Please don't rage-delete comments. It renders the discussion unreadable because the context is gone.
Believe me, I understand how impossibly frustrating it can be to represent a minority/contrarian view in an internet discussion on an inflammatory topic, but turning over the chessboard and storming off—which is what deleting comments and leaving spiteful remnants in their place amounts to—is not a positive contribution.
Your assertion that it's not, is not sufficient. Especially when the very idea of having a talk caused so much tension. If it's a non existent problem, this talk would've been given no more attention than a presentation about bigfoot.
Such (pro)active denial usually indicates the denier has something to hide. Now that may not be the case here. But assuming you're right about this not being a Google problem but just small pockets like sexual harassment and racism.
Doesn't google still hold talks about racism & sexual harassment? I'm pretty sure they do. So why the voice against this talk, and this issue specifically?
If something bad is occurring inside Google, then of course it is Google's problem.
Whether or not it's ocurring I don't know, but to think that just because they have training materials saying something is bad and absolutely not to be tolerated means that it's necessarily in practice not tolerated is very naive!
I could play the same game and say perhaps you didn't read the article.
The article doesn't suggest it is a problem unique to Google. It suggests that Google's efforts at DEI, which you are telling us are industry best, have a blind spot on this subject, as evidenced by the way they handled this situation. A story that sounds plausible to me.
sorry, but I'm with the others here - one's personal experience does not negate the experience of others, and it also doesn't inform the question of whether this is a "google problem" or an "industry problem" (which btw, I'm inclined to believe). It's just a single random datapoint among (literally) 300,000.
If Google doesn't have a blind spot towards caste bias than why where they unable to even have a talk about it? It seems like it's a topic that cannot be discussed and as such I really doubt it doesn't represent a problem
I'm guessing that Google is also unlikely to host a topic about black-on-black violence. I'm not saying that this is a fair comparison, but that's what many Indians how caste is used. If you're going to place high importance on people's subjective experiences, you can't only do so when it's politically convenient.
Not only is it not a good comparison but there's not even a good thing to compare it to, which would be some other form of discrimination happening within the work place that can't be discussed. What you're saying sounds to me like this problem does exist and it's so bad that even talking about it should be off limits. That's fundamentally unfair to the people potentially being discriminated against.
I suppose you could make the same comparison with whites as well, I get that there is somewhat of an issue there because it's so inflammatory to discuss whether these things are fair or even effective at helping people etc.
I think the discussion should be had anyways. There might be some value that comes out of it. Like in my own case, I'm on the losing end of these policies in theory despite having very serious disadvantages in my life that aren't on the list of things to account for. Broadening the definition of diversity could alleviate feelings people have that they're not being treated fairly. But because we aren't willing to have difficult conversations about this stuff we have a supreme court case about it instead.
"Google is doing more about any type of inequality than any company on this planet"....
cough...'wealth inequality'...cough
An AP analysis finds that most foreign workers with H-1B visas are paid less than their American counterparts. But for most non-computer science occupations, foreigners are paid more.
> An AP analysis finds that most foreign workers with H-1B visas are paid less than their American counterparts.
paid less than X is one thing, but they are probably paid more than in any other company they could work. People always tend to go for the glass half full despite the fact they are better paid than probably 99% of other occupations out there.
> AP analysis
give me a break, you don't do an analysis of medians without comparing the sample size. Medians out of context mean absolutely nothing. If you want to do such an analysis, it needs to be statistically accurate, and also account for the potential bias in reporting or non-reporting, the years of experience and all potential factors that can account for differences in pay.
A friend once showed me the internal Google meme page and it was so safe and PG that it was unintentionally funny as hell in how lame it was. But I understand it has to be this way in any large company
Just like I can't blast my music tastes on others, not everyone should be subjected to insane Eric Andre humor
It wasn't always that way...it got sanitized a few years ago. I specifically remember the demanding Asian dad meme template being banned because it offended someone. And the overly attached girlfriend template, often used to make fun of our product design (things like today's YT premium trial nags).
