Shared publicly  - 
 
+Laszlo Bock shares the facts about our workforce diversity on +PBS NewsHourhttp://goo.gl/3Usmpx
In a new internal report released exclusively to the NewsHour, Google reveals that women and minorities have been largely left behind in their tech workforce. The disclosure comes amid increasing pressure for Silicon Valley companies to disclose their records on diversity. Gwen Ifill talks to Google’s Laszlo Bock, Vivek Wadhwa of Stanford University and Telle Whitney of the Anita Borg Institute. Continue reading →
482
56
Patricia Correa (Pat)'s profile photoBenjamin Todd's profile photoRadames Ortiz's profile photoJin Williams's profile photo
74 comments
 
Hire the best person to do the job. Don't hire someone just because of their sex or skin color. That's discriminatory in itself.
 
The social inequalities that redirect one to a particular position may be deeper than where they ended up.
 
Education is the key to changing these numbers. We need to show our young and old the key to developing new technology. It all starts with the 1st book being opened to learn new things. Don't say you couldn't do it until you have tried. After that, try harder !
 
+Eric Brown , It's more than education. There are  MANY women and minorities who are just as educated as the white men who were hired in their place.
 
+Kenny Frizzell-Reynolds While true, that doesn't mean they applied for a job with Google.

"who were hired in their place" you make it sound like Google chose not to hire equally qualified and experienced candidates because of sex or ethnicity/race.
 
I don't understand this apparent need for equal representation everywhere. OK, so there aren't as many [insert demographic of choice here] employed at [insert organization of choice here]. Unless you work there or are applying there, how does this impact your life?

Not trying to troll or ruffle feathers, but I honestly don't get it. Why do people feel so passionate that organizations must adhere to what they believe is the "right" demographic composition? Do they feel it's an indicator of imbalanced opportunity somewhere? I struggle to accept that for some reason. 
 
+Kevin O'Quinn , I completely agree but we can't chalk it up to just unequal levels of education. We both know you're far more intelligent than that...
 
+Kenneth Trent because an "entitled" society feels that positions should be earned based on degree, ethnicity or gender, not by the body of work.
 
+Don Dudas I would strenuously object to the argument that most tech companies are an "entitled society" that hire based on physical attributes, instead of a person's work and abilities. I've personally not seen that in my career.
 
When I was at Mozilla, I remember being the most stoked about the 2 women in the last batch of ~5 people we hired in our group --> the reason for my excitement: they were high quality coders with great ideas and imagination.
 
This is a problem that is absolutely worth solving.
 
+Eric Campbell I agree in general but like with many job positions there are hundreds of possible qualified applicants and it's natural to hire people you have the most common with. Businesses should strive to mimic their customer populous as much as they can. 
 
+Eric Campbell +Kenneth Trent The issue isn't that people are being hired because of their demographics and not because of their accomplishments, but because one's qualifications necessarily incorporate their backgrounds and identities.

Because we live in a society with both covert and overt sexism, racism, homophobia, classism, etc., one cannot claim to be fair without recognizing that a wealthy white person has innumerably more resources and less hurdles to reach, say, a degree in computer science at a competitive university, than an impoverished person might have.

An underprivileged person getting a 3.0 at a public university could be a much greater accomplishment, requiring more intellect, ingenuity, and hard work, than a highly-privileged person getting straight-A's at +Harvard University.

Representation is important for a variety of reasons. One, it is an affirmative action showing other underprivileged people that it is, in fact, possible to reach a certain goal regardless of their race, class, gender, etc. Two, it is bringing a unique and important perspective to the workplace which gives everyone a deeper and broader understanding of the decisions they make and the world at large. Third, if we are to assume that all genders and races are equally capable of success, then anything but a relatively representative demographic distribution in the workplace implies that there are some biases and imbalances, either in the hiring process, in the world at large, or both.

In short, recognizing achievement and capability is still the goal. The difference is in the understanding that the world isn't fair and that acknowledging triumph over adversity as well as embracing diversity are crucially necessary factors of a good modern society.
 
Well, from what I hear on the news that women are paid 23 cents less on the dollar than men are, then wouldn't the majority of employment positions be filled by females first? Something isn't adding up here..
 
This is so racist and sexist. Google and any other company shouldn't be keeping stats on their employees race and sex but only how well they perform at their job. We will never get to the goals of judging others by the content of their character if we keep only caring about or looking at their race and sex. Way to be racist and sexist +Google. I would think you of all companies would be the one to rise about all this prejudice nonsense.
 
