Many Google employees disagree with the firing of the memo writer

[DonFerrari]

irstupid said:

sundin13 said:

While I agree with this, the means to go about this change is to change your hiring to look for people who exemplify attributes that are on demand, not by utilizing affirmative action to try to brute force your way through a problem. The goal should be to hire those who have a different way of thinking, not to assume that because they are a different gender, they have a different way of thinking. No attribute is race or sex specific, and few individuals embody all of the traits of the race or sex they belong to. 

Basically, diversity of sex or race is basically meaningless in a vacuum, while diversity of thought is important. While the two are correlated, you cannot hire assuming the two are one in the same. 

Not going to go into how one can find the best person, was just saying the best qualified may not be the best person. And also that I never buy it when a company comes out with some initiative to be more diverse as them being a good company. They are doing it for PR reasons or for monetary reason.

An interviewer can try whatever they can to find the best person. If you have been in any sort of hiring position you would know that some of the best interviewers can be the worst employees. They can seemingly fit every criteria, have amazign experience and accomplishments. Great resume, great references, ect. Then they start and you find out they are lazy, they don't mesh well with others and cause conflict reducing everyones productivity, ect. They end up being one of yoru worst employees. Think of it like Terrel Owens or something. Amazing athlete and pulls great stats, but a cancer to the team.

Yep being best for the job isn't the same as being the best qualified... but as you agreed below yes when you look at other traits of the person you may decide that he is more productive for your environment than someone else that seems more qualified, but you can't do that just making quotas.

WolfpackN64 said:

DonFerrari said:

I'm sorry to have seem to many cases of feminist shumming and shaming women and desiring they get raped to show how much they need feminism, and equivalents on black movements.

Each person is different, so considering diversity only by looking at gender and race is very bad and can get you no benefits.

So because you have seen some cases means the one half of the political spectrum is like this in its entirity? Don't make that mistake.

Nope, as someone else said and I didn't refute there is biggotry on both spectrum. The issue is one side try to monopolyze virtue and say they fight against this even though most of this fight perpetuates the condition.

irstupid said:

DonFerrari said:

I'm sorry to have seem to many cases of feminist shumming and shaming women and desiring they get raped to show how much they need feminism, and equivalents on black movements.

Each person is different, so considering diversity only by looking at gender and race is very bad and can get you no benefits.

Race/Sex/ect are just a broad lazy way of bringing diversity. Take two white males. You can easily find two that are so different from one another from experiences, upbrining, values, education, ect. Those two white males would be more diversity than say a brother and a sister, even though they are a male and a female.

It's just easier for a company to stereotype people and hire that way than to go into depth and find out true diversity.

One thing I find annoying is when thye bring up % as to who should be hired. Like saying 50% of americans are female, so we need a 50% ratio of males to females working. Or 20% blacks, so 20% black workforce, ect. Meanwhile, lets say we look at the IT field. (Fake #'s ahead) If you look at graduates in that field, 75% of them are male and only 5% of them are black. How can you expect Google to have a 50% female and 20% black workforce. The qualified canidates out there do not support those numbers. They could hire every female and black person that appleis and still not meet their quota. Meanwhile, the white males are being discrimated against and not getting jobs they may be better qualified for.

You are totally right and that is even the core of the memo. That you have to look at diversity on the individual level and how it can improve the company as a whole, not just lazyly assign quotas and call a day. Also I never anyone asking for quotas on undesirable jobs.

In Brazil our very bright government decided to make quotas for local production in cinema, cable TV and now push it for streaming services "to protect local companies production".

the-pi-guy said:

DonFerrari said:

A.)  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.

B.)  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).

A.)  You actually can.  There's tons of studies that show that diversity is actually beneficial to the entire team.  

B.) While a lot of liberals are like that, I am not.  

a) Nope, you can't explicitly say you won't hire someone because that person is gay, black, women or ugly. Diversity MAY be beneficial. Still you put it on 1% improvement versus 10% and there is nothing close to that regarding to explicitly only diversity.

b) good you aren't