Below is the relevant section (although I don't see how anyone's saying they aren't good enough to work with):
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
- Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
- A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
- Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
- Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
- Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.
So he's fired for asking the question? It's a very reasonable thing to ask. I've worked for companies that have instituted such policies -- minority candidates were given an HR-sanctioned "saving throw" before being rejected. It's not a good feeling to wonder if your new colleague would have been rejected if she were male, or if your referral would have still gotten rejected had they been a person of color.
He was fired for effectively casting doubt on whether his colleagues were qualified for their work or whether they were just hired to meet diversity quotas.
And why is that wrong? Worrying about your company's hiring bar is a very normal thing. HR should have contacted him to explain how they balance the desire for diversity and the desire for hiring the best candidates. There's no need for a public execution.
Policies that are effectively affirmative action are by definition lowering the bar for diversity candidates. His statement that it can lower the bar is correct but still not something people like to be reminded of. Google (and others) not recognizing this distinction and treating his lack of discretion as hate speech is irrational mob PC rule or just plain cowardice (if he was fired for PR reasons).
"His statement that it can lower the bar is correct"
In an n-dimensional space where we take into account all the factors that go into whether or not a candidate is given an offer, you're actually complaining about "lowering the bar" when the bar is already lower for people (for people that's not being targeted for affirmative action) due to systemic effects? You're actually complaining that we're lowering the bar by tweaking other variable so that the bar will be effectively the same obstacle for everyone?
Or sued, seems like this would be an easy basis for a hostile work suit. Couple promotion denials, a documented complaint and this manifesto would probably be an easy lawsuit, though INAL.
I don't think that's what he means. I think he is saying they are qualified, but many qualified people have also been excluded based on gender or race (i.e. the "false negatives" that gets repeatedly left out). For all he knows, those same people might have been the most qualified, but much of the competition didn't (allegedly) get a shot to compete against them.
> It's not a good feeling to wonder if your new colleague would have been rejected if she were male
Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer?
> or if your referral would have still gotten rejected had they been a person of color
This is utter bullshit. As someone who used to work for Alphabet, gender and ethnic background never came up during interviews, simply because the interview process does not account for that. You are either able to solve the technical problems you are presented with during the interview or not. "Culture fit" - which is the one item that might be influenced by things related to gender or ethnic background - is actually a liability for minority groups.
That's a good thing! Then Alphabet is doing a good job, and someone should have sat down with this particular employee to explain what controls are in place to ensure consistent hiring standards are enforced while being sensitive to the requirements of people from different backgrounds. This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing.
> Then maybe you should just not make that assumption and work with them as a peer?
Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post.
> someone should have sat down with this particular employee to explain what controls are in place to ensure consistent hiring standards are enforced while being sensitive to the requirements of people from different backgrounds
He knows them. Everyone knows them. The average Alphabet employee does multiple interviews a month, sometimes multiple interviews a week (complaining about how many interviews you have to do is of the favorite pastimes in the company.) We are trained for this, and - surprise - none of the training says (or even suggest) 'you should lower your standards for minority candidates.' In fact, none of the interviewing training even mentions gender or ethnicity.
I feel that this guy is coming from a disgruntled conservative-leaning position where he feels the company values don't represent his. That's a valid concern, but there's plenty of companies out there. He should just leave and find one that has values matching his.
> This was not the case at the company I worked for and it was a very negative thing
That's sad. Hope you had better luck with the next one!
> Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm a human in my post.
Sorry, didn't meant to be offensive. I just know intrigue (which this memo tries to stir up) is the shortest path to a dysfunctional workplace.
Q: How many employees felt free to discuss their support for Hillary openly (I'm sure Bernie was in a minority)? How many people felt free to discuss their support for Trump (or even any other republican? I'm sure there were a few supporters here and there but I bet the great majority assumed everyone _should_ support Hillary.
People should feel free to exercise their voting privilege.
> How many people felt free to discuss their support for Trump
This has nothing to do with the company, but rather with the individuals working for it. How many people, do you think, felt free to discuss their support for a Democratic candidate in the Alabama?
> People should feel free to exercise their voting privilege.
And they did! Heck, Google encouraged everyone to vote, not just Democrats. Maybe your anger should be directed to the companies and governments that did their utmost to stop their own citizens from voting. North Carolina is a good place to start, move South from there.
Gender does not come up during interviews but they will search across the 50 states for a diversity candidate equal to a local standard candidate. Their HR has diversity goals and will want diversity referrals from current emps to fulfil their goals.
"Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate"
Lowering the rate of false negatives does not lower the bar. If anything, it just improves the process and yields more qualified candidates. If you increase the rate of false positives, then you would in fact lower the bar.
