Patterico's Pontifications

8/7/2017

About That Compelling Google Memo

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:25 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Yesterday I read an interesting 10-page memo written by a male engineer at Google. In the memo, which has gone viral, the unnamed writer dissects and challenges the organization’s intellectually restrictive environment and the efforts at “shaming into silence” those with opposing views. In the name of diversity, course. The writer explains:

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Fair enough.

In part:

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

As you can imagine, heads are exploding over the suggestion that there might be a difference between men and women. In today’s culture, basic biology is seen as a passé social construct that demands dismissal or correction. So the suggestion that any difference between the sexes might actually exist and have an impact on the numbers of women represented in a particular field, must be wholly rejected. That, coupled with a rigid intolerance of speech (which is determined offensive), becomes utterly predictable and even tedious in its extreme manifestation:

Untitled

In the midst of the hysteria (mid 17th century (as an adjective): via Latin from Greek husterikos ‘of the womb,’ from hustera ‘womb’ (hysteria being thought to be specific to women and associated with the womb), Robert Verbruggen offers some simple clarity:

To wit: Men are more likely than women to find it rewarding to work with things rather than people; men are more aggressive and status-seeking than women and thus more likely to climb the corporate ladder and ask for raises; women rate higher on other psychological traits such as anxiety. These differences are all well-documented and will not shock anyone familiar with the research on them. And while there’s some debate about the extent to which these gaps are cultural instead of biological, there’s good evidence that biology does play a role at least some of the time. As the memo’s author writes, gaps like these are found across cultures, and for some of them we’ve identified specific biological underpinnings such as testosterone. The conclusion from this isn’t that Google should abandon the quest for diversity. Instead he (reports indicate it’s not a she) suggests ways of incorporating this information into Google’s efforts, such as making “software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration.”

Then there is this part that addresses Google’s political biases and exposes the heavy-handedness of the authoritarians:

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist

Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

For the umpteenth time we see authoritarians reveal their fear of speech, and need to shut it down. Or at the very least, make it conform to an acceptable level of correctness. Also for the umpteenth time, the answer is never to shame any individual into silence. The answer is always more speech.

Anyway, Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity and Governance Danielle Brown responded to the memo:

We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company. Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

Yep. It’s always the pesky little qualifier that does speech in, no?

While Google employees are condemning the memo and calling for the writer of the memo to be fired, others are supportive – or as one employee reluctantly put it, “Honestly, more people have been agreeing with it than I would like.”

And clearly there are Google employees who actually get it:

“Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.”

“The fact that colleagues are calling for him to be fired—on very public forums—proves his point that there is an ideological silo and that dissenting opinions want to be silenced,” the second employee told Motherboard. “Why don’t they debate him on his argument? Because it’s easier to virtue signal by mentioning on a social network how angry and offended you are. Debate and discussion takes time.”

There is a report tonight suggesting that, based upon an internal memo written by CEO Sundar Pichai, the employee who wrote the original memo will be fired. Unnamed sources are claiming that the employee has already been terminated. Google has not confirmed the claim.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

UPDATE: The employee himself has confirmed he was fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

56 Responses to “About That Compelling Google Memo”

  1. Here’s an interesting piece in which the author discusses the legality of Google firing the employee.

    Dana (023079)

  2. It appears the employee has indeed been fired:

    James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

    Dana (023079)

  3. Jon Snow may know nothing, and he needs to get to work, but he did learn something from Ned Stark about that pesky little qualifier.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. Vive la différence!

    What’s that? Oh. There is no biological diversity?

    Well, if there are no differences, from what can we be diverse?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  5. 1984, its a how to guide for them.

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. I would hope that the Trump EEOC opens a massive case against Google, a company that has now proven every last thing he said.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  7. Anti-trust. Break Google up the way AT&T was broken up.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. it reminders me of the 80’s, how sweet and naive these googleturds are about life that is real (“real life”)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. Google’s supposed to be the happiest place on Earth to work at– just like Mousewitz and Duckau.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  10. truly it was 15 – no 16 years ago i walked through a very basic san jose 3-bedroom house … what had 3 tenants in the garage

    fortunately me i had no coding skills

    and so i moved on

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. google employees are stepfordtards

    they speak with buoyant exclamation points!!!

    like living breathing corporate emails

    with buoyant exclamation points!!!

    (and yeah they’re overwhelmingly “asian”)

    BAY AREA EFF YEAH!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. The whole internet is dominated by freaks. Guys that don’t go with the freaky flow, like this guy or Brendan Eich (who invented Java!) get pushed out.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. Dana, this all just makes me sick.

    I’m reminded of Thomas Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed.”

    Social justice types believe that they are themselves good and smart because of their beliefs.

    So if people disagree with them…they must be….

    Right.

    And it’s supposedly okay to harm bad and stupid people.

    It’s like everyone is just reacting without thought these days.