+Keith Audet , wow. Really?? It's more than the rate of pay. It's how they are viewed as incapable and inferior so the rate of pay doesn't matter here. There's your answer as to why women do not make up the majority of the workforce and why you are not at home cleaning and tending to the children.
 
+Kenny Frizzell-Reynolds Who said anything about unequal levels of education?  I said "that doesn't mean they applied for a job with Google" which means exactly what it sounds like.

You can't force everyone that has the education and qualifications to apply at every single tech company to make the hiring pool truly equal for each and every company.  That would be the right way to make the comparison between companies fair.


I'm still with everyone that has said "hire the person that's best for the job" above all else.
 
One of my favorite quotes by Milton Friedman: “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
 
+Jon Reyna Did Friedman provide a well-informed, well-reasoned explanation defining precisely what he means and why his normative claims are true, or is he just saying stuff that sounds catchy?
 
The only fair and just way to insure that it is "possible to reach a certain goal regardless of race, class, gender, etc." Is to not factor in race, class, gender into hiring decisions. (Duh). Yet you +Alex Ander seem to be advocating just the opposite. Not hiring someone because they are black/women/poor is just as prejudice as hiring someone because they are black/women/poor. We need to take the the great Dr. Kings advice and stop judge by skin but instead by character. That is the path to a just world. More prejudice can never solve the problem of prejudice (again, duh!)
 
+Eric Campbell So you ware saying that there are very few qualified women and minorities? 

Hire the best is true...But what I found in my own professional experiences is the more ppl you have from different cultures and different perspectives you'd be surprised at the amount of ideas that group can generate!! A man from Indian, a woman from rural america, a young woman from the inner city and all qualified can garner amazing growth!
 
I think that silicon valley began with a lot of tech geeks (that is not meant to be derogatory in any way) and as the Tech business took off it became a young male tech culture, and of course if no one thought to create a diversity recruitment plan then you would go out and hire other young techies who were most like yourself. I don't think that this was an intentional act against minorities but the culture just grew that way. Asians make up about 35% of Google and maybe that is because of a stereotype that Asian's are good with Technology and Math (which might have more to do with parenting skills rather than genetics) .  I am happy that Google chose to make this info public and hopefully will find ways to hire qualified people from all backgrounds. Just my thoughts. 
 
+Alex Ander that was very eloquently stated, and well thought, but I still don't buy it. The "underprivileged" will never succeed if we keep giving them excuses, blaming their environment instead of instilling a national culture of personal accountability. It seems wrong to me to differentiate success based on race or gender. We're just people. Success comes through hard work, not demographics. I make a good living, but it's because I've worked 80-90 hour weeks to get myself through two masters degrees and raise a family - not because I'm white.

Also: I still don't understand how Google's demographic composition affects your life, but I don't suppose I need to know, either.

I'll let you have the last word. This is just my $.02.
 
+Alex Ander this is absurd ➜ "An underprivileged person getting a 3.0 at a public university could be a much greater accomplishment, requiring more intellect, ingenuity, and hard work, than a highly-privileged person getting straight-A's at Harvard University."

Your backwards thesis down into a ridiculous farce, because there are obviously many "privileged" (affluent, etc) minority students at public universities, just as there are many unprivileged caucasian students at private universities. You would have us assess individuals on sex, race, or orientation and help or harm them based on it - this is the definition of racism and bigotry. Please stop being a proponent of bigotry and harming the lives of innocent, individuals based on their physical attributes.
 
If only 30% of people working in the tech sector are female, why would you expect a company to have 50% female employees (just an example)? Google's numbers are similar to those of each demographic of people qualified to work in the tech industry.

Do people actually want affirmative action now? Are we really saying that we should hire based on minority status first?

If there is to be more diversity in a particular field, there has to first be more diversity in the people qualified to work in that field. Otherwise, you just end up with bias against the majority instead of the minority (affirmative action), which isn't equality either. 
Jay M
 
People just don't know about #Google the way you want them to. You're kind of like a search-engine trying to make weird cars, for all most people/hispanics here know. No one knows what a Nexus phone is either. Hardly any hispanics, in this case, aren't convinced you or any tech company need any help. In addition, Tech or Computer Science won't exactly make parents happy due to the prior way of life. I don't have a single hispanic friend interested in coding or programming... :\ Kinda sad, seeing how things are speeding up in tech. It's all pretty neat! It's just the way most of the culture is, though we are catching up to things. Most people just need to see the results, one close to their hearts, then they'll follow. I'm not sure how it is in any other ethinicity...
 
