Aug 9, 2017
Google fires Whistleblower, Women
gathering to file class action lawsuit
Google to employees, keep your mouths
shut!
Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an
Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?
Genevieve Wood
The tolerance police at Google just struck another blow against
increasing diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an employee who
wrote a memo critiquing the company’s politically correct
culture.
Now, let’s be clear - While the Google software engineer who
authored the memo had the right to say and write what he did—it’s
called free speech—Google is a private company and has every right
to fire an employee it deems not in line with its mission or
culture.
But it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so negatively to an
employee who, in a 10-page memo, laid out a case for why
Google’s diversity programs weren’t working and how it might
rethink its attempt to reduce the gender gap.
Could it be that Google is feeling just a little bit
paranoid?
For all the talk about inclusiveness and diversity, here’s
the reality -
If you’re not white or Asian, that means there is only a 5
percent chance you’re part of Google’s leadership team.
And while 31 percent of Google’s employees are women, only 20
percent of its technical employees are—and it was primarily the
memo’s focus on this gender gap that seems to have caused the
recent unpleasantness in Silicon Valley.
In addition to bad PR, perhaps what the larger left-leaning
community there doesn’t want to admit is that for all its diversity
programs and safe spaces, and who knows how many millions of
dollars spent promoting them, they have done very little to change
the outcomes.
When it comes to computer and mathematical occupations, the
numbers clearly show that women and men are not
equally represented.
Women held 27 percent of such jobs in 1960. Thirty years
later, they held 35 percent. But fast forward to 2013, and the
number of women in computing and mathematical occupations had
fallen back to 26 percent.
And it’s not because fewer women are going to college.
In fact, a Department of Education study from 2014
shows more women than men are attending and graduating
from college, and they are receiving the majority of bachelor’s,
master’s and doctorate degrees.
But when it comes to college majors, women and men choose
differently. A recent Georgetown University study showed over 80
percent of petroleum engineering majors are male. So are almost 70
percent of those majoring in mathematics and computer science.
Women, on the other hand, tend to major in what might be called
more people-oriented professions, such as counseling, education,
and social work.
Why men and women make such different choices is not 100 percent
clear cut, but the idea that biology plays no role and it’s all
because America is a sexist culture seems like an outdated and
disproven theory.
And it was hiring and personnel practices based on that
politically correct theory that the now-former Google employee was
criticizing.
As he stated in the memo that got him fired - “If we can’t have
an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the
problem.”
Apparently at Google, and much of Silicon Valley, the discussion
is over.
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber How bias clouds our thinking
about diversity and inclusion go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore
- damore@ 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
TL;DR Background Google’s biases Possible non bias causes of the
gender gap in tech Personality differences Men’s higher drive for
status Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap The harm of
Google’s biases Why we’re blind Suggestions 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
leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair,
divisive, and bad for business. Background 1 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 2 . 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 -
___________________________________________________________________________
This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s
Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or
countries. 2 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that
supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider
myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and
reason . I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further
and provide more citations. 1
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 representation. Possible non-bias causes of the gender
gap in tech 3 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 perspective 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
distributions.
____________________________________________________________________________
3 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software
engineering.
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.
systemizing ). ○ 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 4 , 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 do. ○ 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
____________________________________________________________________________
For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly
judged by status and women by beauty . Again, this has biological
origins and is culturally universal. 4
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 practices - ● Programs, mentoring,
and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5 ● ● ● 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 6
____________________________________________________________________________
5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and
several other Google funded internal and external programs are for
people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist
OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase
representation at an org level by either making it a better
environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey
scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is
illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can
incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between
orgs.
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 7 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 8 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 9 .
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 10 .
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.
____________________________________________________________________________
7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior
to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an
economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the
liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist
oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class
warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed
dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight,
cis-gendered patriarchy.” 8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially
championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims
of aristocracy. 9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower
salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work
though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend
more money than men and that salary represents how much the
employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we
really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. 10 “The
traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of
men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not
complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems
are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,
due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from
bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or
group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers,
or weak.”
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political
correctness 11 , 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. Suggestions 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 themselves. ○ 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.
____________________________________________________________________________
11 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of
expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or
discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon
of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
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
diversity. ○ 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 transgressions. ○
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 problems. 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 training).
