Google Accused in Lawsuit of Excluding White and Asian Men in Hiring

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,942
Google is being sued by a former recruiter who alleges he was fired for complaining to his managers about hiring practices to "boost diversity" that discriminated against white and asian men. USA Today is reporting that Arnie Wilberg, who was a recruiter for YouTube alleges that management also deleted emails and other records of diversity requirements.

It will be interesting to see what evidence Arnie WIlberg has, or doesn't have, especially with the previous things that have come out about Google. My only question is in response to the Google response from spokeswoman Gina Sciglano quoted below. Which one is it?

“We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in an emailed statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
 
Hmm, yes, I seem to remember recently being called an "idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about" on a previous Google-related thread when I suggested that companies (specifically Google and its recent actions) are (or are becoming) not purely profit-driven. (no naming and shaming on my part, of course)

I'd be hard-pressed to suggest this approach/attitude really has only profit as a motive despite her saying it is to "build better products." (and of course it's easy to hide behind the legal aspects - although I stated previously that Google is careful to anticipate and lobby law - but let's be honest, they have an agenda that consumers should be concerned about)
 
Maxx said:
Hmm, yes, I seem to remember recently being called an "idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about" on a previous Google-related thread when I suggested that companies (specifically Google and its recent actions) are (or are becoming) not purely profit-driven. (no naming and shaming on my part, of course)

I'd be hard-pressed to suggest this approach/attitude really has only profit as a motive despite her saying it is to "build better products." (and of course it's easy to hide behind the legal aspects - although I stated previously that Google is careful to anticipate and lobby law - but let's be honest, they have an agenda that consumers should be concerned about)
Click to expand...


Public image couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Sciglano's statement makes absolutely no logical sense if you spend more than two seconds thinking about it.
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me. They build a pool of candidates focusing on identity and then hire from that pool based on merit.

However, it's obvious that a policy like that will end up like when you ask customer service reps to sell. The guideline will always be, "don't push the sell, but if an opportunity arises, then offer the customer the product that will improve his experience." But in reality, the following quarter the bottom sellers will be told in no uncertain terms that the number of opportunities arising to them is too low and, unless more opportunities start arising for them, they will also lose the opportunity to stay in their job. And soon customers are afraid to contact customer service because the reps will desperately jump for their throats, trying to force a sell and not taking no for an answer.

In Google's case, I'm sure that, after a couple of quarters, when their diverse pool wasn't producing a diverse enough set of hirelings based on merit, the same thing happened: "you'd better start finding merit in a more diverse group, because we're all looking like racists to the executives..."

I'm sure Google's corporate policy is not discriminatory, quite the contrary, but it's inevitable that the people managing it will eventually have to force some discrimination into it so that the results will match the ones to be expected in an ideal world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Maxx said:
Hmm, yes, I seem to remember recently being called an "idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about" on a previous Google-related thread when I suggested that companies (specifically Google and its recent actions) are (or are becoming) not purely profit-driven. (no naming and shaming on my part, of course)

I'd be hard-pressed to suggest this approach/attitude really has only profit as a motive despite her saying it is to "build better products." (and of course it's easy to hide behind the legal aspects - although I stated previously that Google is careful to anticipate and lobby law - but let's be honest, they have an agenda that consumers should be concerned about)
Click to expand...
The sad thing is, this was probably done to make them appear more inclusive, but the policies themselves are exclusive by nature (you cannot prefer one candidate based on some criterion without at the same time disadvantaging someone who does not match the same). That would not be an issue if it were "merit based"/job related, but allegedly it's not...at least not entirely.
 
If you don't hire people on merit, you end up being like Jack "Ass" groveling for help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Keep hiring the less qualified candidates for diversities sake. As the company slowly fails, those of us who saw it coming will watch and giggle. Remember the Equifax diversity check box CTO? Good times, I know I laughed.
 
Nobu said:
The sad thing is, this was probably done to make them appear more inclusive, but the policies themselves are exclusive by nature (you cannot prefer one candidate based on some criterion without at the same time disadvantaging someone who does not match the same). That would not be an issue if it were "merit based"/job related, but allegedly it's not...at least not entirely.
Click to expand...

Well, and this is another thing I find myself getting into arguments about in forums, it's based in their ideology whereby they believe diversity itself (by its nature) is inherently a boon. They derive this from basic Enlightenment principles (which were largely based on nature, a la biodiversity and Darwinism) that are nowadays assumed by everyone. It's not uncommon for previous ideas to eventually become common knowledge and mainstream, but I digress; the problem is they are misapplying the theory to hiring practices. Diversity by itself is not superior. There are cultures in the world that are inherently negative - for example, fundamentalism now arriving in the EU - that will actually push society towards not only a more narrow range but an archaic one at that. In other words, progressiveness for the sake of being progressive often has a deleterious, contradictory effect.

As for the subject matter itself, all I can say is...if I were going in for surgery and you let me choose between a very successful white surgeon or a less-successful black surgeon whose presence "increased diversity," I know which one I would pick, but it's important to realize that there are people for example in Sweden who overlook refugee-based crime because they empathize with the plight of those people. Now that's clearly an emotional rather than logical stance to take (although they will swear up and down that it's logical because we're all human and equal - back to the Enlightenment principles again - and that these people have suffered due to Western interference, never mind that these regions have had nonstop warfare) but it underlines the fact that there's a point where progressivism MUST overshadow the meritocracy to be successful, and that's very concerning.
 
Last edited:
Maxx said:
Well, and this is another thing I find myself getting into arguments about in forums, it's based in their ideology whereby they believe diversity itself (by its nature) is inherently a boon. They derive this from basic Enlightenment principles (which were largely based on nature, a la biodiversity and Darwinism) that are nowadays assumed by everyone. It's not uncommon for previous ideas to eventually become common knowledge and mainstream, but I digress; the problem is they are misapplying the theory to hiring practices. Diversity by itself is not superior. There are cultures in the world that are inherently negative - for example, fundamentalism now arriving in the EU - that will actually push society towards not only a more narrow range but an archaic one at that. In other words, progressiveness for the sake of being progressive often has a deleterious, contradictory effect.
Click to expand...

Damn good post :)
 
bugleyman said:
Ah yes...white male victim-hood. World's smallest violin and all that.
Click to expand...


Define discrimination for me please?

I am 100% against racism and discrimination, to imply that what Google or any other company does is ok, because it only affects white men is the height of hypocrisy. If you want Racism to end ALL of it has to fucking end.
 
“We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in an emailed statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”


What attributes of their current culture need improvement?

This dolt just boxed herself into a corner.
 
motomonkey said:
Define discrimination for me please?

I am 100% against racism and discrimination, to imply that what Google or any other company does is ok, because it only affects white men is the height of hypocrisy. If you want Racism to end ALL of it has to fucking end.
Click to expand...

It's not OK (well, assuming one believes the allegations to be true).

It's just hard to muster much sympathy for a group that has benefited from institutional racism for centuries, but cries foul the moment they get the slightest whiff of the shoe being on the other foot.
 
The only way to have a properly diverse employee pool is to use at least 5 different hiring agencies have every applicant resume redacted of age all gender and racial pro nouns and remove any dates by said hiring firm and have them assign a random 16+ alpha numeric ID in place of a name. Conduct any interviews via blind fold, not literal blind folds but hire random character actors to ask the questions have the session audio recorded and digitize the voices to remove all potential gender/racial bias (use AI to remove accents and any nouns referring to gender or race) then finally an aptitude test and psychological evaluation officiated again by a blind 3’rd party. Applicants are scored in each measurable category on a 100 point scale and each category can be weighted based on the preferences of the position. The final report given to the company to make the decision contains only the applicant number and the final grade based on the weighted scores.
 
bugleyman said:
It's not OK (well, assuming one believes the allegations to be true).

