Many Google employees disagree with the firing of the memo writer

[DonFerrari]

Slownenberg said:
I haven't read the memo. I have read a few quotes. I should read the memo because the characterizations that I've read about it seems a lot more severe than the actual quotes I've read. But the quotes might not be giving the full gist of the memo while the characterizations do. Don't know yet.

But from what I can tell so far the guy was kinda right about why there aren't as many women in tech, because they aren't drawn to those kind of jobs as much as men are. The characterizations of the memo said he was saying that women actually biologically are worse at the jobs, rather than just not being as drawn to those jobs. If it was the former then the author obviously should be fired, that's not the kind of person anyone should have to work with, but if it is the latter then he was just saying what is pretty obvious.

Though I got the feeling he was also saying that means there should be no diversity effort and its cool and even good if tech workers in America just stay mostly white men. And he seemed to be basically crying because he doesn't work in a field that agrees with his political persuasion and that diversity efforts should be focused specifically on him, the white male conservative.

So from what I can tell so far without actually reading it, he said some obvious things that some people have overreacted to, perhaps implied or said some sexist stupid things for which he was deservedly fired if he did indeed write those things, and basically just wrote the memo in order to complain and cry about the fact that people at Google aren't all a bunch of right wing crazies and they actually believe in having a company where more than just white men work.

I'd say the guy is kind of a complaining loser, the reaction though was possibly quite over the top, but he probably did deserve to be fired because he decided to make himself publicly (within the company) make himself a toxic worker, which is not good for the company and his co-workers, so pretty cut and dry on the decision to fire him.

So read the memo.

He haven't said woman or other ethinics are inferior. He said that interest and capabilities of gender and race have distribution curves and there is a lot os overlaping, but still on average there is a difference. And that could partially explain why woman are less INTERESTED (not capable) in the field.

Then he says that discriminating on the hiring to fill the quota could hurt the company bottomline when subverting the grades of candidates based on gender or race.

And gone to say that several of the programs to increase diversity are sexist and racist and doesn't take the needs of the individuals... he explain that some trait we think are more common to women and can be bad for her carreer may be present in some men as well and not in some women, so that program should be open to whoever wants to enter and improve him/herself.

The full memo is about how to improve diversity in positive non-discriminatory way and talk about the subject instead of censorship. What he got is the confirmation that both isn't allowed on Google since he got fired for it.

Soundwave said:
Google stated the reason for his firing ... they are ok with voicing of opinions but by trying to push that angle that women are inferior at computers in effect he made himself a liability at work since I'm going to take a wild guess here and say other women work at Google, and how exactly would many of them feel working with/alongside him going forward?

Working at a corporation is not a green light to get up on a soap box, if you have made yourself a liability in making others uncomfortable at work, that's a problem. Politics can be chosen and can be left outside the office, a person's gender is a little more difficult to put aside.

Also the science on this is hardly conclusive, which is another problem with it. There are other studies that point out there isn't much/any difference in the male/female brain, so why should women at his work have to be branded under studies wherein he believes they are inferior at their job by virtue of their sex? And why is he so threatened by outreach towards women anyway? What if the next great innovator/design in his field turns out to be a woman? Why should they stop outreach because it makes him uncomfortable? If it's something that doesn't take at all, it will be borne out in time, why don't we wait and see how a more inclusive environment works out.

Pretty sure women are a driving force in the usage of the most popular modern computer, which is the smartphone ... hell my fiance taught herself to photo edit, video edit on her iPhone and knows that thing inside out, whereas 10-15 years ago the "conventional computer logic" would be that personal computing assistants in your pocket should be mainly for businessmen, and those silly women will never get the hang of this new internet era. Well how wrong did that line of thinking turn out to be?

Nope they aren't. The memo didn't in any stance said women are inferior, it said they are different and have different interest ON AVERAGE. Have you really read the 10 pages?

the-pi-guy said:

 

TheLastStarFighter said:

So you're saying it's ok to discriminate based on race or sex?

If you're talking about the bolded paragraph, the point of that paragraph is that it's not about discriminating based on race or sex, it's about discriminating by who gives better job improvements.  If you found that hiring a woman who was slightly less qualified than a man, would improve your business by 10%, whereas the man would only improve it by 1% because he was 1% better; wouldn't the woman be the better hire?  

Other than that, I don't know how you could have twisted what I said to reach that conclusion.  

Ka-pi96 said:

Didn`t you know? The left is the pro racism/sexism side.

The reality is, that it's much more complicated than that.  For the most part, neither side is pro-racism/sexism.  

It's discrimination and it's illegal. Also you can't prove the hire of that person would have 10x more impact than the other guy that have better skills.

The left is indeed pro racism and sexism as long as it is against white and straight males. Same information talking negative about a black, woman or gay will be shot down, if it's against a white, strainght men it will be endorsed as reality and they will also say there is no reverse prejudice (yes there isn't, it is always prejudice, but they think someone white cis and male can't be a victm of this because there isn't intistucionalized prejudice against them and also historically they are favored).