justice is not “tipping the scales” to balance them, it’s making sure all people have all the same opportunity to achieve the American dream. While we have come very far in this regard, we still have a ways to go. But I take great issue with hiring decisions being based on gender or race, even to benefit women and minorities. Hiring should be based on merit alone. Society is not served by forcing companies to hire a diverse group at the expense of merit.
I get what you are saying and can even endorse the ideals behind them, but there is a break in how I think they should be implemented.
For example: I agree that society has failed women and non-Asian/indian-subcontinent ethnic groups. There is very little push to get kids into STEM programs at an early age, which contributes to having fewer of those groups being represented in the job pool later in life.
Where I disagree is on this: If society isn’t nudged to do something about it, they won’t. If the white male hiring manager at Google (so to speak) interviews 50 applicants for a job, 40 being other white males, and 10 being a mix of racial and gender minorities, there will be higher than an 80% chance at hiring another white male, even with a level playing field. That is because people have a natural tendency to surround themselves with like-minded people who resemble themselves, even down to looks, religious affiliation, gender, and race. The other 20% of candidates aren’t really fighting over 20% of jobs, then, they could actually fight over less than 10% of jobs…if they are lucky.
Affirmative action hiring policies help all of society get a fair shake, and also goes on to further encourage members of all demographics to go into any field of study, once again for the benefit of all of society, not just for straight white Christian males like you and I.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/12/silicon-valley-diversity-tech-hiring-computer-science-graduates-african-american-hispanic/14684211/
My absolute favorite quote on this subject (and almost any subject) is: ‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression’
This is coming from a blonde haired, blue-eyed straight white male from a Christian family with two married parents who loved each other. I am the definition of privilege, even if we were dirt poor growing up. :)
California, the land of fruits and nuts and stifling free speech by Conservatives. Have you been following the U Cal Berkely riots of the students against free speech? Progressive Socialists cannot stand anyone who doesn’t think like they do and will go to great lengths to prevent free speech.
Good definition of a Liberal – A person whose rigid ideology dictates what other people are allowed to think.
California did not infringe on free speech the government had nothing to do with this. Here, one of the largest most successful companies in the world decided what is increasingly becoming mainstream conservative ideology is unacceptable in their company for making profit, and therefore the private company fired him.
The government has done NOTHING to harm his free speech. You don’t understand The Constitution on even the most basic level, stop commenting.
Like many conservative here, the guy was dishonest about his education too.
UW, I agree with the message of your post, but not the attacks. Let’s keep everything above the belt and focus on the message without clouding it with personal attacks, cool?
100% on point about free speech. This isn’t the government, and nobody is infringing on this guy’s right to free speech. He can keep saying these things all he wants, he just can’t do it as a Google employee anymore.
I didn’t make a personal attack; I stated a fact about his knowledge. If I was constantly writing about operating a nuclear reactor, and presenting it as fact, it would not be a personal attack if somebody pointed out that I was constantly wrong about the basics and had no idea what I was writing about.
On top of that, this guy attacks liberals as a group almost every day, blacks, millennials, Muslims, and about 2 dozen other groups constantly he should be criticized.
I agree, but if we devolve into criticizing each other about education levels and lying about our experience, etc, this is going to turn into the mess we had a week ago and beyond.
I have already noticed an intense slowdown of posts from Yogi, agent, and the like because they can no longer rile anyone up if we aren’t responding to their trolling.
“Don’t feed the trolls” turns out to be the best anti-troll pesticide available.
All I am saying is, the strength of your post would not have been lessened without that extra comment, so why not leave it out? :)
Doug – I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Affirmative Action policies. They have outlived their usefulness in this day and age. They were definitely necessary 40-50 years ago, but society (in the majority) has turned the page. Affirmative Action is now being used to fulfill diversity “numbers”. It was intended to give any person, regardless of race or gender, the equal opportunity for a job or promotion, based on merit.
Simply choosing a person, especially a less qualified person, because of their race or gender is still discrimination. All of society is not helped if it is still at the expense of forced discrimination. That is not a fair shake.
I have witnessed in business and through family and friends, more qualified people NOT getting a job or promotion because a minority with less experience was chosen for Affirmative Action reasons. In the situations where skills were “equal”, I think it would be fairer to flip a coin to determine the winner, than choosing based on race or gender.
