recent

Inside a Google Summit on Diversity and Inclusion

How could any reasonable person oppose diversity and inclusion in the workplace? Answer: Because “diversity and inclusion” in the work context is actually a euphemism for something else.

During an October 30 summit held by Google, attendees listened to a panel discussion titled, “Beyond Hype, How Diversity & Inclusion in the Workplace Maximizes Your Bottom Line.” The panelists’ comments amounted to a very irregular definition of “diversity and inclusion:” A desire for equal outcomes among all identity groups, and disadvantaging individuals in overrepresented demographic categories.

Adam Berlew, head of Americas Marketing for Google Cloud, moderated the panel, which featured guests Joanna Dees, VP of educational programs at Women in Cable Telecommunications; Maribel Perez Wadsworth, president of the USA Today Network; Tom Kazmierczak Jr., head of diversity and inclusion at T. Rowe Price Associates; and Lori Rosenkopf, vice dean and director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, undergraduate division.

All participants advocated for changing workplace policies to increase the representation of women, people of color, and LGBT communities in the corporate world. There’s nothing wrong with increased representation of these groups. The problem is how identity group disparities are measured and which methods are used to correct them.

For example, Ms. Dees brought attention to the tired trope of the gender wage gap, saying, “On average, still, a woman only earns 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.” Numerous economists and scholars have shown this oft-cited statistic is misleading, at best. But Ms. Dees went on to note that women make up 50 percent of the U.S. workforce, yet less than five percent run Fortune 500 companies. She explained that, “If our goal is 50-50 [gender representation], we all have some serious work to do.” But that intention is misplaced. Such disparities don’t necessarily indicate prejudice at work, and in the absence of prejudice, forcing 50-50 representation would require prejudice against the majority group.

A number of the panelists also praised unconscious bias training for employees. As of 2015, 20 percent of companies provided such workshops. The notion of “unconscious bias” is based on implicit-association tests, which ask participants to look at pictures of members of various identity groups and then measure their response time in matching images with either pleasant or unpleasant words. Such tests have been subject to an abundance of criticism—most notably that the tests don’t measure bias, but unrelated things such as the time it takes to switch tasks. It’s also the case that many people with strong negative implicit-association test results don’t show any overt racism in their actions.

Unconscious bias training is based on an unproven and cynical worldview: Deep down, everyone is at least a little bit bigoted. This perspective may serve to delude bigoted people into justifying their prejudices as “normal.” Some research explicitly suggests unconscious bias training may actually create a norm for stereotyping and thus increase its prevalence.

Mr. Kazmierczak also referred to the T. Rowe Price Associates board of directors as having “over 40 percent diversity,” as if an individual can be measured as diverse. In Mr. Kazmierczak’s telling, a board made up entirely of black women would be 100 percent diverse. That’s not the definition of diversity; the word means having “variety” or “difference” in relation to a larger group. In practice, labeling an individual as diverse “others” members of minority groups, which weakens the concept of a larger unified humanity, and encourages individuals to silo themselves according to tribal notions of group membership.

The panelists claimed that to be competitive, businesses must hire and promote for a diversity of identities and ethnicities, but in fact, research shows the most valuable sort of diversity in hiring is diversity of thought. Intellectual diversity can sometimes correlate with diversity of identity group membership and end up increasing demographic variety as a side effect, but it doesn’t need to.

Mr. Kazmierczak and others lauded “business resource groups,” which are working groups segregated along identity lines. He noted that T. Rowe Price Associates has working groups for ethnic minorities, one for female employees, and an LGBTQ and allies group. Such groups can limit diversity of thought by actively encouraging members to think through the lens of their identity group, and then keeping the groups working separately. Not too long ago, this would have been recognized as segregation. Even if resource group membership occurred voluntarily, desegregation efforts would have broken up such a work style.

At the end of the panel, the first questioner, an Indian man (his demographic group only provided because Mr. Kazmierczak would have considered him “diverse”) criticized the panel using many of the arguments cited above. All the panelists declined to respond to any of his criticisms on stage, and only Ms. Rosenkopf confessed that she agreed “diversity of thought” could be important, too.

James Damore. Photo: Andy Ngo

Only a little over a year ago, Google became embroiled in a controversy over the firing of engineer James Damore, who wrote an internal memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” The memo criticized Google’s diversity policies on the grounds that various factors—not just discrimination—could lead to disparities in gender representation, and that discriminating against men would lead to worse outcomes. Several scientists who commented on the controversy agreed with Damore on key aspects of his argument.

And according to a Harvard-Harris poll of registered voters, 55 percent of those surveyed said Google was wrong to fire Damore, including 50 percent of Democrats. That same poll found 52 percent “oppose giving minorities preference in hiring to add diversity.” In response to facing class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against Asian men and conservative white men, Google has taken it to arbitration (indicating that the company may be eager to settle the action behind closed doors).

