[ng12]

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.

[Zeklandia]

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.

[ng12]

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.

[thereare5lights]

lmao, questioning why it's wrong to piss off large swaths of the company by questioning whether or not they should have been hired. that's rich.

let me know what industry you work in where you can poison the well so badly and not get canned.

[eagsalazar2]

Wrong and bad strategy are not the same thing.

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).

[thereare5lights]

"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?

Please explain your rationale for doing so.

[jethro_tell]

> not get canned

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.

[nv-vn]

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.

[moduspol]

Even if logically valid, literally any criticism of any existing hiring policy except "hire the best candidate" falls into that category.

[dguaraglia]

> 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.

[ng12]

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.

[dguaraglia]

> 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.

[mc32]

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.

[dguaraglia]

> 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.

[mc32]

Just for kicks, I'd like to see if you _jokingly_ for the LULz walked into MTV or SVL with a Trump hat.

I'm sure you could imagine walking in with a Hillary/Pussy Hat no problem whatsoever. But you would not walk with a Trump hat even as a joke. Ok, maybe in Moncks Corner or some boonie office.

[mc32]

San Diego and LA appears to be the place to vote... (where voters exceed eligible pop) but Alabama has historically been democratic and I am pretty sure people in AL felt more at ease to openly have Hillary campaign signs than a Trump sympathizer would feel at company like Google which likes to keep things googley.

[mc32]

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.