    Simon Jester (bcb31a)

  14. Yes it’s an impulse going back to the French revolution I commends winik’s chapters on the terror for understanding they were premature sjws

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. That firing someone for”perpetuating gender stereotypes” is being lauded, even while understanding that it violates the private company’s policy, is nonetheless mind-boggling.

    Dana (023079)

  16. Narciso, Robespierre never understood that the “Committee on Public Safety” could be use to execute him, one of the founders.

    The problem with this weird complainatariate is that there are no objective “most reviled” groups; it’s flexible and open to interpretation. Which is how we have careened between being anti-segregation and then pro-segregation. It’s a shifting standard. I shudder to think what our Social Betters will tell us we must believe over the next few years.

    I personally believe it all derives from hating ones parents, and disliking stability.

    Simon Jester (bcb31a)

  17. Dana, this is a couple of years old, but I teach students just like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_4-BqSIUD8

    They are saying what they think is right, but not thinking it through.

    It reminds me very much of the weird language in 1920s Soviet Russia.

    Simon Jester (bcb31a)

  18. Colin Kaepernick was unavailable for comment.

    However, what do you suppose is the degree of positive correlation between (a) people who were outraged that NFL fans were outraged at Kaepernick’s “punishment” for expressing his views and (b) people who are thrilled that Google has fired this guy? I’m guessing it’s pretty close to 1.0.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  19. I think I got tangled in my subordinate clauses. Trying again:

    What do you suppose is the degree of positive correlation between (a) people who were outraged at Kaepernick’s “punishment” by NFL team owners for expressing his views and (b) people who are thrilled that Google has fired this guy?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. “Vision of the Anointed” again, Beldar.

    Some free expression is more equal than others.

    Pretty scary.

    Simon Jester (bcb31a)

  21. It is being reported that James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, is looking at his legal options. In light of this, an employment lawyer from the link at #1, gives three reasons that might, at the least, make the termination questionable:

    [F]ederal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised.

    [The engineer’s memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.

    The engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws. Those policies include support programs limited by race or gender and promotional and hiring scoring policies that consider race and gender. It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws

    Dana (023079)

  22. @3 Beldar

    Bend the knee.

    Pinandpuller (1830bc)

  23. @15 Dana

    Caitlyn Jenner wearing a dress is perpetuating a gender stereotype.

    Pinandpuller (1830bc)

  24. Hm, I see that Ken White says the firing is legal.

    Dana (023079)

  25. Need to deplatform google.

    They fired a lefty for not being 100% in lockstep with all lefty beliefs.

    Ken would think it’s legal. It violated a Code of Conduct which enforces leftist behavior.

    I’d still sue and try and get discovery.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  26. It was a brilliant memo, and of course the author had to be fired. Note that the Google VP did not address any of his points at all. Why are they still so dedicated to diversity, but as he says, only to the positive stuff, like jobs and salaries, completely ignoring the bad stuff, like 93% of work deaths being male.

    Could be the first crack in the facade. We maybe can look forward to a preference cascade, as Instapundit puts it.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  27. What is the new gender neutral word for maternity/paternity leave?

    If I were a Google employee and I returned to work after my XX had a baby I would take a breast pump in a private office for an hour each day.

    I dare you to say I can’t express myself.

    Pinandpuller (1830bc)

  28. Yeah. I’d feel like an idiot if I had to tell Bradley Manning SHE while SHE was serving time that SHE had testicular cancer.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  29. This is why we have the Establishment Clause. Yes, I know it deals with religion, but bear with me.

    Once upon a time, one based ethics and moral behavior on one’s religious beliefs. Some still do that, but increasingly less and less, and laws are passed to subject those moral decisions to a “higher standard” of contemporary secular thought. One can actually be jailed in some Western countries for reading certain passages from the Bible.

    And yet, the argument goes, it does not represent an Establishment of Religion to impose secular beliefs since those beliefs do not invoke a higher power, and are therefore not “religion.” So, we have laws regulating ethics and behavior and, increasingly, commerce and speech that demands one obey secular rules in things that religion used to guide.

    I don’t know if this is the case that breaks that argument (or if the gentleman intends to pursue one) but something LIKE this case should. Acts of conscience should always be protected and it is JUST for that reason the 1st Amendment was adopted. Sure, and it doesn’t directly apply to private companies, but it is clearly incorporated into anti-discrimination law and Google has gone too far.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  30. Beldar, If the 49ers hadn’t gone 2-14 last year, Kaepernick might have an argument.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  31. I don’t know if you directed your comment at me.

    But in case you did, all thought and all speech needs to be protected.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  32. It would be an interesting case to see someone clearly harmed by a company’s demand that employees hold certain controversial moral and ethical beliefs (or at least pretend they do) in order to continue employment.

    Already we know that the Catholic Church cannot require its lay employees in auxiliary organizations (e.g. Catholic charities) to be Catholics or even to follow Catholic teaching. Why? Apparently it is religious discrimination in employment.