Sadly, it doesn’t seem Google has learned much since Damore’s firing. And given Google’s influence throughout the corporate world, that is disturbing. The industry website Inside HR has said Google has “reinvented HR” and promoted the tech giant’s practices, including its efforts to improve diversity. NBC NewsInc., and Fortune have all positively covered Google’s diversity programs. Fortune noted that “as is often the case in tech, where Google goes, others attempt to follow.” Inc. reported that when Google released its first diversity report, it “[set] off a domino effect that led dozens of other tech companies to follow suit.” Google’s influence extends to Washington as well by financing think tanks and spending more on lobbying in 2017 than any other corporation.

With that kind of influence driving the wave of “diversity and inclusion” in corporate America, it won’t be easy to reverse this ideological tide. But that uphill battle is the reason more people need to know about how the word “diversity” is misused to promote, rather than end, judging people based on their immutable characteristics.


Joseph Klein is the film and video producer at the Capital Research Center.

94 Comments

  1. Oppressed Indigenous Neanderthal says

    If I were Google, I wouldn’t want James Damore on the stand in court either. I’d settle so fast.

    In videos, he comes across as both the nicest, most soft-spoken guy in the world and also looks like the least threatening, most laid back white man who ever lived.

    Not a good bad guy to fight.

    • Erica from The West Village says

      Who wrote a Jerry McGuire memo.

      The truth hurts, but it can be quite liberating for those who speak truth to power; as he did.

      • Oppressed Indigenous Neanderthal says

        “Who wrote a Jerry McGuire memo.”

        Ha! Very well put.

        He’s also nice looking without looking in the least brutish or dominating, has what women like to call “soft eyes,” which helps his case in front of a judge or civil jury.

        In sum, this is the liminal white straight guy. By manner and look, he has no whiff of evil to hang anything on. Google will not want him to meet anybody in person.

  2. 南沢山 says

    The workplace… is the place to work. Knowledge, competence, and industriousness are relevant. Diversity and inclusion are irrelevant.

    • Paul Ellis says

      I don’t want diversity among airline pilots. I want the opposite: I want all of them to have good flying skills, understanding of the aircraft’s systems, and R/T English. Their sex, gender and ethnicity are irrelevant.

      • @Paul Ellis – Presumably you’d end up with diversity of airline pilots then, unless sex, gender or ethnicity affect the ability to fly a plane.

        • 南沢山 says

          @david of Kirkland

          “End up with” is the key factor here and it should be preceded by “might”, because it is irrelevant.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @david of Kirkland

            Maybe not. As with nursing, cab-driving, engineering, and crime, we might find that various Identities are heavily over represented entirely of their own choosing.

    • Lanelle says

      Thank you. Your words, your turn of phrase are exactly what is needed.

    • Robinson says

      I wouldn’t worry about it. If they’re not hiring for competence, lobbying and regulatory capture notwithstanding, they’ll eventually be usurped by a business that is.

    • That’s the workplace of the 50s. Diversity of thought really matters. It’s how companies survive and thrive and avoid the fate of Blockbuster, Polaroid, etc.

      • how would diversity of thought helped Blockbuster in dealing with an industry whose technology basis was disappearing from culture?

        • Isn’t it obvious? If anybody on blockbusters board was forward thinking and saw what was coming(aka wasn’t a dinosaur) they either a) immediately move to buy out Netflix or B) aggressively copy their business model using their larger resources at the the time and invest even more than Netflix could possibly hope to compete with. Hubristic thinking and group think doomed a company that could have tried to compete.

  3. Loïc Hoguin says

    This is a common tactic. Find a word that everyone thinks is either very good or very bad, then redefine it to fit your agenda. The words diversity, inclusion, equality (when used to refer to equality of opportunity and outcome interchangeably), feminism, harassment, racism, white/whiteness/white supremacy, fascism, nazi and so on.

    Tell people that because they’re against racism they’re anti-racists, and then introduce the false definition that racism is prejudice+power and you end up with anti-racist groups that are racists against the majority group.

    Martin Luther King would be considered a white supremacist nowadays. How dare he wish people were judged by the content of their characters and not by their supposed belonging to an identity group!

  4. Markus says

    In the corporate world, this will solve itself, because, lets’s say (if you follow the Jordan Peterson line of argument that based on interest in the field there is a natural disparity in absolute numbers), fair gender parity in engeneering would be reached at, let’s say about 25% female (just to pick a number) and you force yourself to hire 50% female, you’ll end up with a less competent workforce.

    Which in a highly competitive field, will sort itself out very quickly.

    In government and the public sector however, we’ll be dealing with a whole different beast.

      • Markus says

        With google being a quasi-monopoly, I have no objections to they weakening themselves.

    • Things go in this direction AFTER some tech company has network effected itself to a monopoly (usually from when they were a startup full of white/asian males). Those monopoly profits are FAT, and you can maintain them even if you’re not the most efficient. Maybe one day you might get deposed if you get to complacent, but that’s some time off and there are monopoly profits to fight over NOW. Diversity hires don’t really care what happens to Google in ten years. And the managers of Google just care about their internal power struggles.