Regarding the STEM programs, I think they are important but “caution” those promoting them to think of that as a panacea to create a population and push them into a certain profession. Those subjects should continue to be taught independently and on an integrated basis. The students that gravitate and excel with the STEM curriculum can continue in that path.
Lastly, thanks for your quote. Here is one for all of us to think about “Equality is not a privilege, it is a right. Privilege (entitlement) is not a right. A person has the right to be treated equally, but they are not entitled to equal possessions.”
integrity matters,
Thanks for your metered and careful response. I have considered and experienced many of the same problems you have. I just can’t agree that equality at a root level (education opportunities) will ever matter if there is still a systemic problem (racial/gender perception barriers to hiring equality practices) at a corporate level.
Affirmative Action should never discriminate against a white person because they are white, but should allow for and encourage minority hiring when they are equally qualified. By no means am I ever saying, “Take a lesser qualified minority instead of a more qualified white person), but a much larger proportion of minorities are coming out of ivy league and other prestigious institutions with degrees than are getting hired on to their chosen career.
You and I both have anecdotal evidence of people we know (myself included), who have been passed on for promotions due to a company trying to “meet diversity quotas” or hire diverse in general, but I cannot say for certain that I was passed on in favor of someone less qualified. I may have imagined I was better qualified/more knowledgeable/more experienced, but everyone inflates their own abilities and experience above another’s, it is in our nature.
And if the other candidates had similar amounts of experience/ability, then who am I to say that I “deserved” that job and they didn’t? I still landed on my feet, and in many ways, due to the systemic bias in favor of someone like me. My next move was to my current position, where I have been for several years.
I only got this job because I knew someone who worked here, and he recommended them to me. I only got my last job because my brother had worked there in another department. My job before that was due to a referral from another employee, as well.
The idea is this: Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups don’t get that leg up. Nepotism and relationships are everything in the corporate world, and if they don’t get that initial push into a job, (whether that be via a referral from another employee, through diversity-minded hiring practices, and so on) then how can they expect to ever get in? They can get all the degrees and certifications that they want, but if there is no one there to actually push for hiring them, than their unemployment rates will stay inordinately higher than whites from similar educational and socio-economical backgrounds.
The Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank did a study a couple of years ago that showed blacks had double the unemployment rate as whites controlling for level of educational attainment. This includes no diploma, high school diploma only, some college, and college graduate.
There is still several systemic barriers that go into preventing employment for blacks and other minority groups. Taking away affirmative action will only damage them further as they already struggle to gain access to the same equality that whites do.
As a former manager at a very large P and C carrier, I can tell you how Affirmative Action worked there. Each quarter we were handed a list of Affirmative Action goals. XX female in grades X to X and XX minorities in grades X to X. We were then “encouraged” to hire the candidates that fit the goal, even if they were not the best candidate for the job, so we could meet the goal, report it back to the government and get our points for filling those Affirmative Action numbers. We would then each get a memo telling us what goals had been met for the previous quarter. If we were ahead of goal, then there were no goals and we got to hire the best candidate. If we needed to fill a number though, we filled that number. Sad, huh? Can’t even get the best person for the job, because someone had to have a box checked on a form saying I hired this or that person. Another part of the system involved firing for cause someone from the Affirmative Action goal group. Darned near took an act of congress, had to get signed off on so many levels of management all the way to the home office, even if the person was just a low level clerk with a few months on the job. Fire for cause a non Affirmative Action employee, no problem, local approval only required.
TxLady,
That is the exact wrong way to go about Affirmative Action. and must have been a terrible place to work at with such misguided practices. You sure it wasn’t Wells Fargo? :P
Doug,
Thanks for your response. I think we are mostly on the same page. It has been increasingly difficult for anyone to find a good job, which is why there is so much “under employment”. It usually takes a recommendation from someone else to get a semi-professional to professional type position. I believe the percentage of college graduates obtaining a job that is aligned with their degree is very low.
I found the EcPI report that you referenced. Here is a link for anyone that is interested in reviewing. http://www.epi.org/publication/black-white-wage-gaps-expand-with-rising-wage-inequality/#epi-toc-7. It is very long and I admittedly will have to review when I have more time.
Regarding the EpCI, I am not as convinced as you might be that they are truly non-partisan. Here is a link why.