+Chris Cecil +Kenneth Trent +Daniel Buchner You are all basing your arguments on the assumption that the world is a fair and equal place for everyone. This is not true.

Wealthy people face significantly less obstacles, and have significantly more opportunities, than poor people, simply because we have a society which privileges the wealthy. The same could be said for white people versus ethnic minorities, or of men versus women, or of straight people versus LGBT people.

I'm not talking about giving anyone special privileges, I'm talking about balancing out the enormous special privileges which are already given to you.

I'll use myself as an example. As a man, I am given the special privilege of earning more money, being less likely to become a sexual assault victim, and having higher positions of respect and power. As a white American, I am given the special privilege of being respected, of being legitimized, and of being given access to many more opportunities. As a gay person, I am denied the privileges of social acceptance, safety, and in most places, the ability to get married and have a family. As a lower-income American, I am granted the privilege of not being completely looked down upon by society, but I am also denied the privilege of being respected by society, or of not relying on outside help to survive.

Now, those are some of my basic privileges. They do not dictate what I have or have not done, whether or not I should be given an opportunity, or whether I'm a good person. But I simply cannot ignore the fact that it would be harder for me to get the opportunities that I have if I were Hispanic, or a woman, or in abject poverty. I can also acknowledge that it would be easier for me to get what I have if I were straight, or wealthy.

My claims are not ridiculous because we are all born into a very, very unfair system, where people are given different opportunities based on their demographics. The solution is not to simply pretend that inequality doesn't exist, but rather work carefully and intentionally to balance out those inequalities until they no longer exist on any level.
 
I don't agree entirely with +Charles Eye's statements but he does bring up a valid point: There are simply not enough women in tech to have Google be a 50/50 company. Women are continually told from a very young age that they can't be engineers because "construction sets are for boys, dolls are for girls." Women are given less access to education in general, and they are especially shunned for wanting to be engineers. Those that do go to engineering school are often overwhelmed by a vast majority of male students, many of whom have been so isolated from the female experience in their education that they are misogynistic and unwelcoming to women.

Basically, the reason there are so few women in tech is because they are given less opportunities, are generally respected and paid far less than men, and because almost everyone tells them not to be engineers every step of the way. That's not Google's fault, but by recognizing that women who do submit qualified applications for a job have had to overcome enormous obstacles that the men did not have to. They have had to work significantly harder for the same position.
 
+Daniel Buchner that's what I'm getting at. But the report is calling out the fact that there is a lag in the amount of women and minorities. Almost trying to push the issue that they need to promote more just due to the imbalance among the ranks
 
+Alex Ander nothing - let me say this loudly: NOTHING - excuses negatively affecting the lives of people who have worked hard and done nothing to discriminate against others. The poor kid in some majority demographic who has busted his ass to accomplish things has no business being affected by reverse-bigoted policies that lessen his accomplishments based on the color of his skin.

We must stop this twisted, backwards, bigotry wrapped in the veil of faux "justice" and assess people based on their empirical accomplishments, not their physical attributes.
Lloyd M
 
Google is headquartered in California. As of 2013, whites are now a minority in California. The irony drips from this article.
 
It should always hire the most qualified people with practical controls, regardless of race and gender. Every employer in the end I let him decide who will represent his company.
 
Hire the best person for the job... Enough with this passing over the more qualified person for a more diverse one.
 
And in a new study. NBA found to have predominantly African American and men work force. Oh wait..race card. This report to me is bogus. Just hire the best person. End of story. 
 
Creating an issue out of a non issue is the issue +Marques De Valia. Society/media today all want to stir the pot using hot topics when in reality there is no issue. There are a lot of succesfull black individuals as well as successful woman. Problem lies when an individual refuses to work hard and make sacrifices for the opportunity to make $$$. As soon as said individual can't get what they think they deserve, some race card or minority this or hot topic that gets dropped to mask what really is the issue. Work hard folks! Dreams are a product of kicking the curb and earning it.
 
