Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Google Employee's Memo Says Executives Shut Down Pro-Diversity Discussions (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A memo written by a former Google engineer claims that the company's human resources department and a senior vice president pressured him to stop discussing diversity initiatives on company forums, interactions that ultimately motivated him to leave the company. The document, which was written in 2016 and shared publicly this week, provides a striking counterpoint to allegations made by former Google employees James Damore and David Gudeman in a discrimination lawsuit filed against their former employer. Cory Altheide, the former employee who wrote the memo, began work as a security engineer at Google in 2010 and departed the company in January 2016. He recently published his account in a public Google document. Altheide posted several articles and comments to internal discussion groups that promoted diversity in the workplace and was chastised for doing so, he wrote.
First post. Censor this assholes.
...we have another employee suing because he felt discriminated-against because of policies designed to increase diversity.
You can't satisfy all of the people all of the time.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
>provides a striking counterpoint
I don't think so, it looks more like managers have their idea of how they want "diversity" to operate (for diversity read tokenism, PR nonsense, and a complete obedience to management ideas at all times).
*ironic captcha == 'complied' :P
Altheide posted several articles and comments to internal discussion groups that promoted diversity in the workplace and was chastised for doing so, he wrote.
Given that was exactly the same as what Damore did, I don't see how it's a counterpoint. Or is it that Gizmodo only approves of Altheide's diversity and Damore's diversity is "wrong"?
Fortunately, there's a lawsuit by Damore and Gudeman against Google happening, so it's quite likely the matter will be explored fully and we can all enjoy finding out what's been going on.
Can you think of a bigger waste of time? I'd shut that shit down too. Do that garbage on your own time, at church, or your famous PTA meetings. Life's too short for this crap. Christ! You can't even flirt anymore. Fucking dementors taking all the joy out of life!
And please note, I am a zenophile. Fucking your own kind/race/nationality is almost gay.
Times change and Google could very well be batting from the other side now
I can't actually believe that any workplace in the Western world (i.e. previously WHITE countries) would actually stop anybody from pushing diversity bullshit on the rest of their employees, at any time, for any reason. Yet another shakedown by a worthless parasite who can't hack it.
Google has a big problem with its employees not being 'diverse' enough, because we know that you need to be intelligent to work there, and that excludes all the Africans on the planet...
After a while, people realize that offering your opinion when asked for it is one of those "constructive dismissal" traps.
This isn't exactly a "counter-point". From an article about Damore's case:
“We want to be inclusive of people not ideas” one employee identified as Alon Altman wrote in a message included in the lawsuit. Damore says that sentiment was backed up at an Inclusion and Diversity Summit he attended in June, when he was told by Google employees the company does not value “viewpoint diversity,” but actively strives for “demographic diversity.”
This new memo seems to reinforce this perspective. It might not be illegal or anything, but this memo definately doesn't "counter" the claims included in damore's suit.
To sit back and watch as slashdot, which has become a cesspool of libertarian idealists, undiagnosed aspergers cases, and racist reddit dropouts, attempt to discuss this. Slashdot has a rusty iron rod up it's ass when it comes to racism or sexism, so let's see if anyone takes this guy's claims seriously or has a meaningful discussion about diversity in tech.
We'll probably see idiots screaming about "SJW's!!!", which is what passes for intellectual discussion on Slashdot these days. So sad.
This whole diversity/gender debate thing is getting and more into an absurd territory of epic proportions. It's quite some time ago that I've been able to take larger parts of mainstream contributions to this debate seriously.
To me a very welcome addition of reason and level-headedness was the open letter of ~100 women of influence and fame in France speaking out against #MeToo, it's totalitarianism and a false pretense of feminism published two days ago in Le Monde (basically the French nyt) that went largely unnoticed/uncovered by mainstream media. These ladies deserve a medal or something and they deserve to be heard, despite mainstream media trying to ignore them.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The more you read and hear about these problems, the more you realize, employers simply should not care about these things. Whether an engineer, a train-dispatcher, or a secretary is a racist or a feminist is irrelevant — what matters is whether or not they do a good job.
And employers do not want to care either — it is an expensive minefield, gravely dangerous no matter what you do.
However, the Illiberals laws and practices force them into policing employee conduct. Our Illiberal overlords, themselves restrained from regulating speech, manage to compel employers into such policing with the overhanging threats of prosecutions for "hostile work environment.