    And yet, a person who as the balls to suggest that there may be differences between men and women’s interests and capabilities, possibly related to evolution and certainly borne out by contemporary life choices, can be fired for badthink.

    The only differences is that progressive moralism has no God. Neat trick that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  33. Steve–

    No, just venting about the need to subject progressive moralism to the same rules as Catholicism. Add another Justice I guess.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  34. google needs a azz whoopin

    mg (31009b)

  35. kaperprick should move to Venezuela

    mg (31009b)

  36. No, just venting about the need to subject progressive moralism to the same rules as Catholicism. Add another Justice I guess.

    Kevin M (752a26) — 8/7/2017 @ 11:53 pm

    Vent like the wind.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  37. Sessions is a zero letting sheriff Joe twist in the wind. Pardon him, Trump.

    mg (31009b)

  38. Hannity will do more to unmask the unmaskers than the lazy azz republican party. Pathetic.

    mg (31009b)

  39. Elmer Sessions would do better hunting wabbits.

    mg (31009b)

  40. I wonder if Elmer has heard of wassermanschlitz and the awan bros?

    mg (31009b)

  41. holder and lynch were more productive for obama. Sessions duped Trump. Just another uni-party member.

    mg (31009b)

  42. bout time some illegal pays a visit to lil marco.

    Such a pathetic small man.

    mg (31009b)

  43. The SJW aren’t going to let this go. They’ll follow him and make his life a misery, including his next employer.

    Richard Aubrey (0d7df4)

  44. no trumpers, the media and the democrats will try anything to kill this country.
    The silent majority has more than enough weapons for you hacks. Bring it on you smart mouthed sissies.

    mg (31009b)

  45. Nigel Farage should be the spokesman for Trump.

    mg (31009b)

  46. Hisruptcy and alchemy have a long life as the daily caller points out re skydragon rules

    narciso (7df595)

  47. Emotional/political blackmail is equally shared by those with either ideological bent. Take the Evangelical wing…you think they aren’t intent on force-feeding their point of view down your throat?

    Ben burn (12ab2c)

  48. Televangelist Pat Robertson still political after all these years..

    “Then they got rid of O’Reilly who was the top getting of audience, the most popular host they had, of course they got rid of Roger Ailes the architect who put it all together. It’s so easy to do now, ” he said “I’m not a conspiracy theorist but it’s so easy to see what’s being done. I think it’s a terrible shame. Fox had better synch up, gird up their loins, people are going after them. Anybody can send a salacious piece of literature. It came from Sean Hannity, it came from anyone. Totally bogus.”

    Ben burn (12ab2c)

  49. Debate and discussion takes time.

    J.P. (9e0433)

  50. And knowledge and facts and reasoning…

    J.P. (9e0433)

  51. Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

    Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression”

    The Thought Police affirmed.

    And Gizmodo in its reporting on the memo actually called a plea for racial inclusion in meetings/classes an “anti-diversity screed”.

    Read the comments over there if you want a good idea of the herd mentality and the call to crush all anti-authoritarian dissent.

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

    harkin (536957)

  52. I keep trying to tell you people, one of the basic differences between men (in general) and women (in general) is the value they place on logic and reasoning as opposed to intuition and feelings. That memo was nothing but logic and reasoning – in short, it was a perfect example of “mansplaining”. If you’re a man, you’re more likely think the guy made perfect sense, if you’re a woman you’re more likely to feel he’s an insensitive brute privileging his opinions about math and science as if they were facts. Look, 2+2=4 is true only if you think it’s true, 2+2=5 can also be true if you feel that it’s true. Just like gravity can be wished away and prussic acid makes a fine mouthwash if only you believe hard enough. It’s merely your opinion that opinions are not facts. If my opinions about facts are different from your opinions about facts, who are you to oppress me and silence me by insisting I’m “wrong”? I’m not wrong, I just subscribe to alternative facts!

    Jerryskids (3308c1)

  53. I have some hope Google will be able to more tightly embrace the rigid orthodoxy it finds necessary necessary to avoid contact with reality until the damage caused by employing parasites based upon diversity goals becomes irreparable. It may take some time to achieve complete debilitation but they’re certainly on the right path.

    Rick Ballard (5f52bd)

  54. “equating the freedom from offense with psychological safety.”

    Man, that’s it in a nutshell.

    The entire concept of having an entitlement (dare I saw “right”) to be free from being offended is simply mind-boggling to me, and would be unrecognized in 300 years of American political thought and experience.

    Yet its a driving factor of left-wing politics and political correctness that is RUINING this country.

    It gives anyone and everyone the ability to play “victim” if they can cram themselves into a category with others capable of description.

    shipwreckedcrew (65f4ca)

  55. No happy medium between Nannyism and Hobbes, eh?

    Ben burn (12ab2c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1085 secs.