[code_scrapping]

She writes "Google treats badly black, queer women", but the story is "Google treated ME badly, and I'm a black queer woman". Also, I'm not comfortable supporting or empathizing with anybody so certain about their "stellar, fantastic, greatest in history" profile.

It would be interesting to hear what were the performance/carrier paths of those 300 people she hired, to understand whether they really just needed a leg-up. That would validate her hunch about untapped potential. On the other hand I'm afraid that it's likely that if they were not promoted it would be again blamed on racism, because if you have that one differentiator, it can be used in any situation.

(Yes, I'm aware that this comment is not going to be palatable to politically correct majority).

[peteretep]

> but the story is "Google treated ME badly, and I'm a black queer woman"

My take-away from it was "Google recruiting is essentially unaware of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs)"

[code_scrapping]

That is the most shocking part, but it's not the emphasis of the rant - it's the added value that gives the author credibility.

Please note that I'm coming from a 3rd world country, Google probably has my university well below it's radar, and I know people from there hired by Google (in double-digit numbers). So not being on the "A list" is quite normal for a vast majority of the world, yet you can make it happen.

On a personal note - I interviewed and got reject by Google, but I'm a white male so I do think they actually rejected me because of my performance and not because of my other attributes.