It's just hard to muster much sympathy for a group that has benefited from institutional racism for centuries, but cries foul the moment they get the slightest whiff of the shoe being on the other foot.
Click to expand...

The bigger issue is we are not going to get many chances to get this (wiping out racism) right. It is such an inherent trait that once that shoe is on the other foot, its not coming off. That also means if we can't get over things like discrimination against whites, we risk the establishment digging in and the shoe never moving.

Western society is walking a razors edge of identity politics, racism and equality of outcome vs equality. There are other nations that would love to see it fail horribly and they too are actively engaged in destabilizing the conversation.
 
Aireoth said:
The bigger issue is we are not going to get many chances to get this (wiping out racism) right. It is such an inherent trait that once that shoe is on the other foot, its not coming off. That also means if we can't get over things like discrimination against whites, we risk the establishment digging in and the shoe never moving.

Western society is walking a razors edge of identity politics, racism and equality of outcome vs equality. There are other nations that would love to see it fail horribly and they too are actively engaged in destabilizing the conversation.
Click to expand...

Good grief....ok, ok. You're right. Can't a guy enjoy a little schadenfreude?
 
bugleyman said:
It's just hard to muster much sympathy for a group that has benefited from institutional racism for centuries, but cries foul the moment they get the slightest whiff of the shoe being on the other foot.
Click to expand...

Always good when people put their bigotry on display!
 
GoldenTiger said:
Yeah, because racism only goes one way! /s
Click to expand...

What's interesting about modern "racism" (and it generally being all-but-white targeted) is that it ignores the majority of history where Asiatic and Middle Eastern peoples kicked the ever living crap out of white Europe. China in particular was far ahead of the Western world in politics, technology, etc. for nearly two thousand years. It took well over a millennium for Europe to get back to its Greek (or Greco-Roman) roots. (and to be honest, neither Greek nor Roman every truly defeated the Parthians) Then of course people bring up the New World and the destruction of the native peoples, despite the fact somewhere between 95 and 98 of the population died a century before any serious (white English) colonists made real headway.

My point being, this is a more recent phenomenon and to say that cultural disparity is caused by racism is to ignore the leap forward that lead to imperialism. Imperialism at its heart, being after the Enlightenment, was paternalistic; it was to be an uplifting of native peoples. "Oh but slavery" - I suppose you mean the slave trade that existed LONG before the white man showed up? (and for the record the vast majority of slaves were post-slave trade, that is locally bred, and the main middle-man of this trade was Middle Eastern men - making Cassius Clay's name change to Muhammad Ali ridiculously ironic given Cassius Clay was a firebrand abolitionist)

I'm digressing, though; what I mean to say is that it's far more likely we will generate a more persistent and insidious racism by being "progressive" than was ever perpetrated by ignorant, greedy men. The "old" racism (and I mean enlightened racism, not U.S. South racism which was borne of irrational fear) was built on the idea that certain people had fared better and had some responsibility in the care of the lesser peoples (not unlike the Bible challenges Man to guard animals) while this "new" progressive racism is...the same thing; those conservatives ("whites") who are too ignorant to understand diversity must be culled through proactive, discriminatory hiring practices.
 
Last edited:
Maxx said:
What's interesting about modern "racism" (and it generally being all-but-white targeted) is that it ignores the majority of history where Asiatic and Middle Eastern peoples kicked the ever living crap out of white Europe. China in particular was far ahead of the Western world in politics, technology, etc. for nearly two thousand years. It took well over a millennium for Europe to get back to its Greek (or Greco-Roman) roots. (and to be honest, neither Greek nor Roman every truly defeated the Parthians) Then of course people bring up the New World and the destruction of the native peoples, despite the fact somewhere between 95 and 98 of the population died a century before any serious (white English) colonists made real headway.

My point being, this is a more recent phenomenon and to say that cultural disparity is caused by racism is to ignore the leap forward that lead to imperialism. Imperialism at its heart, being after the Enlightenment, was paternalistic; it was to be an uplifting of native peoples. "Oh but slavery" - I suppose you mean the slave trade that existed LONG before the white man showed up? (and for the record the vast majority of slaves were post-slave trade, that is locally bred, and the main middle-man of this trade was Middle Eastern men - making Cassius Clay's name change to Muhammad Ali ridiculously ironic given Cassius Clay was a firebrand abolitionist)

I'm digressing, though; what I mean to say is that it's far more likely we will generate a more persistent and insidious racism by being "progressive" than was ever perpetrated by ignorant, greedy men. The "old" racism (and I mean enlightened racism, not U.S. South racism which was borne of irrational fear) was built on the idea that certain people had fared better and had some responsibility in the care of the lesser peoples (not unlike the Bible challenges Man to guard animals) while this "new" progressive racism is...the same thing; those conservatives ("whites") who are too ignorant to understand diversity must be culled through proactive, discriminatory hiring practices.
Click to expand...

Holy crap; A well-written, thoughtful post that actually gave me something to think about!

I definitely don't agree with all of it (comparing "lesser" people to animals? Yuck!), but it's refreshing to read something more than the "lawlz libruls are tards" that often passes for wit 'round these parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxx
like this
lironmiron said:
It makes sense to me. They build a pool of candidates focusing on identity and then hire from that pool based on merit.
Click to expand...

Except the problem is she explicitly states in the first sentence that superficial factors get zero consideration, and then immediately contradicts herself by saying they do.
 
Maxx said:
What's interesting about modern "racism" (and it generally being all-but-white targeted) is that it ignores the majority of history where Asiatic and Middle Eastern peoples kicked the ever living crap out of white Europe. China in particular was far ahead of the Western world in politics, technology, etc. for nearly two thousand years. It took well over a millennium for Europe to get back to its Greek (or Greco-Roman) roots. (and to be honest, neither Greek nor Roman every truly defeated the Parthians) Then of course people bring up the New World and the destruction of the native peoples, despite the fact somewhere between 95 and 98 of the population died a century before any serious (white English) colonists made real headway.

My point being, this is a more recent phenomenon and to say that cultural disparity is caused by racism is to ignore the leap forward that lead to imperialism. Imperialism at its heart, being after the Enlightenment, was paternalistic; it was to be an uplifting of native peoples. "Oh but slavery" - I suppose you mean the slave trade that existed LONG before the white man showed up? (and for the record the vast majority of slaves were post-slave trade, that is locally bred, and the main middle-man of this trade was Middle Eastern men - making Cassius Clay's name change to Muhammad Ali ridiculously ironic given Cassius Clay was a firebrand abolitionist)

I'm digressing, though; what I mean to say is that it's far more likely we will generate a more persistent and insidious racism by being "progressive" than was ever perpetrated by ignorant, greedy men. The "old" racism (and I mean enlightened racism, not U.S. South racism which was borne of irrational fear) was built on the idea that certain people had fared better and had some responsibility in the care of the lesser peoples (not unlike the Bible challenges Man to guard animals) while this "new" progressive racism is...the same thing; those conservatives ("whites") who are too ignorant to understand diversity must be culled through proactive, discriminatory hiring practices.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to oversimplify what your saying, but basically you can't fix racism with more racism, just of different kind. The facts as you presented here seem to suggest that it is not diversity in and of itself is what causes prosperity, but that culture and ideas matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
HockeyJon - When a person adheres to an ideology without skepticism any level of cognitive dissonance and/or hypocrisy is possible in the name of furthering said ideology.
 
Aireoth said:
The bigger issue is we are not going to get many chances to get this (wiping out racism) right. It is such an inherent trait that once that shoe is on the other foot, its not coming off. That also means if we can't get over things like discrimination against whites, we risk the establishment digging in and the shoe never moving.

