Slashdot Mirror


Google's Other Ugly Secret: Some Managers Keep Blacklists (inc.com)

Last week a controversial internal memo written by a concerned Google employee was going viral within the company. The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto" on social media, argued two points: First, that Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind. Second, that part of the tech industry's gender gap can be attributed to biological differences between men and women. The person who wrote the memo has since been fired, but the internal tussle has revealed one more thing. The Inc reports: The contentious internal discussion revived a concern dating back to 2015: An unknown number of Google managers maintain blacklists of fellow employees, evidently refusing to work with those people. The blacklists are based on personal experiences of others' behavior, including views expressed on politics, social justice issues, and Google's diversity efforts. Inc. reviewed screenshots documenting several managers attesting to this practice, both in the past and currently, explicitly using the term "blacklist." The screenshots were shared by a Google employee who requested anonymity due to having signed an NDA. In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity. A Google spokesperson told Inc. that the practice of keeping blacklists is not condoned by upper management, and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated. It's not clear whether that principle applies in Damore's case. Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law, the views expressed in the manifesto and echoed by others who oppose political correctness do not seem to merit legal protection.

38 of 754 comments (clear)

  1. The Rainbow Scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You may want to research the early days of McCarthyism and the blacklist.

    Is this the first firing that was perhaps an overly sensitive reaction concerned with appeasing a very touchy ideological base? Because I can think of a number of other people railroaded out of a job because of online "outrage."

    We aren't all that far from an Inquisition (not prongs and tongs type Inquisition, but a "your job depends on agreement" type Inquisition). The most significant thing missing from the equation is that the most vocal social justice voices lack political influence and power. If you see this movement organize politically and get candidates in office, any student of history should recognize that things will get worse for open expression of ideas before things get better.

    also girls suck at pooters lol

    1. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was fired for pointing out a hostile work environment and discrimination..

    2. Re:The Rainbow Scare by thecatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you read what he wrote? He didn't denigrate anyone. He just pointed out that people aren't homogeneous in their aptitudes and interests.

    3. Re:The Rainbow Scare by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no, he was fired for intentionally creating a hostile working environment.

      Talk about hyperbole, Mr. alt-left. This isn't even remotely accurate. A hostile work environment is defined by EEOC as:

      1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or
      2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive

      What he said is anything but that. In fact, you could even argue that Google was intimidating and hostile against this guy's (and other people like him) opinion on this matter.

      You come into a business then denigrate a sizable chunk of its workforce, then why should you expect anything else than getting fired?

      Again, the hyperbole is real here. He didn't denigrate anybody. His argument amounted to "men and women are actually objectively different in terms of desires and mannerisms", something that is well supported by science.

    4. Re:The Rainbow Scare by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that is just it. As the haters (and those that damn him now match that description pretty well) have no actual factual arguments, they claim that their stance is "obviously right" and threaten anybody that disagrees with retaliation. Pretty much SOP for fanatical cults.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it were just cultural, you would expect to see wide variances and even opposite roles emphasized across cultures.

      Please enlighten us as to which culture emphasizes men being caretakers, and women being the builders/makers.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    6. Re:The Rainbow Scare by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Women, on average, have more openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men."

      "We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life."

      Hmm....I'm not sure what I see here that is so offensive....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:The Rainbow Scare by JohnFen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a really nice way of rephrasing his actual message: that women are inherently inferior.

    8. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing there is offensive. Thats why what the left claims that he meant to say is what is being used in the discussion by the left.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google CEO said yesterday:

      To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive..

      So all Google employees either have identical biology or it's impossible for biological factors to influence work performance at Google.

      And if you disagree you'll be excommunicated and shunned.

    10. Re:The Rainbow Scare by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except he did not denigrate anyone. At no point did he argue for a discriminatory hiring policy or suggest there were not good engineers among any group.

      What he did suggest was that diversity hires don't help the situation over all. There are valid statistical reasons fewer female engineers exist. You can take aptitude tests and compare the distribution of men vs women and its plain that if you grab any random man off the street you have better odds he will posses the aptitude for higher math for example than any random woman will.

      That is not at all to say this will hold true among the population of say job applicants for an engineering position. That will give you a huge selection bias. It might even eliminate the difference in distribution between men and women form the most part.

      What does not make sense however is to say welp we don't have enough people who are X so we will exclude people that are Y and lower our requirements until we can fill enough positions with X. That won't get you the best people. Is his argument.

      Frankly its a correct one, unless you take it as an article of faith that these other groups are just 'oppressed' in some way and these diversity hires will blossom once they are given a chance. This is a purely unscientific claim. This entire thing exists in the realm of politics.

