Exclusive: Here's The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

Standard conservative/classical-liberal Enlightenment thought, backed by evobio & socsci studies.
But the comments!🤣https://t.co/P7BDS6SB5T

— Taylor Owens (@anukasan1977) August 6, 2017

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. 

If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. 

Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. 

Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. 

This needs to change. 

TL:DR 

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. 

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. 

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. 

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression 

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression 

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. 

Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.