I’m an Ex-Google Woman Tech Leader and I’m Sick of Our Approach to Diversity

We've surprisingly quickly moved from periods where it was common to simply refuse to even consider minorities or women in many fields to a time when many people see political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism as a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.

I'm glad to see people being very thoughtful about fairness and equality, but I have an honest question: Before quotas and social justice warriors, were you thinking about fairness and equality when the status quo potentially benefited you and excluded others not on their merit but race and gender? I'm asking honestly, not trying to point fingers but I would like to know because this community, while left-leaning on many issues (I think) tends more towards libertarian on issues of race and gender and seems especially defensive when it comes to the tech industry (especially when the term "privilege" is used, it turns downright hostile).

If you were active in supporting equality and diversity (by resisting arbitrarily exclusionary practices) when it wasn't popular to do so and now you are seeing the negative aspects of a push for artificial diversity I would like to know that.

If you have never even considered diversity issues until recently when seeing hiring practices that could negatively affect you I would like to know that too. Do you believe any specific action needs to be taken to promote diversity or will the problem solve itself, or does the problem even exist at all?

I don't believe any specific action needs to be taken to promote diversity. As far as I can tell, people can work wherever they will, as long as they can pass the interview.

>arbitrarily exclusionary practices

Please name these.

I was not thinking about that. And when I started being exposed to it, my immediate reaction was like you described: seeing political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism as a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.

It took a while, but I now realize how silly that reaction was. I felt somewhat attacked by these 'social justice warriors and quotas'. And my reaction was in self defense to this perceived attack. I spent so much time reading about it on the internet. There were so many smart people applying logic and engineering skills to these social problems. I identified with these people and I agreed with most of it. They made it sound like these are all easy problems to solve and if everyone had read the same scientific studies as them and applied the same logical thinking then we would have a solution.

My view wasn't changed until I had much more experience in the real world. All these women that are being talked about as statistics are real people. They're become my friends and coworkers. I've learned to sympathize with them. I've learned that it's not us vs them. We are working together is this. I've learned that political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism are definitely not a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.

I think the human aspect of all this is sorely missing on HN. At least it was for me.

To address your actual post, I seem to have missed the whole thing. I spent much of my career in Austin as a fairly short term contractor, with the first positions I took having a rough balance. (This was the early '90s.) There was never a question about the women's competence (or interest). I can't speak to any questions of harassment, though; I rarely got close to my coworkers. Only the last contract job was a sausage fest. :-)

Then I spent two longer stretches at UT Austin and as a NASA contractor. Both environments were fairly equal, sex wise.

On the other hand, my mother worked for a bank for 40 years and never got higher than head teller, in spite of training several men who went on to be her supervisors. And my SO has several stories of being told that women can't major in mathematics.

Part of the reason that word is such a hot button is that anybody even has to explain why. It simultaneously dismisses a lifetime of effort of people on both sides of the word based solely on racial and gender stereotypes that nobody can personally validate for any single individual.

Do you think discrimination just ended immediately after the civil rights act[1]? Personally I don't think peoples mentality changed at all just because certain practices became illegal, it just got less overt. Saying "women aren't cut out for our line of work" became "not a culture fit" or something else.

Its not my goal to try to prove discrimination exists and existed, I could search and try to put together a comprehensive list of first-hand stories about discrimination in tech but my guess is that would not be an effective use of my time and that isn't the goal of my post anyways.

[1] https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/fu...

> All these women that are being talked about as statistics are real people.

Nobody denies that. However, once you say that there's not enough "equality" of engineers, you invoke statistics.

> I think the human aspect of all this is sorely missing on HN.

Think of those poor talented engineers denied a place of work because of "gender quotas"! These engineers have dreams and passions. They aren't just statistics!

See how this works?

> I've learned that it's not us vs them.

Except that's exactly the tactics used by SJWs.

> I've learned that political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism are definitely not a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.

Reverse sexism is exactly the same problem as sexism.

I feel like in any particular situation, what I get out of something is a product of what I put into it. I've never felt at any point in my life like I've not been given the benefit of the doubt and I wish that was the case for everyone.

That's the other thing that's problematic about reverse-isms. They essentially dismiss the effort and good work oppressed people have done to rise above their circumstances, by telling them that they need handicap-scoring because they're part of some magical grouping. The commonality is rising above circumstance, and that is something that spans across all the "isms" and groups that are currently hot-topics.

I still want to reply to your question because your opening sentence reflects my feelings on the topics well: Both sides have good points - the debate is not as black and white as it is portrayed and is valuable to have [1].

