Google fires Whistleblower, Women gathering to file class action lawsuit
Google to employees, keep your mouths shut!
Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?
The tolerance police at Google just struck another blow against increasing diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an employee who wrote a memo critiquing the company’s politically correct culture.
Now, let’s be clear – While the Google software engineer who authored the memo had the right to say and write what he did?it’s called free speech?Google is a private company and has every right to fire an employee it deems not in line with its mission or culture.
But it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so negatively to an employee who, in a 10-page memo, laid out a case for why Google’s diversity programs weren’t working and how it might rethink its attempt to reduce the gender gap.
Could it be that Google is feeling just a little bit paranoid?
For all the talk about inclusiveness and diversity, here’s the reality –
If you’re not white or Asian, that means there is only a 5 percent chance you’re part of Google’s leadership team.
And while 31 percent of Google’s employees are women, only 20 percent of its technical employees are?and it was primarily the memo’s focus on this gender gap that seems to have caused the recent unpleasantness in Silicon Valley.
In addition to bad PR, perhaps what the larger left-leaning community there doesn’t want to admit is that for all its diversity programs and safe spaces, and who knows how many millions of dollars spent promoting them, they have done very little to change the outcomes.
When it comes to computer and mathematical occupations, the numbers clearly show that women and men are not equally represented.
Women held 27 percent of such jobs in 1960. Thirty years later, they held 35 percent. But fast forward to 2013, and the number of women in computing and mathematical occupations had fallen back to 26 percent.
And it’s not because fewer women are going to college.
In fact, a Department of Education study from 2014 shows more women than men are attending and graduating from college, and they are receiving the majority of bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees.
But when it comes to college majors, women and men choose differently. A recent Georgetown University study showed over 80 percent of petroleum engineering majors are male. So are almost 70 percent of those majoring in mathematics and computer science.
Women, on the other hand, tend to major in what might be called more people-oriented professions, such as counseling, education, and social work.
Why men and women make such different choices is not 100 percent clear cut, but the idea that biology plays no role and it’s all because America is a sexist culture seems like an outdated and disproven theory.
And it was hiring and personnel practices based on that politically correct theory that the now-former Google employee was criticizing.
As he stated in the memo that got him fired – “If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”
Apparently at Google, and much of Silicon Valley, the discussion is over.
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore – [email protected] July 2017 Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss Reply to public response and misrepresentation TL;DR Background Google’s biases Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech Personality differences Men’s higher drive for status Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap The harm of Google’s biases Why we’re blind Suggestions Reply to public response and misrepresentation I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many?personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety . This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. ? Extreme – all disparities in representation are due to oppression ? Authoritarian – we should discriminate to correct for this oppression Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Background 1 People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document 2 . Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google. Google’s biases At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media , and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices – ___________________________________________________________________________ This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries. 2 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason . I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations. 1
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors. Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation. Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3 At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because – ? They’re universal across human cultures ? They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ? Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ? The underlying traits are highly heritable ? They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
Personality differences Women, on average, have more – ? Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things , relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ). ? These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ? ? Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. ? This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support. Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). ? This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism . Men’s higher drive for status We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on 4 , pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths. Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them – ? Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ? We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). ? Women on average are more cooperative ? Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. ? This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self-reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. ? Women on average are more prone to anxiety ____________________________________________________________________________ For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty . Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. 4
Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average ? Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech. The male gender role is currently inflexible ? Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally “feminine” roles. Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google?with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged. The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices – ? Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5 ? ? ? A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) ? Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ 5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions . We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology 7 that can irreparably harm Google. Why we’re blind We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ 8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left ( about 95% ), which creates enormous confirmation bias , changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap 9 . Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner 10 . Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn. ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” 8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of aristocracy. 9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. 10 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness 11 , which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment. Suggestions I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite – treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to – ? De-moralize diversity. ? As soon as we start to moralize an issue , we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” ? Stop alienating conservatives . ? Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. ? In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility . We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ? Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness , which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. ? Confront Google’s biases. ? I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ? I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. ? Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ? These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. ____________________________________________________________________________ 11 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. ? Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. ? There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber. ? These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives. ? I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination. Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity. ? We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination. ? We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity. ? Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX. De-emphasize empathy. ? I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy?feeling another’s pain?causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases . Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. Prioritize intention. ? Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive – sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions. ? Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence . Be open about the science of human nature. ? Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory. Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown. Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
Rush Limbaugh on the firing of the Google Guy.
