re A Googler's Would-Be Manifesto Reveals Tech's Rotten Core

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: 
> Subject: Re: [IP] A Googler's Would-Be Manifesto Reveals Tech's Rotten Core
> Date: August 6, 2017 at 5:55:03 PM EDT
> To: Dave Farber <farber () gmail com>
>
> David: please list this as an anonymous post and remove my name/contact info.
>
> To those of us in the tech world who are in the minority, this "manifesto" is no surprise. We've been facing this 
> attitude for years: originally very 
> overt, now subliminal by those who think they're "blind" to gender expression, race and ageism. 
>
> As a female over 30, it's been a tough going in high technology: tech workers have not been kind to my tribe. 
> Numerous gropes, innuendos, missed invitations and countless 8 hour interviews with America's finest corporate brain 
> trust all with the same result. Interviewed by no technical females, no minorities and, with the exception of the 
> bosses who introduced me to the team, no one is ever over 40. 
>
> How does this happen? As with synergy, the whole of discrimination is more than the sum of its parts. It's the 
> classic combination of institutional practices and individual behaviors: intentional and subtle discrimination, 
> followed by statistical profiling and organization culture. The candidate's background must be above reproach: the 
> degree and institution must be of a certain pedigree, the good news is this is true of most positions, although 
> hopefully this may be changing. When 1st tier Corporate America receives multi-million applications, Bekeley, MIT, 
> Cal Tech and CMU graduates float to the top of the stack and get the call. Questions during the interview often 
> reflect the knowledge of the interviewer in a legitimate attempt to ascertain the capabilities/knowledge of the 
> candidate, whether or not that interviewer has a clue as to the duties of the position or the qualities for  success: 
> he get a vote in the process. Implicit discrimination runs rampant during the interaction. The minority candidate 
> does not have the opportunity to ask any sensitive questions regarding the workplace, and must keep all lines of 
> inquiry generic, least one be labeled as trouble. The opportunity for discrimination has an infinite parts list with 
> the sum replayed in the release of hiring statistics, typically followed by "we need to do better".
>
> Rejected by Corporate America as a candidate, yet hired by Corporate America as a consultant, by the very same 
> interviewers who rejected the candidate, is what puts bread on the family table. I hold no bitterness, just a hope 
> for the future generations of minorities to have a better experience, although I'm not holding my breath on this one. 
> And this is simply the interview/hiring process -- don't get me started on the realities of "once hired" as a 
> minority.
>
> Anonymous
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Dave Farber <farber () gmail com>
> To: ip <ip () listbox com> 
> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 12:30 PM
> Subject: [IP] A Googler's Would-Be Manifesto Reveals Tech's Rotten Core
>
> One person (i think) condemns a company!!!!! REALLY  DJF
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne () warpspeed com>>
> > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] A Googler's Would-Be Manifesto Reveals Tech's Rotten Core
> > Date: August 6, 2017 at 12:27:12 PM EDT
> > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>>
> > Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com <mailto:dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> >
> > A Googler's Would-Be Manifesto Reveals Tech's Rotten Core
> > Office culture is only part of the problem.
> > By IAN BOGOST
> > Aug 6 2017
> > <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-is-tech-so-awful/536052/ 
> > <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-is-tech-so-awful/536052/>>
> >
> > An anonymous Google software engineer’s 10-page fulmination against workplace diversity was leaked from internal 
> > company communications systems, including an internal version of Google+, the company’s social network, and another 
> > service that Gizmodo, which published the full memo, called an “internal meme network.”
> >
> > “I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to 
> > biological causes,” the Googler writes, “and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal 
> > representation of women in tech and leadership.”
> >
> > The memo has drawn rage and dismay since its appearance Saturday, when it was first reported by Motherboard. It 
> > seemed to dash hopes that much progress has been made in unraveling the systemic conditions that produce and 
> > perpetuate inequity in the technology industry. That includes increasing the distribution of women and minorities in 
> > technical jobs, equalizing pay, breaking the glass ceiling, and improving the quality of life in workplaces that 
> > sometimes resemble frat houses more than businesses.
> >
> > These reactions to the screed are sound, but they risk missing a larger problem: The kind of computing systems that 
> > get made and used by people outside the industry, and with serious consequences, are a direct byproduct of the gross 
> > machismo of computing writ large. More women and minorities are needed in computing because the world would be 
> > better for their contributions—and because it might be much worse without them.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > Workplace equity has become a more visible issue in general, but it has reached fever pitch in the technology 
> > sector, especially with respect to women. When the former Uber engineer Susan Fowler published an explosive 
> > accusation of sexism at that company earlier this year, people took notice. When combined with a series of other 
> > scandals, not to mention with Uber’s longstanding, dubious behavior toward drivers and municipalities, the company 
> > was forced to act. CEO Travis Kalanick was ousted (although he remains on the board, where he retains substantial 
> > control).
> >
> > Given the context, it’s reasonable to sneer at the anonymous Googler’s simple grievances against workplace 
> > diversity. Supposedly natural differences between men and women make them suited for different kinds of work, he 
> > argues. Failure to accept this condition casts the result as inequality, he contends, and then as oppression. 
> > Seeking to correct for it amounts to discrimination. Rejecting these premises constitutes bias, or stymies open 
> > discourse. The Googler does not reject the idea of increasing diversity in some way. However, he laments what he 
> > considers discriminatory practices instituted to accomplish those goals, among them hiring methods designed to 
> > increase the diversity of candidate pools and training or mentoring efforts meant to better support 
> > under-represented groups.
> >
> > Efforts like these are necessary in the first place because diversity is so bad in the technology industry to begin 
> > with. Google publishes a diversity report, which reveals that the company’s workforce is currently comprised of 31 
> > percent women, with 20 percent working in technical fields. Those numbers are roughly on par with the tech sector as 
> > a whole, where about a quarter of workers are women.
> >
> > Racial and ethnic diversity are even worse—and so invisible that they barely register as a problem for the anonymous 
> > Googler. I was chatting about the memo with my Georgia Tech colleague Charles Isbell, who is Executive Associate 
> > Dean of the College of Computing and the only black tenure-track faculty member among over 80 in this top-ten 
> > ranking program.
> >
> > “Nothing about why black and Hispanic men aren’t software engineers?” he asked me after reading the letter, 
> > paraphrasing another black computer scientist, Duke’s Jeffrey R.N. Forbes. “Did I glaze over that bit?” Isbell knows 
> > that Google’s meager distribution of women  far outshines its terrible racial diversity. Only 2 percent of all U.S. 
> > Googlers are black, and only 4 percent are Hispanic. In tech-oriented positions, the numbers fall to 1 percent and 3 
> > percent, respectively. (Unlike the gender data, which is global, the ethnic diversity data is for the U.S. only.)
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/ <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/>
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp <https://twitter.com/wa8dzp>




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170806180453:435848CE-7AF3-11E7-BE33-FB1886F253C1
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com