> I'm not going to call it anti-diversity because I think a fair amount of it is well-meaning or at least not explicitly hateful

Thanks for this, seriously. I'm happy to see openness to discussion rather than the (perceived) omnipresent downright dismissal of the opposing side :).

To still kinda answer your question: I think it's good discrimination has been brought to everyone's attention and that we are working on solutions as a society. I disagree with the diversity-push side on how we should go about it.

In a non-perfect world where we don't know the exact amount of discrimination/bias suffered [2], we can't use discrimination in the form of affirmative action or the like to correct for it without potentially discriminating the opposing group rather than just correcting for their privilege.

We should help individuals do what they want to do, so I'm all for breaking down any roles or whatever that prevent people from doing that. Forcing our idea of freedom of choice / equality is just not the way to do that. Especially when we forbid questioning it [3].

We should keep striving to become a better, fairer society. I don't know the solution, I just know that this way - no matter how well intentioned - is not it.

[1] only if we have an actual debate and try to understand the opposing side rather than dismissing valid points out of offense - both sides mostly do the latter right now as far as i can tell.

[2] Could be that e.g. the representation gap is 100% due to discrimination, could be that it's just 10% due to discrimination. The point is we don't know yet.

[3] the google manifesto was not scientifically debated and dismissed but attacked as sexist. If an hypothesis is not allowed we are not being scientific. And we really shouldn't turn our back to the scientific method.

To answer your question, I didn't actively consider diversity in tech a problem before. So I think you have a point that it's good people have brought it up.

However, that doesn't mean I always agree with the means of social justice. It is possible to fight for a good cause in a bad way.

So there are multiple facets to this issue. I believe in the endgame of social progress while still siding with Dalmore. I think the correct way to refute Dalmores of the world is with research not firings, and people who would have him fired I think are doing the wrong thing, for the right reason.

That said, from what I've heard it sounded like google had a fine program in place. I think we're on the right track at a good pace for women in tech.

I'd like to see people start talking about minorities in investment banking next, because I'm not hearing it.

Preferences (quotas, lower standards, financial incentives, etc) for women and minorities in hiring and admissions have existed for a long time.

My sister is smarter than me and better at math and physics than me. I was invited by my grade school to go to robotics camps over the summer, she wasn't. I was given special permission to take computer science courses not offered by our highschool, she wasn't. I was encouraged to to go into engineering by our guidance Councillor, she wasn't. My dad wanted me to go into engineering, he didn't really want her to. I didn't realize that any of this was happening at the time. It wasn't until years later that I was talking to my sister that she explained the countless opportunities and support that I had and she didn't. This all happened in a well off neighborhood in Canada.

So is it really any surprise that I'm the highly paid engineer while she is a school teacher barely scraping by? The status quo still benefits people based on race and gender.

Eh?

> Only in abstract terms.

You want something literal? Lets throw some reverse-VIOLENCE into the mix!

I'm going to bash my neighbors head in, because he's "definitely" a violent psychopath (It said so on the internet remember).

The heart of the issue is DISCRIMINATION. Doesn't matter if its positive or negative, you're EXCLUDING groups/individuals which is divisive and breeds discontent.

Someone posted below

> judged by the content and quality of their character rather than some of the variation of an attempt to combat discrimination through discrimination.

THAT is equality.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/11/...

And young women earn more than young men, on average.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274...

I'm sorry about what happened to your sister, but that's not the norm.

The gender gaps under discussion are specific to computer science [1]. That more and more women have been (a) going to college and (b) getting into STEM with the exception of computer science is why this is so interesting to debate.

[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...

It's like a basketball game where a team was ahead by 45 points at the half. Now they are ahead by "only" 25 points, but somehow they are now at a disadvantage? Certainly they aren't winning by as much, but they are still winning by a significant margin.

That's the situation we are in in the tech world.

What data are you relying on that suggests young men are advantaged?

I've just cited two very significant statistics that suggest otherwise.

So, is the identified "gap" really that bad? No, not really, not much reason to think it's bad at all in many cases. Second, and most importantly, not only is the purported cause of big bad mean oppressive bullies lacking almost entirely in evidence, but there are actual explanations with mountains of evidence.

So what? What's the harm if I believe in one cause over another? People use to do raindances!

The harm is that sticking to an explanation of big bad mean oppressive bullies, means that whole classes of people are being not just accused but punished for "crimes" they did not commit. In fact there is no crime at all.

>> The gender gaps under discussion are specific to computer science

> I'm aware that some people are trying to limit the scope of the discussion

"Trying to limit the scope" ? This post is about tech's approach to diversity. You are the one moving the goalposts.

