A letter was sent to employees at Google this weekend titled, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”. It states that Google Is Too Politically Correct, and now the author is being attacked and there are calls to shut down free speech at Google.
The piece was written by an unnamed male Google engineer and is being called a ‘Manifesto’ by the media and by spokeswomen at Google. The author’s name has been redacted because of threats made against him.
There is an uproar over the 3,300 page ‘manifesto’ stating biological differences might explain the lack of diversity between men and women in hiring. At the same time, he pushed back on social engineering.
“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.
There is a new vice president of diversity Danielle Brown who was perhaps the impetus for the document.
Basically, the author is saying there’s too much PC; all opinions should be valued since no one has all the answers; social engineering based on gender and race is a bad idea; there are biological differences between men and women; and let’s discuss it.
Then came the calls to limit free speech at Google
Recode executive editor Kara Swisher has the full texts of Google’s response and the original document: “Google recently announced a new head of diversity, just as it has had to deal with a controversial 3,000-word internal memo sent across the company by an employee.”
“It contains a series of what I can only describe as sexist twaddle, wrapped in the undeserved protection of free speech. (Hey bros who don’t agree, that’s just my opinion, so you’ll have to take it because … First Amendment and all!)”
Entrepreneur Elissa Shevinsky wrote on blogging website Medium that speech “questioning the technical qualifications of people based on race or gender” could fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
“Google is not a space where employees should be able to express and share whatever feelings they may have, regardless of how it affects others,” Shevinsky wrote.
The author wants to talk about biology in an age of social engineering
“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem,” he wrote.
One of the author’s stated concerns is that the lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology [diversity].
He doesn’t claim to have the answers, but he wonders if “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,” he said.
That brought out an avalanche of vile assaults with calls for the author to be fired. His call for more openness and discussions of differing opinions morphed into demands for the shutting down of free speech at Google.
The media joined on the side of the hard left.
The author added: “Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies.”
The author “strongly” believes in “gender and racial diversity”, and wants more but in striving for this, “Google has created several discriminatory practices” and then he points to some:
- Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
- 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 incentivize illegal discrimination
He also offers remedies which includes the line, “stop alienating conservatives.” That made him a target right there. “Viewpoint diversity”, as he calls it, is not what the leftists want.
He then told snowflakes and social engineers: “Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence….Be open about the science of human nature.”
Oh yeah, that went over well.
Why not talk about it? Why are men, white men, being discriminated against in the name of inclusion and diversity? Why are opposing opinions considered violent and hateful?