+Marques De Valia in response to +Chris Cecil advocating for assessment of individuals on merit and accomplishments, not race, sex, or orientation, you say he - the person advocating for true equality - is the racist. I'm not sure how you could finish writing that long, incoherent rant without passing out from its noxious, bullshiteous fumes.

To recap, according to you: those of us who believe judging people based on merit and the content of their character alone, are racists? Huh, you know who else was an advocate of a color blind strategy of pure character content evaluation? → Martin Luther King Jr. Apparently "your next move, I bet" was to label the most dynamic, well-respected, civil rights leader in history, as a racist by direct, philosophical correlation.

Congrats on perfecting the art of fallacy-filled blather, I enjoyed your incoherent stand-up routine.
 
Because what girls says OMG can I come see your robot? But if I told my buddy I just got a robot he would be here in a second no shoes hair undone! I dont know any girls that excited about technology. 
 
+Sarah Liaqat the question is, how do you rectify based on the body of work and not just based on meeting a quota?
 
+Daniel Buchner You're arguing for the continuation of discrimination, not the end of it. You're saying that underprivileged people don't exist, and that everyone faces hardship the same. You're supporting the status quo, even though the status quo is bigotry and systematic oppression.

The fact of the matter is, if you do not take gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class into consideration, you cannot know who is best for the job. You cannot simply pretend that having an all-white, all-male company is the same as having a diverse and representative one. Google is a big company with big ideas, and it has no interest in maintaining the status quo. It is presumably interested in making the world a better place, and it has the capacity to eliminate workplace discrimination by acknowledging privilege.

You continually assert that everyone has equal opportunity and access, and that we can judge everyone based on abstract merits that are somehow separate from identity. But consider what a truly good Google employee needs to have. They need to be dedicated, strong-willed, able to work hard and come up with creative solutions under pressure, and able to work well with others. The question is how to measure hard work.

To say that the SATs, for example, are actually a fair and balanced standardized test, and that we can make judgments solely on that score, would be to deny the truth that white people have greater access to wealth than other ethnicities, and that people who can afford private education and practice tests and private tutors are going to have it way easier than the kids who can't even afford the test waiver.

I know that you want to be anti-discrimination here, but the fact of the matter is that social justice is not on your side in this issue. No one here is saying that you shouldn't hire based on merit, the difference is that you're completely shutting yourself off from the reality that traditional measurements of merit are based in a context of bigotry. If you don't look at peoples' demographics, rich white men will always win because they have more privilege and thus can get everything more easily.

You don't have to agree with me, just realize that the vast majority of the social justice world, including people far more educated than either of us, agrees that we live in an unfair world and that ignoring inequality is just being complicit in it.
 
+Alex Ander the same argument can be made that hiring an individual just to meet a quota is discriminatory as well. If you own a company, who are you hiring... The best person for the job or the best person to fill a quota?
 
+Don Dudas Actual quotas get into iffy territory, but a good one will create the best workplace overall. Keep in mind that no one works in a vacuum. One person may have a lot of technical qualifications, but if they don't work well with others then what's the point of hiring them?

So, if you design your criteria correctly, the person meeting the "quota" is the best person for the job.
 
I love how all of the anti-diversity comments have many +1s one this stream. It nice to see racists and sexists not even try to conceal their filth.

When it comes to women and minorities in the realm of diversity the same white males who scoff suddenly become über-progessive and transform into the poster children for championing civil rights when gays are underrepresented. Seems insincere to me.

The reoccurring theme in these posts is an assumption that any of the future steps that Google takes to address lack of diversity will involve hiring people in the minorities that lack the qualifications for the job as if to say that women and the minorities are not as qualified as white males by default simply because they are not in the white male demographic; which is ridiculous. Do you really think that Google would just hire some high school dropout minority/female just to make their workplace more diverse?

The thing to realize here is that Google realizes that they have some work to do in the workplace diversity department. There is no need for one to be upset about that whatsoever - I highly doubt that the people who upset about it for whatever reason have shares of Google stock, and even if they did it is not like their stock is going to drop because they address workplace diversity (and if their stock did drop that's what they get for dealing with stocks and not stock options lol).
 
+Thomas Causey Now your pulling out the big guns eh?  Calling people racist and hoping that now you've used a politically charged word people will back off shy away?  No one on here is racist, you need to calm down and realize that your views of racism are not the correct ones.
 
+Marques De Valia Almost everything you said is plain false. I'll open with the obvious question - how did British Settlers without enough food to survive, sail in ships to Africa, penetrate a continent that wasn't explored, capture armed tribesmen, and sail back to America?