Besides, this is clearly a continuation of the conversation Damore started.

I believe Damore limited the scope to computer science because he found research indicating (1) women were more interested in people than things, and (2) programming is more thing-oriented.

Given that his cited research is under a good degree of scrutiny, broadening the scope to the suitability of women or men to all fields would require significantly more evidence.

> I wonder why no one cares about the young men who are now at a disadvantage.

The young men are only at a disadvantage if you believe women are biologically inferior or less-inclined towards certain occupations.

As yet, there isn't any evidence that is true. There is a lot of evidence showing that if we remove socialized barriers, like letting women attend university, then their participation rate in male-dominated activities increases.

I am unaware of any barriers to young men attending university. In fact, I believe I was a beneficiary of affirmative action, as my grades were slightly lower than the normal for my college, and our school's female-male ratio was 60-40 or more.

That could also explain why fewer men attend college. They don't need as many credentials to land higher ranked positions.

On the note of education, men may not need credentials to achieve comparatively well paying jobs, but this comes with other trade-offs. For instance men make up 93% of occupational deaths[3] in the U.S. The tendency for to reach better paying jobs without the same educational attainment may not necessarily a sign of privilege so much as social pressure to take high-risk jobs for more pay.

Ultimately, things like privilege are subjective and heavily based on moral weightings. Does being more likely to be killed on the job offset a higher pay? Is being more likely to end up as a CEO offset being more likely to end up behind bars? These are moral - not factual - questions, so there's as many right answers are there are people on this planet.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/women-in-leadership-fort...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Gender

It's not unknown for destitute people in America to deliberately try to get sent to prison for better support; it's not the lowest rung on the ladder, counterintuitive—and perverse—as that may be.

This isn't a zero-sum game. Helping women get placement in the workplace doesn't mean men won't get jobs. And, it certainly doesn't mean that we will stop supporting young men stay out of prison.

The idea is that as we become a more inclusive society we can all have more freedom to do what we want to do.

To re-use the analogy from one of the parent[1] comments in this chain, if societal advancement is a non-competitive game of basketball it's not a zero sum game, just as you say. One group's advancement does not come at the expense of another's. The point is, one person can see that one group is behind compared to another while a different person sees the opposite. For instance someone can place a greater emphasis on wage differences, while a different person more heavily values disparities in occupational deaths. Both reach a opposite conclusion, and neither is wrong since these are claims made based on values as much as data - and values differ from person to person.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15014872

This is a misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint. No, the mere existence of a gender gap in an industry is not ipso facto evidence of sexism in that industry. After all, gender ratios in different industries vary widely, some industries have a higher ratio of women and others have a higher ratio of men. There mere existence of an imbalanced gender ratio in an industry, is not, in and of itself, problematic.

With that said, if you look at the tech industry, the constant stream of reports* of sexual harassment and sexist treatment from women that actually work in the industry is a pretty big clue that this industry, maybe, just maybe, has a problem with the way it treats women. And if you consider that female participation in the tech industry grew until the mid 80s where it peaked and has been going downhill ever since, it's difficult to conclude that the gender gap merely comes down to men and women having different interests.

So, no, the gender gap itself is not the problem. But it might be a symptom: if women feel like they are treated poorly in this industry, they are going to leave. Not because of lack of interest, or biological disposition, but because they do not feel welcome and are driven away due to the treatment they receive. And if that is causing the gender ratio in the industry to be lower than it would otherwise be, then that is problematic.

* Notable examples include but are not limited to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/uber-sexual-hara...

https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describe...

https://www.recode.net/2016/1/11/11588656/60-percent-of-seni...

http://observer.com/2017/06/justin-caldbeck-binary-capital-s...

> one person can see that one group is behind compared to another while a different person sees the opposite

Okay, I see.

I thought, when you started talking about men in prison, that you were tacitly supporting leereeves' statement that young men are disadvantaged compared to young women.

In fact, you just wanted to say that people's perceptions of "advantage" are subjective; therefore, one person could easily view men as advantaged in today's society, while another views women as advantaged.

To that, I would say, duh =). We're here debating how men and women experience the world in order to both present our own knowledge, and hear about others'. This helps us shape our future values by including more data than we have directly observed ourselves.

Many thousands of men without degrees are turning to software as the best hope for their future (and possibly that of their families). How could this possibly not have an effect on the composition of applicant pools for software positions?