Rush Limbaugh on the firing of
the Google Guy.
Google
Manifesto Author Canned
Aug 8,
2017
RUSH: The Google guy
got canned. I
told everybody it was gonna happen. No mystery there. The
fascinating thing about the Google guy getting canned is everybody
in Silicon Valley is all for it. The land of free speech, the land
of equality and no discrimination, they’re all excited, ’cause this
guy broke Google’s rules. You may not like ’em, but Google has
rules, and if you break ’em, you’re out, which there is some logic
to that.
Anyway, they’re happy to get rid of the guy because they just
can’t handle anything other than their preordained cocoon-generated
truth, which, of course, isn’t truth. That’s the whole point. They
can’t allow anything to challenge what they have convinced
themselves is true because that shakes and rattles and rolls their
existence.
Google Manifesto Rips Political
Correctness
Aug 7, 2017
RUSH: Also big news over the weekend. I was kind of fascinated
by this. Have
you heard about the secret memo that went around Google?
(interruption) You’re frowning. You hadn’t heard about this?
(interruption) Some Google employee sent around an anonymous —
posted an anonymous note — manifesto, on the inherent bigotry and
political correctness at Google. It suggested that their pitch,
their effort on diversity was misguided, that they need ideological
diversity at Google, that all the conservative employees are scared
to death to speak up and say anything. And then the guy — or girl.
We don’t know who it is yet.
All we know is, it’s gonna get fired when they’re discovered.
The guy said — and he was I think ripping off Larry Summers when he
was the president of Harvard. He said (summarized), “Look, the
reason why,” and this was on his diversity kick. “The reason why
there aren’t more women in tech positions is they’re not good at
it. They’re not as interested in it as men are. So this effort to
be diverse and have equal number of men and women in the tech
workforce is silly ’cause it’s never gonna happen. Women are just
not that inclined.”
Larry Summers said the same thing at Harvard. The reason why
there aren’t more female math teachers is women don’t do as well in
it, and they ran him out of the place. So this guy’s gonna get
fired as soon as they find out who he is. But this story has
captivated countless people over the weekend, and it is not over
yet, and there’s much more straight ahead.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You lady engineers at Google? I want to say something to
you. Google is playing defense right now on the issue of diversity.
This memo by a Google employee… I mean, this guy has just thrown a
political correctness bomb right into the executive suite, ’cause
this memo asserts that Google… When you strip it all away, the memo
is an allegation that Google has fewer female engineers because men
are better suited for the job, that essentially natural selection
has taken over, and men are just more oriented toward math and
science and engineering in those fields.
Now, what generally happens in a situation like this is that the
feminists and leaders women’s groups that get all hot and bothered
and run around start making noise about discrimination and
unfairness. Ladies, forget that. There’s a much better path that
you should take here. Don’t get lost in the diversity argument.
Don’t get caught up in it. That’s what Google expects you to do.
Don’t go acting offended, and don’t get on some soapbox claiming
that whoever wrote that is a bigot.
Google is reeling right now. This is the kind of thing, this is
the kind of charge that just sends leftists up the tree, that
they’re unfair, that they’re discriminating on the basis of gender.
Ladies, tell Google to prove it to you that the guy who wrote the
memo is wrong. What you say to Google is, “Show me the money.” Go
to the money. Tell ’em you want money. Tell ’em you want raises.
Tell Google to prove it. Don’t join the protest march and start
throwing underwear and bras. Just demand the money. They’re reeling
right now. Hit ’em!
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Bill in Ridgefield, Connecticut. I’m glad you called, sir.
You’re up first. How are you?
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was just talking to Snerdley. Let me get to
the point. I’m rich. I’m a big chess player and a damn good one. In
fact, the New York AC I was the (call drops out) of the chess club.
But backing up a second, of the top —
RUSH: Wait. Wait a minute. Your call — hey, hang on, hang on.
Your call is bucking up. Did you say the New York Athletic Club? Is
that what you said?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: New York AC. Okay. And you said you’re a rich guy in New
York.
CALLER: That’s right.
RUSH: The New York Athletic Club would say that. So you’re a
great chess player. Okay. Got that. Go.
CALLER: Okay. Of the top hundred chess players in the world
—
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: — you know how many are women? Zero.
RUSH: What does that mean?
