# Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 8, 2017, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055 "2017-08-08T03:12:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/221 "2017-08-10T11:50:55Z")
While that’s true, if the problem isn’t in the corporate world it’s simply not in the corporate world. Assuming Silicon Valley’s tech workers are mostly college graduates with STEM degrees, an unbiased hiring process would mean a lot more men get hired than women. That’s not “throwing up our hands”, that’s putting blame where it belongs: on the universities, for not doing more to encourage women to choose the STEM fields. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/222 "2017-08-10T12:15:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But the executive team isn’t made up of CS degree people at all. Why is such a small group with such a wide range of experiences and work history not more reflective of the general population? Why would the gender breakdown be reflective of computer science degrees, when most of them don’t have computer science degrees? Women tend, on average, to be less aggressive and ambitious than men. They also tend to take time out to have or raise children. > [@](#): > > The studies strongly suggest that there is a tendency for men to get hired over women with similar experience and qualifications. There are lots more men with the requisite experience and qualifications in STEM fields than there are women. Therefore, it is not usually the case that a hiring manager is presented with one man and one woman, both equally well-qualified. More often, it is several men and perhaps one or two women. Even if you play eeny-meeny-miney-mo, you are going to hire more men. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/223 "2017-08-10T12:17:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > While that’s true, if the problem isn’t in the corporate world it’s simply not in the corporate world. Assuming Silicon Valley’s tech workers are mostly college graduates with STEM degrees, an unbiased hiring process would mean a lot more men get hired than women. > > That’s not “throwing up our hands”, that’s putting blame where it belongs: on the universities, for not doing more to encourage women to choose the STEM fields. At what point does encouraging women to choose the STEM fields become counterproductive? Besides the fact that most of the time when you see politicians or activists talk about STEM, what they really mean is just TE, at some point you’re going to hit whatever the natural distribution is. Depending on the field, that could be 50/50 or it could be imbalanced in either direction. To make up an example, let’s say the overall ratio in majors in all the hard sciences combined is 50/50. But say if you look at the individual fields and physics is 70/30 men, chemistry is 55/45, biology is 40/60, and so on and so forth in varying ratios where differences in larger majors can mask the smaller ones to get to an even overall split. So are we now happy that the genders are equal in the sciences overall, or are we still going to hear about how physics has a woman problem and possibly how biology has a man problem? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/224 "2017-08-10T12:34:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Women tend, on average, to be less aggressive and ambitious than men. They also tend to take time out to have or raise children. …thats an interesting random piece of information, a standard talking point in the gender discussion, that has absolutely no relevance to my question at all. > [@](#): > > There are lots more men with the requisite experience and qualifications in STEM fields than there are women. Therefore, it is not usually the case that a hiring manager is presented with one man and one woman, both equally well-qualified. More often, it is several men and perhaps one or two women. Even if you play eeny-meeny-miney-mo, you are going to hire more men. > > Regards, > Shodan Perhaps you can start by reading some of the cites I’ve provided in the thread. Like this one, that I will quote for you again. > **[When tech firms judge on skills alone, women land more job interviews](https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/when-tech-firms-judge-on-skills-alone-women-land-more-job-interviews/)** > > An experiment with removing gender from job applications makes the case that bias influences hiring. > [@](#): > > In blind auditions, candidates’ identifying details are stripped away and employers judge on qualifications alone – gender, race or even where applicants went to school aren’t part of the hiring calculus. > > On two different occasions, Speak With a Geek presented the same 5,000 candidates to the same group of employers. The first time around, details like names, experience and background were provided. Five percent selected for interviews were women. > > You can guess what happened next, right? When identifying details were suppressed, that figure jumped to 54 percent. Studies show a tendency for men to get hired over women with similar experience and qualifications. Are you disputing the results of this particular study? Would you care to offer up some evidence in rebuttal? Does this tendency to hire men go away when there are six male candidates and two female candidates? