Google is in a tough spot with this.
On the one hand they sincerely want to increase diversity because increasing the pool of candidates means there are more candidates to choose from. Also, having more women see technology as a career path is a good thing for the American workforce --it strengthens it.
On the other hand, there are some who then see this initiative to begin their crusades for diversity in their vision. That is, it ends being a means to enrich the pool of applicants but rather a means to play favorites and push agendas. That's to say Google wants to increase women in the workforce but they do not want to make men "unwanted".
I have known people there and I am told that the generalities that we hear that conservatives tend to stay quiet and that one side of the political spectrum in encouraged while the other is shunned is true.
Beside that, this person left voluntarily, they did not get fired despite their attempts to re-start contentious conversations management had sought to regain control over.
By the way, overlooked in all this is the overrepresentation of non-American citizens in the companies, with respect to wanting the companies to reflect the Am pop at large. And, who cares about that stat. I mean, they contribute a whole hell of a lot. Yet, you see, people only care about _their_ interpretation of what is acceptable diversity and unacceptable diversity figures.
When you try to emulate a college environment and change work from a job to a lifestyle this seems to be what happens. People want to change their environment to reflect their values. Engineers especially. Both this guy and Damore seem to have sincerely good intentions, and if Google really was a college campus, their discussions might work but they're just incompatible with the reality of a workplace as-is.
Google and workplaces in general are in a very tough spot here. "Diversity & Inclusion" are grenades in the current political environment and more often than not any discussion in a non monolithic setting where ideas from both sides will be argued (ie. a large multinational) will probably end up with mudslinging and fire throwing. I've seen it within my own companies forums and I have no doubt this was going on at Google. I definitely understand where HR and senior executives where coming from, I'm sure more than one post went off the fucking rails.
I'm all for diversity & inclusion within the work place but in general I would suggest companies do it in a more "covert" manner -- reach out to HBCUs, re-evaluate your interview process, talk to your employees who are "underrepresented minorities" to see how they feel about working for you. In general I think a lot of companies are simply inviting too much scrutiny by plastering diversity on the walls and screaming to high heavens.. press releases and chief diversity officers will not make you a more diverse company.
Discussing politics and religion at work is always, always distracting and divisive. Do it outside work hours please.
> The post also pointed to an external blog post written by a Googler that stated, “Blacks are not equal to whites.”
Here's what Altheide’s document quotes a "Googler" as writing on an external blog:
> Blacks are not equal to whites. Therefore the “inequality” between these races is expected and makes perfect sense. (This also explains why progressives are unable to come up with a black martyr who was not killed while committing a crime.)
Was this really written by someone who works for Google?
> “As far as I can tell Urs is of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ school with regards to diversity topics,” he added. “This is best summed up by him saying ‘if the majority of your coworkers are Nazis, it is better if you don’t know about it’ because productivity.” Altheide wrote that he remembered the quote verbatim, and told Gizmodo that he was so struck by the comparison that he jotted it down after the meeting.
That's also quite an accusation. Are there any other reports of Urs saying anything in that ballpark of crazy?
Link to the doc: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4347486-What-Happene...
It might be worth sharing that when some Googlers made a custom Cards Against Humanity deck, one of the cards just said "Cory Altheide". (Or so I heard.)
Let's just say the man is neither shy nor politically correct. "Worrying pattern of posting topics that are divisive" is understating things because it leaves out the "gleeful" part. I miss his G+ feed.
Why does Google encourage discussions of these policies in the first place? What’s there to gain?
It’s up to the owners of the company to communicate the values they want to promote in the workplace; management to implement specific policies; and employees to suck it up (and talk to HR if they feel their rights are being violated).
To take an example from the other end of the spectrum, I don’t imagine that fundamentalist Christian owned Hobby Lobby has an internal mailing list for discussing their policies. Why should Google feel any more compelled to seek employee approval?
“The document, which was written in 2016 and shared publicly this week, provides a striking counterpoint to allegations made by former Google employees James Damore and David Gudeman in a discrimination lawsuit filed against their former employer.”
These two actions by Google are not necessarily in conflict. It’s possible to discourage both opinions without showing any kind of biased agenda.
Pathetic attempt of another white hetro male trying to demonize diversity in a shallow and transparent attempt at retaining white privilege through the world.
"...ALLEGATIONS made by former Google employees James Damore and David Gudeman in a discrimination lawsuit filed against their former employer. Damore and Gudeman CLAIM that Google encouraged pro-diversity voices within the company and stifled conservative views. However, THE NEW DOCUMENT ILLUSTRATES that employees who spoke out in favor of diversity initiatives were reprimanded as well..." [ALL CAPS added by me]
So, the consistently left-leaning analysts at Gizmodo inform us that James Damore, whom Google themselves say they fired for the opinions expressed in a memo we can all read and see for ourselves what he was fired for, is still only alleging and claiming that the company that SAYS they fired him for expressing these views stifles conservative views.
But a MEMO written by a guy whom Google didn't fire at all, much less for expressing a pro-diversity opinion, but simply quit becomes a NEW DOCUMENT that ILLUSTRATES facts about Google not otherwise in evidence.
I lived in a country once with a state-controlled media that would begin its evening news reports with statements such as, "US President so-and-so claimed such-and-such today, but our-glorious-leader set the record straight, pointing out that blah-blah." I wondered how people in that country could hear that template and not see that it was blatantly biased at the template level. It wasn't just a biased interpretation of the issue, but was biased on the face of it, even before anything about the actual issue was inserted in the blanks.
But I discovered that people who consistently heard media talking this way couldn't detect even this blatant a bias in format, much less in the content of the actual issue, so the writers didn't have to even pretend superficially. With government-controlled media, most people lived in a bubble. Everything they were told agreed with everything else they were told, so it was just common sense, and anything I said that contradicted "the narrative" was considered utter nonsense.
What does it say about the tech audience Gizmodo is writing for that they are as confident as the state media in that small, tropical dictatorship, that they can be this blatant and their audience lives in such an ideological bubble, self-imposed in our case, that they'll approve of it and want more like it?
And also anything remotely resembling anti-diversity discussion as well. IE "No Equal Time"
Note: Amazon, Netflix, and Tesla who have strong founders that don't let bay area extreme political ideologies interfere with their business don't have to partake in these PR nightmares. Lesson should be learned for Google. It is no coincidence the above companies are ruled as a dictatorship and Google is ruled by committee.
This is so suspicious it's comical. Just when it seems like Google has been humiliated by the embarrassing screenshots in Damore's lawsuit, a mysterious new document, from the summer of 2015 to 2016, never-before-released until right now, showing Google's top brass handle controversy over diversity smoothly and professionally. No bickering, no cursing, no hostile workplace. No booing of White males, no anti-Trump memes, no antifa recruitment, no "sexually identifying as a wingless dragonkin." Just the professionalism of Google. And who discovered this document that totally vindicates Google and refutes Damore's lawsuit? Why, it's Gizmodo! The very same people who originally leaked Damore's memo (out of context, with all of the sources removed) kicking off all of the outrage and accusations of sexism against him in the first place.
How do we feel about this?