There is a team called Community Policing at Google that sends requests to take down memes. If you don't comply they complain to your manager and HR. The folks running this team are super-woke and totally unaware of things like historical racism (like in Europe) while bending over backward to accomodate their favored groups.
It was much better when memegen was a force for positive google culture, such as when somebody exposed just how bad hello.com's static content was or how dumb google+'s policies were.
Isn't the whole point of edgy humor that it's unsafe? If it's humor you can deploy in any situation without fear of durably offending people, it's not edgy; it's safe, practically by definition.
In the extraordinary effort google does for equity and fairness, is caste bias ever addressed directly, with explanations, the same way gender/race discrimination is?
I can't speak for Google or what goes on there, but one thing that I've learned over my career in this industry is that minority groups, especially those that speak non-English languages, very often have things going on that are not at all visible to non-speakers and those not part of their community.
I've had fellow team members subject to extreme verbal abuse by managers who would stop by their desk and say absolutely horrible things to them in their native language while maintaining otherwise perfect composure. Threatening their visa status, threatening their family reputation, or just threatening to fire them. I've also learned of the out-of-work social pressure they can face because their communities are smaller and insular and so they interact with these folks outside of work, and there can be power dynamics extending to those places that are just not at all visible to other employees or leadership within the organization.
Those peers have had to suffer quietly some of the most abusive workplace relationships I've ever been adjacent to.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Another thing that I've learned, is that companies very often talk to the most about the things they suck at the most. For example, one firm that I worked for touted how everything was based on Teamwork. There were teams for everything. Every employee was expected to be on at least 5 teams. 3 "position related" and 2 "organizational" (e.g. The Birthday Part Team). Your annual evaluation wasn't based on your direct manager at all, it was entirely based on feedback from your "teams".
Needless to say, I've never seen a less team-oriented culture in my life. Every single team was entirely dysfunctional. Nothing got done. Epic levels of in-fighting over every little thing.
Anyhow, people usually talk the most about their insecurities. So, just because it's being talked about, with tons of posters and "trainings", doesn't mean anything truly effective is being done. Probably just the opposite.
ps. As a fellow fan of "edgy" humor, you just gotta learn that work isn't where your edgy sense of humor belongs. Even in the "edgy humor" industry, you'll find that people don't like it mixing with "the job". It's how you get fired or have your career ruined. Regardless of Google's internal HR policies, you're gonna need professional references at some point, and if you've annoyed or creeped everyone out, it's going to be a self-limiting behavior. It doesn't matter if you work at Google, or a truck stop, or a comedy club. Be professional, be inclusive, be friendly. I know a lot of people are going to disagree, but the simple fact of the matter is that you aren't as funny as you think you are, and you probably don't have the ability to "read a room" the way a world-famous entertainer does. Even they get it wrong.
No offense, but your perspective does not sound open minded.
I'd recommend being open to other, unexplored (by you) possibilities, since one person cannot be everywhere at once, nor understand the experiences of everyone at Gigantic Mega Corp (100k+ people).
I think having a perspective closed to unexplored possibilities is arguably a good definition of naive.
"na·ive
/nīˈēv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
"the rather naive young man had been totally misled"
(of a person) natural and unaffected; innocent."
That said, I think you have good intentions-- You appreciate your employer. But that said-- this likely also results in certain biases.
So to think that Google has a blind spot towards caste bias is simply stupid.
Follow the money. Google has a lot to lose if they discriminated against black people or gay people. Google has, or at least had, little to lose by allowing discrimination against dalits. Never forget that all major corporations are essentially money-generating psychopaths and if they stood to make a buck by building death camps for left-handed people they would break ground tomorrow.
Believe me, I understand how impossibly frustrating it can be to represent a minority/contrarian view in an internet discussion on an inflammatory topic, but turning over the chessboard and storming off—which is what deleting comments and leaving spiteful remnants in their place amounts to—is not a positive contribution.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html