They didn't. Slavery has existed in Africa for thousands of years, long before even the Romans ventured into North Africa. Both Archaeological digs and religious texts of all types confirm the existence of slavery for a very long time. Greeks, Romans, and Muslims perpetuated the problem (and profited on it) during their respective empires.

Slaves were primarily delivered to the Americas by the Dutch (though also other Europeans), who built their own empire on slavery, extending past the 20th century in the rubber trade. They purchased them from black slavers who captured neighboring tribes and brought them to white ports for trade. The majority of these slaves actually ended up in the richer colonies - those in the sugar and tobacco plantations in South America. Not what is known as the American south, but actually South and Central America. Spain's empire, likewise, was built on the slavery of South Americans, who were forced to work in silver mines and used toxic chemicals to separate the silver from rock.

Today, slavery still exists in places like Africa and China. Do a Google search for slavery and you'll find that America was actually among the first, not last, nations to openly outlaw it, while many prominent countries only discourage it, even to this day. We were also among the first to champion women rights and adopt universal suffrage.

Also, what yo're saying flies in the face of Martin Luther King, who famously said that we should judge "on the content of their character and not the color of their skin". What are we as a society when the selection process is determined by the color of someone's skin? Is that not what we've been striving to prevent? Shouldn't we be focusing our energy on balanced education so that everyone has the skill necessary to thrive in diverse jobs? Isn't that more reasonable than forcing employers to say that they are only hiring one or two colors of people?

As for Native Americans, that is a dark and regrettable chapter in our history. But are we helping the problem by digging the knife in and complaining on the internet? Why do you want to sit at home and complain to strangers on the internet when you could be out helping Native Americans that are alive and in need today?

This is the ultimate racism. You'll rant to everyone on the internet about the past, but you won't lift a finger today. Such a pity.
 
+Alex Ander +Thomas Causey you can attempt to dress-up and justify the act of making decisions based on race as "social justice" - which is really just a sophisticated form of codified, institutionalized, racial discrimination.

The greatest irony of this thread was when +Marques De Valia attempted to carry the torch on doublespeak: "social justice" is about as flagrant an instance of doublespeak as it comes - in plain language, it asserts that the only way to end racial discrimination, is to setup a codified, institutionalized mechanism of racial discrimination (face-to-palm-to-desk-to-wall).

But let's simplify further: "social justice" says we must break a few of today's eggs (read: innocent individuals who worked hard and never discriminated against anyone), to repair the broken eggs from long ago. While I understand the nuances behind the pseudo-intellectual premise, it introduces untenable ethical violations, catches individuals who had no part in racism in the crossfire, and persists direct resentments by enforcing race-based thinking.

An illustration: if blanketed drone bombing of innocent people who have bad actors around them is wrong and propagates terrorist sympathy/resentment in a populace, why would you expect blanketed, academically institutionalized racism to not propagate and extend racial tensions and the slew of unethical harms that arise from reverse-racism?

"Social justice" is a misguided, pseudo-intellectual ideology that excuses direct, unethical harms perpetrated on innocent individuals, under the guise of fixing the same harms it perpetrates. Doublespeak indeed.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
 
+Dana Munn Your personal dislike of the people in your demographic exhibiting racism in the form of racial bias being pointed out does not concern me. You would be best to speak as an individual rather than aligning yourself with a demographic that you are comfortable in before you try to assert that others are given to bias. And big guns? Really? 
 
+Thomas Causey not only am I uninterested in your personal, doublespeak bastardization of the word racism, I find its poisonous, fallacious drippings abhorrent and unethical.
 
+Thomas Causey Thank you. Thank you. You're totally spot-on, though I was hesitant to call it out.

+Daniel Buchner Keep the following fact in mind: Google is one of the most competitive and highly-demanded workplaces in the entire world, if not the number one. Hundreds of thousands of people apply every year.

If Google accepted every person who was qualified based on their capabilities, they would have to make their offices about fifty times bigger. The simple fact of the matter is that there are many, many, many more qualified people than can ever get a position there.

The same is true of educational institutions, which is why affirmative action is such a big deal.

Now that we've established that Google will probably have hundreds of equally-qualified people applying for any job, you still need to address how one decides which person to pick.

