Google CEO cancels all-hands meeting out of online harassment, safety concerns

Comments

  • Jon Duke

    Not to start a war here, but if you hire people because they’re the best and it just so happens it’s one group of person more than the other, people aren’t happy. To counter that, if you start hiring by meeting quotas on every group of people regardless of who is better for the job, people aren’t happy. So really, do whatever works for you cause people will be mad no matter what.

    • _17chan

      I think I know where you’re coming from to an extent. The bottom line is you can’t please everyone and it’s unrealistic to think you can in any scenario.

    • Jon Duke

      Pretty much. I think the bottom line should be, they hire who’s better. Problem is, they perceive certain groups better than they are… that’s a whole other story.

    • Canadiana Jones

      I agree with you but for the other reason. While I’m against “studies” used to back Damore’s claims because I have examples in my IT career of brilliant female programmers and managers, and on the other hand I find quota-based hiring/casting despicable, each company decides what is best for them – either be the aggressive leader due to the highly professional stuff, or roll down the path of mediocre crowd pleaser.

    • Jack Green

      Damore actually agrees with you. He explicitly argues that the science addresses women on average, as opposed to every woman.

      Of course there are brilliant women in tech/programming. It’d be foolish to argue otherwise. Damore simply argues that on average, women are less inclined towards work in the tech industry.

    • >Damore simply argues that on average, women are less inclined towards work in the tech industry.

      Yes but that conclusion is also nonsense.

    • Jack Green

      He cited his sources. If you want to call it nonsense, you must provide sufficient evidence that disproves his sources.

    • Rev0lver

      He’s currently aligning himself with folks from the so called alt right. I bet that he’s called someone a cuck before.

      Probably never seen a female IRL.

    • Jack Green

      Your character attacks and assumptions are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: the truth of Demore’s written arguments.

      His false representation on Linkedln, and your thinking that he’s probably called someone a cuck have no bearing whatsoever on the truth-status of his paper.

      If your only argument against the credibility of Demore’s sources is that you suspect he’s a bad guy, I’m pretty comfortable ending the conversation there.

    • Rev0lver

      So you created an account to defend a sexist loser. I’m pretty sure you’ve called someone a cuck too…

      I’m sure you’ll touch a real life woman someday who isn’t your mother…

    • Jack Green

      Again, character attacks are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You’ll need to try harder.

    • Rev0lver

      It’s completely relevant. You saw fit to create an account to defend a bigot. That makes me believe that you are a young male who lives with his parents and views women as inferior even though you’ve never touched one in real life.

    • I did in fact provide a link as a reply to your other comment on this article, but it got caught in moderation. Assuming it is eventually published (thanks MobileSyrup) I’d suggest checking it out- and reading the linked sources within, too.

    • MoYeung

      Let’s say both a white guy and a white girl pass the same math test or technical requirement for the job.

      If there’s no quota system, in this society of USA/Canada, the girl will not get the job–most of the time. Because, apparently, being a guy has ‘social’ merits (stereotypes and whatnot) over the female candidate.

      How do you solve this problem? (This is like joining a frat house…)

    • Canadiana Jones

      This is solely your opinion that is not based on facts. You believe in the “probable” outcome of that interview due to daily dose of propaganda about “glass ceiling”. This has not been true for a long time.
      For your information – there is no math test on interview. I have only done 1 tech exercise in numerous interviews I’ve been at (I’m a contractor so the number of those is far into double digits). The fact of hiring is based on the interviews, which never goes the same for two people.

    • MoYeung

      Interviews are subjective… Thanks for confirming, let’s grab a beer and watch a NFL game later, haha!

    • Canadiana Jones

      I love beer, but not a fan of sports. Some dumb superhero movie goes better 😉

    • thereasoner

      True, you get people who see it as unfair regardless. The thing is that the status quo will forever be unfair when two qualified candidates apply for a job and one of them is instantly on the disadvantage because established stereotypes.

      Googles training programs and resulting hiring/promotion practices meant to help those disadvantaged also are unfair to those left out but there’s an end game to them. That being a shift in perception regarding stereotypes that in the long run should do away with the need for such programs.

