Slashdot Mirror


Google Engineer's Leaked 'Gender Diversity' Essay Draws Massive Response (medium.com)

An anonymous reader writes: An engineer at Google's Mountain View headquarters circulated a 3,400-word essay internally that argued a "moral bias" exists at Google that's "shaming dissenters" and silencing their voices against "encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies." It attributes the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities (such as "speaking up" and "leading") and different personality traits (including "neuroticism"). Its suggested remedies include "Stop alienating conservatives" (calling it "non-inclusive" and "bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness"), and it also suggests as a solution to "de-emphasize empathy" (which "causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases").

As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"

The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."

Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."

Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."

Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."

3 of 1,122 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It would be nice if things were unrelated, but by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Unfortunately you don't have any logical reason to disagree, so you make a joke out of it.

    I was using humour to point out a classic example of the fallacy of relative privation. That you didn't realise that, or realise it after my post does not mean I lack a rational argument, it means you're a bit thick this evening.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. Re:No kidding. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If they guy really believes what he wrote, why doesn't he put his "gender-based superiority" to the test and just go start his own tech biz filled with guys who think like him and make bazillions consulting to all those mature companies he says want guys like him, instead of working for Google?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  3. Re:Attacking dissent at Google by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Mr. Day has a history of fabricating things and not posting corrections when errors are pointed out. Of course, if he changes his ways we can re-evaluate his performance, but as it stands I think it's reasonable not to rely on him as a single source.

    I mean, in the current climate people demand multiple sources even for stuff from the BBC and NHK. And then those same people are usually the ones posting a single Vox Day link.

    A quick google confirms that it's pretty much just him on this one.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC