I disagree with 90% of the document that he wrote but I think Google was wrong to fire him. All he did was put forth a contrarian argument and provided some evidence (how legitimate I don't know / is debatable)
I try to imagine how I would feel if he had said "there's empirical evidence that suggests Asians on average are more introvert and may help explain why Asians are not as represented in leadership positions"
I would be skeptical and a bit offended but I'd explore the argument and data to see if it has merit. What I wouldn't do is call for him to be fired for stereotyping.
Am I thinking about this wrong or was this an overreaction on Google/ some Googlers part?
Want to see the real deal?
More inside scoop? View in App
More inside scoop? View in App
blind
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
FOLLOWING
Industries
Job Groups
- Software Engineering
- Product Management
- Information Technology
- Data Science & Analytics
- Management Consulting
- Hardware Engineering
- Design
- Sales
- Security
- Investment Banking & Sell Side
- Marketing
- Private Equity & Buy Side
- Corporate Finance
- Supply Chain
- Business Development
- Human Resources
- Operations
- Legal
- Admin
- Customer Service
- Communications
Return to Office
Work From Home
COVID-19
Layoffs
Investments & Money
Work Visa
Housing
Referrals
Job Openings
Startups
Office Life
Mental Health
HR Issues
Blockchain & Crypto
Fitness & Nutrition
Travel
Health Care & Insurance
Tax
Hobbies & Entertainment
Working Parents
Food & Dining
IPO
Side Jobs
Show more
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
comments
google is 100% within their rights to fire him. he is not protected. he said some stupid shit, they fired him.
The reaction of most people, who over simplified the content of the manifest and extracted from it the single idea of the author thinking that women are unfit for certain positions, proves the point he's trying to make.
The author claims a couple of things: the biological differences between genders go further then having a penis or a vagina, and that being said he still advocates for diversity.
People omitted the second claim, and treated the first one as the Roman inquisition treated Bruno's claim that earth wasn't the center of the universe.
One of his proven points by people's reaction is that we take morals to the extreme, in all directions.
Assuming that we all know there are exceptions to every 'rule', I think a better approach would have been to answer the author claims by scientific and statistical data. If that data contradicts his claims, case closed. Otherwise, as he said, we can't have an honest conversation about certain things because morals turned them into tabu.
To make it clear, I'm not saying his claims are right or wrong. I don't know. I don't have the data. But even if the are wrong, he didn't sound discriminatory.
He seemed to me he was addressing the side effects of taking a clearly good concept, idea and intention as it is diversity to the extreme of making it a moral issue, where you end up changing the standards in order to highlight that concept. It stops being effective and starts sounding more like a brochure selling point.
Saying that women are (statistically speaking because there will always be cases that won't fit in the statistic) less suitable for certain things because of biological differences, it's like saying short people are less suited to play basketball for biological reasons (despite the fact there are some amazing short basketball players).
Again, the key is in having a scientific and statistical base on that claim, and it's not coming from hatred but from a pure analytical view.