Google On The Left

In the ten (10) page so-called ‘Google “anti-diversity” Manifesto’ penned and shared as an internal memo by a senior engineer at Google, James Damour, officially titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber- How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”.

James lists several discriminatory practices he says Google is guilty of. Such as:

• 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 and “restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races”, calling it “unfair and divisive”.

James also urged Google to reconsider making unconscious bias training mandatory for promo committee. Saying, “We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.” going on to say, “Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.”

After stating that he believes Google has an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. He then explains why it feels like conservatives are alienated from the conversation, “In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility.”

If you actually look into how “diverse” Google’s leadership truly is, it’s not hard to see why James thought this… Place their names in a bag and pick one at random, anyone you choose would be a liberal far left activist. Such as:

  Sundar Pichai, a CEO at Google, Democrat donor.

  Chad Hurley, YouTube co-founder, and advisor, Democrat donor.

  Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, Democrat donor and promotes The Young Turks.

  John Giannandrea, a senior VP for search at Google, Democrat donor.

  David Drummond, senior VP at Google for corporate development, Democrat donor.

  Sridhar Ramaswamy, senior VP for ads and commerce at Google, Kamala Harris supporter and Hillary Clinton donor.

  John Doerr, Google board member, Democrat support PAC donor and held a Democratic fundraiser.

  Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, president of Google's parent company, Democrat donor. Gave $800,000 to a PAC which offered free rides to polling stations just prior to the election.

  Omid Kordestani, the former senior VP at Google and now executive chairman at Twitter, Democrat donor and noted Trump hater on Twitter. (That’s right, chairman at Twitter using Twitter to lambaste the president. Because that’s not a conflict of interest...)

  Danielle Brown, Google head of diversity and worked directly for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I'm not saying that they are wrong for having these opinions. I'm just pointing out the varied views of those running Google and YouTube. If you don’t believe me, you can always Google it.

Share:

Read More

Stop Lying! The Truth About The Google Memo

It’s being called the ‘Google “anti-diversity” Manifesto’. A ten (10) page document penned and shared as an internal memo by a senior engineer at Google, James Damour, officially titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber- How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”. It covered topics like, “Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech” and “Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap”. The whole document is available on James' official site. I encourage you to read it yourself for context.

He begins by stating, “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.”

James then goes on to give ways in which men and women differ. Such as women on average having more “Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).” That they have more “Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.” And “Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).”

In the section titled ‘Men’s higher drive for status’, he then goes on to say, “We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.”

He then gave ways in which he believed the differences in the distribution of traits between men and women that he outlined in the previous section could be used to increase women's representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Saying:

• Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
• We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

• Women on average are more cooperative
• Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
• This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in education.

• Women on average are more prone to anxiety
• Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

• Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
• Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture)part time work though can keep more women in tech.

• The male gender role is currently inflexible
• Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

It is important to note that he also wrote, “I’m not saying that all men differ from all 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...”

Share:

Read More