Western society is walking a razors edge of identity politics, racism and equality of outcome vs equality. There are other nations that would love to see it fail horribly and they too are actively engaged in destabilizing the conversation.
Click to expand...
I dont think wiping out racism 100% will ever be possible, partly because it is human nature to be defensive against the unknown/unfamiliar, and partly because some people's perspective cannot be changed.

But I would wager that in the US and countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia, racism is actually nearly non-existent. You might agree with me on this, since PC culture has been consistently pushing victim-hood and hate speech and actively guilting others into silence, racism has been growing in both far left and far right groups.
 
This just makes me love Google more. As long as the minorities they hire are as qualified as the Whites and Asian men they are passing over, it is alright with me. I love diversity.

It's too bad that hiring based on ability is not good enough anymore. Next we are going to pass a law that require each application to be dated and time-stamped to the nanosecond at the exact moment the companies receive them. Maybe it will happen. We already have passed laws allowing Christians to openly discriminate.

I'm sure Trump and his base will weigh in soon enough. I can't wait to hear what he and the base will say. I'm sure he will be moved to do something about it.
 
Last edited:
Maxx said:
What's interesting about modern "racism" (and it generally being all-but-white targeted) is that it ignores the majority of history where Asiatic and Middle Eastern peoples kicked the ever living crap out of white Europe.
Click to expand...
Its not interesting its common sense.

How does what happened 1000+yr ago in Eastern Europe matter or relate to the racism that exists in 2018 US, 2018 UK, or 2018 Germany? It doesn't so its ignored.
 
bugleyman said:
I definitely don't agree with all of it (comparing "lesser" people to animals? Yuck!)
Click to expand...

I by no means suggest I support that view. Historically, foreigners ("barbarians" as per the Greeks) were freely traded as slaves and considered chattel (equal to property alongside animals). The "enlightened" view that came later was instead that such lesser peoples were intrinsically equal but required re-education (or rather, cultural re-adjustment). A good example is how the U.S. handled Native Americans: they were willing to let them be, as long as they were willing to settle down, farm, learn English, and conform to social norms. This is a paternalistic and more beneficent approach by the standards of the time. My point is that the "progressive" view of today is little different as it implies people who think differently simply need to see reason and "re-adjust" to the fact that diversity (as per Enlightenment thinking) is the proper baseline.
 
Trinode said:
I don't mean to oversimplify what your saying, but basically you can't fix racism with more racism, just of different kind. The facts as you presented here seem to suggest that it is not diversity in and of itself is what causes prosperity, but that culture and ideas matter.
Click to expand...

Culture is the progenitor of progress. There's a reason every major Western religion today is Abrahamic, why we talk about "American exceptionalism," and why China historically has long been a navel-gazing society. Having diversity is GREAT - America was made great by its acceptance of all cultures, right? Not entirely true; rather, the values proposed during and after the American Revolution appealed to all people universally. Universality is the basis of culture and art. Read Campbell (on "myth") for example. The point being that trying to take an objective approach, that is "forcing" the issue as Google has done here, is inherently putting the cart before the horse. You can't will diversity into existence; it comes naturally because you create a culture that invites it.
 
mesyn191 said:
How does what happened 1000+yr ago in Eastern Europe matter or relate to the racism that exists in 2018 US, 2018 UK, or 2018 Germany? It doesn't so its ignored.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue. Major migrations of people in the Balkans set up a chain of events more than 1500 years ago. The Muslims being pushed back at Poitiers led directly to the Reconquista. The reality is refugees and the migration of peoples has happened since well before the first records of human history. For us today to have such hubris as to believe we can ignore those events when we react to modern conditions is to be completely ignorant of the fact that cultural pressure has existed for a very long time. It exists for a reason, a natural and evolutionary defense, and while it is wise to realize primitive limitations it is equally as smart to know they exist for a reason created over millions of years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top