The search giant's new head of diversity has rejected an internal commentary from an employee who suggested women don't get ahead in tech jobs because of biological differences.
Danielle Brown, who was named a vice president at the search giant only a few weeks ago, said Google is "unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success," according to a copy of her response obtained by technology news website Gizmodo.
The employee memo, titled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," begins by saying that only honest discussion will address a lack of equity.
But it also asserts that women "prefer jobs in social and artistic areas" while more men "may like coding because it requires systemizing," fueling a smoldering debate about sexism in Silicon Valley.
"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," the memo stated, according to Gizmodo. "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 distributions."
The employee was described in news reports as a software engineer. The employee's identity has not been released.
Google, like other tech companies, has far fewer women than men in technology and leadership positions. Fifty-six percent of its workers are white and 35 percent are Asian, while Hispanic and Black employees make up 4 percent and 2 percent of its workforce, respectively, according to the company's latest diversity report .
While the issue of diversity is getting a lot of attention in Silicon Valley, these numbers are barely changing. But the companies say they are trying, by reaching out to and interviewing a broader range of job candidates, by offering coding classes, internships and mentorship programs and by holding mandatory "unconscious bias" training sessions for existing employees.
But, as the employee memo shows, not everyone at Google is happy with this.
The issue of gender has long roiled California's technology sector. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor accused Google of underpaying female employees, saying it found "systemic compensation disparities against women" at the company.
In another controversy, a former female engineer's claims of widespread sexual harassment at Uber in June led the ride-hailing firm to fire more than 20 employees .
In another incident, venture investor Dave McClure was forced to publicly apologize for making
"inappropriate advances" toward several women in workplace situations.
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-worker-says-women-dont-advance-in-tech-because-of-biology/

I read the report and I have come to realised and agree that at least neurologically, men and women are different. Or better still, "wired differently". https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/25/9/2383/380449/Linked-Sex-Differences-in-Cognition-and-Functional
Mr Damore simply said by assigning gender quotas, you are promoting discrimination and mediocrity. Women and men by neurological and psychological studies are different and this difference contributes to why there are less women in the tech industry, and not because tech firms do not want to employ females. In a typical computer, maths, physics or engineering class, there are more males than females. Should they be hired by a firm, say 40 individuals, a firm is likely to employ more males than females. It is simple probability. Not the fault of the firm. Yes, there are environmental factors, cultural stereotypes as to why few females venture into "hard core" fields, but this not over-ride the biological differences (biology is science) Mr Damore listed. Larry Summers (former President of Harvard said something similar a decade ago.

Science does not care about feelings, that studies say females' brain are wired differently, which contributes to them choosing certain fields (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/epdf) should not hurt anyone's feelings. It is science not social studies. There are more females than males in child-care, nursing, teachers and the likes not because anyone deliberately stopped males from being employed, but these are 'low status' and 'less empathy' fields as Damore stated (and biological studies say men go for the toughest and most competitive, the hormone testosterone is seen as the cause). As a result, we see more males being firefighters, coal miners, truck drivers, coders, in more fights and prison sentences than females. Males are more likely to work more long hours than females (Damore stated this) and coding is a long grueling process that takes time and dedication. All these starts from the maths' class where there are dis-proportionally more males than females. It is simply CHOICE. Same choice is the reason why we do not have more Caucasians playing basketball than Blacks, it is interest. Should there be a quota system in basketball for Asian individuals because they are less in the industry and over looking the scientific fact that compared to Blacks, Asians are short and basketball is not shot-put? When in basketball, the taller the better?

Certainly firms will love to employ more females than males to become more diverse, but this should not be at the expense of qualified males (irrespective of race). That a firm wants to be 'diverse' does not mean she should discriminate against other more qualified individuals (who happen to be males). Does this denote females cannot be excellent coders and leaders in top positions? No. But are females interested in these positions and work for it? Studies (biological and psychological) say no. Can it be improved? Yes. How? By encouraging more females starting from young lasses to have interest as a choice not a must. Not by assigning special quotas for a set of people. It reeks of mediocrity. In the life science sector, we have females at an equal if not higher proportion than males, should a quota system for males not be enacted?

People should be employed as individuals not as genders, this should be done irrespective of creed, gender, nationality, race (Harvard has been accused by Asians of denying them admission, in the name of "diversity" ). If you want to be in an industry, ensure you start from the basics and be interested.



P.S. This is similar to the gender pay gap, which does not exist (earnings gap exist). For if it did, firms will employ more females than males as this will reduce personnel costs and cost of doing business (which are meant to make profits). But that is for another day.


Find attached the memo: