Google cancels company meeting meant to discuss diversity

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has canceled a planned diversity meeting because Google staffer comments in Google’s internal discussion boards were doxxed.

The doxxed comments (found below) show righteous social justice.

I only disagree with the righteous aspect because James Damore was fired.

Yes, he wrote his opinion that “biology” is why men seek out senior ranking jobs that don’t have work-life balance. He wrote that men are the majority in senior level jobs simply because they want status (which is true), and those jobs require more hours than work-life balance allows. However, he still shouldn’t have been fired.

With firing James Damore, Google only confirmed his polite criticism that Google’s corporate culture is an “Ideological Echo Chamber“.

Google colleagues also confirmed the truth that Google is an Ideological Echo Chamber because several of them posted the following in Google’s company discussion boards:

Paul Cowan:

The document is a trashfire.”

Joel Becker:

Going forward, I cannot — and I will not — work with James Damore.

I will not attend any meetings where James Damore will be present.

Sitaram Iyer:

“…the bar to whatever one can say and get away with has just been significantly lowered…”

Colm Buckley:

Yes, this is ‘silencing’. I intend to silence these views; they are violently offensive.”

Dave O’Connor:

“…it is incumbent on us who have known privilege to call this shit out, and be relentless in doing so. I’ve been the beneficiary of a system stacked in my favour for my entire career, and it becomes literally my job to not be putting up with this.”

Social Justice is a wonderful thing …only when the justice doesn’t establish barriers, bigotry and discrimination in reverse toward people who are members of the historic “privileged” gender or race.

Social Justice can’t be real progress when the justice only flips the direction privilege is being granted.

By reverse or flip I simply mean the disadvantaged gender, race, and other protected status group become the privileged people while the historic privileged group of people become the disadvantaged demographic.

Get what I mean about social justice being tricky and can switch the recipient of privilege?

The privilege continues to exist, but is being directed to a new recipient.

Social justice, as it is, simply redirects “benefits and preference” to the protected status groups of people while retracting these “benefits and preference” from the group of people who don’t have protected status.

Protected status groups of people would be “Women” , “Visibile Minorities” , “Indigenous or Aboriginal people” , “People with disabilities“.

The group of people who don’t have protected status would be “White men without disabilities“. That’s one example.

So the redirected privilege now makes the protected status people the new privileged demographic.

Meanwhile, the historically privileged demographic of people — who would be “White men without disabilities” — become the new disadvantaged group of people.

I don’t see any current real-world example of social justice accurately creating an equal distribution of privilege.

If you do, then please let me know.

Also what could equal distribution really be?

It could be the equal recruiting and retention done by schools, businesses, and governments, of people with protected status and of people without protected status.

As it is right now, people with protected status are recruited and retained with preference so as to fulfill diversity policies.

The “White guys without disabilities” — who are without protected status — are not recruited and retained with preference. They are secondly recruited and retained.

The policy of diversity gives preference to people with protected status such as women, people who aren’t White, Indigenous North American people (Cree, Ojibwe, etc.), and any person with a disability.

If anyone has real-life examples of equal preference demonstrated by recruiting and retention that doesn’t do the following of:

1) Showing a regular preference of women over men when hiring for tenure STEM professorships at universities (<– this is a hyperlink that will open “National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference For Women on STEM Tenure Track“)


2) Demonstrating a regular preference to hire and retain people who have protected status. Meanwhile diversity policy assumes that people without protected status will always and forever be hired, retained, and have steady representation.

Is it possible that the assumption inherent in diversity policy is wrong?

This assumption is that the people without protected status (like the “White guy without disabilities”) will always be recruited, hired, retained and have representation without the helping hand of diversity policy.

It is possible that the group of people who don’t have protected status will number less and less in schools, businesses, and governments?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s