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/516-economic-policy-institute/
I will admit that I have become increasingly skeptical of both right and left leaning reports. The “devil is in the details” and I have found too many situations where the information was manipulated to “prove” the point of the author. I am not saying that is the situation with the above report, because I have not thoroughly reviewed and vetted it. I am only saying that I am cautious with regards to how valid the claims are.
Thanks again for your polite and well thought response.
TXlady, I would be interested in reading about this please cite the law that was forcing your company to hire underqualified minorities over qualified white people. Also, how did your company redeem their points? Thanks.
I am glad you brought up EPI’s bias, because it is apparent that they are left-leaning, and are definitely worthy of scrutiny.
Unfortunately, a red flag was raised with your own link. I found their information on EPI troubling, and moved on to look at a lot of other organizations. It was clear something was amok. Every single organization that favors left-wing policies was regarded as either “radical” or “agenda-driven” and so on, while any right-wing organizations they covered had nothing but praise for their advocacy and leadership.
Then, I researched the group behind it, the “Center for Organzational Research and Education” and found out they are lobbies for Big Tobacco and the Fast Food Industry.
Another deadgiveaway is the .com address in lieu of .org. Then, they run or have run all sorts of really strange pseudo-scientific propaganda sites, and their initial and continued funding come from groups like Phillip Morris, Anheiser-Busch, Casino operators, processed meat manufacturers, etc.
Like I said, I don’t doubt that the EPI may be left-leaning. A right-leaning group, for example, probably wouldn’t publish the data I found at all, in all fairness, since it wouldn’t fit a right-wing “post-racism” narrative.
The data is out there from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other governmental and non-governmental groups.
I feel no malice in the link you provided me and don’t blame you for posting it. Like I said, I believe the informational part of what they said about EPI, but I have to put a ton of scrutiny on their analysis, due to their heavy bias and outright slandering against any left-leaning policy think-tank or organization.
With that being said, I do not concede my point, since there is other hard data to back it up. I am not at all absolving anyone from screwing up their own lives with drugs, an anti-educational attitude during their schooling years, petty crime, and so on. But they are going against a stacked deck from the minute they are born, from reduced access to positive health care, to worse-off schools with lower funding due to the way schools are funded with property taxes, to crumbling infrastructure where they live, to a hostile job market for professionals to anyone named JaMarcus, Shalonda, Geordi La Forge and so on.
If they get the nod over someone like me with similar qualifications, good on them for overcoming a mountain of obstacles, when I may have only had a molehill, in a manner of speaking. I hold no malice for that. Personally, if I were a business-owner, that is the exact type of person I would hire: resilient, longsuffering, able to overcome huge odds, and diverse enough to give me a different perspective than what I am used to.
Doug Fisher – Thanks for the additional info and research. As I said in my previous post, I am becoming increasingly skeptical of both right and left leaning reports.
Hopefully, I will get the chance to review some of the other data you mentioned. Thanks again!
Most of the factors he cited are outdated, trash, pseudoscience. Here’s a basic rundown. Many of his citations were dubious sources from Wikipedia. It’s just not reality.
ht tps://www.fastcompany.com/40449844/5-debunked-gender-myths-in-that-google-anti-diversity-rant
I think that it’s a sad day when a person’s opinion will get them fired when that opinion is simply not aligned with the main-stream politically correct versions of same. To suggest that everyone is the same is ludicrous. To suggest that there aren’t inherent biological differences between genders is equally ludicrous.
If the ‘powers that be’ at Google disagreed with this employee, why not do so in the same medium that the original memo was posted. Do so in writing. Make it clear that ‘we the board’ or whatever, do not agree with ‘Bob’s’ opinion, but he’s entitled to have one.
I get that there comes a place where an ‘opinion’ can’t be ignored or tolerated, but ……..I find it hard to believe that this memo crossed that line. In my humble opinion, it was a knee-jerk reaction that will stifle any notion of independent thought that isn’t aligned with that of the boss.
There is a difference between having an opinion and pioneering a destructive social stigma. If the employee had voiced his opinion to the board in a conversation, he probably would have been told that his views were inconsistent with company goals and nothing would have occurred. However, he sent the stigmatizing document to multiple employees who were not the board; almost trying to educate and teach other employees on his warped notions. Multiple articles and journals decades ago were publishing similar articles about certain races being less intelligent than others, and that was their opinion also. Racism and Sexism is not just an opinion. It affects others negatively throughout their lives for just being born with a skin color or gender.
