A Google employee's anonymous rant on diversity and bias

[B-Man]

The Neutral Position on the Google Story Isn't Neutral at All

by Charles C W Cooke

 

 

By far and away the strongest argument in favor of Google’s firing the employee who wrote the now infamous memo is a neutral one: That, irrespective of its contents, the memo itself was a suicide note. Those advancing this case are effectively taking no stance on the questions that have yielded all the outrage, preferring instead to forward the separate case that it is invariably unwise for any employee of any company to criticize his employer in public. “If you wrote this memo,” they ask the critics, “wouldn’t you expect to be fired?”

 

In the abstract, this is a convincing rhetorical question. In an at-will system such as the one that obtains in Silicon Valley, there is no good reason for a firm such as Google to hang on to troublemakers, and it is under no obligation to do so. Quite deliberately, the memo’s author took aim at his employer. Whether he did so with sufficient vitriol to warrant his dismissal is a matter of taste, but that decision is Google’s not mine. Surely, he knew what he was risking?

 

Perhaps he did. Nevertheless, the problem with this line is that we do not live in the abstract, and, in reality, these rules are not applied neutrally or universally. For the sake of argument, suppose that the original memo had hewed to the opposite line — that is, that the author had made the case he was criticizing. Suppose he had charged that minorities and women were under-represented at Google because Google is institutionally racist. Suppose he had proposed that men and women have identical traits and proclivities. Suppose that he had called not for calm, but for action, and that he had called out his bosses not for an excessive commitment to social justice, but for their inadequacy.

 

What, one has to ask, do we think the response would be? Do we imagine that he’d have been fired for “criticizing his employer,” or for “making his colleagues uncomfortable”? Would we have seen a press release from Google’s CEO in which the memo was disavowed on the grounds that it undermine Google’s commitment to meritocracy? Are we to believe that such a firing would have been defended on the grounds that, by electing to cause a public fuss, the author had it coming? And would we have seen the usual round of self-contradictory platitudes — that the company was too tolerant to tolerate; too inclusive to include; too committed to free expression to permit open dissent?

 

I sincerely doubt it. On the contrary: I suspect there’d have been a summit. I suspect that we’d have seen a series of press releases from Google reaffirming a commitment to improvement. I suspect there’d have been a host of op-eds about “Google’s problem,” replete with sympathetic quotes from the press shop. I suspect, in other words, that we’d have seen much the same reaction from Google as we have seen from colleges when faced with grievance-laden manifesti: Swift and humble acquiescence.

 

Which is to say that, regardless of one’s view on the contents of the memo, the ostensibly “neutral” position is not likely to be a neutral position at all. Or, put another way: One can’t avoid delving into this in depth by contending bluntly that the details don’t matter, when, for better or worse, they absolutely do. As I wrote a couple of years ago, I am quite happy for private companies to respond to their customers and the culture in which they exist, and I do not wish to impose any laws that would prevent them from doing so. But to acknowledge that this is what they are doing is merely to move our point of inquiry from the companies themselves to the forces that inform their decisions. There is a severe imbalance in those forces, and one that’s worth remarking on. There’s no neutral position here, I’m afraid.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450272/neutral-position-google-story-isnt-neutral-all

[Joe Miner]

The Neutral Position on the Google Story Isn't Neutral at All

by Charles C W Cooke

 

 

By far and away the strongest argument in favor of Googles firing the employee who wrote the now infamous memo is a neutral one: That, irrespective of its contents, the memo itself was a suicide note. Those advancing this case are effectively taking no stance on the questions that have yielded all the outrage, preferring instead to forward the separate case that it is invariably unwise for any employee of any company to criticize his employer in public. If you wrote this memo, they ask the critics, wouldnt you expect to be fired?

 

In the abstract, this is a convincing rhetorical question. In an at-will system such as the one that obtains in Silicon Valley, there is no good reason for a firm such as Google to hang on to troublemakers, and it is under no obligation to do so. Quite deliberately, the memos author took aim at his employer. Whether he did so with sufficient vitriol to warrant his dismissal is a matter of taste, but that decision is Googles not mine. Surely, he knew what he was risking?

