(1) Climate of fear at Google - employees who challenge leftist narratives on diversity (2) Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' (3) Google "inclusive environment" has no room for Traditionalists (4) Google Anti-Diversity Manifesto Author Identified And Fired (5) James Damore: "This Is Why I Was Fired By Google" (6) Why I Was Fired by Google - James Damore (7) It may be illegal for Google to punish James Damore (8) Text of James Damore's Anti-Diversity screed at Google (1) Climate of fear at Google - employees who challenge leftist narratives on diversity http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/07/the-google-rebels-diversity-first-technology-second/ Rebels of Google: ‘Senior Leaders Focus on Diversity First and Technology Second’ by ALLUM BOKHARI7 Aug 20174,984 Over the weekend, Google was rocked by the publication of an internal manifesto that alleged wide-ranging political bias within the company. In exclusive interviews with Breitbart News, more Google employees are now speaking out. The 10-page manifesto, which was met by an immediate backlash, described a climate of fear at the company, in which employees who challenged prevailing leftist narratives on diversity were faced with immediate threats to their career. Breitbart News is now exclusively publishing a series of interviews with Google employees who contacted us in the wake of the manifesto’s publication to confirm its allegations. The interview series, entitled "Rebels of Google," will be published in full over the coming days. Because every employee who spoke to us fears for their job if their identities were made public, we have provided aliases in place of their real names. In the first interview of the series, a Google employee (alias "Hal") speaks of witch-hunts and intolerance at Google, as well as dysfunction at the company’s upper echelons. Hal began the interview with a statement about Google: Hal: Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google. The company is currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in April for interfering with employees’ legal right to discuss "workplace diversity and social justice initiatives." The complaint alleges that Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices. The trial is set for November. Several managers have openly admitted to keeping blacklists of the employees in question, and preventing them from seeking work at other companies. There have been numerous cases in which social justice activists coordinated attempts to sabotage other employees’ performance reviews for expressing a different opinion. These have been raised to the Senior VP level, with no action taken whatsoever. Allum Bokhari: What’s it like to work in such an environment? Do you think it damages employee output? Hal: A lot of social justice activists essentially spend all day fighting the culture war, and get nothing done. The company has made it a point to hire more people like this. The diversity gospel has been woven into nearly everything the company does, to the point where senior leaders focus on diversity first and technology second. The companywide "Google Insider" emails used to talk about cool new tech, but now they’re entirely about social justice initiatives. Likewise, the weekly all-hands "TGIF" meetings used to focus on tech, but now they’re split about 50/50 between tech and identity politics signaling. For conservative employees, this is obviously demoralizing, but it is also dangerous. Several have been driven out of the company or fired outright for sharing a dissenting view. Others have had their promotions denied or suffered other forms of deniable retaliation. Most of us just keep our heads down because we can’t afford to lose our jobs. AB: Have there been any stand-out moments of intolerance at Google? Anything that particularly sticks in your memory? Hal: There have been a number of massive witch hunts where hundreds of SJWs mobilize across the corporate intranet to punish somebody who defied the Narrative. The first one I remember is when Kelly Ellis made unfounded allegations of sexual harassment against her former manager, and Google terminated the manager in response to the internal SJW outrage. This was similar in intensity to the current witch hunt. Anyone who sympathized with the manager’s plight or asked for any sort of due process was "counseled" by HR and told that they were creating a hostile workplace for women and minorities by sticking up for a harasser. In another witch hunt, an employee raised concerns that the affirmative action policy (which gives strong preference to women and minorities) could be seen as discriminating against white males. SJWs trawled through his ancient posting history from four years prior, found a stray comment to take out of context, and burned him at the stake for it. AB: Have you heard similar stories from people in other tech companies? Hal: I have heard two similar stories from Facebook. AB: Do you fear for your job? Hal: I didn’t even write the document, but I always fear for my job and operate with the expectation that I will be purged unless something changes. Talking to reporters is incredibly dangerous on its own, much less talking to Breitbart. And the tolerance for "microaggressions" keeps getting lower, to the point where everybody is walking on eggshells because they don’t want to be publicly shamed in next week’s Yes-At-Google. AB: Your concerns about intolerance towards employees at Google mirror the concerns of ordinary web users about intolerance towards them. Many people now fear that Google, Facebook, and other companies are moving to control and censor their content. Are these fears justified? Hal: That is absolutely what Google is trying to do. The pro-censorship voices are very loud, and they have the management’s ear. The anti-censorship people are afraid of retaliation, and people are afraid to openly support them because everyone in their management chain is constantly signaling their allegiance to far-left ideology. Our leadership (Sundar in particular) is weak, so he capitulates to the meanest bullies on the block. This article is part of the "Rebels of Google" series. (2) Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' http://mashable.com/2017/08/11/james-damore-google-rebuttal http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/google-employee-behind-anti-diversity-memo-fired/8785596 Google fires employee who blamed lack of gender diversity on 'biological causes' Posted about 2 hours ago Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo that ascribed gender inequality in the technology industry to biological differences. Male engineer James Damore's widely shared memo, titled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber, criticised Google for pushing mentoring and diversity programs and for "alienating conservatives". "Distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership," he wrote last week. He also wrote women "prefer jobs in social and artistic areas" while more men "may like coding because it requires systemising", in the the memo which gained attention online over the weekend and was shared on the tech blog Gizmodo. Google's leadership responded by slamming the statement. "Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK." -Sundar Pichai "Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK." -Sundar Pichai Chief executive officer Sundar Pichai said he was cutting short a holiday to hold a town hall meeting with staff and denounced the memo in an email, saying portions of it "violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". In a note to staff, he said: "Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives". "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK," he wrote. And Google's just-hired head of diversity, Danielle Brown, responded with her own memo, saying Google is "unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success". She said the engineer's essay "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender", and added that change was hard and "often uncomfortable". In an email to Reuters this week, Mr Damore confirmed he had been dismissed, saying he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". He said he was exploring legal options. Google said it could not talk about individual employee cases. Silicon Valley suffering gender divide glitch The battling messages come as Silicon Valley grapples with accusations of sexism and discrimination. Google is also in the midst of a Department of Labor investigation into whether it pays women less than men, while Uber's chief executive officer recently lost his job amid accusations of widespread sexual harassment and discrimination. Leading tech companies, including Google, Facebook and Uber, have said they are trying to improve hiring and working conditions for women, but diversity numbers are barely changing. (3) Google "inclusive environment" has no room for Traditionalists http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-google-memo-and-the-new-blacklisting/20179 The Google memo and the new blacklisting Sean Collins When did it become acceptable to sack someone for expressing an opinion? 9 August 2017 Google’s campus is a playground: employees ride multicoloured bikes, play volleyball and walk dogs in the bright California sunshine. But this week we learned it’s not all fun and games at Google. In an internal memo that went viral, software engineer James Damore accused Google of being an ‘ideological echo chamber’, a place where you cannot openly discuss issues such as the company’s approach to diversity. ‘As soon as we start to moralise an issue’ like diversity, he wrote, we ‘dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims"’. And as if determined to prove his point, Google fired him for saying so. Google’s sacking of Damore matters not only because the tech giant is so well-known, and has been accused of sexist hiring practices (31 percent of its employees are women). It resonates with wider society because it suggests that there is only one ‘correct’ view on certain topics, like diversity, and that if you dare to question the ‘correct’ line you should be punished. Indeed, it has been striking to see that so many, including self-described progressives, rushed to denounce Damore’s memo and applaud Google for wielding the axe. The memo, which has been described as an ‘anti-diversity screed’, is neither anti-diversity nor a screed. ‘I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes’, Damore writes. His tone is measured, and he references academic research. But he goes on to reach two conclusions that some find disagreeable, if not offensive. First, that ‘differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50 per cent representation of women in tech and leadership’. And second, that ‘discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business’. Since the news of the memo broke, much media space has been devoted to disputing Damore’s arguments, and calling him a biological determinist and a sexist. Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, justified the firing on the grounds that he advanced ‘harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace’. Maybe some of these criticisms are valid. Maybe Damore’s amateur-psychology ponderings miss the mark. But whether his theories are right or wrong is really beside the point. The real question is: must such views be silenced, and must someone lose their livelihood for uttering them? It seems that Damore naively took Google at its word when the company said it welcomed discussion. Many accounts, including Dave Eggers’ Google-inspired novel The Circle, suggest that employees view the company as an extension of university life, a place where ideas can be debated (even the office park is called a ‘campus’). Movies like The Internship would have us believe that Google hires quirky misfits, even older dude-bros (like the characters played by Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson), who think differently. The reality, as we are now glimpsing, is that Google is just like other companies: it doesn’t really welcome free expression, and it doesn’t like to be criticised. That doesn’t mean that Google is ready to discard its claims to openness. In the midst of explaining to employees why he fired Damore, Pichai asserted that ‘we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves’. But presumably only if they express agreement with Google. Damore was also naïve in not realising that challenging diversity could get him sacked. It is an especially sensitive issue at Google, at a time when its pay practices are under investigation by the US government. American companies like Google are also subject to the Justice Department’s broad definition of sexual harassment as ‘activity which creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment for members of one sex’, which encourages them to tread carefully in this area. But the thought restrictions around diversity are driven by more than the legal environment. Corporations have embraced diversity – usually now referred to as ‘diversity and inclusion’ – as central to their missions and values. It is how many companies claim to define ‘who they are’. They struggle to find intrinsic purpose related to the products or services they provide, and so have promoted diversity goals with the hope of gaining some moral authority by reference to wider social objectives. Therefore, by poking at diversity, Damore was questioning corporates’ self-definition, something they really don’t want examined too closely. Diversity is not a matter up for intellectual debate in Google and elsewhere, and that’s why it is embedded in codes of conduct – note how Google fired Damore specifically for violating its code of conduct. The response to the Google memo – from both Google itself and the many who have praised the sacking – has turned traditional notions upside down. We see an overreaction to the memo, and an underreaction to the punishment of its author. A solitary software engineer finds the time to muse about diversity policies (and I thought Googlers worked around the clock, eating and sleeping in the office), and everyone freaks out. His loudest critics have engaged in bad faith: they have distorted what Damore said, given him no benefit of the doubt, and assumed the worst about him as a person. It really takes a jaundiced eye to view him as some kind of fanatic, based on what he wrote. Moreover, it is a huge stretch to say that this employee constitutes a one-man hostile work environment. No evidence has been provided that he acts in a discriminatory way towards his co-workers. Damore is called out for being a sexist, yet what is really insulting is how women employees at Google are assumed to be too weak to handle his 10 pages of scribblings. Google’s female workers ‘are hurting and feel judged based on their gender’, says Picahi. You know what the real ‘harmful gender stereotype’ is here? The idea that women are vulnerable, and in need of protection (which can only come from firing fellow employees). That expresses a lower opinion of women than anything in that memo. The demands to fire Damore – and anyone else who shares his views – are casually made, as if it’s no big deal to deprive someone of a job. ‘How can women expect to work with Damore?’, they ask, again presenting women as too pathetic to cope with his presence. It used to be considered deeply problematic to punish workers for the political views they held – even today, the Hollywood blacklists of the 1950s are viewed as a black mark in American history. And yet, we now see Google managers on Twitter talking of compiling blacklists to weed out Damore’s fellow wrong-thinkers. Companies are not universities, even those that have a ‘campus’. Employees shouldn’t be spending hours debating social and political ideas – they should be getting on with their work. With the uproar over the Google memo, some claim that we’re seeing the campus culture wars coming to the corporate world. In fact, you could argue it is the other way around: universities have adopted longstanding corporate codes of conduct regarding diversity and other restrictions, which makes wide-ranging interrogation of these ideas verboten, and undermines the true purpose of a university. That said, while work isn’t college, we do need the freedom in our workplaces and society generally to express ourselves – to our co-workers, neighbours and others – without fear of retribution. We should not feel like we are going to be punished for expressing unpopular thoughts, nor should we worry for our jobs if someone takes offence. But the over-the-top reaction to the Google memo suggests we may be heading in that direction. Sean Collins is a writer based in New York. Visit his blog, The American Situation. (4) Google Anti-Diversity Manifesto Author Identified And Fired http://www.ibtimes.com/google-anti-diversity-manifesto-author-identified-fired-2575617 Google Anti-Diversity Manifesto Author Identified And Fired BY FIONNA AGOMUOH ON 08/07/17 AT 