Blogs
Gender diversity and free speech
|
The Silicon Valley is just now as likely to be about sex as software. Women in tech firms feel badly treated. And they are right: they rarely get the top jobs, they are sometimes paid less than men and many suffer unwanted sexual advances. Most of their male collegues sympathise; at the same time some feel they cannot express unorthodox opinions on gender. And they are right,too:they can easily fall foul of written and unwritten rules, and face drastic consequences.
The charged atmosphere helps explain why "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber ", a memo by a young software engineer, James Damore, has caused such a stir. It says that the firm's effeorts to hire more women are biased. After circulating internally, it went viral. On August 7th Mr Damore was fired. To quote Sundar Pichai, Google's boss, he advanced "harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace".
Mr Pichai had good reasons to sack Mr Damore. One is the content of the memo. It says many reasonable -sounding things: that "we all have biases" and that "honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots". But these are just camouflage before a stonking rhetorical "but": the argument that innate differences, rather than sexism and discrimination, explain why women fare worse in the technology industry than men. "Neuroticism"(higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)", Mr Damore writes, "may contribute ...to the lower number of women in high-stress jobs".
Research has indeed shown some smallish group-level differences in personality and interestes between the sexes. But drawing a line from this to women's suitability for tech jobs is puerile. An unbiased eye would light on social factors rather than innate differences as the reason why only a fifth of computer engineers are women. Mr Damore claims women are "more interested in people than things" but, if this were true, they would in fact be better than men at the senior software-engineering jobs that involve managing teams. As for blind spots, although he repeatedly uses the words "discriminate" and "discrimination", Mr Damore does so only to describe the unfaireness to men of trying to hire more women.
Mr Pichai also has legeal arguments on his side. The American constitution protects free speech in public, but within a company's walls that right is limited by what bosses deem acceptable. After Mr Damore has suggested they are less qualified because of their sex, women at Google could have refused to work within him and taken legal action. Moreover, he may have known that his memo would be seized on in Alt-Right circles.
Still, there was a better response to Mr Damore than immediately giving him the sack. Other firms may limit their workers' speech, but the largest search engine, with a mission to "organise the world's information and make it universally accessible",should hold itself to a higher standard. It should not be suspected of limiting the debate of thorny subjects.
It would have been better for Larry Page, Goggle's co-founder and the boss of Alphabet, its holding company, to write a ringing,detailed rebuttal of Mr Damore's argument. Google could have stood up for its female employees while demonstrating the value of free speech. That might have led to the "honest discussion " Mr Damore claimed to want- and avoid the ersatz one about his firing. It would have shown that his arguments are not taboo, but mostly foolish and ill-informed. And it would have countered his more defensible claim: that Google, and the Valley, so welcoming of gender diversity, are narrower-minded about unorthodox opinions.
View AllAuthor's latest blogs
- • Nation's first drone route for food delivery approved.
- • Nike, H&M and Burberry join forces for sustainable fashion
- • New Starbucks policy: No purchase needed to sit in cafes
- • Which way do you prefer to get information?
- • Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and re