 

Perhaps he did. Nevertheless, the problem with this line is that we do not live in the abstract, and, in reality, these rules are not applied neutrally or universally. For the sake of argument, suppose that the original memo had hewed to the opposite line that is, that the author had made the case he was criticizing. Suppose he had charged that minorities and women were under-represented at Google because Google is institutionally racist. Suppose he had proposed that men and women have identical traits and proclivities. Suppose that he had called not for calm, but for action, and that he had called out his bosses not for an excessive commitment to social justice, but for their inadequacy.

 

What, one has to ask, do we think the response would be? Do we imagine that hed have been fired for criticizing his employer, or for making his colleagues uncomfortable? Would we have seen a press release from Googles CEO in which the memo was disavowed on the grounds that it undermine Googles commitment to meritocracy? Are we to believe that such a firing would have been defended on the grounds that, by electing to cause a public fuss, the author had it coming? And would we have seen the usual round of self-contradictory platitudes that the company was too tolerant to tolerate; too inclusive to include; too committed to free expression to permit open dissent?

 

I sincerely doubt it. On the contrary: I suspect thered have been a summit. I suspect that wed have seen a series of press releases from Google reaffirming a commitment to improvement. I suspect thered have been a host of op-eds about Googles problem, replete with sympathetic quotes from the press shop. I suspect, in other words, that wed have seen much the same reaction from Google as we have seen from colleges when faced with grievance-laden manifesti: Swift and humble acquiescence.

 

Which is to say that, regardless of ones view on the contents of the memo, the ostensibly neutral position is not likely to be a neutral position at all. Or, put another way: One cant avoid delving into this in depth by contending bluntly that the details dont matter, when, for better or worse, they absolutely do. As I wrote a couple of years ago, I am quite happy for private companies to respond to their customers and the culture in which they exist, and I do not wish to impose any laws that would prevent them from doing so. But to acknowledge that this is what they are doing is merely to move our point of inquiry from the companies themselves to the forces that inform their decisions. There is a severe imbalance in those forces, and one thats worth remarking on. Theres no neutral position here, Im afraid.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450272/neutral-position-google-story-isnt-neutral-all

The only reason this is a story is because it's Google. Many, if not most, companies today have or are instituting similar policies and practices. If an employee did this at any of those lesser known and lesser public companies, they'd most likely be fired as well.

 

You don't get to bring unwanted attention in a negative light and instigate division across the entire workforce at your place of employment without repercussions, regardless of how righteous your words or intent are.

 

bull **** article

[unbillievable]

The only reason this is a story is because it's Google. Many, if not most, companies today have or are instituting similar policies and practices. If an employee did this at any of those lesser known and lesser public companies, they'd most likely be fired as well.

 

You don't get to bring unwanted attention in a negative light and instigate division across the entire workforce at your place of employment without repercussions, regardless of how righteous your words or intent are.

 

bull **** article

 

So you understood nothing from the above article.

 

It's disputing the exact same rhetoric you're repeating.

[Joe Miner]

 

So you understood nothing from the above article.

 

It's disputing the exact same rhetoric you're repeating.

No, it doesn't dispute anything.

 

It's a dumbass opinion.

[BringBackOrton]

The only reason this is a story is because it's Google. Many, if not most, companies today have or are instituting similar policies and practices. If an employee did this at any of those lesser known and lesser public companies, they'd most likely be fired as well.

 

You don't get to bring unwanted attention in a negative light and instigate division across the entire workforce at your place of employment without repercussions, regardless of how righteous your words or intent are.

 

bull **** article

I actually think that article makes a decent point.

[Joe Miner]

I actually think that article makes a decent point.

What was the point?

 

Be mad at Google because they didn't do what you think was right?

 

Who gives a ****? Do you B word at your neighbor every time they do something you feel is hypocritical?

