Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes “Internally Viral”

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A senior software engineer has drafted a 10-page document criticizing the company’s diversity initiatives, and it has gone viral within the company: he claims that women are unsuited for tech due to biological differences, and that minorities should not be given special treatment. The author also alleges that Google is leftist and discriminates against conservative thinkers.

The person who wrote the document argued that the representation gap between men and women in software engineering persists because of biological differences between the two sexes, according to public tweets from Google employees. It also said Google should not offer programs for underrepresented racial or gender minorities, according to one of the employees I spoke to.
 
Even if he has a point about differences, sexual dimorphism in humans isn't great enough to not have a massive overlap between the sexes in various individuals. So if he's suggesting to not hire any women in tech roles because he claims they're less able to do a certain job, that's idiotic, because some women clearly are able to do the job, and as a company Google shouldn't let those people work for competitors.

My guess however is that there's no difference in ability, just in interest. And most or all (would need a study to determine how much) of that is cultural, not inherent. Women are perfectly capable of doing tech work, just as I (a male) am perfectly capable of doing needlepoint. They just have less interest, as I don't in needlepoint. However, certain individuals may for whatever reason be interested, even if on average women aren't. Those women deserve to be hired and have just as much upward mobility as anyone else.
 
grace.png
 
Watch as this "manifesto" ends up being fake, and done by some jerk who wanted people to hate conservatives more, like all the fake racial crap during the election (black people painting kkk on sides of black churches, jewish kid painting a swastika and Trump on a synagogue, etc).

Some people are twisted and desperate.
 
Any chance he could get fired? No, google's own policies protect him.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Watch as this "manifesto" ends up being fake, and done by some jerk who wanted people to hate conservatives more, like all the fake racial crap during the election (black people painting kkk on sides of black churches, jewish kid painting a swastika and Trump on a synagogue, etc).

Some people are twisted and desperate.
Click to expand...

Watch it was all made up by Google to push their manifesto of feelings
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Watch as this "manifesto" ends up being fake, and done by some jerk who wanted people to hate conservatives more, like all the fake racial crap during the election (black people painting kkk on sides of black churches, jewish kid painting a swastika and Trump on a synagogue, etc).

Some people are twisted and desperate.
Click to expand...

Or that white woman who claimed she was assaulted by a group of black men...and is now facing charges for filing a false claim.
http://www.heralddemocrat.com/news/...-for-false-claim-that-she-was-kidnapped-raped

Also, I'm having trouble corroborating some of your claims. The closest I can find to your church incident, was an act of arson by a parishioner of said church, and he painted "vote trump" not "kkk" after setting the fire. Pretty sure the reason was to deflect blame, not make people dislike you, but who knows.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/us/mississippi-church-fire.html

There was a series of vandalized black churches in Florida in 2014 that involved someone painting "KKK" but I don't think that case was solved. Also, 2014 predates the your time frame.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/11/florida-church-vandalism-kkk/20249191/

There's also (unfortunately) multiple incidents of people carving/painting swastikas on Jewish temples. Do you have a source?
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/synagogue-hate-crime-suspect-was-educated-suburban-accountant/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/nyregion/fourth-universalist-swastika-hate-crime.html

So far, I'm not seeing evidence of a vast conspiracy trying to make America hate conservatives, unless you count Congress spending 6 months trying to force a bill that 80% of Americans did not want. But that's more of a "publicly shooting yourself in the foot" than an actual conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
A big leftist company. So what else is new? Apple, Microsoft, as left as it gets. Google join the club.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Watch as this "manifesto" ends up being fake, and done by some jerk who wanted people to hate conservatives more
Click to expand...
LoL wut!?

Think about what you're saying, some manifesto comes out that basically trashes women at a biological level, and says minorities shouldn't be given opportunities and you think that people are going to equate that with conservatives? So basically what you're saying, is that they are conservative views or at the very least that's how the world views conservatives.


Man talk about going way out to right field on making this all a political thing.
 
I disagree with a great many of his assertions. And yet, I think he should be able to voice them without the inevitable backlash and firing he will receive.
 
I have an idea. If you don't like the place that pays you for your work, and if you don't like the people who work there, if it all goes straight against your convictions that shouldn't matter at the workplace anyway, maybe it's just time to quit. But something tells me this guy likes his paycheck too much.
 
either you can do the job or not, if you cant then dont play the race/religion/sex card....affirmative action is the worst thing ever to the job market.
 
Megalith said:
A senior software engineer has drafted a 10-page document criticizing the company’s diversity initiatives, and it has gone viral within the company: he claims that women are unsuited for tech due to biological differences, and that minorities should not be given special treatment. The author also alleges that Google is leftist and discriminates against conservative thinkers.

The person who wrote the document argued that the representation gap between men and women in software engineering persists because of biological differences between the two sexes, according to public tweets from Google employees. It also said Google should not offer programs for underrepresented racial or gender minorities, according to one of the employees I spoke to.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION: A FORMER senior engineer and employee has drafted a 10-page document criticizing the company's diversity initiatives, and it has gone viral within the company....
 
