Google 'anti-diversity manifesto' sparks backlash among employees

'We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism', memo reads

While some people were supportive of author, others railed against his 'pseudo-science' to justify inequality
While some people were supportive of author, others railed against his 'pseudo-science' to justify inequality

A widely shared internal Google memo arguing against gender diversity had prompted outrage from certain staff and members of the public.

The anti-diversity memo, published in full by Gizmodo, argued that the disparities in gender at the tech giant could be explained by biological differences between men and women.

“We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he wrote, adding that Google’s educational programmes for young women was one example of “bias causing harm”.

The 10-page document was written by one male employee in an engineering team and represents his own views, but it has been shared within the company and appeared to garner supportive responses.

“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,” the document read.

An unnamed employee told Motherboard: “Honestly, more people have been agreeing with it than I would like.”

Jaana Dogan, a programmer at Google, tweeted that she was “shaking in anger”.

“If HR does nothing in this case, I will consider leaving this company for real for the first time in five years,” she said.

Google could not be immediately reached for comment.

The news comes as the company fights a US Department of Labour investigation into “routine” wage discrepancies between men and women.

Motherboard spoke to other supportive employees, including one who blasted the “left bias” and “politically correct monoculture” at the company.

Jeremy Corbyn backs BBC women presenters in gender pay gap dispute

As seen on a thread on Blind, an app where employees with an active Google email address could post anonymous comments about the memo, some employees called the author “brave” and that he should not be reprimanded.

There was also a backlash on the thread.

”The author is an idiot, grasping at pseudoscience to justify sexism. It's a struggle for anyone who's approached the issue with an open heart to read like this,“ another commenter wrote.

Responding to the memo via another internal note, Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity and Governance, Danielle Brown, wrote that Google has the “belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company”.

Google’s Vice President of engineering, Ari Balogh, also spoke out on the debate.

“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,” he wrote.

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

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in