How do you feel about the Google diversity manifesto?
I'm trying to get a better idea of Blind's general feels about this Google doc. How did you guys feel after reading it? https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/kzbm4a/employees-anti-diversity-manifesto-goes-internally-viral-at-google
...raped? Jesus dude. Nothing like co opting real trauma for your shitty points
I was going to ask if you'd say that to a rape survivor, but you honestly probably would
I feel like reading it should be a requirement to participation.
C'est la vie
I think most companies have failed in getting the message out so that it doesn't smell of affirmative action and unfairness to the white men. The message is how diversity of thought, not skin color, not gender, drives corp profits higher. Google wants to do this not because it's the right thing and they want to be fair to everyone, but because gender diversity is a PR and bottom line win. That's been proven with tons and tons of research and data. Where I work, the emphasis on educating current employees is non existent. The emphasis is always around hiring efforts. In my opinion, educating on unconscious bias and the value to the corporation from a profit standpoint is the message that will be more acceptable to people like this Google employee who thinks he has all the answers. This is failure on the part of the company. The messaging is flawed.
There isn't education in unconscious bias because it's a made up concept without grounding in reputable science. It's blaming non-existant ghosts as a rationalization mechanism. Look up outcomes of unconscious bias training and you mind recosider.
looks like most people here disagree with it, but feel there are some valid points that should be discussed. Yet no discussion, that's interesting.
There's another thread on this already, with much discussion.
Where's the other thread?
there is some context missing. Google has been aggressively promoting women, at least in SWE positions, with a much lower bar. the question is what do you do when you promote people, who are not qualified yet to be L5 and L6s yet, during future perf cycles. Continue using a different measuring stick or give them poor rating when they don't measure up?
Bullshit. Promo committee doesn't care about race or gender.
At that stage it's necessary to continue favoring them in the perf process. Otherwise a lawyer can subpoena the perf records for women across the company, and file a class action saying that they were discriminated against, with data showing lower perf numbers
I'm a liberal clown 🤡
I wonder if you just don't notice the promotions of equally poor males, because, lets face it, they're abundant. The negative culture reputation in tech companies should squarely fall on male leadership which is dominant. Ive seen far more bad male managers and non mangers receive promos and plum assignments, than I have women. They're lousy performances if not completely ignored are often overlooked and accepted. Women who don't meet the bar are suddenly a BIG issue, worthy of a career ending manifesto. I don't think we've over-corrected I think we haven't corrected enough.
What amazes me, KAIF, is your ability to say absolutely nothing over several paragraphs and also fail to address any points brought up. You are truly an artist and Blind is your undeserving canvas. Teach me your ways.
There's definitely a couple valid points in it but they'll never be discussed. The mob effect is already in full swing (and largely proving some of his points). I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the drama.
It's a shame that the official Google response from their head of diversity just shut down any discussion of it all. Proving the writer's point entirely.
The official Google response at least was much more tame than the burning at the stake suggestions of several other Googlers, who I'm sure didn't even read it with claims like "this engineer thinks women and minorities shouldn't be engineers" that are pulled completely from their asses
India has long been reserving 30-40% of CS class rooms for women. But I think the effect has overall been positive (no data to prove this).
"Meritocracy" was originally a satirical term, and the writer who conceived of it derides anyone who uses it to justify their position of power. http://kottke.org/17/03/the-satirical-origins-of-the-meritocracy
Amazon, if you want to discredit things based on uncomfortable origin stories, you’re not going to like discussing Margaret Sanger. In the end, it doesn’t matter much, does it?