Google is struggling to discuss the recent diversity memo controversy internally:
Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, canceled a scheduled all-hands staff meeting—moments before it was scheduled to begin—meant to address concerns over a controversial essay published by former employee James Damore.
In an email to staff, Pichai explained that questions from employees had been leaked and that, in some cases, specific employees' identities were revealed, exposing them to harassment and threats. Instead of today's large-scale meeting, which was to be livestreamed to Google's 60,000 employees worldwide, smaller groups will meet sometime in the future.
"We had hoped to have a frank open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally," Pichai said in the email.
Also at CNET.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 11 2017, @08:12PM (12 children)
This is flat out wrong, so wrong that one cannot but suspect that it is intentional. Why do you lie, brad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:58PM (11 children)
Help us out. I beseech thee! If affirmative action is not that, then what is affirmative action? Am I thinking about the same concept that you are thinking about? Do you have any conjecture about what the confusion might be?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday August 11 2017, @09:27PM (10 children)
If there are equally qualified candidates, preference should be given to the minority candidate. I know this is not how racists and "reverse discriminationists" and poor sexist (former)Googlers see it, but that is the program, and the law. Of course, if you do not know this, you probably were not hired in the first place, because of Affirmative Action! (Remember, equally qualified, Republicans rarely meet this standard.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @10:27PM
Thanks! I think that answers my questions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:19AM (2 children)
And when they are other qualified more candidates, the minority candidate shall be hired regardless. :P
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @07:40AM (1 child)
My god, you are stupid, too stupid to work in my organization, which hires hundreds each year. OK, we will go to the Law:
Mind you, if you read this, and you hold Federal Contracts, you may be liable irregardless (- did you see that? irregardless used properly?) for discriminatory employment practices, even if you or your family never owned slaves, you white privileged bastard:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41 [ecfr.gov]
See? Equal opportunity. If you lose under such circumstances, I can only surmise that you are a substandard employee candidate. You see, it is no longer the case that no one was ever fired for hiring white. We are coming for your incompetence, whitey. Be prepared to compete on a level field without your white privilege! Sucks to be you.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Saturday August 12 2017, @06:48PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209 [wikipedia.org]
Cheers
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:28PM (5 children)
Yeah that may be the intent, but how often are there perfectly equally qualified candidates who only differ by race and/or gender? Considering that to be effective affirmative action would have to cover more than this almost non-existent scenario, how much better does a majority candidate have to be to get the job? How much discrimination is fair?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @11:38PM (4 children)
Enough until there is no discrimination! For the USA, it is making up for a few hundred years of genocide and slavery and racism. It is like Aristotle said about straightening a stick, you have to over-bend it the other way for it to come back true.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday August 14 2017, @07:22PM (3 children)
How do we know when to stop over-bending, then? What are the criteria that say we have corrected the initial bend without going too far the other way?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 14 2017, @08:10PM (2 children)
Kind of hard to go too far the wrong way, without subjecting people with white skin to some three hundred years of chattel slavery. But just enough until structural discrimination ceases to exist. And of course the pathetic whining of the racists is just a sign that Affirmative Action is having the desired effect. America is on the right course. Just need to identify all these Neo-Nazis, KKKers, and Alt-right racists, and publically shame them and get them fired from their jobs and booted off Google or Go-Daddy hosting! That part of bending the stick is easy to recognize as correct.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday August 14 2017, @10:16PM (1 child)
I just don't buy the premise that you can correct discrimination with more discrimination. Even if you do succeed in leveling the outcomes, why would it not breed more of the same hatred that you're trying to eliminate? It's the same concept as the war on terror causing more terrorism as bystanders get caught in the cross-fire. In that case, doubling down on the discrimination will only give the racists and misogynists more disenfranchised and angry people to recruit and you'll never have a truly egalitarian society.
Instead, I think that if we promote inclusion and understanding and provide assistance to all of those who need it, structural racism/sexism will fade away on its own. Stop giving credence to the idea that race and gender are meaningful discriminators and the idea will fade into obscurity, simply because it's wrong.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 14 2017, @10:28PM
How very white of you!