Just finally read the document...

I can see how the Politically Correct (PC) crowd is going crazy. This document is being way to rational and straight forward for the far left to even consider what it is a saying. The PC crowd has now determined that if the isn't a rule that makes every part of society equally represented that the situation is unacceptable.

So, if the population has 53% women, 53% of the leaders have to be women or there is a bias. What happens if 53% of the women don't want to be leaders?

The author of the article simply points out that there are more ways to create diversity than just quotas and unfair incentives to under represented groups. He points out that the programs at google can exist, as long as they are offered equally to all parties and not to exclude any group(s).

Clearly he was right. Even though he offered his opinion on creating an even more diverse work-space, he was fired because he wasn't "echoing" the sentiment that diversity should be achieved regardless of how it is achieved.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

Good, and for the record, Google isn't a very "left" nor "right" institution.

New title suggestion: many Google employees can't get laid and hold female coworkers accountable.

Except that he was wrong and omitted sociological impacts.

Well their filtering on Facebook is very left approach and things like violence against police, drugs incentivation and similar when denounced aren't banned and says it isn't against the community rules. Same with some hate speach against white, male, etc... while similar posts that would be on the opposite spectrum are quickly banned.

But as an institution itself I agree Google probably is neither, they just keep a left-view orientation to employees and public because that is what garner them more PR image advantage.

Google is all about PR, I doubt they really care about politics as long as they get something out of it.. And while many of the things you state are considered liberal in the US, I wouldn't call these very "left" (if you can really call liberals left) issues. But the perception of left and right is a bit different between the US and Europe.

I'm aware of that. But liberals in USA consider themselves to be left, and you are right about Google as for most companies. I consider myself classic liberal (british denomination) or minaquirst.