…”the stigmatizing document.”..stig·ma·tize
1. describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval.
Wow ! You certainly lumped in a world of crap that had little to nothing to do with my comment. Decades of racism ? The man (unless he identifies as something other than male) that wrote the memo was stating why, in his opinion, there were fewer women in tech companies. He may be right. Perhaps you could tell us why there are fewer women automobile mechanics ? Is it taboo to recognize ANY differences between the genders ? I suppose that ‘being stigmatized’ is a choice. They read someone’s opinion and decide that they are grievously offended….or should be.
Frankly, I think people have become entirely too thin skinned. Everyone is looking for a reason to be offended. If you opined that I was too dumb to be posting on this message board, I wouldn’t report you to the moderator and I wouldn’t lose so much as a wink of sleep.
If you choose to let someone else’s opinion affect you negatively throughout your life, that’s pathetic, nothing else.
Please, Google, don’t settle.
Do you think they would litigate this ? Not a chance. Google will pay a fortune to this guy and they should.
I have several observations regarding this article and situation:
1) Except for a “remote” connection to EPLI coverage, why is IJ reprinting this Reuters story considering the recent statements that the users elevate insurance discussion and limit political discussion? Isn’t this article somewhat “baiting” us into a political discussion?
2) I find it ironic that “diversity” is the goal of our society, yet, when it comes to opinions, diversity is not acceptable when those opinions differ from those left leaning organizations that have an opposing opinion.
3) The left leaning Reuters article is “suspiciously” slanted with “expert opinions” downplaying the potential case the ex-Google employee has. I wonder how many labor lawyers out there thinks he has a real case. Calif is an “at-will” employment state, so there is probably little recourse, except that the Calif Labor Law is very liberal in other situations. If he was otherwise a adequately performing employee with no other performance issues AND his opinion is why he was fired, he may have a good case, especially if:
a) he was not in a (mgmt.) position that his opinions would affect others, or
b) If in such a position, there is no evidence that his opinions actual caused any discrimination against anyone.
4) If having a different or opposing opinion is grounds for allegedly creating a “hostile” work environment, that is a very dangerous precedent because that is “life” in many, if not most work environments.
Good one integrity. The Progressives really lined up against this guy, didn’t they? God forbid if someone has a different viewpoint. Hope he pursues and forces a big settlement out of them and maybe they will change their tune.
I think the idea is thus:
If he was in a managerial position, knowing his positions on believing that women are not suited well for engineering positions (from bunk science long since disproven), why would he give a woman a chance at a job working alongside or under him? The discrimination is clear in that respect.
Studies have actually shown that telling someone they are bad at something actually leads to them performing worse. So what happens to the women and minorities that he works alongside or throughout the company? Someone with negative and false beliefs can be a bad apple and can be a form of discrimination and even bullying, believe it or not. It is not direct, and may not even be intentional, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an effect.
My point is that there should be other evidence (i.e. performance related or factual discrimination) to render termination. Society is going down a slippery slope if we are simply judged by our opinions. Differing opinions is a part of diversity. We sharpen others when we disagree. If we are all forced to become “like-minded”, we are now a cult.
I definitely agree to that ideal, 100%, no matter how outside the norm someone’s opinions are.
The memorandum that got circulated was what did him in. If we was willing to write a 10-page memo on something like this, then you could assume he was also a very outspoken guy in general. People who worked closely with him probably already knew how he felt, and that, too, is totally fine if kept within the confines of trusted relationships.
News spreads fast, however, and when you put your ideas out as a solution to a perceived problem, you are taking ownership for them. It would be a similar situation if he replaced “women” with “gays” or “Jews” or “Muslims” or “Evangelicals”
Couldn’t that create a hostile work environment? Every single person on this planet is entitled to their thoughts, but once you make them public, companies have a right to protect their employees, even from just the perception of bullying or intimidation, etc.
Studies have shown a direct correlation between job performance and someone’s perception of their own abilities. If someone is on a team telling others that women aren’t good at what they do, or that blacks and Hispanics only got hired to fill quotas, also making them less “deserving,” then you are affecting job performance and then the way others will see those people could be affected, too, snowballing the comments’ effects several times over in a vicious cycle.
