Fine, I can look up the world-wide data, but Google would still have to hire every single woman who earned a CS degree in the entire world and do a hiring freeze on men until that is completed.

I know this sounds absurd, but the numbers do support the absurd proposition.

Hands tied. Not enough 2015+2016 female CS grads living in the SF Bay area. Sorry.

Finally numbers that mean something. You still haven’t shown that the number of female developers is less than half the number of developers at Google.

Yeah, no one did that, but what is it you mean when you post the following in this thread?

Is anyone surprised we haven’t seen the passage yet about easy tests for women at Google?

There is a simple way to test for discrimination. Use binomial distributions. If the results go beyond a 3rd deviation then there is a 99% chance of discrimination. This assumes that both groups' own gender are an independent variable in comparison with qualifications for the position.

So if the distribution of women and men who apply with proper qualifications is 20 / 80 then the number of women and men who get positions should converge to 20% for women and 80% for men over a large sample size. If it is 40 / 60 then it should converge to 40% for women and 60% for men over a large sample.

I'm in favor of anonymous interviews. I imagine a process like this. Each candidate is assigned a number and goes into a room. The candidate then takes a test on a computer including multiple choice and questions. The interviewer grades the typed answers to the questions unaware of who took the test. After everything is graded, the numbers are matched up to the names. Those who scored the highest on the test get the job.

With the above screening you will have an unbiased hiring process in accordance to gender. There are advantages to having person to person encounters with the people you are interviewing that a test can't give, but for a programming position I can't imagine it being that advantageous.

With a system like this, employers won't have subconscious biases that may get in the way of selecting the best candidates. Job seekers won't have to worry about being discriminated against due to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.

I for one welcome our robot posters

I spent some more time reading through the claim. I won't claim I read it all in excruciating detail - but I'm pretty comfortable with saying that DaveT is clearly full of **** and hasn't read it and definitely didn't get his "Easier tests for women" talking point from that claim.

I'm not a lawyer, but it mostly seems like what most of us would expect. Take the section "Google’s “Diversity” Policies Impede Internal Mobility and New Hires" near the end. They phrase it as this guy first got refused a transfer because he was white and other teams didn't want white people, and then after he posted one comment in support of Damore's rant, he believes he was refused a transfer because he was Conservative. He also then received a poor rating... Except, here's the thing. This guy had already gotten one poor rating in 2015 (shortly before his first transfer). Seems pretty likely that instead of being white - people just didn't want to take a chance on a possible poor performer.

Or you can take the section about Google "Blacklists". When all it really was is that Google uses G+ for a lot of internal discussions and so allows employees to block other people on there.

And there's a bunch more stuff like that. The guy that was unfairly fired for being Conservative. Has nothing to do with him accusing his co-worker of being a terrorist. And, of course, in this section of the claim its amazing how we don't see the screenshots of what the dude actually said (we still see lots of other screenshots) - instead we just get the paraphrase of what the guy was "trying to say".

In the end, Google should definitely have (and maybe they did) discipline various people interacting on their forums. But most of the biggest claims just seem like the standard whining any politics mod here is familiar with from the "severely oppressed" misogynists and racists (who, by the way, are totally APPALLED at the state of gender diversity in the industry).

Let's copy / paste some stuff:

-----

Page 3; line 14: Google employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.

Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings.

-------

Page 5; line 17: Damore was diligent and loyal, and received substantial praise for the quality of his work. Damore received the highest possible rating twice, including in his most recent performance review, and consistently received high performance ratings, placing him in the top few percentile of Google employees. Throughout the course of his employment with Google, Damore received approximately eight performance bonuses, the most recent of which was approximately 20% of his annual salary. Damore also received stock bonuses from the Google amounting to approximately $150,000 per year

--------

Page 7; line 11: he Summit covered general topics such as how Google could increase its diversity. Specifically, the Google presenters went through some of their policies that were designed to accomplish this such as treating preferred categories of people (women, certain but not all ethnic minority groups) differently during the hiring process by providing extra interviews, and putting applicants into a more welcoming environment based on their race or gender. The Google presenters also discussed putting “diverse” individuals into high priority queues so that they were more likely to be hired, and hired faster.

Seriously, you didn't read up to page 7?

I seldom laugh at this stuff, but the constant use of "Un-Googley" is ****ing hilarious,

This...

page 26; line 27: Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality
3
, for the purpose of discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy

I can't copy / paste Page 40 since it's an image, and the linked image comes up to small to be useful.

Absolute gold.

Page 44; line 7: A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!”

page 45; line 1: Upon information and belief, Burchett continued to make hiring and promoting decisions at Google and was not reprimanded by Google, even though Burchett’s posts were reported to Google HR and to the Senior Vice President of Legal in a formal complaint

Page 34; line 14 has an image of the email conversation about this. The blacklist was not blocking G+ users.