11:43 PM The author of a 10-page anti-diversity manifesto, titled "Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber," has been fired from the company as of Monday evening, according to Bloomberg. The ex-Google software engineer has been named as James Damore by Motherboard, who originally broke the story Saturday. The 3,300-word document has prompted comment from Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, who has cut his family vacation short to address the issue, according to CNN Money. Read: Google Anti-Diversity Manifesto Sparks Response From Company's VP Of Diversity "Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives," Pichai wrote in a statement obtained by Recode. "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK." The manifesto primarily detailed Damore’s opinions on biological differences between the genders being the reason for disparities in the number of women working in technology related professions, as well as for the gender pay gap. Motherboard has now obtained a version of the manifesto, which was originally shared as a Google Doc file, and includes links and citations from publications and sources including the Wall Street Journal, Quillette, and Wikipedia. The document has stirred comments from present and former Google employees, who have spoken out both against and in favor of Damore’s opinions. In particular, the ex-Googler stressed that Google employees with conservative viewpoints are not given the freedom to express their opinions. However, Pichai stated in his memo that with his manifesto, the engineer violated Google’s code of conduct. Google’s newly appointed Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown issued a statement Saturday addressing the manifesto and also citing Google’s code of conduct. Google’s latest diversity report indicates the company is comprised of 69 percent men and 31 percent women, with its tech related roles being performed by 80 percent of men and 20 percent of women. (5) James Damore: "This Is Why I Was Fired By Google" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-11/james-damore-explains-why-i-was-fired-google James Damore: "This Is Why I Was Fired By Google" by Tyler Durden Aug 11, 2017 6:55 PM Fired Google engineer Jame Damore has penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal explaining how his good-faith effort to discuss differences between men and women in tech couldn’t be tolerated in the company’s "ideological echo chamber," adding that self-segregation with similar-minded people has grown in recent decades as we spend more time in digital worlds "personalized to fit our views."     I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and "cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."     My 10-page document set out what I considered a reasoned, well-researched, good-faith argument, but as I wrote, the viewpoint I was putting forward is generally suppressed at Google because of the company’s "ideological echo chamber." My firing neatly confirms that point.     How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument?     We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.     Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of "Don’t be evil."     Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."     But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.     In my document, I committed heresy against the Google creed by stating that not all disparities between men and women that we see in the world are the result of discriminatory treatment.     When I first circulated the document about a month ago to our diversity groups and individuals at Google, there was no outcry or charge of misogyny. I engaged in reasoned discussion with some of my peers on these issues, but mostly I was ignored.     Everything changed when the document went viral within the company and the wider tech world. Those most zealously committed to the diversity creed—that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and all people are inherently the same—could not let this public offense go unpunished. They sent angry emails to Google’s human-resources department and everyone up my management chain, demanding censorship, retaliation and atonement.     Upper management tried to placate this surge of outrage by shaming me and misrepresenting my document, but they couldn’t really do otherwise: The mob would have set upon anyone who openly agreed with me or even tolerated my views. When the whole episode finally became a giant media controversy, thanks to external leaks, Google had to solve the problem caused by my supposedly sexist, anti-diversity manifesto, and the whole company came under heated and sometimes threatening scrutiny.     It saddens me to leave Google and to see the company silence open and honest discussion. If Google continues to ignore the very real issues raised by its diversity policies and corporate culture, it will be walking blind into the future—unable to meet the needs of its remarkable employees and sure to disappoint its billions of users. As a reminder, a survey of Google employees reflected the company's divisions.     Of 440 Google employees who responded to a Blind survey on Tuesday and Wednesday, 56% said they disagreed with Google’s decision to fire Mr. Damore. (6) Why I Was Fired by Google - James Damore https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290?mg=prod/accounts-wsj Why I Was Fired by Google James Damore says his good-faith effort to discuss differences between men and women in tech couldn’t be tolerated in the company’s ‘ideological echo chamber’ By James Damore Aug. 11, 2017 3:54 p.m. ET I was fired by Google this past Monday for a document that I wrote and circulated internally raising questions about cultural taboos and how they cloud our thinking about gender diversity at the company and in the wider tech sector. I suggested that at least some of the male-female disparity in tech could be attributed to biological differences (and, yes, I said that bias against women was a factor too). Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai declared that portions of my statement violated the company’s code of conduct and "cross... (7) It may be illegal for Google to punish James Damore https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html Why it may be illegal for Google to punish that engineer over his now viral anti-diversity memo An unnamed male software engineer at Google sent an internal memo to co-workers on Friday challenging some of the tech giant's diversity efforts. There have been a lot of calls for the man's dismissal from both inside and outside the company. However, it could be illegal for Google to fire — or discipline — the employee. Many inside and outside of Google have called for the man's dismissal. However, there are at least three ways the law may keep the company from imposing any discipline. First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised. In a reply to the initial outcry over his memo, the engineer added to his memo: "Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired." The law protects that kind of "concerted activity." Second, the engineer's memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action. Danielle Brown, Google's newly installed vice president of Diversity, Integrity, & Governance, made it clear that the engineer's memo does not reflect "a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages." An employee does not have free reign to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions." Third, the engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws. Those policies include support programs limited by race or gender and promotional and hiring scoring policies that consider race and gender. It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws. In other words, the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are. Brown is correct that an employee has no right to engage in workplace discourse that offends anti-discrimination laws; employees may not engage in unlawful harassment under the guise of protected concerted activity or political grievances. The lawful response to this software engineer's memo, however, appears to be continuation of the dialogue he started rather than termination of his employment. Commentary by Dan Eaton, a partner with the San Diego law firm of Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, where his practice focuses on defending and advising employers. He also is a professor at the San Diego State University College of Business Administration where he teaches classes in business ethics and employment law. Follow him on Twitter @DanEatonlaw. (8) Text of James Damore's Anti-Diversity screed at Google https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/ Exclusive: Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally At Google Kate Conger Aug 6, 2017, 8:00am A software engineer's 10-page screed against Google's diversity initiatives is going viral inside the company, being shared on an internal meme network and Google+. The document's existence was first reported by Motherboard and Gizmodo has obtained it in full. In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber", the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism", he writes, going on to argue that Google's educational programs for young women may be misguided. == {quote} On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed because: They're universal across human cultures [...] I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. [...] Women, on average, have more: Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. [...] We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths. [...] The Harm of Google's biases 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 incentivise 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. Why we're blind We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God > humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we're using to justify highly politicized programs. [...] My concrete suggestions are to: De-moralize diversity. As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims." Stop alienating conservatives. Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. [...]  Deloitte drops workplace diversity groups for women, minorities http://www.newspapers2day.com/news/deloitte-drops-workplace-diversity-groups-for-women-minorities https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/07/31/deloitte-drops-workplace-diversity-groups-for.html Deloitte is doing away with employee groups focused on women and minorities, a new diversity approach one scholar says must be accompanied by serious and intelligent discussions. Tuesday 08 August 2017 - 06:45:44 The New York-based financial advisory firm has the right idea, because employee affinity groups marginalize people, said Christina Hoff Sommers, a gender politics and feminism scholar. A recent Bloomberg report detailed Deloitte's plans for replacing affinity groups for women and minorities with "inclusion councils" that include people who used to be in different single-identity groups. They also will include white men…. Many large U.S. companies have had single-identity workplace groups for years…. For instance, Target Corp. says on its corporate website that it has more than 100 networks for employees with common interests, plus six councils that represent African-American, Asian-American, LGBT, Hispanic, military and female employees. The councils provide networking and professional development opportunities…. But Deloitte decided to dismantle those types of groups after learning that many millennial employees don't like to be labeled by a single part of their identity. About 57 percent of Deloitte employees are millennials. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/deloitte-thinks-diversity-groups-are-pass Deloitte Thinks Diversity Groups Are Passé The firm is nixing employee affinity groups for women and minorities—fixtures at many large companies—and replacing them with inclusion councils that have white men. By Jeff Green July 19, 2017, 8:00 PM GMT+10 [...] With diversity progress stalling in parts of corporate America, Deloitte is beginning to shift away from traditional approaches built around gender, race, or sexual orientation and instead working to get a broader buy-in, particularly from white males. After 24 years, WIN, the women’s initiative at Deloitte, will end. Over the next 18 months the company will also phase out Globe, which supports gay employees, and groups focused solely on veterans or minority employees. In their place will be so-called inclusion councils that bring together a variety of viewpoints to work on diversity issues. "We are turning it on its head for our people," says Deepa Purushothaman, who’s led the WIN group since 2015 and is also the company’s managing principal for inclusion. Deloitte will still focus on gender parity and underrepresented groups, she says, but not in the same way it has for the past quarter-century, in part because millennial employees—who make up 57 percent of Deloitte’s workforce—don’t like demographic pigeonholes. "By having everyone in the room, you get more allies, advocates, and sponsors," Purushothaman says. "A lot of our leaders are still older white men, and they need to be part of the conversation and advocate for women. But they’re not going to do that as much if they don’t hear the stories and understand what that means." Xerox Corp. is often credited with creating in the late 1960s the first employee resource group (ERG), based on race, after riots shook major U.S. cities. Since then, groups focused on gender, sexual orientation, disability, and veteran status have emerged. According to a 2014 report by the Society for Human Resource Management, which offers the most recent data from the organization, only 15 percent of large companies had ERGs for women or minorities. But they’re fixtures at lots of high-profile companies, from Citigroup’s Pride organization for LGBT employees to General Motors’ GM African Ancestry Network to Apple’s Women@Apple. No company in recent memory has been as vocal as Deloitte about the need to turn the page, surprising some diversity advocates. "I have to say that is really unusual," says Jennifer Brown, a consultant who helps companies create employee programs focused on racial or gender identity. "I have not heard of a single company doing that." [...] Deloitte says its diversity shift is leading to enhanced inclusion of a key constituency: men. Brent Bachus, a 21-year veteran who’s now managing director for talent inclusion and engagement, says that before he was assigned to the inclusion effort a few years ago, he sometimes didn’t see a direct connection between himself and the firm’s women or minority business resource groups because he didn’t fit any of the criteria for joining one. "I don’t know that I necessarily felt like I knew what role I was being expected to play, or if I even had a role," he says. With the inclusion council, he adds, he and other managers are expected to have a direct role in creating an environment that will keep employees of all backgrounds from leaving the company and help attract new talent. [...] BOTTOM LINE - Diversity groups for specific genders or races have been around since the 1960s. Deloitte thinks it’s time to move beyond them. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/deloitte-replacing-diversity-groups-for-minority-employees-2017-7?r=US&IR=T Deloitte has decided diversity groups for minority employees are a relic of the past RICHARD FELONI JUL 21, 2017, 1:25 AM Deloitte US has decided that it’s time to move past diversity groups focused on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or even veteranship, Bloomberg reported. Over the next 18 months, the accounting and consulting firm will phase out groups like the Women’s Initiative (WIN) and LGBT group Globe, and replacing them with "inclusion councils" where all employees are welcome. It’s primarily an attempt to bring the majority — white men — into the conversation. It’s not an abandonment of any progressive principles, WIN’s national director Deepa Purushothaman told Bloomberg. "By having everyone in the room, you get more allies, advocates, and sponsors. A lot of our leaders are still older white men, and they need to be part of the conversation and advocate for women. But they’re not going to do that as much if they don’t hear the stories and understand what that means." Bloomberg reported that leadership at Deloitte is associating ERGs (employee resource groups), which emerged in the US in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, with Baby Boomers and Generation X, and associating total inclusion movements with millennials. In June, Deloitte US CEO Cathy Engelbert announced that she was a steering committee member of the CEO Action for Diversity and Inclusion initiative, where 175 senior executives across the US publicly committed to shared diversity goals. -- Peter Myers website: http://mailstar.net/index.html |
Archives‎ > ‎