That is, yeah, much as we hate it, it is legal for you to say what you want to say. We can neither fine nor imprison you for saying it, sadly. But we can force your employer to fire you instead, and that's almost as good.
Thus, arguing whether or not Google "has a right" to decide what to do, is completely bogus. Whatever the personal opinions of the company's executives, their hand is forced. Forced by the busybodies, who've shredded the First Amendment.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A whole lot of nothing. Even Altheide agreed with google to an extent. Some choice quotes:
"The engineer noted in his memo that some involved in the discussions questioned diversity in ways that were clearly “not coming from a position of good faith” and shouldn’t be tolerated."
"I wanted to point out that blanket assumptions of good faith in diversity topics aren’t data driven, given that the data shows not everyone is acting from a position of good faith."
"stupid as the myth of meritocracy the tech industry is so in love with"
To recap. He had is own platform in google. He starts discussion about diversity and others comment that break company policy. He agrees those comments should not be tolerated. He wanted to point out assumption of diversity are not data driven and that meritocracy is a myth.
Did I miss anything?
As title
We know exactly what Damore's memo said. There are no quotes from Altheide's posts in the article, except thread titles (“If you think women in tech is just a pipeline problem, you haven’t been paying attention" and "Just Asking Questions").
Why do I have the suspicion that these posts weren't as well reasoned (and backed up by cited scientific research) as Damore's memo?
Google management doesn't want to talk about, and that's why HR cut off discussion on this particular topic even though the initial post favored management's POV.
If I was running that forum I might've done the same thing.
Damores article essentially attempts to justify centuries old gender bias with "science." Most people in the scientific community, including myself, were reaching for the popcorn and fascinated to see just how deep he would go trying to prove a pretty tenuous point.
https://www.wired.com/story/th...
Damore makes a pretty sophomoric error several times, conflating gender and sex, but if that controversy isnt enough he starts flogging nature vs nurture. I myself being an evolutionary biologist nearly joked from laughter on my jiffy pop.
Im sure google would win this in court, however its cheaper and easier to settle out of court with the usual no-fault, no-deny and a litany of contractual boilerplate that keeps anyone from speaking of this ever again. Expect this guy to tour Fox news a few times and write a book in a few years, but the idea that he will ever face summary execution in front of a jury of actual scientists is unfortunately not going to happen.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The problem with these pro-diversity talks, is that we're hiring people because they're diverse, rather then if they're skilled and the right fit. If you see a development team who is all white and male, you have SJW's crying discrimination, when in fact, in 99.999% of cases, you have qualified people, the right people working together. People shouldn't be hired because they're diverse, they should be hired because they're the right fit.
Maybe Altheide was trying to discuss REAL diversity, and not the faux diversity that stops at the color of your skin and the shape of your genitals that's so fashionable at Google?
In other words, a REAL discussion?
You know, kinda like Damore did?
FTFA:
Over the course of several months, employees engaged in a debate about gender representation at Google in an internal thread titled “If you think women in tech is just a pipeline problem, you haven’t been paying attention.” The debate became contentious, Altheide said in his memo, and had to be shut down by Sridhar Ramaswamy, Google’s senior vice president of ads and commerce, and Urs Holzle, Google’s senior vice president of technical infrastructure. . . .
Ramaswamy wrote: “Google is not a debate club or a philosophy class. We are a workplace and we have an obligation to make sure our discussions remain respectful. Debates around topics like product excellence can support a wide variety of viewpoints and are great to have. I don’t think the same can be said for debates around sensitive issues such as gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation.”
If you RTFA what Google execs did was shut down contentious discussions about diversity. Altheide posted pro-diversity comments which apparently tended to spark big flamewars, and he was told to stop.
The fact is that this is a contentious topic in the tech industry, inside Google just as much as everywhere else (including slashdot, obviously). Google employees have lots of internal communications fora which are unpoliced and heavily used, and the employees are not closely monitored, which creates a risk that when contentious topics arise on these internal fora people get sucked in, wasting a lot of time and generating a lot of bad blood, both of which have significant negative impacts on productivity.