  5. Waterloo Sunrise says

    In a diverse society, vulnerable minorities like Jews do not stand out and are therefore less at risk of being persecuted for no reason by irrational bigots and haters. This is why mass immigration and the greatest possible religious, racial and gender diversity are core American values. Period. They are also core British, French, Swedish, Finnish, Italian, Spanish and Greek values. Period. Please read, absorb and act on these wise and compassionate words from the world’s greatest experts in vibrant enrichment:

    We, Rabbis from across the United States, call on our elected officials to keep America’s doors open to refugees.

    Faced with the largest refugee crisis in all of human history, the United States must continue to be a safe haven for people fleeing religious persecution, genocide, and terror. Our Jewish tradition teaches that every individual was created in the image of God. We must not turn our backs to the suffering of those individuals who have fled horrific violence, and who continue to be in extreme peril.

    Furthermore, Jewish history bears witness to the critical choice facing our country: whether to rescue those in need or to construct barriers to keep them out. Jews have seen America at its best, and we know what it looks like for our country to provide the chance at a new beginning. In generations past, our families were given opportunities to gain education, join the workforce, and become part of building our great nation.

    As Rabbis, we take seriously the biblical mandate to “welcome the stranger.” Grounded in our history and values, we will continue to raise our voices in support of refugees and call on our great nation to uphold a legacy of welcome.

    https://www.hias.org/node/3182

    Without open borders, the West will not survive.

    • Yehuda says

      @Water Loo: “Without open borders, the West will not survive.”

      Hysterical! I got a really good chuckle. I get what you’re laying down. the double-digit IQ folks may hammer you tho, so put on your rain hat.

      “…irrational bigots and haters” Yes! As opposed to the rational bigots and haters.

      “Haters…” He he. Polonius nailed it: “That’s an ill phrase, a vile phrase….”

      You left out that mass immigration is also a core Russian and North Korean value … for us, not for them …

      • Core Judeo-Christian Evaluatrix says

        You irrational bigot and hater!

        Weirdly, I can’t reply as “Waterloo Sunrise” no more on this site devoted to the core Judeo-Christian value of free speech.

    • So presumably those rabbis are fine with Palestinians having equal rights and treatment under the law in Israel. There’s a presumption provably false.

      • Core Judeo-Christian Evaluatrix says

        All Israelis, from Bibi on down, are desperate to follow the Biblical mandate of “Welcome the Stranger” and compassionately open Israel’s borders to the desperate and vulnerable, but what can they do? Israel is too small. And those damp winds off the Mediterrean are v. bad for the chest. Not healthy for goyim.

    • Stephanie says

      @Waterloo, yea, because bringing in people with a far greater occurrence of anti-Semitism has worked out so well for Europe’s Jews. Greatest exodus since the Holocaust.

      What Germany failed to do with gas chambers, they will accomplish with “diversity” and “compassion.”

      • Core Judeo-Christian Evaluatrix says

        O ye of maximal hate! Jews and Muslims are natural allies against white christian hate. Witness:

        Jews and Muslims are natural allies against religious discrimination

        https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347824-jews-and-muslims-are-natural-allies-against-religious

        Muslims are Jews’ natural allies in Europe – Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb_4U2UJucE

        The only threat in Germany is from white christians, which is why the Jewish community in Germany overwhelmingly support their Muslim brothers and sisters:

        German Jewish groups condemn Jewish support for far-right AfD party

        (JTA) — Germany’s Jewish umbrella organization and a host of other Jewish groups have joined to condemn the right-wing party Alternative for Germany — and to decry a new group that purports to represent Jews in the party.

        The Central Council of Jews in Germany in a statement issued Sunday said the AfD, which opinion polls show is gaining popularity, is racist and anti-democratic and “not an alternative for Jews.”

        At least 17 other international and German Jewish organizations, including the American Jewish Committee, the Claims Conference, WIZO and Germany’s rabbinical programs, co-signed the statement, which was released the same day that the controversial group calling itself Jews for the AfD was launched in Wiesbaden.

        https://www.jta.org/2018/10/08/global/german-jewish-groups-condemn-jewish-support-right-populist-afd-party

        But don’t let the facts get in the way of your irrational bigotry and hate.

      • Core Judeo-Christian Evaluatrix says

        The only danger in Germany and the rest of Europe comes from white christians:

        German Jewish groups condemn Jewish support for far-right AfD party

        https://www.jta.org/2018/10/08/global/german-jewish-groups-condemn-jewish-support-right-populist-afd-party

        Jews and Muslims are natural allies in the fight against white christian hate.

        Muslims are Jews’ natural allies in Europe – Rabbi Pinchas … – YouTube

        But don’t let the facts get in the way of your irrational bigotry and hate.

    • Ignacio Andres Cruz says

      There are pro uncontrolled mass immigration groups of all races and religions, you cretin. It’s pretty hilarious to see the desperation of the remaining foil-hat Jew-obsessives, because the smarter ones can see that their message is flourishing only within their increasingly masturbatory community. In the real world they are weaker than ever; the so-called “far-right populist” movements currently sweeping Europe and the U.S. are in fact the most zealously pro-Israel parties in their countries, for example. There is indeed a burgeoning reaction to all this nonsense that the people of America and Europe have been asked to endure from the political and cultural elites–but you are *marginal* to it. Pity the poor Jewpilled young revolutionary.