Picking someone who will bring a unique perspective with new ideas, someone who will make the community a more globalized and well-rounded place, is a totally valid reason to choose a person in a racial, sexual, or economic minority.

You're calling me racist, and telling me that I'm codifying racism, but what you don't understand is that racism is already codified in just about every aspect of society. GPA is heavily biased based on socioeconomic opportunity, which is heavily linked to race. Salary is heavily biased on both ethnicity and gender. On a macro scale, people who are white will have more opportunities, and will have to work less, than an otherwise-identical person of color. Whether or not that plays out in one person's individual experience is irrelevant because we're talking about large-scale, systemic oppression here.

By ignoring someone's race, you can only claim to be eliminating racism if every single aspect of the entire world around you is also devoid of racism. 

By saying "I'm going to take the person with the best grades," you're saying, "I'm going to take the person with the best socioeconomic standing, even though cisgendered, heterosexual, white men are privileged with having much more open access to a higher socioeconomic standing."

Ignoring racism is not going to end it. Acknowledging it, and working to end it by removing systemic privileges, is going to end it.

The difference between your argument and mine is that mine accounts for the discrimination at play in virtually all aspects of society, whereas yours assumes that if Google doesn't take race into consideration, the rest of the world will magically stop being racist and everyone will have equal opportunities for everything.
 
+Alex Ander I understand your premise that some people's lives are still touched by the residual effects of racism long ago. However, the desire to meddle with and negatively affect people's lives who had nothing to do with it, is wrong - period

You frame your hypothetical around a supposed inability to determine the best candidate amongst a flood of talent at gigantic, popular companies like Google. This is a myopic and ignores the 95% case of businesses across America.

Alex, I don't believe you're truly racist - I'm sure neither you or I have any issue with the sex, race, or orientations of others. But you must realize that assessing people based on race crosses an inherent ethical and moral boundary that is per se racism. You are a person who is not racist, yet supports a system based on fundamentally racist concepts.

Here's the thing, I believe this is the best part of your last comment: "Picking someone who will bring a unique perspective with new ideas, someone who will make the community a more globalized and well-rounded place" full stop! If you have 100 individual who are all equally qualified, and and during their interviews a few who are minorities present an interesting and different perspective that you believe will help your organization, then absolutely, by all means, hire them!

Similarly, if you are a business launching a new product or service focused on a minority demographic or international region, then a person's race or background becomes materially relevant. In that circumstance, you may actually take a candidate with lower grades or lesser accolades because they fit the profile you're looking for based on business reasons.

I have no problem with a company selecting based on race, sex, or orientation - even if a candidate has lesser traditional qualifications, if those personal attributes are materially relevant to the business's empirical job need.

Here's a super simple example of a valid reason to assess candidates based on more than traditional accomplishments: Google is launching a new product that is specifically for the female demographic. The choice is down to 2 candidates, a white dude who has 10 years of outstanding PM experience, and an African American woman who has 5 years of outstanding PM experience <-- choosing the woman here may make far more sense if the business wants a woman because she is inherently better attuned to the needs of women.

It's not about never considering race, it's about doing so deliberately when it relates to business need. Other than that, we're all free, individual Americans - let's act like it.
 
+Daniel Buchner No, I'm not talking about the "residual effects of racism long ago." I'm talking about the immediate effects of racism today.

You are accusing me of all of the things that you yourself are, to some extent, guilty of. You support the idea that businesses should treat racism as something in the past, and that they should act as if they live in a vacuum.

You're talking about "empirical needs" as if it is not every person's requirement, and every institution's requirement, to work towards creating a society that is fair and balanced for everyone.

You clearly seem to define "freedom" as "the right for the privileged to choose, at whim, whether or not creating a fair or equitable society is a worthy goal worth pursuing."

I define "freedom" as "the equal opportunity for all people to live fulfilling, happy lives, and to have equal access to opportunities for success." Under my definition of freedom, the United States is absolutely not free.

The only way to end systemic oppression is to make everyone actually equal. You're saying that we should only make people conceptually equal, and that we should "start over" as if treating everyone exactly the same from now on erases the institutional discrimination of the past and present.
 
You cannot prevent companies from hiring a specific racial demographic by forcing them to hire a specific racial demographic.

That is, in itself. extremely racist. You cannot foster acceptance by building government mandated walls around people. You'll never extinguish racism if our own government continues to divide people by the color of their skin and tells us that's how we need to view them.
Translate
 
+Stephen King That's not what I'm saying. No one has ever said that anyone should ever be chosen simply because of their race.

