Newsletter subscribe

Hot News, News, Technology

Google just hired a diversity VP — just as it struggles with a sexist memo from an employee

Posted: August 6, 2017 at 12:54 am   /   by   /   comments (0)

Google recently announced a new head of diversity, just as it has had to deal with a controversial 3,000-word internal memo sent across the company by an employee.

It contains a series of what I can only describe as sexist twaddle, wrapped in the undeserved protection of free speech. (Hey bros who don’t agree, that’s just my opinion, so you’ll have to take it because … First Amendment and all!)

Danielle Brown, who was previously at Intel, was named the search giant’s new VP of diversity, integrity and governance several months ago and arrived a month ago. But she now has her first big test and it has to do with Silicon Valley’s latest problem.

Which is: Some male techies don’t seem to like women around computers.

She did note that in her memo she just sent to the company, noting she would not link to the employee’s memo because, ‘it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.”

The employee memo —which has been up for days without action by the company — went viral within Google this weekend with some decrying it and others not. Sources said execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fall-out, trying to decide if its troubling content crosses a line or should be allowed to be aired.

It’s not an easy line to walk. The employee — whom I am not naming since he seems to be the subject of threats online — penned a piece he sent across the company that said, among other things, that women just can’t do tech.

Titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” it begins promisingly enough:

“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.”

But then, in what is pretty much the main premise, he went on in detail: “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.”

Also men like status and, apparently, ladies like me are too nice to code.

More to come, but here is a memo Brown just sent out about the other memo:

Affirming our commitment to diversity and inclusion—and healthy debate


I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, 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, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.”

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.

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.

I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves — TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.



And here is the memo Brown refers to from Google VP Ari Balogh, whom that employee reports to, which was posted yesterday.

I’d like to respond to the “pc-considered-harmful” post. Questioning our assumptions and sharing different perspectives is an important part of our culture, and we want to continue fostering an environment where it’s safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful.

Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.

And here is the entire employee memo, which is a doozy except for its toxic assumptions it is riven with:

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion



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 1


Background 2

Google’s biases 2

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3

Personality differences 4

Men’s higher drive for status 5

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap 5

The harm of Google’s biases 6

Why we’re blind 7

Suggestions 8

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


Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and

bad for business.


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. 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:

Left Biases

Right Biases

Compassion for the weak

Respect for the strong/authority

Disparities are due to injustices

Disparities are natural and just

Humans are inherently cooperative

Humans are inherently competitive

Change is good (unstable)

Change is dangerous (stable)





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


Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech

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


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


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.


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, 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


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

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


Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race

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

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 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 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. 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. 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.

This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political

correctness, 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.


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


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.

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


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


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


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




Comments (0)

write a comment

Name E-mail Website Comment