      Google is a private company. If they want to fire people because they don't support managements politics that is their right, but I think we should call this exactly what it is.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is something sad about a PHD in biology getting fired for stating a biological opinion supported by other PHDs in biology because some MBA's disagree.

    12. Re:The Rainbow Scare by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He didn't say that. He didn't imply that. His main point was to stop treating people as groups and the gender gap in tech is probably not because of sexism.

      Of course, it's easy to argue a straw man you and others created.

    13. Re:The Rainbow Scare by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what gets me. There is nothing inherently wrong stating that there are biological differences in a sexually dimorphic species. What matters is what you do with that knowledge. I do not think women are inferior because they are different! Without their differences we wouldn't have modern humans to begin with.

      It's pretty sad the number of people at google cannot fathom a world where any difference == inferior.

    14. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is something sad about a PHD in biology getting fired for stating a biological opinion supported by other PHDs in biology

      But that's the ideal situation for a political inquisition. Facts and expertise don't matter, only obedience. And now that should be 100% clear to everyone.

    15. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You didn't read the actual "manifesto" , did you?

      https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf

      The dude has a PHD relevant to the topic he was discussing, and was well sourced. I'll grant that
      he may have rambled a bit in some areas, but the intent, which is easily gauged by what is written,
      was to ensure PC culture does not create a toxic environment for ANYONE, and that increasing
      workplace diversity can be achieved in other ways.

    16. Re:The Rainbow Scare by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some societies have more women studying CS than men, e.g. Iran. The women there moved into that relatively new field before it became male dominated, and view it as liberating. Of course the down side is that some men are not put off studying CS because it is seen as a woman's job.

      Other examples include Iceland and New Zealand, where girls now slightly out-perform boys in maths at school. If it was not a social thing, if it was biological, then it's hard to explain how two different cultures with two different languages on opposite sides of the world and with little migration between them could be that way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:The Rainbow Scare by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well sourced? Are you serious? He made assertions without any empirical backing. He simply repeated long-standing gender stereotypes .

      Just because he said things you agree with doesn't make them well-sourced. Well-sourced would be to citations to primary and peer reviewed literature and studies demonstrating his claims.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:The Rainbow Scare by i_ate_god · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > the gender gap in tech is probably not because of sexism.

      Let's say this is because women are poor negotiators. Then the flaw isn't sexism, it's the very nature of capitalism and how units of labour are valued on the market place.

      If two equally qualified individuals work equally well and produce equal amounts of value, then it is morally wrong to pay one individual less than another, regardless of their gender.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    19. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You cannot discuss with religious fanatics. They want to preach their ideology, not discuss it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because your data is right, doesn't mean your conclusion is good or moral.

      Translation: Your data is right, but your supported conclusions makes me uncomfortable. So I'm going to say it's evil and immoral, and hope that's enough to overcome your facts.

    21. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because I can think of a number of other people railroaded out of a job because of online "outrage."

      Like who? If you're thinking of Brendan Eich, that situation isn't comparable. Executive positions are not like rank-and-file engineering jobs, and executives (esp. the CEO) can be let go by the board for really any reason; it's the downside of that kind of job. The CEO is basically the public face of the company, and while his job is supposedly to run the company, it's really more about being the company's top salesperson than anything, and the CEO's personal life reflects directly on the company. So if the company doesn't like the way the CEO makes it look, it has every right to replace him. Also, as I recall, in the Eich case it was Eich himself who voluntarily stepped down during the controversy, because he didn't want Mozilla to be harmed by the controversy, and it worked: as soon as he left, it all died down. Some companies can get away with a highly controversial CEO (or one who's just an obvious asshole), such as Oracle, but a non-profit software company like Mozilla simply can't. Even Uber couldn't; they finally removed Kalanick because of all the controversy and bad press, even though there was no evidence I'm aware of tying him personally to any harassment; just the fact that it happened under his watch was enough.

      Again, to repeat myself, corporate executive positions are NOT like normal W-2 employee jobs. Stop comparing them. They have very little in common.

    22. Re:The Rainbow Scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fact: Women in general have a lower lifting ability and physical strength then men in general.

      Conclusion 1: Firefighters should reduce their requirements to allow women to fight fires.

      Conclusion 2: Anyone who claims people who complete the reduced testing but could not complete the normal firefighter testing are somehow "less qualified" than the people who completed the normal tests are misogynist bigots.

      Conclusion 3: Anyone who writes an essay pointing out that reducing requirements for women is sexist on its face because it displays low expectations for the capability of women, is a double misogynist bigot and a neonazi ultrafascist to boot.