CALLER: I think they gravitate. I’m not saying women aren’t
smarter. I have a daughter that went to Smith. I have a daughter
that’s a doctor. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. But they
gravitate to the nurturing areas of society, as maybe they should.
But they are not competitive with the mechanical and sciences.
There may be a great scientist, but that would be an anomaly. But
women, that can’t God for them, do a great job raising kids, God
forbid, the feminazis, you know, one daughter that went to Smith,
loaded with feminazis, she has our values. You know, common sense,
down to earth, she got four kids, whatever.
RUSH: Let me get back to your chess question.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: ‘Cause you’re probably right. You’re not saying women
aren’t capable of learning it and excelling at it, you’re just
saying they’re not interested in it, right?
CALLER: For the most part. But there are grandmaster female
players. They’re just not in that top tier. The Polgar sisters,
they’re from I believe Poland. Both of them are grandmasters.
RUSH: Well, how much of it is that they don’t want to do what it
takes to get there because they have other —
CALLER: That’s right. You know, you take, you know, whether it
was Bobby Fischer, God rest his soul. You take Kasparov who is
going back, apparently, into the competition area. I read it in I
think yesterday’s Journal —
RUSH: He wants to beat the computers, yeah.
CALLER: Well, the computer is a different ball game.
RUSH: I don’t know. Elon Musk says they’re gonna take us over
and Bill Gates and Hawking say if we don’t get to Mars, the
machines are gonna eat us. What do we do?
0-00
the tolerance police at Google just
0-02
struck another blow against increasing
0-04
diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an
0-07
employee who wrote a memo critiquing the
0-09
company's politically correct culture
0-16
now let's be clear while the Google
0-19
software engineer who authored the memo
0-22
had the right to say and write what he
0-23
did it's called free speech Google's a
0-26
private company and has every right to
0-28
fire an employee it deems not in line
0-31
with this position or its culture but
0-33
it's fair to ask why Google reacted so
0-35
negatively to an employee to in a 10
0-38
page memo laid out a case for why Google
0-41
diversity programs weren't working and
0-44
how it might rethink its attempt to
0-46
reduce the gender gap could it be that
0-48
Google is feeling just a little bit
0-50
paranoid for all the talk about
0-52
inclusiveness and diversity here's the
0-55
reality if you're not white or Asian
0-57
that means there is only a 5% chance
1-00
you're part of Google's leadership piece
1-02
and while 31% of Google's employees are
1-05
women only 20% of its technical
1-08
employees are and it was primarily the
1-10
memos focus on this gender gap it seems
1-13
to have caused the recent unpleasantness
1-14
in Silicon Valley in addition to bad PR
1-18
perhaps what the larger left-leaning
1-20
community there doesn't want to admit is
1-22
that for all its diversity programs and
1-24
safe spaces and who knows how many
1-27
millions of dollars spent promoting them
1-29
they have done very little to change the
1-31
outcome when it comes to computer and
1-34
mathematical occupations the numbers
1-36
clearly show that women and men are not
1-38
equally represented women held 27% of
1-42
such jobs in 1960 30 years later they
1-45
held 35% but bath towards 2013 and the
1-50
number of women in computing and
1-51
mathematical occupations had fallen back
1-54
to 26% and it's not because fewer women
1-57
are going to college in fact a US
2-00
Department of Education study from 2014
2-03
shows more women the men are attending
2-05
and graduating from college and they are
2-07
receiving the majority of bachelor's
2-09
master's and doctorate degree
2-12
but when it comes to college majors
2-14
women and men choose differently
2-16
a recent Georgetown University study
2-19
showed over 80% of petroleum engineer
2-21
majors are male
2-23
so we're almost 70% of those majoring in
2-25
mathematics and computer science women
2-28
on the other hand in the major what
2-30
might be called more people oriented
2-32
professions such as counseling education
2-35
and Social Work why men and women make
2-38
such different choices is not 100% clear
2-41
cut but the idea that biology plays no
2-44
role and it's all because America is a
2-46
sexist culture seems like an outdated
2-48
and disproven theory and it was hiring
2-51
and personnel practices based on that
2-54
politically correct theory that the
2-56
now-former Google employee was
2-58
criticizing as he stated in the memo
3-00
that got him fired quote if we can't
3-03
have an honest discussion about this
3-04
then we can never truly solve the
3-07
problem apparently at Google and much of
3-09
Silicon Valley the discussion is over