Hey, look! DaveT posted a bunch of chunks of text. Let's see how obsessed DaveT was with women getting easier tests:



And when asked about it, he says:

And of course, absolutely nothing he posts says anything at all about women getting easier questions.

In fact, the only thing that is remotely related to interviewing is where he posts:

You think I didn't read page 7? What about where I literally posted that exact same passage before you (which mentions nothing about easier tests). Your response was just:


Dave, you just completely make things up to feel the victim. You rant about absurd hypothetical white-male discrimination like companies hiring 50/50 male/female employees. You obsess over every meaningless slight that a white-male might encounter.

I don't actually expect you (or really anyone) to read this far or acknowledge it - but if you do - this is why I have no doubts with my read on you in terms of communication ability and in terms of your actual "concern" for gender diversity.

LOL

LOL oh wow, the unjust plight of downtrodden straight-and-monogamous(christian?) white males.

Man, I just can't help myself. Dave sees a situation where 14/19 (73%) of people in a position to make promotional decisions or up for a promotion are white-males and is mostly concerned about how someone said something kind-of-mean about that imbalance.

And, just for funsies, I'll point out that while I don't know the overall percentage of white-men at Google - we know its actually less than 73%. So white-men were overrepresented even in terms of the overall demographics of Google and not even on a absolute equality basis.

Oh, the humanity!

And while I'm still in a rant-y sort of mood. Almost all of these same people worried about white-male discrimination are the ones that tell us things like the gender pay gap / lack of diversity aren't a problem because the free market will handle all of this!

Except if any company actually really tried to take advantage of the bias in the system - they'd be right back here bitching about how tough the white man has it.

this is half bad. celebrating diversity is a good thing. mocking males and caucasians is bad. that indeed may be enough to win the lawsuit.

this is irrelevant. damore was not fired for his performance.

bolded is good. creating a welcoming environment depending on the candidate so that talent can be identified is a good thing. and fair.

this has got to be a joke.


this sounds pretty half bad like the first one. proly sinks google.

You drink massive amounts of Kool-Aide, my friend.

The pay gap is a huge myth. Not even sure why that's still being passed around.

I'm only pulling out hot-takes, but I'm pretty impressed that you can look at the image on page 40 and not think that's ****ed up from a manager. I've read more than 50 pages so far, and the entire document paints a more subtle picture.

Like, there is a part where Google HR talks about discouraging the "alt-right," yet there are employees who have Infata emblems as their avatar. I guess burning down colleges and lynching people is okay but oh nos, there's a republican in our midst! (it's long and includes imagery)

I also proved that it's mathematically impossible for Google to reach 50/50 without severe discrimination. That best case assumes that every CS woman wants to work at Google (they don't, I'm sure) and that all CS women wants to move the Bay, which is clearly not the case considering the current imbalance.

I also asked about the "white male privilege" you all are talking about because I legit have no clue what all of this entails. Considering that the the "pay gap" is something that always comes up, I'm assuming much of this privilege it is bull**** as well.

Mocking anyone for any reason that they can't help isn't good. Granted, I'm more liberal regarding off-color jokes, but there are screenshots (page 40) that are available, which clearly aren't off-color joking.

But yes, I agree that a lot of it isn't "half bad" and I get what they are trying to do.

Have you found the part with easier interviews for women yet? You know, the part you supposedly had already read...


Mathematically proved! Dude, your assumption here is that Google can only hire people that earned a CS degree in the previous year.

Google can hire:
* Women from bootcamps.
* Women graduating with non-CS degrees like math/stats/engineering/etc.
* Women that graduated in a previous year.
* Women that are currently working for other companies (some of whom don't have a degree - but have lots of experience).

And so on...

The intellectual level of this thread is quickly approaching 9-11 trutherism.

Edit: And, of course, Google is at 20-****ing percent women in tech roles. You're obsessed with worrying about something THAT IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO HAPPENING.

I would highly doubt it. The standard required for winning these things (for any meaningful amount) is almost certainly going to be higher than one person at the company said some inappropriate things.

What are the damages from that comment? The candidates were all men - and mostly white men. Its doubtful the comment reflected a decision to actually meaningfully impact a person's career. And the candidates in question aren't even in the lawsuit.

I assume you mean antifa. Please provide a citation on burning down colleges and lynching people.

She didn't specify what the other 27% are. We just know that she's upset by something, and lol at this sample size meaning anything except that this is one instance of N groups up for promotions.

And exactly what is the demographic breakdown at the levels she is talking about? We don't know.

It's just a simple model of what they have to do, but the point still stands that they'd have to hire only women for a significant amount of time to get to parity. The numbers are the same and the percentages are going to be approximately the same. I'm not sure why this is hard to comprehend.

lol.