One of the core tenets of Google culture is that one should always assume good faith and competence on the part of their colleagues (unless proven otherwise, obviously), but that's a tenet that works much better in a small company that is highly selective in its hires. In most situations it works reasonably well in a big company that is highly selective in its hires... but as you grow the law of averages catches up with you and assholes and incompetents sneak in. This is particularly true around areas that won't come up in an interview, like attitudes about diversity.
As a Google employee, my takeaway is "This is why we can't have nice things." Open discussion fora with light oversight, and a culture of internal transparency and openness are really awesome, but they appear to be incompatible with being a large multinational corporation. Sigh.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He's a sexist guy with no novel or interesting ideas. He is so far behind he thinks he's first. Let him languish under a rock and stop giving him the fresh air of the attention he rich desires.
So why run your mouth. It's basically political discussion. You probably make as many people happy as pissed off by doing this. Just shut up and do your job!
Well in this case, at this moment, diversity seem to be new Communist Revolution in USA and Western Europe.
There is always someone who has to complain about how they are treated. It's a job, and if you don't like it move on. What I do find really interesting is the image Google is showing to the world. It appears Google wants their employees to fit their mold and not question. In the case of diversity, if you question for or against it doesn't matter. What matters is what Google HR is pushing. Remember: HR is there for the company, not the employee. I would be worried for Google and this image as the best talent doesn't want anyone telling them how to think. That's the whole point. Allow your employees to think big and out there. This will hurt Google either way. Need to do some triage.
me if you'd like, can be like Fuck The Baby of OpenBSD. How notorious OpenBSD corporations represents the private sex party and the bottom Posts. Due to the Shit-filled, to be about doing FreeBSD had long big deal. Death purposes *BSD is take a look at the Prima donnas to new core is going Usenet. In 1995, = 36400 FreeBSD the system clean To use the GNAA dying. See? It's appeared...saying the NetBSD project, Could sink your metadiscussions shitheads. *BSD DOG THAT IT IS. IT continues to lose bought the farm... least of which is Told reporters, 7000 users of clearly become Like They are Come Assholes, as they told reporters, The political mess IS DYING LIKE THE had at lunchtime And building is ofone single puny collect any spilled people's faces at clean for the next is part of the Fact: *BSD is dying whole has lost
Yeah, worth pointing out that the management types are usually against productive internal discussions because it makes their top-down decision by fiat seem less effective. Seem, since these types of decisions are nearly always destined to fail, but they'd rather people pretend that the idea works for a few years before firing off another random fiat declaration for a new paradigm.
Any large entity generally has multiple, conflicted ideas floating around. The problem experienced by Cory Altheide doesn't dispute the problems experienced by James Damore. Google has 70,000+ employees! That's massive, and it's highly probably Google has opposite, conflicting problems that wind up re-enforcing each other as each "side" only sees the extreme of the other "side".
Damores article essentially attempts to justify centuries old gender bias with "science."
Except it did nothing of the sort. What he ATTEMPTED to do was say, if females and males are biologically different, what we can do to improve the workplace environment for females? He may have been ham-fisted about it but that was the obvious intent. It was a paper focused on perceived environmental issues that he thought worked against women, and how he thought might be corrected... a great place to start a discussion on where he was right and wrong, not such a great place to start a series of violent threats followed by immediate termination.
Im sure google would win this in court, however its cheaper and easier to settle out of court
*I'm* sure that Damore will win, and it's refreshing to see that deep down even the most obtuse SJW inherently recognizes the obviousness of his case and thew wrongness of Google for immediate termination over it, thus also predicting victory... how many millions do you think he will get to further his efforts on recognition of gender differences, I wonder.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These people talk as though conservatives were oppressed, but if you read a little more (unless someone is misquoting someone), you'll find out that the "conservative" thing that Gudeman was caught doing, had jack shit to do with conservatism or anything related to left/right politics, and indeed was only tangentially related to politics at all. He could have just as easily claimed he was persecuted for being a communist, and that would be every bit just as accurate (i.e. totally unrelated). Check out this absolute nuttery :
So everyone, take a deep breath. When these kind of people say "conservative," they actually mean paranoia to the point of crippling mental illness, and support for president Trump, at the expense of all Americans -- conservatives and everyone else too.
No matter where you on the left/right scale somewhere, these people are completely fucked up. I wasn't being silly enough when I said he could claim he was disliked for his communism. It'd be less of a stretched analogy to say he was disliked for his shoplifting or spitting on any other employee whenever he saw them wearing a red shirt, or taking a dump in the break room while masturbating. Oh, and being a communist or "conservative" or whatever else fake label you want to put on opinions that are essentially non-political.
