The decade's most triggering comedy
Over the weekend, a software engineer at Google issued a 10-page memo regarding Google’s attempts to subvert technological progress in favor of empty diversity quotas — and that memo went viral. Google quickly responded with a memo from its Orwellian Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, who explained that such thoughts were not worth distributing and ran counter to Google’s mission.
The original memo, titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” relied on social science data to make the point that a dearth of women in tech wasn’t reflective of large-scale discrimination, but of difference in career preference and capacity between men and women on average. Such wrongthink would not be tolerated at Google, the company quickly responded.
The memo itself is not sexist, nor does it promote sexism. Instead, it opens with this statement:
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.
This is eminently correct, of course. But right and wrong don’t matter at Google — only political correct propaganda does. The memo-writer continues:
- 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.
All of this is again correct — it’s the general leftist take on the world, which attributes natural differences between the sexes to discrimination, and blames society at large for individual decisionmaking. While the author of the memo has been castigated as a rabid right-winger, the document itself states that both “right biases” and “left biases” are “necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company.” The author states, “Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.”
The memo author points out several differences between men and women that impact Google’s wage gap and sex gap in employment: personality differences, men’s higher drive for status. The author even recommends movement toward part-time work as part of Google’s culture in order to keep more women in tech, adding, “we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that.”
The memo also tears into race-specific and sex-specific programming and mentoring, diversity hires, and verging on illegal discrimination. The author suggests ending the company-wide attempt to castigate those who disagree as immoral, stop alienating conservatives, and confront the company’s leftist biases, as well as moving away from empathy as a core value, avoiding microaggressions sinkholes, and being open about science.
All of this is not just eminently reasonable, it’s obviously correct.
Naturally, Google exploded with rage. Here’s their Director of Groupthink:
I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.
Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company. … Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.
Naturally, Google hides behind the law to support its own biases. Now we’re told by Google that those who disagree may be butting up against their “Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”
Perhaps this employee violated Google’s Code of Conduct. If so, that’s because Google is all of the things the memo author says it is. But if this memo were to violate anti-discrimination laws, those laws themselves would violate the First Amendment.
In any case, Google is just proving the memo author correct: at Google, the only thing that matters is upholding Leftism. Which, in the end, may lead to Google’s downfall as competitors refuse to engage in the delusional thinking that’s leading Google to expend resources on idiotic, misguided initiatives.