What we're saying is that demographics need to be factored into the decision-making process, and it needs to be acknowledged that without looking at all of the information it is impossible to actually understand an individual's achievements and their capacity for hard work.

No one should ever hire anyone because of their race. But people should consider that, in a measurement of past successes in terms of hard work, a person who has faced significant obstacles due to oppressive cultural norms has almost certainly worked harder to achieve what they have than a highly privileged person at the same level. Thus, if you want to measure people who are hard-working, you must take into account the traditionally-unmentioned obstacles that they face in their daily life.

As soon as we can all agree that the status quo is currently racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist, then we can all agree that it is impossible to measure someone on an uneven playing field without taking into account the unevenness of the playing field.
 
+Alex Ander
so, if i understand, you are saying race shouldnt be the ONLY criteria when hiring, but it should be ONE of the criteria. In essence, you should assume a lower starting point for women and minorities, and therefore ascribe a higher value to the same accomplishments as, say, a white male who would "score" the lowest in your modified employment value rating than anyone else per actual accomplishment. What a massively insulting load of crap. It is Google's responsibility to higher based on need and merit alone, not to compensate for discrimination they assume some applicants have suffered based on their race, gender, etc. If you want to weed out discrimination, do it where it exists, dont expect compensation for its existence where it doesnt.

You are basically saying that not only can you infer accurately the level to which someone was disenfranchised by how many of your categories they fit into, but also that someone who is white, straight, and or male could not possibly have had any significant obstacles to their success. Im sorry, but bigoted SJW ideology may fly when confined to the tumble echo chamber, but in the real world it is thankfully illegal.

If you work in any position with influence in the hiring of people I do hope you are quickly fired.
 
+Chris Caldwell If I ever decide to represent myself as a Google employee or as someone who can speak on behalf of Google, I'll let you know.
 
+Alex Ander
My mistake, it looks like "Google Plus Daily" is some 3rd party blog of some sort. the post has been edited accordingly
 
+Chris Caldwell Either way, you're trying to win an argument with ad hominem attacks on my personality.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding about the concept of "criteria." At no point did I take back my clarification that no individual can be assumed to have or not have any personal trait or experience, for better or for worse. I also never said that white, straight males can't experience obstacles, nor did I say that race, sexuality, and gender are the only factors to be considered here.

I never once said that people should be categorized and judged based on their race and gender. I have expended quite a lot of words explaining that these kinds of basic, isolated judgments are quite problematic and contrary to my ideal.

I don't understand the problem in acknowledging that underprivileged races have less racial privileges. I can't see why you're against acknowledging that privileged genders have privileges of gender. This is basically just arithmetic: people on the privileged end of a spectrum are given certain privileges related to that spectrum.

When did I say that all males are equally privileged? Never. When did I say that you should simply consider someone's lack of privilege in one area and assume things about them in general? I certainly hope that's not the impression I give.

The fact of the matter is that everyone has a wide variety of experiences and identities, and no one is totally privileged or underprivileged in general. However, we must also recognize that, because privilege is given based on societal values, people cannot choose to gain or lose privilege. The only way to change the systems of inequality are to actually change the systems themselves. Privilege doesn't mean wealth; a poor white person has exactly as much white privilege as a rich person of the exact same ethnicity. A black president does not have any more racial privilege than a black McDonald's worker. He just has a hell of a lot more power, capital, and attention.

Google, as I've said before, is in the business of making what they see is a better world. Maybe that just means more money for Google and screw everyone else, but I don't think that would be the truth. And as such, when it is faced with the problem of choosing one of dozens of otherwise-indistinguishably qualified applicants, it most certainly has the right (and, within certain moral frameworks, the obligation) to look carefully at the obstacles each individual faced in their life, including those related to gender, sexual orientation, race, class, disability, religion, and every other appropriate facet of life.

Nowhere did I say that all black people should be treated the same, and that all white people should be treated the same in a different way, all based solely on race. What I'm saying is that, as individuals, we all exist within a complicated and unequal society and that the challenges we overcome exist beyond test scores and resumés.
Translate
 
Has anyone compared applicant demographics with staff demographics? If 70% of applicants are male, it's a little hard to ask Google to hire 50/50.. Same with ethnicity, although that's pretty intrusive. 
Add a comment...