Gudeman is the screaming crazy cat lady from The Simpsons. And nobody could work with him? Imagine that!
However wrong in reasoning Damore may have been, why wasn't his thesis simply rejected in a rational discourse by those who know the matter or took the time to research it?
Maybe you can say that his bringing the point in the first place, however measured, betrays his hostility and distrust towards the policies pushed by the management. But that is often the case in argumentation. If you know you are right you respond to such in a measured way. Judging from the reaction, a nerve was hit which inflamed emotions that made people on the other side blind with rage. That it wasn't one or two crazy folks but many shows that something is deeply wrong within Google.
Which I wouldn't care about, it's Google's thing, if Google weren't the most powerful company on earth shaping the public opinion and perception of reality. This is shit we need to know about.
You are a scientist, how do you react to this internal Google post (part of Damore's filing, Exhibit B):
"I Google'd 'Big Five Personality Differences Male Female' (psych terminology) and nearly every top result backed the offensive claims of Neuroticism and Agreeableness (mean not absolute) differences by gender. Is Search wrong? Should we link to academic finds that may support incorrect stereotypes?"
https://i.redd.it/zxlp6gea8490...
Do you want Google to decide for you what Truth is?
On topics like this, it is because they are afraid of lawsuits.
Fleur-de-lit - 1/11/18 10:38pm
Sounds like they just wanted to douse flamewars that were using up company resources. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
It's no different than someone creating any other type of provocative political threads on a corporate message board creating a massive distraction for employees and a waste of time for no productive gain.
This guy was outing co-workers for private, outside the company conversations (wholly) on an internal blog repeatedly for years.
He even setup an internal service to track this.
That this went on for YEARS before Google stepped in to stop it and note he wasn't given a formal reprimand or demoted - they just asked him to stop it and he quit because he felt he couldn't espouse and enforce his personal views on the company ON company time and the company dime!
It seems to me the root of the problem is the fact that companies want to hire based on "merit" but that is contradictory to diversity because external to the company, educational opportunities are not equal and penalize people that to an extent can be connected with their diversity. Since a given corporation doesn't see itself as responsible for the lack of diversity in the surrounding society, it doesn't see that it should be the one to fix the problem. And since the problem is external to individual companies, and it isn't being held to account (and in fact, often made worse by government undermining educational institutions in favor of moneyed interests), the problem isn't getting fixed so people are looking to blame at the result rather than at the cause, because it is the result that individual people actually have to deal with.
Damore makes a pretty sophomoric error several times, conflating gender and sex
Oh, so then I guess what Google is attempting is not 50/50 split of SEX between males and females, but 50/50 split of Gender. Well that's easy, since Gender is a social construct and is fluid on a spectrum. Just say you have 50/50 and BOOM, diversity achieved.
Oh wait... doesn't that just support the Gender binary ? BIGOT ! BIGOT !
Maybe your education as a "evolutionary biologist" isn't as great as you think it is. I suggest you actually read the memo, rather than reading a Wired story about what a Journalist thinks of the memo he probably didn't even read.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
the only reason he can sue is because California is a left wing state. The right wing states don't have any protections for political views.
I do wish people would stop dumping on right wingers though. As a left winger I don't find it hard to point out why their beliefs are objectively wrong (I'll spare everyone that in this thread) but looking down on them or worse threatening violence doesn't help. Yes, right wingers are wrong. As the saying goes reality as a well known liberal bias. I think we're much better off letting facts speak for themselves then going off half cocked. We're just feeding into a persecution complex encouraged by right wing propaganda...
All that said, I can understand some of the fear and frustration on the part of the left. We had literal Nazis marching in Charlottesville and a President who called them good people on the sly. We've got guys like Alex Jones engaging in extremely thinly veiled anti semitic rants who pull in millions of subscribers. And let's not forget how many of our closest allies treat women (Saudi Arabia comes to mind). Meanwhile Trump ran on populism but has promised to sign any immigration bill that passes his desk.... Don't forget Bernie called out H1-B abuse but still lost out.
