Society, technology and discrimination
Enrique Dans
Senior Advisor for Innovation and Digital Transformation at IE University. Changing education to change the world...
A 10-page document written by a Google software engineer called "Google’s ideological echo chamber" that had been circulating in the company’s internal forums was published on Saturday by Gizmodo, sparking discussion, criticism, angry replies, reactions and calls for respect for diversity of opinion.
The company’s response, through its newly hired VP of Diversity, Integrity & Government, Danielle Brown, has also been included in the same article, and claims that the company’s philosophy in no way responds to the letter’s contents, that Google is fully aware of the need to build an open and inclusive culture, and that an important part of that culture is to encourage people with different views to feel secure about sharing them, but that such discourse has to be developed within the equal opportunities principles outlined in the company’s code of conduct, which is being investigated by the US Department of Labor, which accuses it of gender-based wage inequalities.
What does the letter say that has caused it to go viral? Basically, the author criticizes the company’s policies to promote diversity and, focusing exclusively on gender discrimination, attributes differences in the composition of different departments to biological and social issues, stating: “we must stop assuming that a non-egalitarian distribution of gender implies sexism,” regretting that it is not possible to discuss such views in Google because of the effect of a suffocating politically correct corporate culture.
The majority of the criticism directed toward the missive suggest that the author is opposed to equality and employs false arguments based on supposedly “natural” explanations for the lack of diversity, and that such ideas went out of date many years ago years. In fact, the discussion about the lack of diversity in companies, and especially in technology companies and software engineering posts has been going on for some time, and is enormously topical. Work environments where macho attitudes prevail, hostile climates, explicit harassment , or simply seeking to ignore these kinds of issues have been highlighted in many recent scandals, and are one of the main reasons many people are not attracted to the sector. This is a problem we are a long way from overcoming, and discussions like this can contribute to that process if properly channeled. In this case, the question is whether that process is helped by allowing someone to express opinions many people feel are part of the problem, or would it be better, even if it sounds counterintuitive, to manifest the company’s commitment to the defense of diversity by excluding such people?
I work in a business schools that leads diversity rankings in its industry and that considers diversity a fundamental part of its values. I teach courses in subjects related to technology and innovation to groups in which there is a great diversity in terms of gender, geographical origin, cultures, religions and of all kinds, and have done for a good number of years. And I am clear not only that lack of diversity is still a problem, and that it is absolutely fundamental to talk about it, to externalize it, to comment on it… in the right way. We cannot fight against a historical culture of exclusion implanted in society by allowing those who defend it to do so on an equal basis.
When an organization’s workforce does not reflect the diversity of the society around it, there is a problem and it needs to be corrected. Is it a company’s obligation to ensure that its employees constitute a coherent representation of the diversity of society? Healthy companies reflect the diversity around them, and if they do not, it is because of reasons that can be corrected. Taking refuge in biological or cultural arguments, or associating a particular race or gender with a particular type of task is toxic, absurd, outdated, false, and above all unjust.
The fact that there are few people of a given gender or race in software development, management or other positions has nothing to do with issues encoded in the genome, in the brain, or in their abilities; on the contrary, they are obvious signs of discrimination that can and should be corrected. Not with cliches, not with gestures, not with words, but with clear, determined and specific actions. Arguing that these attitudes are a “reflection of a society” or “biological questions” is an accomplice to discrimination, with all that entails or should entail.
This is no minor issue: we are faced with a fundamental problem, erroneously rooted in society for centuries, that we should all strive to correct, without half-measures, without hiding behind cliches. Without excuses.
(En espa?ol, aquí)
CEO - tennisdata.net LLC
7 年Why should this debate be limited to Tech? Just because it's the new, hot industry that, to some, white males (and Asian males who magically when it comes to Tech are no longer considered minorities) are making too much of the money in? Look at another multi-billion $ industry - Hollywood. Ironic that they are huge critics of the 'bro culture' in SV and constantly blather for 'equality'; but they are renowned for nepotism, hiring their friends and others they're comfortable working with.
"We cannot fight against a historical culture of exclusion implanted in society by allowing those who defend it to do so on an equal basis." Furthermore, the values of people who get hired and stay hired form the real culture of a company. If a company's stated core values strongly diverge from the aggregate values of its employees, the statement is simply a lie. Thus it is reasonable and fair to consider such differences equally irreconcilable as inability to meet any other job performance standard - provided those differences are allowed to influence the individual's behavior either in the workplace or in any offical capacity linked to the company. There is a caveat however: you cannot simply reject and exclude incompatible values entirely. Doing so only creates cultural silos and forms new battle lines for bigotry and conflict. If the objective is a better world/culture, then some concession must be made to keep it connected and conditioned by exposure to positive influences. There must be willingness to retain mutual respect even when vehemently disagreeing. This is particularly feasible when an employee is willing to table his values and (try to) adapt to company values while in the workplace or representing the company. So there lies a careful balancing act, which requires inclusion of even exclusionaries - but indeed, not on an equal basis nor when the net effect proves to be uncontrollably negative. Employers hold the power to choose to what extent they will be cultural teachers or students, but it is a dichotomy.
Supply Chain, Operations and Strategy Consultant
7 年We rarely address fixing the problem because it gets emotional and poor logic gets thrown in from both sides. There are really two problems and a number of issues where people don't agree. 1) Create a fair playing field regardless of race or gender. The issue here becomes what level of management is required to ensure this given past prejudices. 2) To allow groups that were marginalized in the past, what level of help (and methods to do so) should we employ to allow them to catch up, if any. It is here were people get very upset and differ in their views, and where companies such as Google can make decisions on their priorities, which the author of the Man-ifesto didn't agree. Some day I hope to see real discussions happen, but for the most part I just ignore it all. I wrote a piece of Gender Pay Inequity laying out all the issues. https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/can-we-agree-gender-pay-gap-isnt-problemits-result-problems-martin
Radio host and award-winning author at Royal Flush Press - the Choosing a Lasting Career, AJSN, & Work's New Age people!
7 年Why are three-fourths of information technology workers male? Do such sex differences by career need our attention or not? See https://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2013/11/unequal-sex-distribution-in-it-and.html .