Gizmodo published the 10-page critique of Google’s Diversity policies written by a white male software engineer that recently went viral within the company.
His conclusions were:
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the â€œvictims.â€
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Googleâ€™s biases.
Iâ€™ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for womenâ€™s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
Thereâ€™s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
Iâ€™ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathyâ€”feeling anotherâ€™s painâ€”causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isnâ€™t backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We havenâ€™t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (Iâ€™m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of whatâ€™s said in the training).
They ought to hire Curtis Yarvon to write one of these.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for Google to adopt this (probably now unemployed) software engineer’s proposals. There was an immediate official response from Googleâ€™s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown (quoted below in part):
Iâ€™m Danielle, Googleâ€™s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate weâ€™ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.
Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. Iâ€™m not going to link to it here as itâ€™s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.
Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and weâ€™ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, â€œBuilding an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. â€˜Nuff said. â€œ
All of these policies boil down to this: Racial or gender discrimination is allowable if it’s the right races or genders. Otherwise it’s not allowed.
Years ago liberals screamed when someone said that extremism in the defense of liberty was no vice.
New baseball rule: If your team is behind, force plays don’t count. They must tag you. If you’re ahead, force plays count as an out.
So,this white male engineer laid out point by point, salient issues that matter in the workplace. Well-reasoned,and well explained. Very well done.
The response from the new Vice President of Diversity,Integity,& Governance reads like the Manifesto of The Special People’s Club. Retarded.
This guy is right on. I assume they hunted him down and fired him on the spot.
Tell the truth and be ejected, no be executed.
Danielle is a fool
If “diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company”, doesn’t that mean that some races and genders contribute more to Google’s success than others? Why else would you seek to increase the employment of some races over others?
To the surprise of no one, Google engineer James Damore, has been outed and fired.
Google remains steadfast in their mission to embrace all in diversityism,etc,etc, blah blah blah…
Hopefully,this intelligent and articulate man will find employment where merit and talent matter more than toeing the Party Line.
Please Leave a Comment!