What I'm saying is there's a lot to be scared of if you're on the left and a lot to be scared of if you're just plain a working class American. People react badly to fear. We could use a good, stable leader who genuinely has people's interests at heart to calm it all down. Sadly it looks like the Dems are going to give us more milk-toast right wing blue dogs...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the goal of these diversity talks is to get more skilled candidates by any means necessary. Tech Businesses are concerned that women and minorities don't enter tech because of a hostile work environment. Having worked in lots of all male tech shops yeah, they're right. There's a lot of casual sexual harassment that turns women off. What we men call 'locker room talk'.
Now, that said their goals are not noble. The point is to have more people to hire from to depress wages. Period. They're not doing this for diversity or SWJism, they're doing it for cheap labor. As always, follow the money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The insights into Google "culture" provided by screenshots and quotes in the Damore lawsuit file tells another story. Google does actively promote discussions on diversity and Google HR does take sides. I pity the white males who think this is anything but a hostile takeover.
...rather then if they're skilled and the right fit.
Every non-white males that interview for us do not have the skills or are not a good fit into our corporate culture. It just works out that way. And as James Damore cites in his memo show, only young white men are capable of doing tech work.
Go ahead and PROVE that I'm discriminating again minorities. Those dingy black broads in HR can suck my dick.
Of course people in a discussion are going to be making false assumptions and drawing on incomplete knowledge. So what?
Firing people for expressing a viewpoint after inviting them to a discussion and providing what they thought was a safe space for expression really should be unacceptable in the work place. At the societal level I find what Google did to be reprehensible and unacceptable and deserving of a substantial civil penalty and a blemish against their previously good reputation.
Beyond that, the overall point that there are biological differences between men and women that could impact job fitness should be part of any serious discussion about how to improve workplace diversity. It appears that the entire viewpoint is being excluded from discussion because it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
And whether or not it is worth the resources to try (or what levels or resources should be expended) to increase workplace diversity are valid viewpoints for discussion. Regardless of whether it is openly discussed, I assure you that companies are going to decide at some level what level of resources it is worth. If it isn't openly discussed then the result is likely to be much lower than the level of effort might otherwise be.
I disagree with the viewpoint that it is not worth trying to increase workplace diversity, but it is far more destructive to real workplace diversity to not have the discussion about what it will actually take to hire more women that are good fits for the job. And we need to have the discussion about how jobs themselves should change so that the requirements and success criteria are better fits for more women.
There probably are unnecessary requirements with a biological gender or sex bias baked into many professions. We are moving beyond the blatant "You need to have a penis" requirement, but that doesn't mean there aren't more subtle biological differences that have baked themselves into the workplace. Ultimately though we do have jobs that do appear to be better fits for more women or better fits for more men and there are biological differences that may account for those disparities which we shouldn't be afraid to discuss and hopefully come to fact and unbiased study based conclusions about what we should do about it.
They just didn't want to hear the FACT that only twenty something white males are the only ones capable of doing tech work.
If an old guy, woman, or black person comes in for an interview, I ask them to do some simple problems like write a relational database in x86 assembly while I go get a cup of coffee. They can't do it. Seriously? That's something that can be knocked off in 10 minutes.
They lack the skills. And they come in wearing suits - they don't fit in. Or they wear jeans - wrong. Business casual? Plah-ease. Or they belong to these religious cults that would make our company look bad.
Unless those people get their act together, we are gonna have mostly young white men in tech.
An anti-diversity troll is not engaging in pro-diversity discussions--no matter how slimy it's worded.
You also need to realize that hiring isn't objective - it's the complete opposite. That's where the outrage is coming here on Slashdot. Most of the folks here think recruitment is completely objective and rational and diversity programs force unqualified people into the ranks because of the SJWs just like to give them a hard time.
What I think would be a great experiment is to assign numbers to resumes and block out the names to eliminate any gender or racial bias. And then eliminate the face to face interview - at least with the hiring manager. Then let's see what happens. They may get a black Grace Hopper.
See, folks unconsciously make the decision to hire someone as soon as they see them and then use the interview to justify the decision they already made. People do that with most decisions in their lives (kahneman et al).
Because the fact is, one doesn't KNOW for sure if someone can do the job until they are on the job. Obviously weeding out folks who have no background or what have you; but my point is clear I think.
And let's face it, it's human nature to be biased against folks who are different from us - i.e. young white guys are gonna be more inclined to hire other young white guys.
