My girlfriend and I have been debating about this for about 2 weeks.
She is very against the Google Memo and James Damore, to the point that my support for the memo and what JD did had her questioning our relationship. After many long and intense debates, yesterday we finally wrote each of our thoughts down, to organize them and get clear on what the core of our positions are, and then we emailed them to each other.
I am going to share with you the email I wrote in it's entirety, which was in response to hers, but I will only share her conclusion, which was this:
This idea that biology draws men to one thing and women to another is NOT inherently wrong. I disagree with many who try to state that biological differences don't exist. But I understand why they are doing so. Because they want to take away the most powerful weapon sexism has.
That's this narrative:
"You're naturally different, it's science, and you can't deny that. Those differences are unchangeable and what's more...they make you less than, an object not a person or being, and of less worth than a man, in every conceivable way. Morally, intellectually, physically, spiritually, emotionally, and socially, you are inferior. So I can treat you with contempt, disgust, anger, selfishness, and even violence. Because of biology. Which you can't change."
This is the reason that I don't agree with his memo, and why I consider it dangerous, sexist, and retrograde.
I believe he absolutely has the unfettered right to say what he said. It may even be facts (some of the things he said) that are true.
But his conclusion allows sexism to thrive and continue in tech and in the wider world. And that is unacceptable to me.
I get what she is saying, and I understand where she is coming from. The historical situation between men and women makes it rational to be very suspicious and cautious of anything that seems to run parallel to those old ways of thinking. I get it.
And sexism and discrimination against women actually does exist in the world today, probably in a much bigger way then any of us really realize. Women do get discriminated against in the work place, and historically it was institutionalized, and anything that even resembles that kind of thing has no business in the modern conversation. I agree, and I am on the same page.
But this was my final counterpoint:
I guess my only counter argument would be that if Google is discriminating against it's applicants based on race and gender, in order to meet a certain quota of skin colors and genders in certain positions, - like you in relation to JD - I think they absolutely have the unfettered right to do that, but I disagree with this practice.
I think applicants should be hired based on ability and merit, and hiring should be blind to race and gender. If Google justifies discriminatory hiring practices based on gender and race with the assumption that a non 50/50 distribution across all positions is the result of sexism and racism, I think it is warranted to do as JD did, and point out that a non 50/50 split may be the result of factors other then racism/sexism, and therefore does not necessarily justify such discriminatory hiring practices.
I do think they have the absolute right to do what they are doing, it's their company and no one has a right to be their employee, but for the reasons outlined above I don't think hiring people based on race and gender to try to achieve a 50/50 distribution is acceptable, and I don't think JD is perpetuating sexism by pointing out that they are justifying such abhorrent hiring practices while ignoring data that says a non 50/50 distribution can be the result of things other then oppression.
My values are this: I don't think any individual should be discriminated against based on their gender or race.
If I hold to that value, it follows that I am not in support of Google discriminating against it's applicants based on race and gender. To say that Google should hire people based on how many women and how many black people etc. that they want in certain positions, would be a violation of my values.
If we see that some positions are disproportionately male, I can see how the historical context could lead one to believe that discriminatory hiring practices are the cause, which would seem to justify counter-discriminatory hiring practices to right the wrong. But not in light of the data provided by JD.
If there are external non-discriminatory factors that lead men and women to gravitate towards certain tasks and not others, which lead to disproportionately male or female dominated positions in the work place, that are not caused by gender or race discrimination, then discriminatory hiring practices designed to try to get to a 50/50 distribution is actually introducing sexism and racism into the workplace unjustly.
If i stand by my value that no individual should be discriminated against based on their gender or race, I am highly motivated to point out this injustice. Discriminating against applicants based on gender and race can only be justified if the reason is to counter discriminating against applicants based on gender and race, if that is the cause of male dominance in certain positions. If there are facts that show that male dominance in certain positions is not necessarily the result of discrimination, then it is highly important to share those facts, because it means the counter-discriminatory hiring practices are, in fact, themselves sexist and racist.
What is highly unsettling, is the vitriol with which such facts are received, and with what certainty they are rejected. If facts which are counter to the assumption that male dominance in certain positions is off the table for discussion, immediately rejected, and picked apart and ridiculed away, then an injustice based on a false assumption withstands. Unjustified discriminatory hiring practices based on gender and race go on unaffected by the facts, and thus sexism and racism goes on under the illusion that it is a justified tactic to reduce sexism and racism in the world, when it is not. In fact, it is introducing more sexism and racism into the world, the exact opposite of the stated goal.
So in conclusion, I am in support of JD publishing the internal Google memo which attempts to show that a non 50/50 split in programming and other positions may be the result of other factors, because whether or not this information is true means the difference between whether the discriminatory hiring practices of google based on gender and race are a justified countermeasure in reaction to sexism and racism, or just plain cold evil, and are actually introducing sexism and racism into the work place, only in the opposite of the historical direction.
If i truly believe the maxim, "No individual should be discriminated against based on their gender or race," then I must be against it wherever it is found, whoever it is against, regardless of their race or gender, otherwise i violate my own values.
After we read each other's emails, we hugged and agreed that each side had a point. We still don't see eye to eye on the matter, but we have learned to agree to disagree. Google should have the freedom to hire who they want, and James Damore should have the freedom to voice his opinion. I don't have to agree with Google's hiring practices, and she doesn't have to agree with James Damore's memo, but what we do agree on, is racism and sexism are wrong, and that should be a topic we fight against together, as a united force.
- KG