In an attempt to give a clue to those who still don't understand the Google firing of Damore:
It would be perfectly OK for Damore to say that all employees should get the opportunity to be mentored. It would have been perfectly OK for Damore to demand it. It would have been perfectly OK for him to have organized a public demonstration at the public entrance to the Google headquarters.
It is not OK for Damore to say that the employees in Google who currently get mentors are biologically disadvantaged and that is why the mentorship program is in place, and why it is misguided, and so on. Your colleagues who have been through the hiring process and who have worked in the corporation and have had satisfactory performance are your equals.
And if you can't/don't get this, then I can't explain it any further.
PS: similarly the "truth" of whether women are the same or different than men in the general population is irrelevant. The issue is whether the women working at Google are qualified to do their jobs. I'm quite certain the answer is yes - Google isn't operating a charity. Then if Google finds that women aren't getting their progressions and promotions and so on that their performance record says that they have earned, they are going to find that they need a diversity program. And they do. This happens, not because Google as a corporation has some intrinsic fault, but because Google employees are hired from a culture which often finds offensive women being something more than just decorative (e.g., think of the scorn heaped on "pant-suit". Or that the country elected Trump). A corporation can't rectify that in the culture as a whole, they do what they can within their boundaries.
PPS: Also see this:
http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/google-james-damore-diversity/
PPPS: and this:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16122072/google-diversity-bias-training-james-damore-memo
It would be perfectly OK for Damore to say that all employees should get the opportunity to be mentored. It would have been perfectly OK for Damore to demand it. It would have been perfectly OK for him to have organized a public demonstration at the public entrance to the Google headquarters.
It is not OK for Damore to say that the employees in Google who currently get mentors are biologically disadvantaged and that is why the mentorship program is in place, and why it is misguided, and so on. Your colleagues who have been through the hiring process and who have worked in the corporation and have had satisfactory performance are your equals.
And if you can't/don't get this, then I can't explain it any further.
PS: similarly the "truth" of whether women are the same or different than men in the general population is irrelevant. The issue is whether the women working at Google are qualified to do their jobs. I'm quite certain the answer is yes - Google isn't operating a charity. Then if Google finds that women aren't getting their progressions and promotions and so on that their performance record says that they have earned, they are going to find that they need a diversity program. And they do. This happens, not because Google as a corporation has some intrinsic fault, but because Google employees are hired from a culture which often finds offensive women being something more than just decorative (e.g., think of the scorn heaped on "pant-suit". Or that the country elected Trump). A corporation can't rectify that in the culture as a whole, they do what they can within their boundaries.
PPS: Also see this:
http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/google-james-damore-diversity/
PPPS: and this:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16122072/google-diversity-bias-training-james-damore-memo
Logging you in...
Guest · 396 weeks ago
This flatly contradicts your comment: "PS: similarly the "truth" of whether women are the same or different than men in the general population is irrelevant."
If some groups can only be hired if they get special treatment in the hiring process, that's discrimination. It also means the Google is paying a penalty for hiring them.
Where, pray tell, does Damore say "the employees in Google who currently get mentors are biologically disadvantaged?" I couldn't find it. What he does say is that women may be less likely to be interested in careers as software engineers, and that that disinterest might have a biological component. That may be a biological trait but is not a biological disadvantage, whether the it's the case or not. Scott Alexander discusses the relevant evidence on Slate Star Codex.
But have fun demolishing strawmen of your own construction .
macgupta 81p · 396 weeks ago
The use of biological arguments to explain sex differences creates a clear and present danger to inclusion by potentially producing a hostile work environment, not only for women, but for all employees.
macgupta 81p · 396 weeks ago
According to the above quoted man, a statement like "My fellow workers - all the female ones - are generally less interested in working for and succeeding in this company" is perfectly fine. I'm glad that he's retired and no longer a threat to anyone in the workforce.
PS: reminds me of a something similar long ago a brown man told me about where I had just joined to work: "This company is a sinecure for white men". I'm likewise glad that he's retired and no longer a threat to anyone in the workforce.
Guest · 396 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 396 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 396 weeks ago
which contains this claim:
"A 2016 report on Gallup.com summarized two of the company’s studies published in the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies that illustrate the potential of engagement coupled with diversity. In the first, employees’ intentions to leave their employers were higher when the employee and manager were of different races and the employee was not engaged. The other found that companies that had higher-than-average gender diversity and employee engagement also had 46% to 58% better financial performance than companies that were below the median on diversity and engagement."
A more accurate statement of the second part of the finding is: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/190103/using...
"In another study, also published in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Gallup found gender diversity predicted the financial success of business units in two independent companies. The combination of employee engagement and gender diversity resulted in 46% to 58% higher financial performance -- comparable revenue and net profit, respectively -- for business units above the median on both engagement and gender diversity, compared with those below the median on both. More diverse workgroups and engaged workgroups had higher profits. But focusing on both together increased the financial performance of a group more than just increasing gender diversity or employee engagement alone."
Rajan Parrikar · 396 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 396 weeks ago
Guest · 395 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 395 weeks ago