And let's also face the fact that white guys - especially upper middle class white guys (where most tech workers from from) - have been handed opportunities that they don't even realize but like to believe that everything they've accomplished 100% of their grit and effort. Ya know, they worked hard in choosing those well-to-do white parents that nurtured them, taught them a work ethic, guided them and made sure they were born male.
..instead of focusing on who's diverse or who isn't and if and whether that is really needed to be addressed in either way perhaps, every time it comes up its seen as a huge: -no profit, -only hurts the bottom line, -causes issues among the staff, - big distraction from the daily business on hand scenario. I could be crazy but maybe the higher ups just want to get some stuff done instead of figuring out which half of the workforce gets to vent this week. Maybe that has something to do with it being discouraged is all I'm saying, unless your boss pays you to come in and complain all day about things not related to what he hired you to do.
The right have controlled America since Clinton took office by moving the Democratic party right to forge the alliance that won him the election. They own the State legislatures, the House, Senate and Presidency. Even Obama was pretty right of center. I think you're mistaking "Seeing a lot of left wing social issues on TV and in movies" with real political power. The only thing the left hasn't lost ground on in the last 30 years is gay rights. Every other issue (Abortion, Gun Control, Healthcare, minimum wage, the Wars, economic regulation, etc) they've been beaten back. Even the ACA was a desperate and lousy compromise and the left giving up on Single Payer once again.
Part of the trouble is when Clinton moved the Democratic party right the Republicans had to follow suit in order to maintain their brand. That's a big part of where the hard right shift came from. It's why you see folks like Roy Moore winning primaries and only losing the election because of a sex scandal (and even then only by 1.5 points).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
we have another employee suing because he felt discriminated-against because of policies designed to increase diversity.
That's exactly backwards.
Damore is suing because he was *FOR* promoting diversity, and was fired for discussing ideas related to that. That's literally the whole basis of his lawsuit.
Any discrimination against him was not because of the policies related to diversity, but because the people did not like his ideas related to promoting diversity.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Premise is bullshit.
But this is great distraction.
You are not paid because you are worth anything as humab beings. You are paid to act as code/design repairing machine who just happen to be human. Do what you are paid and say nothing, these rights are only reserved to others who are superior to you.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
you're missing the point. The woman you work with are like that because if they weren't, if they were uncomfortable with locker room talk, they'd leave. That is the conclusion of hiring mangers the world over. It's held up and born out in a lot of research/surveys. Heck, I'd be uncomfortable in that environment (I'm a bit of a Melvin) and I'm a 6' tall 220lb guy.
Furthermore, something we tend to forget (or conscientiously ignore) is that virtually any man is a physical threat to a woman. There's a super creepy scene in Hulu's 'The Handmaid's Tale' that illustrated this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just because you're not talking about trump and gold bars doesn't mean we can't tell you're a paid faggot from off site soviet russia.
So the outcome is YMMV if you're employed at Google. Duh. If one out of five employees is told to stop posting about diversity because it starts flame wars, and another one of five is getting paid a cash bonus when they threaten white male employees with violence, firing, and discrimination if they talk against the status quo about diversity, it still means Google is still promoting and engaging in systematic and illegal discriminatory practices as per the class action lawsuit.
All the AA regulations say/do is that a company has to keep records of it's hiring decisions. At no point in time did AA have quotas. That was a myth. This isn't to say individual institutions might not have done quotas, but it wasn't AA that made them do it. It was a private decision (and also one that, had anyone bothered, could be challenged and ruled illegal. Yes, being a White Male is a protected class).
You're fury is being directed towards Affirmative Action so you'll ignore the real reason why you're not getting ahead: That your productivity no longer keeps pace with your wages.
The point is to divide the working class into castes of some kind. America does it with race. India does it with a literal caste system. Japan used Buddhism to create an underclass deemed 'unclean' and the UK had classes. It's the same pattern over and over and over again. The aristocracy is few but they claim anywhere from 50%-80% of the wealth. You can't do that unless you divide and conquer. Don't fall for it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He wasn't fired. He left on his owner accord because "people are jerks for not thinking like him". He kept string up drama across the entire company and it was becoming more of an issue than whatever non-ideal situation the company had in regards to diversity. He wanted to argue and feel important.
