Slashdot Mirror


Google Grapples With Fallout After Employee Slams Diversity Efforts (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares a report from NPR: In a 3,300-word document that has been shared across Google's internal networks, an engineer at the company wrote that "biological causes" are part of the reason women aren't represented equally in its tech departments and leadership. The document also cited "men's higher drive for status." The engineer's criticism of Google's attempts to improve gender and racial diversity has prompted two Google executives to rebut the lengthy post, which accused the company of creating an "ideological echo chamber" and practicing discrimination. Wide sharing of the document has highlighted struggles with gender equality and the wage gap in the tech industry and particularly at Google, which was sued by the federal government earlier this year for refusing to share compensation amounts and other data.

But in contrast, the document's author -- whose identity hasn't been publicly released but who claims to work at the company's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters -- accused Google of having "a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence." Not enough has been done, the engineer said, to encourage a diversity of viewpoints and ideologies at Google. The author also faulted the company for offering mentoring and other opportunities to its employees based on gender or race. The engineer began the document by stating, "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes." The message ended with a similar sentiment -- but with the added notion, "Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the [company's] training suggests."
In addition to the responses made from Google's VP of Diversity, Integrity and Governance, Danielle Brown, former engineer Yonatan Zunger, and Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh, senior developer Sarah Mei wrote: "This guy almost certainly thinks of himself as a 'computer scientist,' but he does exactly what you're not supposed to do as a scientist. He draws a conclusion favorable to his ego, and then works backwards from there, constructing an argument to justify it. [...] This google dude literally works at the company that made it _trivially easy_ to locate relevant social science research."

5 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What is google going to do to fix this? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Free and open debate.

  2. Re:Hey - here's an idea by thegreatbob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Purple people would tend to be a target for the Purple People Eater, making them quite the liability... just sayin'

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  3. Re:One guy by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Informative

    It never said that "women can't do X because biology" but they have different interests and motivations and a gender gap may very well be explained without gender based discrimination. We should treat people as individuals not as groups. It also said that political biases will make it difficult to talk about the issues that diversity programs may cause such as treating individuals as a group.

    No one is arguing that women can't do X but rather because of biological differences the average can create a gender gap even when the individual is an exception.

  4. Re:First Be Evil by brennz · · Score: 5, Informative

    It isn't like Google is:

    Conspiring with autocratic nation's Great Firewalls
    Doxxing internal critics
    Fighting against free speech
    Hiding important content
    Getting in bed with corrupt political candidates
    Trying to subvert the political process
    Enforcing ThoughtCrime
    Demonetizing any Youtube performers on the Right
    Rewriting queries to favor their own services
    Manipulated searches to hide politicians' dark deeds
    Coming up with exotic Tax avoidance schemes
    Supporting Terrorists' information sharing

    Do no evil, right?

  5. Re:One guy by K.+S.+Van+Horn · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Proceeds to make tons and tons of assumptions and assertions"

    The original apparently had links to supporting sources for these assertions. Gizmodo chose to remove those links. I wonder why?

    I don't know how accurate in general his assertions of fact are, but when it comes to gender differences in interests -- with men tending to be more "thing"-oriented, and women more people-oriented -- he is on very solid ground. I recommend that you read Scott Alexander's article discussing this:

    Gender Imbalances Are Mostly Not Due to Offensive Attitudes.

    Pay particular attention to section II where he discusses Richard Lippa's research.