Google’s Diversity Memo–Read It WITH The Links Gizmodo Omitted


The Gizmodo report that pushed this internal Google memo to the public said this:

In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes, going on to argue that Google’s educational programs for young women may be misguided.

The post comes as Google battles a wage discrimination investigation by the US Department of Labor, which has found that Google routinely pays women less than men in comparable roles.

Gizmodo has reached out to Google for comment on the memo and how the company is addressing employee concerns regarding its content. We will update this article if we hear back.

The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

Exclusive: Here’s The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google [Updated], by Kate Conger, August 6, 2017

Of course, the hyperlinks that were “also omitted” were put there to provide evidence for anyone unfamiliar with the science about why women are different from men. This is the kind of thing I do here at VDARE.com

I always hate that, especially since Gizmodo seems to have done it on purpose. Motherboard provided an updated version: Here Are the Citations for the Anti-Diversity Manifesto Circulating at Google – Motherboard, August 7, 2017.

If you don’t  want to read it as a PDF, the best version is at diversitymemo.com.

I count 29 hyperlinks in sentences like “For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.”

Here are some of the things that got James Damore fired:

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

  • De-moralize diversity.
    • As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
  • Stop alienating conservatives.
    • Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
    • In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
    • Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
  • Confront Google’s biases.
    • I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
    • I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
  • Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
    • These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. [More]

Speaking out against explicitly anti-white, anti-male discrimination is Grade One crimethink.