Considering that you think a black man taking a knee during the national anthem should be illegal and you mourn the inability to fine or imprison people, it sounds like you're one of the busybodies who've shredded the First Amendment.
Funny how that works both ways, ain't it?
All the AA regulations say/do is that a company has to keep records of it's hiring decisions. At no point in time did AA have quotas. That was a myth. This isn't to say individual institutions might not have done quotas, but it wasn't AA that made them do it. It was a private decision (and also one that, had anyone bothered, could be challenged and ruled illegal. Yes, being a White Male is a protected class).
This is what is cause "plausible deniability". We didn't TELL them to use quotas, but we would sure as hell have used those statistics against them in any lawsuit that came around. How do you provably show that you do not discriminate against minorities? You show that you hire and promote minorities just like majority. You can't just say, "but...but...we have some black managers and female engineers." The SJWs will immediately turn to the statistics.
The same problem exists when declaring that one is not a racist. Somehow it is a negative to proclaim that you have close associations with minorities. But, how else do you fight back against the claims of racism?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Altheide: Given multiple chances and still had more room to go after being told. Damore: Terminated on the first memo.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
The right own virtually all forms of government in this country. And don't kid yourself, Google is a mega corp. They're not terrible left wing themselves. Not being homophobic does not not make you left wing.
And the media has a strong right wing bias on economic issues. There was never any serious discussion about the wars and they colluded with the Government to avoid showing soldier's caskets coming home. They worked hard to sell the Walstreet bail out and they're working hard to sell Republican tax cuts for the wealthy while ignoring Paul Ryan going around talking about entitlement reform (read: ending SS & Medicare for anyone under 55). The Media is hard right on the economy, and we shouldn't be surprised. Look who owns them.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
First off, FUCK YOU for bringing my beloved Arduinos into this.
Secondly, the biggest pusher, cheerleader, and pioneer in the arena is LADY ADA, you dumb bastard!
Also, you have to turn the whiteness filter off on your youtube account, because most Arduino videos don't even have sound nor show a person. Many just show people's arms and guess what? They're mostly made in China. Those arms you see aren't just a really tanned white dude.
But anyway I can tell you have a lot of pent up guilt about how you treat others, since you get so fired up by this subject. You should probably reflect on that and adjust your life accordingly. Even if you don't, you can leave Arduinos out of this bullshit.
Damore's memo said that Google's diversity initiatives were half-assed because they ignored root causes of lack of diversity. And Damore then went on to suggest other methods of improving diversity which would comport with the current understanding of human Biology and how it influences psychology. This memo seems to re-enforce Damore's point rather than counter it. Damore tried to discuss an alternative approach to diversity initiatives. This memo tried to discuss lack of support for diversity initiatives. Both situations seem in the spirit of "don't talk, don't think -- just shut up and listen to what we have to say" from Google. How is this CEO still surviving? In the time that he managed to nearly ruin the Google brand , the new Microsoft CEO managed to bring it back from the ashes. This demonstrates a complete lack of leadership abilities of Pichai.
this is how you make it possible to enforce anti-discrimination laws. It's necessary when you've got institutionalized racism. E.g. when racism is built into your institutions. Otherwise companies just say "no qualified blacks applied". Companies are actually doing the exact same thing right now with H1-Bs and getting away with it because the law isn't enforced. But in the absence of the paper trail it becomes damn near impossible if you ever do want to enforce it. You can just lie and say the person never applied. Bog the case down indefinitely.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Either his work was made before Google lost it's sanity to SJW's or he's wrong by default. Just being white and male is enough nowadays.
What is definition of diversity, I'd really like to know. This term is being thrown around alot lately, but I have yet to see a definition.
Race shouldn't be a basis to judge someone's character....complains when conversations based on race favoritism are shut down. Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. "Diversity" for the sake of diversity is stupid....hire people based on their ability to do their job, not what color their skin is or where they're from.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Hiring someone that is a certain race/gender or more specifically that is NOT a specific race or gender to create an artificially diverse population where it wouldn't otherwise exist doesn't prevent racism or sexism it IS racism or sexism. The only way to actually end these things is to forget about "pro-diversity" campaigns altogether and hire/promote solely based on skillset, experience, credentials and on the job performance.
Scientists are starting to push back too. As are skeptics like Micheal Shermer.
I back Google on this one.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.