      This is why *actual* “white identitarians” are so locked in a symbiotic relationship with your supposed antagonists: the media and political establishment who gain attention and advance their agenda (Orwellianly referred to by themselves as “liberal democratic values”) by hyping the “Nazis” as some burgeoning threat; and the similarly Orwellian-named “antifascists” who administer skinny-limbed bike-chain beatings to those who disagree with them politically (and who are themselves your brother identitarians) and who regularly show up to play with you at your little rallies and counter-rallies while the rest of us have better things to do.

      White racists’ only remaining friends are those who see “white racism” under every rock. Because they are the only ones who still think you are important.

      • Ignacio Andres Cruz says

        *clarification: I meant that the “antifascists” are brother identitarians to the white pride folks.

  6. E. Olson says

    Google could do so much more. Not enough female, black, or Hispanic computer coders graduating from universities? Why doesn’t Google set up their own coding training program and then fill it with females with Gender Studies degrees currently working at Starbucks, or blacks just released from San Quentin, or Hispanic fruit pickers – and to make sure there is viewpoint diversity also recruit coding trainees from Aryan Nation and the John Birch Society. During their training they will of course be paid at least $15 per hour with full benefits as they become productive and diverse members of the Google coding community. This of course will be only a good starting point, as Google should also announce to all current and prospective male Asian/white heterosexual employees that they will not be considered for promotion or performance/seniority based salary increases until all the employee ranks from entry level to top management are completely representative of the general population and equally paid – thus women, blacks, Hispanics, transgenders, far right conservatives, etc. will be given priority in all hiring, promotion, and salary adjustments. Just imagine how the stock price will jump at such good news, and how much more productive and motivated the Google employees will be to be working at the leading edge of social justice.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @E. Olson

      And to think that I thought I was a sarcastic bastard 😉

      • D-Rex says

        @Ray Andrews
        Heh, you are a sarcastic bastard Ray, but E. Olsen is the master.
        He nails it EVERY time.

    • augustine says

      @ E. Olson

      Are you saying that the cure for diversity is real diversity? After Nietzsche’s aphorism that the only cure for the “suffering” of modern people is—real suffering.

      It’s worth a try.

  7. Martin28 says

    I don’t believe this panel really believes everything they are saying. There are so many personal benefits for pushing equality of outcome today. They get flown to conferences and put on panels. People pat them on the back and they get career advancement. When they bring up tendentious topics, like the wage gap, they know that they will never be criticized in the New York Times or other mainstream media. If you are from an “oppressed group,” there is the pleasure of considering yourself a victim and saying, “hey, I made it,” not just on your talent but despite supposedly long odds. The truth is you may have benefitted from affirmative action, but no one will say that today to your face because you have the power to cry “sexist, racist,” and that is another benefit. You get to feel noble, too, for fighting for a good cause and people tell you so. If you are a white male, you get to be an ally. By self-flagellating, you gain status with the high-status victim groups, insulate yourself against attack, and also get to feel noble. These are the motivations for garbage ideas, and to maintain these benefits, they must call opposing ideas “hate speech.” Because they fear that their own ideas will not stand up to honest debate, not in the long run.
    Kudos to Joseph Klein, and the brave Indian guy who called them out.

  8. northernobserver says

    When Big Brother comes to the West he will come from the HR department wearing a skirt and wrapped in a rainbow flag.

    • Apparently, women are more interested in “people” rather than “things”. No point complaining that females are taking over HR departments – after all, we are “more interested” in these roles.

      • This could also explain why women tend to not stay in the STEM fields at the same level as men.
        Or to look at it in a different way: male nurses (if they stay in the field) tend to enter more specialized fields such as ICU, ER and surgery or management, while female nurses tend to gravitate towards pediatrics, maternity, geriatrics, etc.

        • I was being sarcastic. As a female who prefers “things” over “people” and who is very assertive (that’s “unreasonable” for the misogynists), I can’t imagine anything worse than working in HR and having to put up with people. I’d be my happiest of I could work with computers all day long and not speak to anyone.

          I accept that I am not a representative of a majority of females but it does annoy the hell out of me when people assume that I am interested in anything to do with “people” based on my gender. It’s as annoying as assuming that “male = opressor”.

          • Populations are never uniformly distributed and drawing any assumptions of an individual based upon a mean value is problematic. However, using the mean to make larger decisions is not unwarranted. If the data suggests the majority of females do not enjoy working in STEM fields, we should insure that there are no barriers to those who wish to work and succeed in these fields, however, seeking parity would be a fools errand.

          • D-Rex says

            @Lily
            Point well made, I think most of us “blokes” fell too easily into your trap.
            The reverse could also be said for some males who are more people oriented. We must be careful with our assumptions.

          • Big Jim Slade says

            I can’t imagine anything worse than working in HR and having to put up with people. I’d be my happiest if I could work with computers all day long and not speak to anyone.

            Seconded. Extroverts tend not to respect this preference and then wonder why people like us find them exhausting.