The guy had to go, period. No worries, though. He is a straight, white, educated male with relevant work experience in Silicon Valley, I am 100% certain he will land on his feet.
He wasn’t forced to become like minded. In fact, instead of trying to make him change his mind they used their right to fire him, and he is welcome to go to any business that will have him, with his mind untouched.
It was a cowardly move on Google’s part.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words – and/or your inane opinion – will never hurt me.”
Sounds to me like some snowflakes need to toughen up a bit.
Funny, anybody who isn’t far right is a snowflake, but the second some racist, ignorant right winger gets his feelings hurt, even if it’s a true state they whine forever and try to get comments deleted. Losers.
Yes Doug this creates a hostile work environment,and he should have been fired immediately. In top of that, the guy was pushing BS pseudoscience, and is an engineer,he’s not competent to do his job. He also lied about his qualifications and education, like many right wingers here, specifically Yogi, on his social media accounts so it’s very possible he did when he applied to his job too.
UW – That is one amazing crystal ball you have. You can look into everyone’s hearts and motives. You actually know how well this guy performed his job and that he was incompetent. How bad is Google that they would allow him to continue as an employee when he was so incompetent.
Newsflash…You’re not God and you don’t know Jack about anyone on this site, their qualifications or education, especially what type of people we are. Your opinions about the people who post here are not fact based but are judgments based on your own bias.
It’s a shame that you cannot have a normal discussion to discuss the issues without hateful rhetoric.
UW – It appears that you’ve got some serious issues (anger, comprehension, memory).
First, I never said women were inferior. I said they are biologically different. That does not mean inferior. As a whole group, men naturally do some things better than women and vice versa. Women can outperform men in traditional “male dominated” employments and men can outperform women in traditional “female dominated” employments. There are physical and biological differences proven by science. I know you want to call it “BS pseudoscience” but isn’t it amazing that it is okay for you to debunk hundreds of years of known proven science with “other scientists” theories?
Second, check you memory, as well as this blog and others. You have me confused with someone else when it comes to civility. Want proof…just read the civilized discussion I had with Doug Fisher.
Third, you said “Reread my original comment, you misinterpreted what I wrote or can’t understand it.” Which “original” comment? They are all mostly incoherent, so interpreting them is not my problem. Take some ownership in what you say and how you say it.
Doug and UW (and everyone),
I finally found the entire email and encourage everyone to read it. Here is the link. http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
Doug, I am going to assume you did not get to read the entire email because the entire point of the email was that everyone needs to be inclusive but, we should not be blinded by our own biases when and recognize that diversity in certain fields have a biological element to it.
He very eloquently laid out reasons why the disparities in professions are not exclusively due to sexism or racism but gave reasons for and against why race and gender (primarily gender) naturally occur. (i.e. women are not in certain professions simply because they do not want to be).
Additionally, he carefully and professionally called out Google for “limiting certain positions for certain genders and races”, which you just agreed was wrong.
His whole message was to listen to others viewpoints and not oppress them. He alluded that the current environment caused people to be afraid to express their opinions if they were different. Ironic that he was fired for it.
There is nothing in the email that is threatening towards women or other races and admitted he was politically a leftist.
In my opinion, he was fired because he scraped open some wounds that Google was trying to heal by pretending they didn’t exist. They needed to make an example of him that others with the same opinion would face termination if they did not conform to their thinking.
(For UW, yes, they ARE forcing their employees to be like minded. By firing him, they have drawn the red line.)
I can see your point in many ways, integrity matters.
I think where we diverge in opinion on the memo (which, yes is pretty innocuous and definitely NOT worth firing someone over) is how he doesn’t cite any data, whatsoever. He makes a ton of sweeping generalities and specific statements like a “everybody knows women are x, y, or z.” but doesn’t show his work. I would be more apt to be sympathetic to his reasoning if he backed up his definitive statements with scientific proof.
I do agree that he should not have been fired for what he wrote. I think once it became a problem and went viral, however, Google panicked due to public perception and left-wing outrage and folded to pressure.
I still think the guy is definitely an entitled and privileged SOB, but he does make many valid points, especially referring to purposeful programs intended only for women to succeed at Google.
I believe discrimination is wrong in all of its forms. I endorse Affirmative Action hiring when it is handled correctly, ie: when two candidates have similar skill sets, education, prior experience, etc. and if your company is as homogeneous as a bag of wonder bread, it would do wonders for society and your company to give preference to the diverse candidate. I do not endorse hiring an obviously weaker candidate to meet some arbitrary quota.