PhaseNoise said:
I disagree with a great many of his assertions. And yet, I think he should be able to voice them without the inevitable backlash and firing he will receive.
Click to expand...

It can't work that way. The idea of "free speech" does not apply to the work place. Chaos would ensue when it becomes company policy that completely insane and insulting points of view are somehow "protected speech". It would only be a matter of time before you'd get an email with subject HITLER WAS RIGHT!

I do software engineering for the federal government, and work with some insanely talented female engineers. While women are the minority of engineers, that has nothing to do with their capability. It's just a cultural thing that will take a long time to over come.

Mostly unrelated, but I code in a really old language called MUMPS. It's crazy how pay has gone berserk in the last 10 years or so. Older devs are retiring and since it's not taught in uni, there's hardly any new people to fill the void. I guess it's similar to COBOL and FORTRAN in that respect. The last time someone wanted to hire me, I threw out an absurd number, expecting to meet somewhere in the middle, but they just said 'okay'.
 
cthulhuiscool said:
I mean, we can virtue signal all we want but there's a reason the vast majority of women CHOOSE not to go into STEM fields despite all the gorillions of dollars we spend into initiatives telling them that they need to do so.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's been shown that girl babies pay more attention to faces and less attention to things than boy babies. It's largely biological.
 
Every one of these leftist companies is the same. They want diversity as long as it's not diversity of viewpoint. You can have freedom of speech as long as you state the exact things that summarize their ideology. Let it slip that you disagree on something and your public enemy number one and have to be eliminated. Just try being a conservative in California.
 
Why do people have to make this all so difficult. Just hire the best candidate for the job. That's it, no preferential hiring, no quotas, no discrimination just merit.

The belief that every single member of one particular gender or ethnic group is superior/inferior is ridiculous. The small genetic differences between human sub group are nothing compared to the natural differences between individuals.
Just hire the best candidate.

I personally think one of the best things that these companies could due when they review applicants is have a policy of not having the persons name, age, gender, ethnicity be visible to the people making the hiring decisions until you actually have the person in to an interview, that way up until last portion of the candidate selection process you have to select solely based on the persons qualifications. I know this would not stop all discrimination but it would make it so that everyone that deserves a chance at least get a chance to interview.
 
mlcarson said:
Every one of these leftist companies is the same. They want diversity as long as it's not diversity of viewpoint. You can have freedom of speech as long as you state the exact things that summarize their ideology. Let it slip that you disagree on something and your public enemy number one and have to be eliminated. Just try being a conservative in California.
Click to expand...

I remember a coworker walking into the boss's office and cussing him out for not doing things the way that he thought it should be done. He was fired. The company we worked for was extremely conservative also. Freedom of speech at the workplace doesn't work so well here in North Carolina as we are a Right to Work state that is extremely religious and conservative.
 
Vice is leftist leaning media anyways.


STR said:
Obligatory XKCD
Click to expand...

Yes, people have the right to an opinion but people can have whatever reaction as well - the problem comes in when an employer wants to fire someone because someone stated an unpopular or non-politically correct opinion, and then having the ability to fire them simply based on a differing opinion.

If it's okay to fire someone for having a certain opinion - you're essentially saying it's okay to not hire someone strictly for an opinion (political party, what color they dress, what car they drive). An employer is not a person with feelings, and they shouldn't be able to judge you based on your opinions. The question is simply how qualified are you and how well do you perform your job functions. Fin.
 
Cyraxx said:
Yes, people have the right to an opinion but people can have whatever reaction as well - the problem comes in when an employer wants to fire someone because someone stated an unpopular or non-politically correct opinion, and then having the ability to fire them simply based on a differing opinion.
Click to expand...

Unless you're disrupting the workplace or violating harassment laws, sure. If I have one guy spouting bullshit from Redneck radio having arguments with a guy with IMPEACH on his license plate, they better be civil to each other from 9 to 5 or someone is getting shit canned so the rest of us can get some goddamn work done.

If it's okay to fire someone for having a certain opinion - you're essentially saying it's okay to not hire someone strictly for an opinion (political party, what color they dress, what car they drive). An employer is not a person with feelings, and they shouldn't be able to judge you based on your opinions. The question is simply how qualified are you and how well do you perform your job functions. Fin.
Click to expand...

Your political speech is not, generally, protected under American labor laws. If they are, it's at the state level. Unless you're an professional employee of the government, in which case they cannot discriminate, but you are not allowed to go spouting your politics during office hours either. Government offices are political neutral zones. That rule, obviously, doesn't apply to political appointees or elected officials.

DigitalGriffin said:
CORRECTION: A FORMER senior engineer and employee has drafted a 10-page document criticizing the company's diversity initiatives, and it has gone viral within the company....
Click to expand...

Yeah, under-performing ex-employee blaming everyone but himself is a far more likely story than "vast left wing conspiracy"
 
Last edited:
Probably inside job. They made a stupid and primitive manifesto and try to present it as the views of everyone who is against diversity for the sake of diversity. To try to create a false narrative, and trough that false narrative debunk those who are against their brand of diversity.
 