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/225 "2017-08-10T12:51:18Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > At what point does encouraging women to choose the STEM fields become counterproductive? Besides the fact that most of the time when you see politicians or activists talk about STEM, what they really mean is just TE, at some point you’re going to hit whatever the natural distribution is. First, why would we assume there is ever a “natural distribution”? Second, I think any time there is a very public set of arguments that someone is ill-suited for mental tasks because of their race or gender, there’s really very little chance that there is no concomitant cultural bias hindering that group. Once people start using genetic just-so stories, we can be pretty sure they are reflecting something about the culture. I hope people don’t really think “Oh, I only think women are less good with computers because studies tell me so! Otherwise, I’m sure I’d think they were just as good!” We all have a tendency to accept scientific findings that reflect how we think the world works. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/226 "2017-08-10T12:54:39Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Studies show a tendency for men to get hired over women with similar experience and qualifications. Are you disputing the results of this particular study? Would you care to offer up some evidence in rebuttal? Does this tendency to hire men go away when there are six male candidates and two female candidates? It could be that if a company is trying hard to recruit women, as Google is, that the best they can do is get to the STEM graduate ratio. Which is what you’d expect to see in the absence of discrimination. So the value of diversity programs is proven, but the ability of diversity programs to get you to 50% female representation is questionable at best unless you lower standards. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/227 "2017-08-10T13:01:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > First, why would we assume there is ever a “natural distribution”? Why shouldn’t there be? It might be 50/50 for some fields, or skewed in either direction in others. It’s a population-level argument in an idealized situation without external biasing factors. There will probably never be an unbiased distribution in the real world, but that doesn’t have to mean that unequal numbers have that bias as the major cause. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/228 "2017-08-10T13:02:23Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Interesting question. I think a lot would matter about the intent of the leaker and whether that aligns with the intent of the company. In other words, is Google upset about this, now that they’ve dealt with the guy who did it? Do they want to communicate the message that this type of screed will not be tolerated, and thus see outing him as a good thing? > > Or do they see it as just putting Google under disrepute? If the former, I could see not punishing or at least keeping them on board. If the latter, then I could see firing him. If they don’t want this stuff leaked, or want to show that this isn’t due to liberal bias to the conservatives who are upset, then, yeah, they should get rid of the leaker too. Or at least make a big deal out of trying to find them. > > Of course, it’s also possible the leak was actually by the highest levels in the company, too. Thois may be Google leaking this intentionally, so they can then fire him publicly. The leaker could have been an offended female who had already had it up to her neck with perceived examples of discrimination and biased treatment and figured it’s time the outside world got a glimpse of the real Google. The leaker would probably have legal protections under federal whistleblower laws/rules, as whoever leaked it could claim that the manifesto was creating a hostile work environment. That, I suspect, was the reason that Google felt compelled to act, irrespective of whatever culture of openness to air controversial views they might want to believe they’ve engendered through the years. Google is a publicly-offered billion dollar company and its investors are not going to take going through the shit storm that has sullied Uber and other Silicon Valley companies. It’s a company that understands and reads Wall Street as well as it reads Interstate-280. Another equally likely possibility is that whoever leaked the doc the public is quite possibly someone who just didn’t like Damore to begin with. We’re obviously not in a position to know much about his personal life but some of the anecdotes about his college days at Harvard aren’t especially flattering. Not necessarily standing out as a male chauvinist or a bigot, but just awkward. It seems like he’s probably highly intelligent but has problems relating to other people, and I suspect the leaker is someone who already had a negative encounter with him. Damore might not have been aware that his encounter (if it happened) was negative, but someone - perhaps a woman or perhaps even another male colleague who thought he was a shithead - made mental notes and figured he didn’t quite fit in. When this came up, the leaker probably figured it was a good opportunity to throw him into the fire. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/229 "2017-08-10T13:07:47Z")