It's muddled thinking like this that makes me doubt his ability as an engineer, not to mention his ability as a social scientist.
Here's my understanding of Google's hiring practice. In essence, Google optimizes to minimize false positive (i.e. hiring unqualified engineers). Hence, even if an applicant meets the bar (i.e. qualified), it is still a crapshoot whether the person is hired or not. By lowering the false negative rate (i.e. rejecting qualified applicant), the effective hiring rate for the target demographic group is higher if all other factors are assumed to be constant (and that's a big if and debatable).
Edit:
Another way to say this is, if an applicant simply meets the bar, the person is most likely not hired. Conversely, an applicant needs to far exceed the bar in order for interviewers to vouch for the person and improve odd of hiring.
On the other hand, applicant that fits into the targeted demographics are probably afforded additional consideration, even if the person's interview did not wow the interviewers as much, hence the "lowering the bar" argument. It is not lowering the standard bar, but rather the "score", if you will, the applicant needs to clear the bar.
The best analogy I've read so far is that the candidate's score and its error bar must clear the bar. But affirmative action applicants are extended the courtesy of second look, which reduces the error bar, hence lower score is needed for the score and error bar to clear the Google bar.
I'm not in this guy's head but, it's not difficult to come up with a charitable interpretation from his perspective. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that this is what I believe. I'm saying that based on the rest of his writing, this _one potential_ lense through which he may have constructed this sentence.
> Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
> decreasing the false negative rate
(Again! This is from his POV): The false positive rate has not gone up. The diverse candidates are, in fact, qualified and should have their jobs. They are excellent. I am going out of my way to make sure no one interprets this deluge of text as me questioning my peers ability; something that I will fail at in spectacular fashion.
> lower the bar
(His POV don't pin this on me): However, diverse candidates may now have a lower bar than non-diverse candidates.
How is it possible that some candidates have both a "lower bar" and yet are still qualified?
> Hiring practices
(still his POV folks): Because for diverse candidates we have different hiring practices. Practices which are tailored to diverse candidates. It's not a lower bar, it's a different bar. A bar specifically designed to help us discover the best side of these diverse candidates.
(Speaking for myself now):
I think the author is saying that going out of your way to create specific affordances for _some_ and not for _all_ is discriminatory. I _don't_ think he's a horrible monster for thinking this. I _do_ think that this way of thinking fails to acknowledge the fact that an organization that is already steeped to the brim with a specific group of people is likely to _already_ have built in affordance for that group.
He fucked up. Hard. Like so hard that I find it kind of funny (wtf was he thinking?). I, personally, don't think that the ideas that he espoused merit firing, I think they merit careful correction wherein the person doing the correcting attempts to read his meaning charitably, carefully, truthfully and fully. I feel that most of the public responses have failed in this regard. Most of what I've seen start with "he's basically wrote: {$straw_man}". Some are pandering to an audience, some are more interested in winning than in being right, but some people who retort in this way just have limited time and patience. I can understand why the straw man is appealing. I've just written three paragraphs about a single sentence, who has time for this shit?
Here's the thing though, careful correction, truth, charity—that's my "ideal world" case for him. The simple matter of fact is that Google is not the ideal world, they have no incentive to apply my ideal to him. He's a professional and the fuck up alone (separated form the ideas) represents enough potential harm to Google that he had no hope of keeping his job. Maybe one of his friends can give him the careful walk through of how his ideas are flawed. Hell, maybe a good friend will do that and he'll decide that he was right all along.
Edit: After further reading I realized I had made a mistake when I (speaking from his POV) said: "it's not a lower bar, it's a different bar". He did actually use the words "lower the bar", something I failed to fully account for. One could, with liberal amounts of charity, imagine that he meant that the bar was lower but still sufficient? We're getting into logical acrobatics. That said, logical acrobatics are part of the point. The goal in reading someone whose world view is different to your own is to better understand their logic. To imagine how, within their world view, their ideas are consistent. We could be reading the words of a monster who doesn't care about logic. Or we could, and I think this is much more common, be reading the words of someone with flaws and ignorances and prejudices. Someone not so unlike ourselves.
He fell into the conservative trap of "If there is no active rules or laws discriminating, then discrimination doesn't exist! And trying to offset this discrimination IS the discrimination!"
Slavery and Jim Crows laws no longer on the books? Therefore there is no systemic racism!
Are there laws discriminating against women? No? Therefore they have all the same opportunities as men!
Why are Black Entertainment Television and Gay Pride okay, but White Entertainment Television and White Pride not!
Black Lives Matter is Racist!
Not all Men are Rapists!
This essay started from precisely this set of emotions and found data to justify it after the fact.
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
- Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
- A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
- Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
- Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
- Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.