Last edited:
Zion Halcyon said:
Watch as this "manifesto" ends up being fake, and done by some jerk who wanted people to hate conservatives more, like all the fake racial crap during the election (black people painting kkk on sides of black churches, jewish kid painting a swastika and Trump on a synagogue, etc).

Some people are twisted and desperate.
Click to expand...

Like everything, there is the actual memo, and the interpreted version used to gain page views.

Here's the memo:

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

  • They’re universal across human cultures
  • They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
  • Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
  • The underlying traits are highly heritable
  • They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Click to expand...

TLDR Media interpretation:

The author hates women and they just are naturally terrible when it comes to tech.
 
of course the snowflakes, and feminazis saw that as some assault. Anyone that speaks out against a feminazi must be some sexist bigotit monster
 
I read the thing and it's massive. It is very well worded and constructed and clearly had some serious thought behind it. Now... is it RIGHT? Hmmm.

Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time knows exactly what this guy (and you know it's a guy) is trying to say. But, in the 21st century, companies are more concerned with diversity and equality than productivity or technological ability. Especially so for tech companies. Better to be politically correct than not.

The days of the best person for the job based on ability.... is long gone. There are quotas and ratios and agendas that have to be met.

The last thing I'll say and someone will get pissed off by this I'm sure... I've met less than a handful of ladies in my field of work that impressed me. And by "impress" I mean were technically proficient or good at their jobs. Also I'll add, none of these chicks were exactly pleasures to be around. But that's fine, get your job done without having someone else do the work for you and all is good in my book. That goes for guys too, and I've worked with plenty of worthless idiot dudes over the years that needed to rethink their career options. But the majority of the ladies I've worked with seem to more interested in getting other people to do their work for them, or are incapable of doing the work at all. Why were they hired? Great question. I'll also add that I've worked for some very smart ladies here and there, but smart does not equal technically or job proficient.

Oh I'll also add that when layoffs happen, pay attention to those ratios. I know plenty of smart, skilled guys that have been laid off. Women, not so much.
 
EODetroit said:
Even if he has a point about differences, sexual dimorphism in humans isn't great enough to not have a massive overlap between the sexes in various individuals. So if he's suggesting to not hire any women in tech roles because he claims they're less able to do a certain job, that's idiotic, because some women clearly are able to do the job, and as a company Google shouldn't let those people work for competitors.

My guess however is that there's no difference in ability, just in interest. And most or all (would need a study to determine how much) of that is cultural, not inherent. Women are perfectly capable of doing tech work, just as I (a male) am perfectly capable of doing needlepoint. They just have less interest, as I don't in needlepoint. However, certain individuals may for whatever reason be interested, even if on average women aren't. Those women deserve to be hired and have just as much upward mobility as anyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying and though I havent read the manifesto, I believe the author of it would also agree with you. The manifesto's claim of biological differences between men and women could easily account for your description of having or not having interest. What I got from the article was the author was having issue with specifically targeted under represented populations (women in the case) for no other reason other than tech companies wanted to have more women in tech. Not more QUALIFIED women in tech. The manifesto presented the opinion that biological differences between men and women could be a factor as to why women are not as qualified vs. men in tech jobs.

In summary, if a person can do the job; they can do the job. Hiring a less qualified minority over a more qualified white male is just as discriminatory as hiring a white male over a minority simply because they are white.
 
I work in a very liberal place. They actively hire women, people with different sexual orientations and minorities over white people. It's an unofficial policy - but its real. I was on a supposed "committee" to find a person last year. One candidate was perfect - but he was white, non-gay, non-trans, normal guy with lots of experience. Another was female, not a lot of experience. But she had two tits and no penis. Guess who got the job? The committee selected the guy - 5/6 vote. The ultimate decision was overridden from above - they hired the female. They wanted to diversify our workplace. We originally had 4 men and 2 women in my department, we are now down to 2 men and 3 women. The other person - not sure if m/f/?. The person was hired because of supposedly being a transgender. Whatever. I don't care what you are as long as you get the job done and don't cause me extra work.
When we are hiring candidates that are no as qualified to make the higher ups happy, I call bullshit. In my opinion, we have struggled and I see big problems on the horizon do to not hiring the best person for the job. I'm just trying to figure out how to get through the next 20ish years so I can retire and be done with this shit. Don't even get me started with some of the snowflakes I have to supervise.
For the record, I don't have a problem working with different types of people or females. My problem is when hiring them is a priority over talent.
 
Megalith said:
It also said Google should not offer programs for underrepresented racial or gender minorities, according to one of the employees I spoke to.
Click to expand...

Not exactly true, or at least subtle differences in the wording.

It says

'Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races,' or basically don't discriminate on the basis of race.

Read the whole thing it seems pretty reasonable:

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320/amp

Crazy that things have gotten to the point where these ideas are considered shocking or scandalous.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top