Google employee sacked over ‘anti-diversity’ memo

GOOGLE has sacked an employee for “perpetuating gender stereotypes” after an internal memo criticising the company’s diversity policies went viral.

Google’s vice president of diversity has criticised a memo which criticised the company’s diversity policies.

OPINION

IF YOU don’t support affirmative action, you’re evil.

That’s the only logical conclusion one can reach, judging by the insane reaction to — and media coverage of — Google employee James Damore’s critique and discussion of the internet giant’s “diversity” policies.

After the memo went viral, Mr Damore was sacked for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, he confirmed in an email to Bloomberg on Tuesday.

It’s worth reading the entire 10-page document, which was first published by Gizmodo and has been described by most outlets as an “anti-diversity screed” or “manifesto”. And it’s worth reading precisely for that reason — they lie even in their headlines.

RT.
Gizmodo published #GoogleManifesto in an edited format.
The original linked to sources to back up claims made. https://t.co/qaldQXVNlG pic.twitter.com/pRzysErhwB

— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) August 8, 2017

“I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more,” Mr Damore writes. “However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices.”

Those include “programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race”, “a high priority queue and special treatment for ‘diversity’ candidates”, and “reconsidering any set of people if it’s not ‘diverse’ enough”.

He points out that there are natural biological differences between men and women which lead to differences in behaviour and personality, which in turn result in differences at a “population level”.

This is not the author’s opinion or some radical ideology. The science on the effects of sex hormones on behaviour, including occupational interests, is very clear. “Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are ‘just’,” he writes.

“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.”

He points out that “if we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem”, urging his employers to “be open about the science of human nature” and warning against “silencing” views to create an “ideological echo chamber”.

“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,” he writes.

He even proposes a number of suggestions to improve diversity by addressing aspects of the industry which make it more appealing to men than women — again, on average, at a population level — without resorting to affirmative action or quotas.

In other words, he’s proposing ways to address the cause, not the symptom.

But he argues against “arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women”, saying that for each change, there needs to be a reason why it helps the company.

To sum up, he argues that hiring people solely based on their gender, ethnicity or sexuality is bad, and that there may be reasons, other than “bias”, “discrimination” or “oppression”, which account for differences in career preferences between various groups.

In 2017, these have become reprehensible views.

In a memo to employees, Google’s vice president of diversity, integrity and governance, Danielle Brown, said that “like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”.

“The doc was a disaster from a truly bad place. Pure toxicity. Be assured we are all with you (and feeling the same),” wrote Google employee Louis Gray.

Fellow employee Andrew Bonventre wrote: “That garbage fire of a document is trash and you are wonderful co-workers who I am extremely lucky to work with.”

Former Google employee Erica Baker warned Google was “not a special case”. “How will your company handle learning of an employees bigoted ideas? Be prepared when it happens,” she tweeted.

Some colleagues began calling Mr Damore, whose identity was soon outed online, a “Nazi”. “Everyone involved in that ‘I’m a pathetic man baby who is unable to deal with the modern world’ needs to get in the bin,” wrote Anthony Baxter.

“I will absolutely go out of my way to make sure I never work near anyone involved with or who endorsed that garbage. Because Nazis. And you should absolutely punch Nazis.”

None of this would matter much if it were not for two things.

Firstly, what’s happening at Google and the reaction both inside and outside the company mirrors what is happening all over the world, where politically correct authoritarianism is creeping into every level of society.

Secondly, with a monopoly on video streaming, Google is a company with terrifying power to censor views it doesn’t like, and has demonstrated a willingness to do so. On that point, it’s pretty obvious Mr Damore is a fan of psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson.

Pay attention. Whoever wrote this is technically/scientifically correct. But the Google diversity VP has opinions https://t.co/3kAPw1cGwJ

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) August 6, 2017

Many of Dr Peterson’s favourite topics, delivered on popular podcasts such as the Joe Rogan Experience and via his YouTube lectures, appear in the Google letter almost verbatim, such as this footnote: “Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure.

“As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their ‘capitalist oppressors’, the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the ‘white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy’.”

So it may or may not be a coincidence that Dr Peterson was locked out of his Gmail and YouTube accounts last week for an unspecified violation of Google’s terms of service, at around the time the “anti-diversity” letter was going viral inside the organisation.

While Google later reinstated his accounts, it’s not hard to see where this is heading.

“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,” Ms Brown’s memo to employees read. “But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”

At Google, all views are equal — but some views are more equal than others.

[e-mail]