  9. HistoryGuy says

    Is there video of this particular panel? I’d like to see the specific criticisms this Indian fellow levied at the panel for myself, rather than take the author’s summation as gospel. No offense intended, Joseph Klein. I’ve just been burned by second-hand accounts too many times.

  10. E. Olson says

    I love how so many of these diversity panels are made up exclusively of white people who are highly educated, youngish, fairly fit, and Leftist. Where are the people of color, the obese, the high school dropouts, the conservatives/Right, the elderly?

      • You are wrong about Russia. It is actually quite diverse, both ethnically and religiously.

        Probably the country about which there is the largest number of misconceptions and ignorance in “the West”.

  11. Sadly the female pay disparity issue will never go away, largely because it’s an easy math problem and seems like a no-brainer on the ‘fairness’ front. The complicated understory just doesn’t translate well to soundbites or in forums.

    Bottom line: Women don’t necessarily want to be CEOs at a 50% clip. It’s a matter of interest as much as competence. It’s a rough world in that stratosphere and many women just aren’t interested in the fight.

    At lower rungs in workplace hierarchies woman complain about the good ‘ole boy barriers. They don’t like the unwelcoming elbows and hips being thrown around by competitive, competent men. They don’t understand that men face those same unwelcoming elbows and hips and won’t find any sympathies from any quarter and just have to deal with it – without complaint. Women may or may not bow out in the face of this. Men usually have no choice, they persevere and reap the rewards.

    • E. Olson says

      Craig – you observation is largely correct, but for the fact that 99+% of men also fail to reach the top of their field. We don’t hear about the failures, only about the Gates, Zuckerbergs, Buffets, Trumps, etc. who had the right skills at the right time and worked hard to make some of their own luck and ended up getting to the top and/or extremely rich. The other aspect that supports your view is that women “sabotage” their own CEO futures by studying the wrong fields (i.e. 9 of the top 10 lowest paid college majors are dominated by females), choosing the “wrong” career path (women dominate HR and accounting, but are MIA in finance and tech where CEOs more often come from), and not working as many hours even if they have no children, but very substantially less if they do. I’ve never seen any studies done in the area of risk taking at work, but just on the basis of the overall higher risk adverseness among women, I suspect far fewer women than men will volunteer for or accept the risky work assignments that bring great positive visibility and promotion if they succeed, but demotion or termination if unsuccessful. Higher risk adverseness also means many more women will never take the entrepreneurial route to fame and fortune, and given their greater desire for “work-life” balance and greater unwillingness to burn the midnight oil to succeed are less likely to be attractive to venture capitalists – i.e. do I want to give $50 million to a 30 year old woman with a great business idea, but who may decide to get pregnant next year or wants to go home every night at 5 and not work on weekends versus a man with a similar idea but the inability to get pregnant and a burning desire to succeed even if it means working 80 hour weeks?

  12. Aleph from Paris says

    “There’s nothing wrong with increased representation of these groups. The problem is how identity group disparities are measured and which methods are used to correct them.” Stopped reading this socialist piece of crap here. The problem is problem of individual freedom vs tribalism. Enough said.

  13. Farris says

    The flourishing of re-education camps. Many years ago my employer giving me a hard time, jokingly said, “never hire anyone who’s last name ends in a vowel.” I responded, “Like Robert E. Lee?” We both had a good laugh. Of course I realize this non malicious comment today would have my employer sent to the gallows.

  14. frankdn says

    Left alone, the market will correct this eventually as companies that hire by identity group are destroyed from within, while those that hire for job-effectiveness take their customers from them. BUT will the market be left alone? (No.)

  15. GregS says

    Let’s just say that creating a workplace that exactly reflects the demographic of society is a worthwhile goal. How exactly does one do that?

    If more females want to be interior decorators than heavy equipment operators, should we channel their interests toward what would be better for society?

    If more young African-American males want to be NBA stars than MBA’s, should we abolish the NBA or perhaps the NFL (not a bad idea), so they can focus on what is really important?

    If fewer women and minorities score high on the SAT, do we push the ones that score high further down the road and risk pushing them so hard that they fail?

    Or is the problem that we have taken the virtue of wanting something good and warped it into the vice of achieving OUR desires at the expense of the desire of others.

    • David D Dennis says

      I would think there would be a really tiny intersection between those who want to be MBAs and those who would like to be in the NBA or NFL, regardless of race. And probably an even lower intersection when you count potential for success in either role.

    • Peter from Oz says

      GregS
      Great point.
      You can bet that the SJWs will never insist that occupations that are dominated by a victim group will be ”diversified”. Nor will they care about diversifying occupations that are dull, dirty or disgusting.

    • lazypadawan says

      I always say nobody ever says there needs to be more women in mining or more male secretaries and day care employees or more straight men in the fashion world. Fields dominated by minorities are considered “diverse” even if in fact they are not. The only fields that interest the diversity/equality at all costs crowd are the prestigious/high-paying/high-powered jobs. This is really about taking prestige, power, and money away from those who have it to give to those who did nothing to earn it.

  16. D Bruce says

    Just admit it, white guys with a work ethic are hard to beat.