    • Jon Duke

      It’s true. I guess my only concern is, who decides what’s unfair? If I own a company and I interview a man and a woman for a job, if I take the man because he’s got equal experience but his attitude seems to fit better with the team, what stops anyone from saying I took him cause he’s a man? The issue nowadays is that everyone cries victim, which sadly, takes credit away from actual victims of unfairness.

    • thereasoner

      Good point but that’s why I think that this kind of diversity drive should be left to individual companies to achieve. When governments get involved and hard quotas are used then you get more of the “she only got the job because…” type stuff.

      In the meantime companies like Google need to be honest and upfront about their intentions and that includes being open about the fact that tackling diversity in the workplace will also be unfair until enough of it exists that equally unfair stereotypes begin to fade away.

    • Jon Duke

      I 100% agree with you. This was a good conversation. It’s rare on the internet.

  • Jack Green

    “Damore’s memo also made several unsubstantiated statements”

    If you are going to editorialize in what should be a straight-news article, you need to properly dispute his claims. Damore’s arguments are backed, in his paper by cited credible sources. That’s substantiation.

    If you’d like to logically claim otherwise, you’ll have to attempt to prove it. That you don’t agree with something doesn’t automatically make it “unsubstantiated”.

  • Chris D

    Not only does this article provide half the information surrounding this maybe addressing all the people Damore has spoken with as well as who offered to talk to him. It’s pretty much a half done rushed piece.

  • FirstLine

    Google has internal discriminatory policies. That is illegal.

    • thereasoner

      Interesting thought, I don’t know if labour laws themselves could scuttle Googles diversity efforts but I’m sure that those opposed have already looked into that.

    • FirstLine

      Yep. Google is already under investigation with labour disputes. And this letter adds shows us a little of what’s going on over there. This is big.

    • They’re under investigation for paying female employees less than male employees.

  • thereasoner

    I completely understand why this guy was let go. Besides the obvious fact that he went against company conduct policy in advancing harmful stereotypes. His comments, while many of them factual observstions on the differences between genders, were also harmful to the goal of encouraging those individuals who do break from their gender based molds/stereotypes to seek jobs/positions not traditional to said gender. Some of his memo could easily be construed by those stereotyped as intimidation/discrimination at worst and discouragement at best.
    His point of view is basically because of biological differences that women are best suited for this type of work and men for that type of work but in saying that he brushed all men and women with one broad stroke and offended those that don’t fit their specific gender based stereotype, they do exist after all. It’s almost like India’s caste system where if your father made shoes then you’re going to make shoes and your kids are going to make shoes and their kids… except in this case it’s gender based stereotyping that is both divisive to the workplace and harmful to those who wish to break free from it.
    He does make a valid point in saying that programs/training resulting hiring/promotions that are specific to women and minorities are inherently unfair to those left out and divisive in their own right and this is undeniably true but that only revealed his lack of understanding of the goals of these unfair programs. That being the end goal of a more diverse workforce where those who break their gender/race molds/stereotypes are no longer in need of said programs because a new norm has been established by mold breakers who are no longer discourage or discriminated by the old paradigm.
    Life is unfair as we all know but the status quo assures that it will always be unfair to those who seek to break the gender/race mold. These workplace programs, designed to help those disadvantaged by the long established gender/race stereotypes or those who are discouraged to seek positions simply because they feel intimidated by the thought of sticking out like a sore thumb, could in the long run result in no unfair programs or harmful stereotypes existing. Call it pie in the sky social engineering if you must but remember that it took a lot of attitudes to change before women/minorities could even vote and change in attitude is something this guy is clearly against.
    Saying that the best qualified person should get the job and that no empathy should be given to the person who doesn’t fit their gender or racial mold is a simplistic point of view when said person can be just as qualified but discriminated against based upon established stereotypes that say their gender or race is not typical or desirable for said job. He then goes on to make this debate unnecessarily political. What matters is if diversity efforts are worthwhile and whether they will be affective. Which political stance/party supports the attempts to encourage more workplace diversity is an irrelevant distraction and in no way adds anything to the topic but more workplace disruption/division to what should otherwise be a civil conversation about gender/race based stereotypes and equal and fair opportunity to those affected by them.

  • MoYeung

    “In a letter to employees obtained by Recode, Pichai expressed concern for the safety of his employees.”

    I call this Reality Check… You can lie about freedom, equality, diversity and all other crap. But in the end, your REALITY sets in.