RUSH: The Google guy got canned. I told everybody it was gonna happen. No mystery there. The fascinating thing about the Google guy getting canned is everybody in Silicon Valley is all for it. The land of free speech, the land of equality and no discrimination, they’re all excited, ’cause this guy broke Google’s rules. You may not like ’em, but Google has rules, and if you break ’em, you’re out, which there is some logic to that.
Anyway, they’re happy to get rid of the guy because they just can’t handle anything other than their preordained cocoon-generated truth, which, of course, isn’t truth. That’s the whole point. They can’t allow anything to challenge what they have convinced themselves is true because that shakes and rattles and rolls their existence.
RUSH: Also big news over the weekend. I was kind of fascinated by this. Have you heard about the secret memo that went around Google? (interruption) You’re frowning. You hadn’t heard about this? (interruption) Some Google employee sent around an anonymous ? posted an anonymous note ? manifesto, on the inherent bigotry and political correctness at Google. It suggested that their pitch, their effort on diversity was misguided, that they need ideological diversity at Google, that all the conservative employees are scared to death to speak up and say anything. And then the guy ? or girl. We don’t know who it is yet.
All we know is, it’s gonna get fired when they’re discovered. The guy said ? and he was I think ripping off Larry Summers when he was the president of Harvard. He said (summarized), “Look, the reason why,” and this was on his diversity kick. “The reason why there aren’t more women in tech positions is they’re not good at it. They’re not as interested in it as men are. So this effort to be diverse and have equal number of men and women in the tech workforce is silly ’cause it’s never gonna happen. Women are just not that inclined.”
Larry Summers said the same thing at Harvard. The reason why there aren’t more female math teachers is women don’t do as well in it, and they ran him out of the place. So this guy’s gonna get fired as soon as they find out who he is. But this story has captivated countless people over the weekend, and it is not over yet, and there’s much more straight ahead.
RUSH: You lady engineers at Google? I want to say something to you. Google is playing defense right now on the issue of diversity. This memo by a Google employee? I mean, this guy has just thrown a political correctness bomb right into the executive suite, ’cause this memo asserts that Google? When you strip it all away, the memo is an allegation that Google has fewer female engineers because men are better suited for the job, that essentially natural selection has taken over, and men are just more oriented toward math and science and engineering in those fields.
Now, what generally happens in a situation like this is that the feminists and leaders women’s groups that get all hot and bothered and run around start making noise about discrimination and unfairness. Ladies, forget that. There’s a much better path that you should take here. Don’t get lost in the diversity argument. Don’t get caught up in it. That’s what Google expects you to do. Don’t go acting offended, and don’t get on some soapbox claiming that whoever wrote that is a bigot.
Google is reeling right now. This is the kind of thing, this is the kind of charge that just sends leftists up the tree, that they’re unfair, that they’re discriminating on the basis of gender. Ladies, tell Google to prove it to you that the guy who wrote the memo is wrong. What you say to Google is, “Show me the money.” Go to the money. Tell ’em you want money. Tell ’em you want raises. Tell Google to prove it. Don’t join the protest march and start throwing underwear and bras. Just demand the money. They’re reeling right now. Hit ’em!
Bill in Ridgefield, Connecticut. I’m glad you called, sir. You’re up first. How are you?
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was just talking to Snerdley. Let me get to the point. I’m rich. I’m a big chess player and a damn good one. In fact, the New York AC I was the (call drops out) of the chess club. But backing up a second, of the top ?
RUSH: Wait. Wait a minute. Your call ? hey, hang on, hang on. Your call is bucking up. Did you say the New York Athletic Club? Is that what you said?