  17. peanut gallery says

    The problem with “let the market work” with some of these tech giants is: What is “the market” here? Google is a collection of free services mostly that runs on ad revenue. I mean I guess the sell Chromebooks, but it’s mostly ads and access you users they offer. In addition, competition is close to impossible once they literally have most of the users for X service. Don’t wanna use Facebook? Oh, you’re going to Google+? That’s closed. They don’t sell real things, so the market forces are not the same as for milk or steel.

    • Phoenix says

      @peanut. That’s ridiculous. Is there competition in the insurance or financial industries? Ad-driven media? Digital goods – including search results – are indeed valued by the market, and we happily view ads to get our otherwise free search results. But Google is truly beatable everywhere, and Google+ is just the start. Perhaps you’ve heard of Android – worlds most popular mobile OS, but no where as profitable as Apple and iOS. G-Suite – growing, but a small fraction of Microsoft Office & Office 365. Google Home is a distant 2nd to Amazon’s Alexa. And this diversity panel was at a Google Cloud Platform event – GCP is a distant 4th in cloud hosting, with Amazon/AWS way out in front. Google will stumble – recall the titans Sears, GE, IBM, and so many others who once appeared unbeatable. Google is doing exactly the wrong thing in forcing group-identity based diversity, and they’ll pay. How many other James Damores have found their way to startups or competitors, after seeing how limited their future might be? Amazon is laden with them. After reading this, my confidence in GCP has further eroded.

  18. ccscientist says

    Racial quotas are the logical outcome of this thinking. In countries where there are quotas, those hired by the government as part of a quota often feel they are protected and do not have to work. We don’t see that too much in the US but it is a logical outcome. We also see that quotas only work in one direction. There is no move to increase the number of male nurses or elementary school teachers or veterinarians in spite of huge disparities, and no move to limit the number of black NBA players. Likewise, women are not clamoring to get into the plumbing business. Unions are a long-time ally of the Left and yet are among the worst offenders against diversity. The Davis-Bacon act, which favors unions in gov construction projects, was passed to keep minorities out of the building trades (since they would work for less than union rates).
    The comment about only 5% of CEOs being female is so disingenuous–few women want to work and travel the kind of hours required since it would destroy their families. To still claim 80% wage gap is to show that you are dishonest because it ignores the choices of career and work hours women make. Women often choose a career that will allow them to have a family–who would have thought? And I think that is a good thing. All of this ignores the heavy demand on men to provide for a family. The woman can just one day decide to stay home, and it is ok, but if the man does that she divorces him. I haven’t seen my neighbor for weeks because he took a new job with a longer commute–yep, higher pay. On average men take more overtime, commute farther, travel more, take more risks, and suffer 98% of workplace fatalities. How about we get a little break? nah

  19. Stephanie says

    I participated in a similar diversity forum for a geological student conference recently. It was painful. It started off with a talk about how hard-done-by women are, filled with faulty statistics and unexamined assumptions. The panel that followed had two female professors, and one PhD student who appeared to only be there because she was brown.

    I challenged them on the equality of opportunity versus outcome question, but while I got them to say equality of opportunity was what they sought, two of three panelists immediately reverted back to calling for 50-50 representation. It was like they didn’t understand these concepts at all, accepting the orthodoxy and regurgitating the same mantras without a thought of how they contradict. Other highlights include the absurd claim that people from diverse backgrounds will introduce new perspectives, improving the science. What difference in perspective on the evolution of the lithospheric mantle is imparted by one’s family or culture? It’s complete nonsense, but of course these wild conjectures are supposed to be taken as gospel.

    I had a male tell me afterwards he agreed with me but was afraid to speak up. Even a tenured female professor privately expressed her support, but also felt the risk was too great to speak up. I could certainly tell the crowd was against me, hopefully I didn’t sabotage my career.

    Perhaps the best part was at the bar afterwards, when I was talking to one of the panelists (the only logical one) and a female geologist who occupies a prominent role in Australia’s largest geological association. All three of us came to Australia from overseas for academic jobs, and brought our boyfriends and husbands with us. My two female supervisors also brought their husbands to Australia. When will it be obvious enough that we’ve won?

    Honestly, the last barrier to women advancing in STEM is flexibilities around parenthood, something that would benefit fathers (and our falling birthrate) as well. However, these leftists’ push for equity introduces a new hurdle for women: the accusation we got where we are because of our sex instead of our competence. We cannot let them take us backwards.

    • D.B. Cooper says

      @Stephanie

      You are a rare breed, Steph. We need more like you in academia. And just to be clear, not b/c we may or may not have aligning incentives; but rather b/c you appear to assess questons/issues either empirically or through rational discourse. In my experience, or maybe I should say, in my circles (a tautology, that might be?), such level-headedness is uncommon to find.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @D.B. Cooper

        Seconded. Call me a sexist, but I wish we had more females of such quality here. There is a certain something … can’t put my finger on it … rationality is rationality, it doesn’t have gender, yet a clear thinking woman has a certain extra something. Help me describe it.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Stephanie

      “felt the risk was too great to speak up”

      Time to stand up perhaps? Peterson is. Haidt is. Miss Shepherd is. Claire is. These freaks are a small minority, they only have power because we let them have it. We are hampered by our own civility. Dunno, perhaps the whole show will collapse in an intersectional meltdown, but mean time, they are going for real, hard power. The power to hurt huge numbers of people.