      Everyone's mistake is assuming anyone involved in hiring decisions wanted equality. Everyone involved just wants more women in tech fields, equal or not.

  2. Left wing intolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...running amok

  3. Does that include in the interview process by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated.

    I am curious: does that include discrimination against those protected classes in the job interview process? Like, say, for example, ageism? I am just saying.

    You see, it is easy to visually identify some protected classes and subtly discriminate against them (he is overqualified, or she is not a good fit for the team) in ways that are not obviously discriminatory. But nobody in their right mind talks politics or social justice as part of the interview process. So you hire some people who end being a diversity problem. Don't kid yourself, to Google and similar companies the views expressed which challenge the accepted thinking are not welcomed as part of a healthy and vigorous debate. They are seen as a disease that must be cut out.

    We are very tolerant and accepting here. You had better be tolerant and accepting in the same way or we will sack you.

  4. "Protected Classes" by Nova+Express · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work. How old fashioned!

    Victimhood Identity Politics is in direct opposition to the American principle of individualism. Evidently treating people as individuals doesn't offer SJW types enough opportunities for graft or lording over others to make them conform to their far-left culture war politics.

    So we get "Protected Classes," because some animals are more equal than others...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  5. Echo chambers and workplace equality by MetricT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind.

    How ironic, because the right has itself become an ideological echo chamber. I used to be a Republican, back before moderates were "RINO's". The GOP of that era knew that climate change was real, and debated carbon tax vs cap-and-trade as a solution. The modern GOP either thinks that climate change isn't real, or that it's caused by gay marriage.

    Gender equality is a complex issue, and is full of people talking past each other, so I expect little progress to be made anytime soon. Women should feel completely free to join male-dominated fields like programming and science, just as men should feel free to join female-dominated fields like nursing and teaching.

    Yes, there is often enough male misogynists, weirdos, and "those guys" in IT that it would make women uncomfortable, and that needs to be nipped in the bud, both for the sake of women and for the sake of business. There are women like that too. People who are jerks in one way are often jerks in other ways too, and those malignant personalities often have deleterious effects on their co-workers irrespective of gender.

    But I don't see people fretting about why women aren't working construction jobs, or hauling garbage. That's because even the men working those jobs largely don't *want* to do them. IT isn't hauling the garbage, but it involves long hours, an often stressful work environment, and a relentless grind. Maybe those characteristics aren't as attractive to women as to men. Having worked in IT for 15+ years, it's not attractive to me as a man either. Or maybe women simply have better options.

    Maybe 20% women in programming *is* the natural equilibrium. I don't *think* so, but it's possible. Men and women are different, and desire different things. Men desire income (to attract a wife and support a family), while women often prefer jobs that allow them more free time (again to support their family). If you're a woman who desires income, or a man who wants more free time, that's completely fine (I'd definitely prefer more free time over a pay raise), but it's not the average response.

    TL;DR: People are all different. Be kind to one another. Don't be a dick.

    1. Re:Echo chambers and workplace equality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you'd be surprised if you read the "anti-equality" manifesto. The author highlighted a lot of the social and biological norms that you did.

  6. "political affiliation is a protected class" by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law"

    Yeah.

    In the current political climate this doesn't matter AT ALL. NOT ONE BIT.

    California universities have been tolerating violent, physically violent attacks against speakers, visitors, guests to their campuses, violence in reaction to their professed political affiliations, violence justified by student, faculty, and others NOT AFFILIATED WITH THESE UNIVERSITIES by THEIR political affiliations.

    This is not limited to California, but to recite that California law declares political affiliation a 'protected class', that is, political association is by law in California protected and claimed to be a right of the people to participate in, express, and speak freely without threat of suppression, is not merely disingenuous, it is an affront and insult to those who have suffered actual physical injury because those with opposing views would not tolerate their speaking.

    What? Google fires an employee for speaking their mind. Students and others at Berkeley physically assault people gathering to protest these suppressions of free political speech. In California. Some were arrested. And the attitude that contrary speech should be fought against, literally fought against, seems to be spreading.

    The truth is, in California, there is a coalition of political groups agreeing that contrary speech can and SHOULD be suppressed and prevented, by physical violence if they choose to. And this is happening nationwide. Worldwide.

    And it is justified by the 'greater good'.

