The fact they've created an entire department with regards to diversity is evidence.
I agree that diverse candidates and qualified candidates are not mutually exclusive, however the fact that you have to take into account diversity in the hiring process instead of just picking whoever is most qualified shows they have a bias towards injecting diversity into their company where it might not be the best thing for productivity.
It is however the best thing for their image which directly affects their marketability which in my opinion is wrong on so many levels.
Why are pornographic apps banned in the App Store, is Tim Cook too conservative?
Hi am Jamie
Hi am a female
Hi am a transgender
Go ahead and attach some exclusive properties to each term and then pick a job for them. Personally I'd ask Jamie out for a coffee and have the other two shoot a porn flick together because that's all they told me.
What can a transgender do that a non-transgender can't? Exactly.
So the instruction of the day is "if you don't want a sexist treatment you should put out that red light".
I'm probably one of the most conservative people to post on this forum. That being said, if you mouth off to your employer, you really have only yourself to blame if you get fired. Working for Google, or anyone else for that matter, is not a constitutional right. My father once told me, "If you take a man's money, the least you owe him in return is silence."
At the end of the day, this is the most important point.
As Danielle Brown pointed out in Google's response:
While the engineer's memo had some relevant points that should be discussed, most of it was a rant and included elements of "men are better than women". Sorry, but on balance, it ended up being a bitter rant, not something that warranted discussion.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.
Furthermore, with the primary attitude of "men are better than women", who was going to work with the jack*** at that point? Seriously, I've had those kinds of conversations regarding some people that used to work for me as well. It has nothing to do with politics; it has everything to do with the fact that someone that is a good individual performer can be a bigger liability if they cause sufficient disruption.
Finally, considering what was written, there is almost certainly a history of this type of nonsense from the employee that is likely documented. Of course, he will never admit to it, and Google will likely not bring it up either.
If you fire people because the facts they reminded you are making you feel you are in a hostile work environment you are a deranged madman who is a danger to himself and others, A mad ideologue who creates a hostile work environment to anyone speaking truthfully. You are an antiscientific antiintellectualist of the likes of flat earthers and creationists. Facts dont care about your feelings, and frankly noone should.
To then try to portray this as if its right to punish that guy for speaking truth because he couldn't bear the intolerant hostile work environment at google and try pin the hostility on him for daring to inject some facts is such disgusting behavior you should be ashamed, google reacted as ideological cult and you seem to be right on with that...
Men are better than women at some things statistically on average. thats what the memo said. How dare you lie it said that men are better than women and that thats the entirety of the point made. Intellectual dishonesty of the highest caliber. ( or perhaps you have poor reading with understanding skills?. Perhaps you are unable to see men and women as individual but as combating factions and everything you read boils down to how can you perform mental gymnastics to lie and twist whats beuing said so that the "enemy" is portrayed in the worst possible light? The memo was pro meritocracy first and pro diversity second, all in all perfectly in line with actual liberalism. What it wasnt was anti science and pro hugbox ideological cultism of the faar left extremists who are everything BUT liberal.
PS: this may trigger you but diversity in of itself isnt a pro or a con, it depends what you put into the group. 3 good apples are better than two good and one rotten, even tho the second group of apples has more diverse types of apples. What meritocracy does is judge those damn apples according to how good they are, and we cant have all 3 apples thesame can we? meritocracy is the enemy isnt it?
I find this so funny....
Right wingers find it okay if a baker a desk clerk ( kim davis) says no to gay people. Says no to diversity etc.
But when a company that try's to be diverse choose its own right to fire a employee because he is discriminating...they cry fowl...
What is it right wingers....do company's, desk clerks, schools etc have the right to ban, not allow, discriminate people they do not want in their place. Or don't they. You can not have it both way.
Fun world to live in where saying the truth is agaisnt "popular" progressive culture.
@Livinthedream
HHSSSSSSS WHAT IS THIS HERESY! THOSE FACTS ARE SEXIST!
Seriously tho, its is so sad to see so many people failed by the education system and brainwashed by the media as not to believe the well established scientific fact that there are diferences between men and women. Start by looking in the mirror. Such a trivial fact, yet legions of morons seem to be resistant to reality if it helps them feel better. No different from the mechanism of religious belief in that matter. (ergo i dont care what facts are, i believe what makes me feel good)
Progressivism is the cancer of the left, the people in it are reality denying anti intellectual collectivist bullies who don't care about whats true. They are anti-liberal as they have problems with demographics because they cant see the diferrence between themselves or individual people and the collective statistical representation. That's why they take offence, and that's why they are illiberal, because at the heart of liberalism you have to treat people as individuals not as tribes.
Most decisions you make are not based on your hormones. You are assuming that people are irrational.
I was probably too broad when I said "all differences" because I don't have that much proof. The research I know about is this: Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society by Uri Gneezy. who studied difference in competitiveness between patriarchal and matriarchal communities. Men and women behaviors are completely reversed in matriarchal societies, which goes to prove that just about any research that you do without controlling for it (because patriarchal societies are by far and away the most common) will be biased.
How is danger more suited to men than women? There's nothing in DNA that makes people inherently more susceptible to danger.
People are irrational. The issue is they tend to be rationally irrational. Meaning they make dumb decisions, but often have what they feel are good reasons for them.
There is a reason why men are overwhelmingly represented amongst Darwin Award winners.How is danger more suited to men than women? There's nothing in DNA that makes people inherently more susceptible to danger.