      They came for Dr. Hunt and I said nothing because it seemed to be just one poor bastard …

      “the accusation we got where we are because of our sex instead of our competence”

      Just like the dumbing down of ‘rape’ has now trivialized the charge to the point where real rape is conflated with a bad date.

      I remember when Ross Perot was running for the Oval Office. He told this tale in an interview about the (horrible) segregated South. In his town there was a definite area for the black professional class. Doctors, lawyers, etc. There was zero doubt in anyone’s mind as to the qualifications of these people because they got where they got against a headwind and because at the time black colleges had *higher* standards than white colleges. His point was that whites would frequent these professionals whenever they could get away with it because their quality was so superior. Affirmative action destroyed all that. We’ve already had our first affirmative action Nobel Prize. It corrupts the whole thing.

      • Peter from Oz says

        In the last few years, I have seen this stupidity creeping into the legal profession as well.
        One thing I’ve noticed is that more into social justice a lawyer is the worse lawyer he or she actually is.

        • TarsTarkas says

          It is not necessary for the ‘woke’ to be intelligent or logical, their fervor and belief in their feelings will triumph over all.

      • Stephanie says

        Thank you D.B and Ray,

        I don’t think I’m a great communicator for the ideas I believe in. I’m certainly outclassed by most of the commentators on Quillette, but I hope engaging in this forum will sharpen my skills.

        However, I’m also painfully aware of how few people share my views and are willing to risk articulating them in academia. Maybe being Jewish makes me extra sensitive, but I’m highly confident that with the way things are going with the Left I will not have the luxury of waiting for the mob to come for me far down the line: I’ve gotten on the bad side of too many leftists over the years to doubt that the moment I reach any level of prominence someone will tear me down over mainstream conservative positions. I might as well fight while I can.

        It’s quite like what Ray says: I want people to hire me because I’m head and shoulders above my peers. I fear I won’t have that opportunity. Worse, my black niece who dreams of being a geologist and is on track to being head and shoulders above her peers is going to have people second-guessing her twice as hard for her entire career. Why have we set up women and minorities for failure unnecessarily? Why the assumption that we must be less competent, and therefore in need of handicaps?

        • D-Rex says

          @Stephanie
          “I’m certainly outclassed by most of the commentators on Quillette, but I hope engaging in this forum will sharpen my skills.”
          I empathize wit the first statement but have given up on the second one, too old and lazy plus two finger tying takes a long time.
          BUT, I really would like to read more comments from yourself and other women here, as to quote Ray; “a clear thinking woman has a certain extra something”.

    • TarsTarkas says

      Steph, just wait until they start denying the reality of plate tectonics because those who proved its existence were male. And of course the SJWs will oppose departments offering flexibility around parenthood because ‘breeders’ are traitors to their ‘gender’.
      Hopefully your mentors will ignore the diversity wackos and not let your objections to the imposition of insanity on your chosen field hamper your career. My wife was a geology student back in the 1960’s when male prejudice towards the few females that were in that field at the time was quite real and obvious, which is one reason she got out of it. She later became a botanist (which is how we met). She uses her acquired knowledge of geology to help understand species distribution.

  20. Peter J says

    God, what a yawn fest that talk must have been! You know I am increasingly of the opinion that all this diversity talk is just a circle jerk for elites. No one ever says “we need more female representation amongst truck drivers.” or “we need more racial diversity on construction sites.” or “there should be more trans electricians and plumbers.”

    No, it’s always professionals and academics decrying the lack of diversity amongst corporations and other high brow institutions. These people ought to pull their heads out of their arse and realise that whilst they indulge in this sort of confected virtue signalling, the overwhelming majority of people are just quietly getting on with the job and getting on with life.

    • E. Olson says

      Peter – you bring up a very good point. Men do 90+% of the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs, many of which are not particularly well paid, and yet I have yet to hear a feminist or LGBTQ activist calling for proportional representation in those areas.

      I would also like all those social justice knee takers in the NFL to promote the idea of proportional representation in their sport. Why are the teams 80% black when blacks only represent 13% of the population? Where are the 6% Asian, 18% Hispanic, 51% women, and .3% trans – why shouldn’t everyone get an equal opportunity to earn millions per year to play a game – should they be excluded merely because they lack interest, talent, and physical abilities?

      • Jim Gorman says

        You bet! Change the rules so everyone can compete and play the game. Maybe make the good athletes (regardless of race, etc.) wear anchors. Kind of like handicapping horses.

      • TarsTarkas says

        Third and fourth wave feminism and identitarianism. The goal of the first being securing preferential rights and opportunities, the second by elimination of rights and opportunities for oppressor identity groups as defined by oppressed groups.

    • Tyson Henry says

      I always wondered about that to. No one seems to care about diversity unless the position offers prestige.