This is coming from a blue-eyed, blonde-haired straight man who has been giving a lot of leg up on my competition due to several advantages that were built for people like me.
Doug,
Thank you so much for your reply and honest response.
I agree that I think Google panicked and felt they had to make an example of him.
By the way, you may have missed Gizmodo’s opening commentary stating:
“The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.”
I think he included the data he was referencing, but Gizmodo did not reproduce it within the article.
I came from a very modest upbringing. Both parents worked hard to support a large family, so income wise, we were on the lower end of middle class. My parent’s always kept our ego’s in check and would say “Rich people are no better than you are and poor people are no worse than you are. This applies to all people, regardless of race or religion. Who they are as a person is what really matters and you should treat everyone equally.”
Interested – Please read the actual email that was sent. He was not “pioneering a destructive social stigma”.
By the way, it is obvious that there are biological differences between genders and races as a whole. Their is scientific evidence to support that, as well. This is not to say that a gender or race cannot excel or have an interest in an area that the “average” person in their gender or race does not.
If we are so PC about equality, we should make sure the MLB, NFL, NHL and college sports put an equal number of whites, blacks and Hispanics on their teams and make sure they get equal playing time.
Interested – you really liked your post, didn’t you ?? LOL. “….pioneering a destructive social stigma.” That is hilarious. Pioneering……hardly. Stigma. Stigmatized. New words I guess.
What a lot of people are not getting is this guy is an engineer and was writing an article from an engineering perspective. In other words he was suggesting a way to fix a perceived problem. Nowhere in this memo is he calling for revolt, insubordination, work stoppage or anything that would negatively impact the productivity or revenue of the organization. He presented and argument and an idea. For that he was fired? That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
I worked with a guy who thought women in the insurance workforce were the downfall of this industry. And he would say this in front of the women that he worked with. He was serious as a heart attack when he would say it.
Were people filing complaints about him? No they ignored him.
Saying an opinion in a conversation is different from publishing a ten-page paper presenting sexist information to educate fellow employees. In a conversation, someone does have the right to speak up and challenge him. With this paper, he injured Google’s reputation and also created an environment discouraging women from being effective members of the company. What woman would want to work under a person with views like this? Or a company that supports views like this?
Read the email, Interested. Your comments are uninformed and off base. He actually offered solutions to help women succeed in those positions.
You are exactly right, any women working with him face a hostile work environment,and it’s based on debunked Wikipedia pseudoscience.
I do not like Google because I think they track us way more than we know. I also think they are very close to being in bed with the spy agencies especially the NSA. Maybe Ed Snowden knows more!
I try not to use Chrome very much.
Will the left leaning businesses ever admit that they are intolerant??? Don’t think so.
BTW what does this have to do with insurance??? Maybe an EPLI exposure.
Let’s not stray from the topic at hand, please. Google is just like any other multi-national corporation: their money is in every pocket that will take it.
Wow Doug…….”Let’s not stray from the topic at hand, please.” Really? I am astounded that you felt it is your place to tell another poster something like that. Talk about bashing the 1st Amendment !!
If you don’t think someone else’s comment is on point, ignore it.
Despite the fact that the publication is called Insurance Journal, the writers and editors (not to mention most of the regular posters) have shown themselves to be very, very liberal. Not that it matters, except that, the insurance industry is traditionally and still is today, a very conservative industry. Maybe those of us in the industry need to find another source of related news and updates……leave this pub and it’s message board to the invaders.
That would be considered a conspiracy theory with zero proof or even hint of proof and not worthy of discussion on this topic. Please stay on topic for the good of the discussion at hand. Otherwise, I am sure we will wake up to a bunch of deleted posts and nobody will have gained any insight into anything.
I love all the articles in magazines and newspapers today that announce the superior attributes of women as leaders and managers. “Women are Naturally Better Collaborators”. “Women are Better Listeners”. “Women are More Nurturing”.
So, if women have superior attributes, if in fact women and men are still different, according to science, then what attributes do men have that are superior? (Am I fired for even asking such an obvious question?)
Women are just as tall as men. Women are just as strong. Women can do anything a man can do. Just hilarious, the PC cowardice. From people who claim they “believe in science”. Awesome.
I whole-heartedly agree……..but Google says, “No soup for you!”.
Women are better at having babies than men. Fired
Men have larger testicles than women. Fired.
Women live longer than men. Promoted.
The P/C Police are having their day right now. Just have to ride along till the next most popular thing comes along and replaces it.
Not a good time to be white or a male and certainly not both.
“Not a good time to be white or a male and certainly not both.”
You are so out of touch it is borderline disgusting.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/
Unemployment numbers (July 2017):
Whites – 3.8%
Blacks – 7.4%
Latinos – 5.1%
By Gender:
Men – 4.4%
Women – 4.3%
Average household income by race (most recent stat available from 2014):
Whites – $79,340
Latinos – $54,644
Blacks – $49,629
Whites are UNDERrepresented in bottom earnings quintile, and OVERrepresented in all other quintiles.
Blacks are OVERrepresented in lowest two quintiles, and underrepresented in top 3 quintiles.
Latinos are OVERrepresented in bottom THREE quintiles and UNDERrepresented in top 2 quintiles.
To even think that because you hear of a random, singular story once in a blue moon about a minority getting hired somewhere or into a school on a special scholarship or due to Affirmative Action means that whites are getting disproportionately screwed somehow is the most racially blind thing I have read in a long, long, long time.
Whites still have the upper hand and advantage in nearly every single demographic, period. Men still outearn women, even when controlling for things like time off for maternity leave, and other things.
We are trying to be civil and have discourse here, but I can hardly even fathom what I just read. Have you experienced life outside of your bubble of existence, by any chance? Have you tried walking a mile in someone else’s shoes by chance?
Systemic racism and discrimination still exists, regardless of whether we had a black president or not.
So being out of touch is disgusting? How about uninformed ? Is that also disgusting ? Being wrong must warrant a more severe punishment and having a different opinion…….God forbid !
Doug, you don’t even know what I was referencing, yet you post, preach and pontificate away.
In our new ‘Politically Correct’ world, being a white male is paramount to being guilty without having done a thing. Every comment is parsed, examined and played backward on the turn table to make sure nothing offensive….to someone, somewhere, wasn’t uttered. The pendulum has swung just about as far to the left as it can go. If you can’t see that, Doug, then methinks that ‘out of touch’ might be a befitting description for you……but I wouldn’t say that. Granted, you can always play the ‘Denial’ card or some form of deflection, but it is what it is and I know it as does just about everyone else who ain’t afraid of the truth.
For the record, I appreciate your effort to back up your position, but since you had my comment completely wrong…..
And, I’m sure you know this, but statistics and any other ‘numbers’ that get thrown around in today’s information rich cyber world are not very reliable…comforting perhaps, but reliable, not so much…..there are stats and counter-stats to support just about any argument you or I might care to make – I place little credence in just about any of them for that reason and could, with little effort, produce stats to counter everything you posted above.
” We are trying to be civil and have discourse here, but I can hardly even fathom what I just read. Have you experienced life outside of your bubble of existence, by any chance?” Which part of this is the ‘civil’ part….? You don’t know much about me at all – almost nothing except a couple of completely misunderstood comments posted on a message board.
I hope you have a great weekend. Do you have plans to try to watch the eclipse Monday week ? Best.
Dismissing almost all statistics off hand, what a genius.
No, people here don’t know your whole life’s story; they do know you’ve called murdered black people “thugs,” and justified it because of that, insinuated that the Clinton’s murdered and intimidated witnesses, wondered who the N-Word could be offensive to since it is in rap music, called people like Ron stupid for their stance of gun control, call people who agree with almost 100% of climate scientists ‘uninformed lemmings drinking the Kool Aid,” constantly atack liberals and progressives as a group, and on and on.
But, as always you whine for “civilized discourse,” about just how inferior women and minorities and liberals, and anybody different than you are. But we can’t use science or data, because you will dismiss all of it offhand, without looking at it, as biased. You are like a parody account, but sadly think of yourself as a moderate, rational, informed, educated person.
Two thumbs up, Craig!
No one is saying that women do not have the capability to perform various jobs. We are saying that to arbitrarily try to “equalize” the number of men and women in certain positions for diversity reasons, is discriminatory.
Let the best person (regardless of gender or race) do the job based on the skillsets required for the job.