According to Vox though, Damore might actually have legal recourse because he was talking about company policy and was retaliated against. > [@](#): > > Still, even if Damore was hired at will, it doesn’t mean he has no legal protections. Before Google fired him, he filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, saying the company was trying to “silence” his complaints. If he can prove that Google fired him as retaliation for the complaint, labor experts said, he might be able to sue > **[Why Google doesn’t need to care about employees’ free speech](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16113076/google-memo-firing)** > > It doesn't have to, for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/230 "2017-08-10T13:08:45Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > Why shouldn’t there be? It might be 50/50 for some fields, or skewed in either direction in others. It’s a population-level argument in an idealized situation without external biasing factors. Because I don’t think there is an idealized situation without external biasing factors. I think there is no such things as neutral. It’s like someone saying “What would it be like if people didn’t have accents?” It’s not possible to have no accent. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/231 "2017-08-10T13:15:26Z")
No one denies that there are external factors. The question at hand is whether Google can do anything about them. IT’s not Google’s responsibility to hire women who aren’t qualified just so they can get to 50%. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/232 "2017-08-10T13:16:00Z")
[Since it is not exactly a secret that the first computer programmers were largely women](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/10/06/345799830/the-forgotten-female-programmers-who-created-modern-tech), I wonder how Damore and like-minded compadres square this with their opinions about natural gender differences. As he noted in his essay, men tend to gravitate to high status jobs. But what he neglected to acknowledge is that our society, due to sexism, _bestows_ status to jobs that are perceived as masculine as well. When coding was considered low status, women were not blocked from doing it, so they populated those positions. But when coding became high status, suddenly it became “men’s work”, and stereotypes about women were used to justify keeping women out, thus making the work seem even more elite and special. How many of us didn’t know until recently that rooms full of female mathematicians were employed in the early days NASA? It took seeing\* Hidden Figures \*for me to even know this, and I’m a black female scientist. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/233 "2017-08-10T13:22:41Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > Again, he wasn’t fired for his opinion. He was fired for the way he expressed it. > > Anyone at a large company who has undergone training on discrimination and creating a hostile workplace can tell you that he put himself out there are the poster boy for “hostile workplace.” He denigrated his co-workers, and made it difficult for large groups of employees to work with him. Actually, no - he didn’t. From his memo: > [@](#): > > Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. > > This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. > > The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. > > Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression > > Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression > > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Please explain how any of that “creates” a hostile workplace, when in reality, he’s calling out Google for having a hostile workplace. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/234 "2017-08-10T13:25:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It could be that if a company is trying hard to recruit women, as Google is, that the best they can do is get to the STEM graduate ratio. Which is what you’d expect to see in the absence of discrimination. > > So the value of diversity programs is proven, but the ability of diversity programs to get you to 50% female representation is questionable at best unless you lower standards. …the tendency for men to get hired over women with similar experience and qualifications still exists though. And while this tendency is so widespread then the ratios don’t really tell us anything. Lets look at another example. Black students made up 9.7% percent of computer science bachelor degrees in 2014. [But in Silicon Valley they only have 2.7% of the jobs.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-google-diversity-black-women-workers) And at google black representation is just at 2%. If the supply is the problem, and if matching the STEM graduate ratios is the “best that google can do”: then why is that figure at 2%? The google diversity programme isn’t about getting to 50% and most diversity programmes don’t have that as a goal. Its about doing things like “changing the tendency” to hire men over women. Its about removing the inherent biases that employers may have. Its about making work an environment that is safe and not hostile. This isn’t about lowering standards. This is about levelling the playing field. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/235 "2017-08-10T13:27:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No one denies that there are external factors. The question at hand is whether Google can do anything about them. IT’s not Google’s responsibility to hire women who aren’t qualified just so they can get to 50%. …this is a strawman. Nobody is advocating google hire unqualified women. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/236 "2017-08-10T13:30:45Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …thats an interesting random piece of information, a standard talking point in the gender discussion, that has absolutely no relevance to my question at all. Actually, it appears to me to be directly relevant. Your question was why the executives would be mostly male even if they didn’t have CS degrees. The answer is that there are factors other than a CS degree that affect whether or not one is promoted to the executive level. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you can start by reading some of the cites I’ve provided in the thread. I already read that one. > [@](#): > > Studies show a tendency for men to get hired over women with similar experience and qualifications. Are you disputing the results of this particular study? I am pointing out that there are relatively fewer women with similar experience and qualifications for a STEM position than there are men. Therefore fewer women are going to be hired. > [@](#): > > Does this tendency to hire men go away when there are six male candidates and two female candidates? No, it remains - the chances of a woman being hired, all other things being equal, is three to one against in that situation. > [@](#): > > In blind auditions, candidates’ identifying details are stripped away and employers judge on qualifications alone – gender, race or even where applicants went to school aren’t part of the hiring calculus. > > On two different occasions, Speak With a Geek presented the same 5,000 candidates to the same group of employers. The first time around, details like names, experience and background were provided. Five percent selected for interviews were women. > > You can guess what happened next, right? When identifying details were suppressed, that figure jumped to 54 percent. I’m not sure I understand this. I get that gender and race would be identifying details, or even names. Did they also suppress the information on where the applicants went to school? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/237 "2017-08-10T13:32:13Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Differences between people exist. The sweeping generalization that they apply to men vs women as groups is the fallacy. > > I’m one of four daughters. We are are all very different from each other in these areas. So to argue it’s a globally male vs female issue, does dip a toe into stereotypes and even denigration. This seems like the type of mischaracterizing discussed earlier in this thread (post #178 et al). The guy went through the trouble of saying pretty much the same thing as ITD, but it seems to have completely escaped her. > [@manifesto](#): > > Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” 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. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. But IDT thinks she’s contradicting this by pointing out that not all women are alike. What can you do. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/238 "2017-08-10T13:44:52Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Lets look at another example. Black students made up 9.7% percent of computer science bachelor degrees in 2014. [But in Silicon Valley they only have 2.7% of the jobs.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/07/silicon-valley-google-diversity-black-women-workers) And at google black representation is just at 2%. If the supply is the problem, and if matching the STEM graduate ratios is the “best that google can do”: then why is that figure at 2%? Simply having a BS in computer science is not typically enough to qualify an applicant to work at a high-prestige company like those in Silicon Valley. As your cite mentions - > [@](#): > > How difficult do you think it would be to go to an engineering meeting and tell all these people who went to Cal, Stanford, and MIT that the person coming from the University of Texas El Paso or a community college can do their job as well as they can? If it is your belief that a degree from MIT is equivalent to one from a local community college, and the one has no more predictive power regarding career success than the other, we will have to agree to disagree. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/239 "2017-08-10T13:49:40Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …this is a strawman. Nobody is advocating google hire unqualified women. No one advocates it, yet when nearly all Silicon Valley companies have diversity programs that don’t achieve their goals, and they get heat for that, I wonder what exactly critics are advocating? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055/240 "2017-08-10T13:51:05Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > [Since it is not exactly a secret that the first computer programmers were largely women](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/10/06/345799830/the-forgotten-female-programmers-who-created-modern-tech), I wonder how Damore and like-minded compadres square this with their opinions about natural gender differences. I think the nature of “computer programming”, both in terms of the work conditions and the programming itself, was likely so different back then from what it is today that it’s hard to compare it in terms of gender distributions. [And that’s even assuming the premise is true altogether, and I’m highly skeptical. People writing articles of this sort have a point to make, and they are going to cherry-pick until they find something that fits the story they want to tell. You’ll notice in that very article they suggest that a woman (Lovelace) be given credit as the founder of computers simply because she wrote an article about a computer which had been conceptualized by a man. So while I’m not doubting that the specific women they discuss in that article existed in those specific roles, I’m not convinced on that basis that women dominated early computer programming.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-fires-author-of-divisive-memo-on-gender-differences/793055.md?page=13)