 

If the guy didn't like working for Google, quit. If he liked the job, sometimes he just needs to be prepared to eat **** and cash checks. It's a stupid move, because unless he had something else already lined up, good luck explaining to a new company that yes you are the guy that publicly embarrassed and sowed dissention at Google.

[row_33]

No, it doesn't dispute anything.

 

It's a dumbass opinion.

 

Even if one is totally correct it often doesn't matter and is stupid to proclaim a totally correct viewpoint. Talking about race is such a dead end.

 

Not saying this one is totally correct.

[BringBackOrton]

What was the point?

 

Be mad at Google because they didn't do what you think was right?

 

Who gives a ****? Do you B word at your neighbor every time they do something you feel is hypocritical?

 

If the guy didn't like working for Google, quit. If he liked the job, sometimes he just needs to be prepared to eat **** and cash checks. It's a stupid move, because unless he had something else already lined up, good luck explaining to a new company that yes you are the guy that publicly embarrassed and sowed dissention at Google.

What? No.

 

The article made the point that if an opposite, and equally "headline grabbing" opinion was voiced at Google, they probably wouldn't have canned the guy so quick. Says more about the court of public opinion than Google itself.

 

Good luck on finding those brain cells you've clearly been searching for.

 

I know youre anti-bitching, but look at you bitching about bitching. Really jostles my noggin.

Edited August 9, 2017 by jmc12290

[Joe Miner]

What? No.

 

The article made the point that if an opposite, and equally "headline grabbing" opinion was voiced at Google, they probably wouldn't have canned the guy so quick. Says more about the court of public opinion than Google itself.

 

Good luck on finding those brain cells you've clearly been searching for.

 

I know youre anti-bitching, but look at you bitching about bitching. Really jostles my noggin.

It didn't make the point.

 

It postulated a scenario and suggested the conclusion based on biased assumption.

[row_33]

It didn't make the point.

 

It postulated a scenario and suggested the conclusion based on biased assumption.

 

And on the internet as well, who'da thunk it?

[BringBackOrton]

It didn't make the point.

 

It postulated a scenario and suggested the conclusion based on biased assumption.

Holy semantics. Hit the showers my man.

[Joe Miner]

Holy semantics. Hit the showers my man.

You're a dumbass that can't tell the difference from a well reasoned opinion backed up by facts and an hypothetical story based on emotion and bias.

 

You couldn't figure out what the article was saying so I'm not supposed You're having trouble with my posts.

[row_33]

You're a dumbass that can't tell the difference from a well reasoned opinion backed up by facts and an hypothetical story based on emotion and bias.

 

You couldn't figure out what the article was saying so I'm not supposed You're having trouble with my posts.

 

it's the internet, people with a life just come here to take the piss.

 

seeking truth on here is sad and laughable at once

[BringBackOrton]

You're a dumbass that can't tell the difference from a well reasoned opinion backed up by facts and an hypothetical story based on emotion and bias.

 

You couldn't figure out what the article was saying so I'm not supposed You're having trouble with my posts.

What couldn't I figure out?

[Joe Miner]

I actually think that article makes a decent point.

I'd start here if I were you.

[BringBackOrton]

I'd start here if I were you.

Okay, I'll play in the sandbox with you and the other retards, what about that?

[Joe Miner]

Okay, I'll play in the sandbox with you and the other retards, what about that?

It's deja vu all over again.

[B-Man]

Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo.

 

10 listed.

[reddogblitz]

I wonder if people who think that men and women are essentially the same have ever been married?

No SH!T.

 

Some of these people like the diversity chairwoman talk like men and women are the same upstairs.

 

I know this will sound terribly sexist and perhaps needs a trigger warning, but men and women think differently and have different motivations. Surely this has to play into the conversation, but it can't because if you bring it up you're a sexist.

 

Maybe a vast majority of women just don't WANT to code? Not saying they can't. I've worked with some brilliant woman coders. But either they don't want to or were brain washed to not want to by Mommy and Daddy and school.

Edited August 9, 2017 by reddogblitz

[unbillievable]

The same SJW's spouting that men and women think exactly alike also champion the idea that it's possible for a female brain to be born into a male body.