    The political philosophy that claims to be tolerant, inclusive, caring, and above all better, is the one that espouses violent response to their opposition. This philosophy is led to this by leaders worldwide, unapologetic in their goals and tactics.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  7. Re:Is there anything wrong with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What are you? A fucking child? I don't love all of my coworkers. I don't agree with many of their political views. The salient factor - the only factor of any importance - is if they can do the job. Be an adult and a professional, and praise and elevate competent people. Shunning people because, boo hoo, they said something mean about X, and it hurts my feelings just to look at them, would seriously get you punted out of my company if I had anything to say about it. We're here to get a job done, expediently, correctly, competitively with the best group of people to make it so. We're not here to massage egos, create safe spaces, or coddle people.

  8. Having read that manifesto... by ilsaloving · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That right-of-centre manifesto was basically (almost) everything that is offensive in a decent society. The jerk whined about how right-wingers were being treated "unfairly" and in almost the same breath, he was very anti-diversity. In particular, the guy is breathtakingly sexist. He's practically a posterchild for all the things that are wrong with brogrammer culture. And this is despite the other anti-diveristy biases that *already* exist at Google, such as ageism.

    While there are a couple valid points buried in that joke of an manifesto, they are completely buried in the mouth-frothing idiocy. The guy was, quite bluntly, an asshole, and I'm glad he was fired. Also, like a cliche right-winger, the concept of irony is completely lost on him.

    Complaining that your own narrow-minded, blatantly sexist viewpoint isn't accepted, is NOT an example of the "liberals" being hypocritical. That's the equivalent of complaining that a criminal should not be punished for conforming to "alternative laws".

    1. Re:Having read that manifesto... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What in his manifesto is sexist? Please quote the passage.

      Waiting....

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Having read that manifesto... by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However "offensive" the man's beliefs may be, he voiced them in an extremely organized, non-confrontational tone that is very open to discussion. Something you have failed to do.

      The real reason for my comment, however, is to ask how you can believe he is anti-diversity. Like another response to your comment, I request quotations for you to back up your point. I am surprised you find him anti-diversity because literally almost the entire document is about how to make Google friendlier to more diverse opinions, and as far as sex goes, has a whole section entitled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap".

  9. Re:Google is not a political club or Slashdot by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday.

    This right here is a problem and it sort of reinforces the notion that some people (be they women, liberals, Christians, immigrants, whatever) are so fragile that they cannot abide people around them who think differently.

    I teach at a Midwestern university. Last fall after Trump won the election I read about how students at some universities were so overwhelmed by the Trump victory that their professors delayed or canceled exams, that the school had cry ins, and other such nonsense.

    What I told my students was that regardless of who you supported, half of the country was terribly disappointed the morning after the election, but that life goes on. The cows still have to get milked, the news papers have to be delivered, the Starbucks have to be open for business, students have to be taught, etc. We have to encourage people to be more resilient, not less.

    I come from an immigrant family. My parents didn't sit around and cry when something didn't go their way or someone said something impolite to them. They put on their big boy/big girl pants and worked that much harder. The state of society today has me frequently asking how we become so weak minded.

  10. Wrong policy by Archtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity".

    Those are the people who should be fired.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  11. Re:Google is not a political club or Slashdot by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've had issues with co-workers political views lately, and it really does make things difficult.

    They are your issues, not everyone elses. Its in your head, not everyone elses.

    Also stop modding yourself up with your sock puppets.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  12. When did /. demographics change? by Imazalil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happened, I thought we were all end-of-life curmudgeons, not 15 year olds just entering the workforce.

    Every single person ever keeps a "blacklist" of people they will not work with. There are many reasons one could find themselves on said list, many real, many petty. Maybe a person...
    - were a client that didn't pay up for work done
    - were a subcontractor that didn't do the work
    - were constantly going on about their child/dog/cat
    - drank too much during office hours
    - smelled
    - their food smelled
    - kept going on about something political, no matter the spectrum
    - you just don't like their face
    - they stole your lunch money
    - have an annoyING valley-girl/boy vocAL afflectiON

    If you're freelancing, you just don't deal with them. If you're in a team/corporate environment, you avoid them. Welcome to life. Can't wait till you discover that you get free television channels by using an antenna (in most parts of the US). Get off my lawn and all that.

  13. Welcome to an At Will Employment state by marian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardless of the reason, California is an "At Will" employment state. This means anyone can be fired, for any reason, at any time. When someone is dumb enough to violate the corporate code of conduct, the firing is insanely easy, and entirely justified. He can sue all he wants. I expect Google will not roll over on this, and make him the poster child for why you should pay attention to the employee handbook.

    For anyone unclear on why what he wrote wasn't the best idea, substitute the word "black", for the word "woman".

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot..... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeate myself."