  21. ShipAhoy says

    Here’s how diversity brings new perspectives. Allow an analogy from the NYC subway. When I board, the train has come from parts where the “underrepresented” live. Generally, the “underrepresented” crowd the doors, which does not allow many more persons to board. In other words, when they get on the car, they stand pretty close to where they got on. They don’t move to the center to create space for others to board. Several trains will pull up with empty aisles and crowded entryways, because the “underrepresented” can’t take ten steps farther. Then, no amount of politeness in asking them to let you pass into the center where there is space to stand will be taken. No, it’s a cause for violence. They threaten assault — every time. They also claim that you are “ignorant,” I suppose because you understand that moving into the center of the car will a) speed up the rate of boarding, allowing the trains to maintain their schedules and b) allow more persons to board. Again, you are “ignorant” for not standing rigid, without moving, without thinking ahead, and you are “ignorant” for trying to be civil.

    Subtext: Those who are “underrepresented” are actually those who refuse to move. Should we who DO move force them to move and adhere to our standards of civility, they will deem that “ignorant.” The workplace will be dominated by the obtuse.

    Food for thought.

  22. Bruce Lieberschwartzburgstein says

    tongue in cheek, wouldn’t it be a scream if there were boycotts of major league football & basketball since whites are so “underrepresented” there?

  23. Being that discrimination isn’t a big factor in employee hiring to begin with, the free market will eventually have to correct for when so many under qualified people are being hired solely because they fill a quota for an identity group.

  24. Richard says

    Yes! ““diversity” is misused to promote, rather than end, judging people based on their immutable characteristics.”

  25. Kirilov says

    Bigotry, definition: “(close-mindedness or intolerance stemming from) an inflexible attachment to a system of belief”.
    It does NOT mean “irrational prejudice”. This article perpetuates the misuse of the term.

  26. Pingback: PODCAST: Tech the Halls with Google Hearings – Dr. Rich Swier

  27. Laura Jacobs says

    I would ask the Googlers – “if you needed dental surgery”, would you go into the office that highlighted their DIVERSITY of their staff or the QUALITY of their surgeons and dentists?

  28. Dominic Allaway says

    Hits the nail on the head!

    This D&I &^%$ has been bothering me for a while. I sat down one day to have a think about why because, on the face of it, as a liberal my instinct was I must be for it. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

    To increase ‘diversity’ the employer must inevitably discriminate against those who are not ‘diverse’ ie anyone who is white, straight and/or male. Therefore D&I is nothing more than an euphemism for discrimination against these groups – and I hope I don’t need to explain why discriminating against people because of their colour, sexuality, and sex is wrong!

    One riposte to this may be that ‘well, diverse groups need a helping hand because they are inherently disadvantaged’ – wrong again. The only groups – at least in Western societies – that are inherently disadvantaged are the following: people with disabilities and, to use a little used term, the poor (more commonly called ‘the socioeconomically disadvantaged’ or some such ott mouthful). D&I to help these groups I could see being justified – but to help upper crust women and minorities get those nice jobs and promotions? They don’t need any help – they’re more than capable of helping themselves.

    Personally, I’m convinced I have failed to get (public sector) job interviews because I ticked the ‘wrong’ boxes on diversity questionnaires – next time I’m applying as a non-gender specific mixed race bisexual.

    You’re welcome.

    Dominic

  29. You gotta love upper class very wealthy self-segregated white people – many of whom got their jobs through their upper class connections (as well as their ability) – “diverse-splaining” the importance of “diversity and inclusion” to the lower class white and Asian male plebes whose jobs and/or promotions will be impacted.

    These hypocrites will not be impacted one iota by their “diversity and inclusion” quasi-religious dogma. It’s good to be the king. What makes it so incredibly obnoxious is how obtuse and narcissistic they are, how – unlike the old aristocracy – they refuse to see their won status of power, and genuinely believe of themselves that they are the essence of goodness and light by promoting a policy that signals to their upper class cohort their own wokeness but which doesn’t cost them even a sliver of risk. Their jobs are ensured. Their kids will go to elite privates. They will hire Brown Migrants as very good (and cheap) maids and nannies and gardeners. They will earn their millions or billions. *And* they get to sneer at those racist plebes who don’t fall in line. They then hold up their Pet ‘diverse’ brown and Black people – who are allowed to keep their “diverse” status if and only if they do as their masters want; if any of the Pet Brown and Black people *dare* to stray, dare to question, dare to, oh, say, walk in with a Trump hat on, then off with their heads! They lose their Pet Brown and Black status immediately and fall off the hierarchy of wokeness that these people sit on the throne of.

    It’s rather disgusting. But on the plus side, powerful as Google is, I do think this is a rot within, rather as the Soviet Union appeared so strong–until it fell. So with Google, if they continue this madness.

  30. Google to my mind is one of the really nasty tech companies in the world. I don’t care about their diversity and inclusion BS which is bad enough as Damore proved. I would like them to explain to me how they dealt with ‘click theft’ as my experience was anything but pleasant.

    A company built on bad principals and now claiming to be morally above reproach is a bit rich (as I am sure many of them are).

Comments are closed.