I'm fairly certain that the aggregation of jobs described as "tech industry" in this statistic are a rather different collection of jobs pre-mid 80s and post-mid 80s. Not necessarily because of people massaging a statistic(but many people no doubt would be happy to overlook the previous supposition in making a case,) but because the nature of most jobs in computing has changed with the advent of personal computers. In the punch card era many "tech jobs" were more secretarial/office management/accountancy roles, nowadays with the explosion of computing devices there are many more software development and hardware engineering roles.

Engineering, broadly speaking can be seen as a "tech job," was there ever a time that the various fields of engineering weren't male heavy?

With that said, if you look at the tech industry

What about other industries with even more skewed sex ratios but fewer or no high-profile articles about sexual harassment, what's the cause in those industries?

the constant stream of reports of sexual harassment and sexist treatment from women that actually work in the industry is a pretty big clue that this industry, maybe, just maybe, has a problem with the way it treats women

Has anyone put to an analysis that these sort of events occur more frequently in the tech industry, rather than the tech industry is high profile and thus these events get more attention?

That's an interesting supposition but I'm not necessarily sure it's true. If you consider the number of women graduating with computer science degrees between then and now[1], the trend is the still there: growth until the mid 80s and then reversal. If the trend were merely explained by the fact that tech jobs have transitioned from "secretarial" jobs to engineering roles, why is it also present in the ratio of women studying actual computer science in college?

> What about other industries with even more skewed sex ratios but fewer or no high-profile articles about sexual harassment, what's the cause in those industries?

Since my point is that the gender ratio itself is a red herring, I'm not sure what the purpose would be in speculating about its cause in other industries.

> Has anyone put to an analysis that these sort of events occur more frequently in the tech industry, rather than the tech industry is high profile and thus these events get more attention?

That's your argument? That the level of sexual harassment in the tech industry is at a "normal" level relative to other industries and is simply over-reported?

It sounds like you're bending over backwards trying to justify the status quo here. But okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is simply over-reported. Does that make it any less problematic? Should we simply accept the situation as "well, that's just the way things are", instead of actively trying to improve it?

[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf

Is it at the companies where they taken in under-representes groups ? Or Is it at the grassroots level such as by teaching parenting to students in college to be more aware of the bias they may've whilst upbringing their child. ( Similar to Diversity-training)

My point is that instead of giving them a relatively easier seat at the workplace, we must strive to make their paths easier thereby ensuring that the most talent people end up where they want to.

I'm actually quite surprised that the councillor didn't encourage your sister for they're usually trained to be aware of such biases and be neutral in their disposition towards every student albeit it's difficult , they're usually better at it.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...

If you look at this data you can see there is clear distinction in the types of work chosen on average between the sexes. These choices align nicely with the findings of personality research between the sexes.

It's seems such a cliche to say "Sure, sexism exists to one degree or another." But okay, I can agree.

The problem is when you pick some particular gap and say this gap is a problem because the main cause is sexism.

Doing this is a problem not just because it ignores many other relevant factors, but because when proclaiming the cause as mostly sexism you are then accusing many people of something of which they are innocent.

You're unjustly maligning many people when you do this.

What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the divergence in sex ratios of fields like nursing & elementary teaching compared to engineering and more theoretical pursuits comes down to personality differences between the average man and woman, and not sexism?

In regards to your concerns about the status quo of the tech industry or any other and sexism therein, individual cases should be dealt with appropriately. Individuals should act responsibly and respectfully.

I thought one the guiding principles for people these days was you shouldn't treat members in a group in a way that is informed by the actions or characteristics of other members of the group.

I am not disputing this at all.

> It's seems such a cliche to say "Sure, sexism exists to one degree or another." But okay, I can agree.

Okay, we've found some common ground here. Let's go a little further. "The tech industry has a problem with sexual harassment and sexist treatment towards women." Agree or disagree?

> The problem is when you pick some particular gap and say this gap is a problem because the main cause is sexism.

Except I did not say either of those things.

> Doing this is a problem not just because it ignores many other relevant factors, but because when proclaiming the cause as mostly sexism you are then accusing many people of something of which they are innocent.

> You're unjustly maligning many people when you do this.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

> What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the divergence in sex ratios of fields like nursing & elementary teaching compared to engineering and more theoretical pursuits comes down to personality differences between the average man and woman, and not sexism?

You don't need to convince me of this because I am not disputing it. I am disputing the idea that sexism has no role to play, however.

> In regards to your concerns about the status quo of the tech industry or any other and sexism therein, individual cases should be dealt with appropriately. Individuals should act responsibly and respectfully.

That is a great platitude however it does not seem to be helping very much as we (as an industry) seem quite content to perpetuate the status quo.