RUSH: New York AC. Okay. And you said you’re a rich guy in New York.
CALLER: That’s right.
RUSH: The New York Athletic Club would say that. So you’re a great chess player. Okay. Got that. Go.
CALLER: Okay. Of the top hundred chess players in the world ?
CALLER: ? you know how many are women? Zero.
RUSH: What does that mean?
CALLER: I think they gravitate. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. I have a daughter that went to Smith. I have a daughter that’s a doctor. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. But they gravitate to the nurturing areas of society, as maybe they should. But they are not competitive with the mechanical and sciences. There may be a great scientist, but that would be an anomaly. But women, that can’t God for them, do a great job raising kids, God forbid, the feminazis, you know, one daughter that went to Smith, loaded with feminazis, she has our values. You know, common sense, down to earth, she got four kids, whatever.
RUSH: Let me get back to your chess question.
RUSH: ‘Cause you’re probably right. You’re not saying women aren’t capable of learning it and excelling at it, you’re just saying they’re not interested in it, right?
CALLER: For the most part. But there are grandmaster female players. They’re just not in that top tier. The Polgar sisters, they’re from I believe Poland. Both of them are grandmasters.
RUSH: Well, how much of it is that they don’t want to do what it takes to get there because they have other ?
CALLER: That’s right. You know, you take, you know, whether it was Bobby Fischer, God rest his soul. You take Kasparov who is going back, apparently, into the competition area. I read it in I think yesterday’s Journal ?
RUSH: He wants to beat the computers, yeah.
CALLER: Well, the computer is a different ball game.
RUSH: I don’t know. Elon Musk says they’re gonna take us over and Bill Gates and Hawking say if we don’t get to Mars, the machines are gonna eat us. What do we do?
the tolerance police at Google just
struck another blow against increasing
diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an
employee who wrote a memo critiquing the
company’s politically correct culture
now let’s be clear while the Google
software engineer who authored the memo
had the right to say and write what he
did it’s called free speech Google’s a
private company and has every right to
fire an employee it deems not in line
with this position or its culture but
it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so
negatively to an employee to in a 10
page memo laid out a case for why Google
diversity programs weren’t working and
how it might rethink its attempt to
reduce the gender gap could it be that
Google is feeling just a little bit
paranoid for all the talk about
inclusiveness and diversity here’s the
reality if you’re not white or Asian
that means there is only a 5% chance
you’re part of Google’s leadership piece
and while 31% of Google’s employees are
women only 20% of its technical
employees are and it was primarily the
memos focus on this gender gap it seems
to have caused the recent unpleasantness
in Silicon Valley in addition to bad PR
perhaps what the larger left-leaning
community there doesn’t want to admit is
that for all its diversity programs and
safe spaces and who knows how many
millions of dollars spent promoting them
they have done very little to change the
outcome when it comes to computer and
mathematical occupations the numbers
clearly show that women and men are not
equally represented women held 27% of
such jobs in 1960 30 years later they
held 35% but bath towards 2013 and the
number of women in computing and
mathematical occupations had fallen back
to 26% and it’s not because fewer women
are going to college in fact a US
Department of Education study from 2014
shows more women the men are attending
and graduating from college and they are
receiving the majority of bachelor’s
master’s and doctorate degree
but when it comes to college majors
women and men choose differently
a recent Georgetown University study
showed over 80% of petroleum engineer
majors are male
so we’re almost 70% of those majoring in
mathematics and computer science women
on the other hand in the major what
might be called more people oriented
professions such as counseling education
and Social Work why men and women make
such different choices is not 100% clear
cut but the idea that biology plays no
role and it’s all because America is a
sexist culture seems like an outdated
and disproven theory and it was hiring
and personnel practices based on that
politically correct theory that the
now-former Google employee was
criticizing as he stated in the memo
that got him fired quote if we can’t
have an honest discussion about this
then we can never truly solve the
problem apparently at Google and much of
Silicon Valley the discussion is over