The Google Anti-Diversity Memo

Jenna Hage-Hassan
Aug 22, 2017 · 8 min read

With Danielle Balaghi and Brad Dunn

Here at 4Thought Studios, we have spent the past few weeks hearing about and reading James Damore’s memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” I’m sure many of you have read the memo for yourselves, and those of you who are on the 4Thought blog have probably read about the fallout from it and heard Google’s response.

As an early-stage startup, we try to shy away from controversy and political discussions whenever possible. We are, however, a female-led team (a female scientist-led team) that strives to make our workplace more effective through diversity. This debate is one we couldn’t sit out on.

The Memo

What exactly is the document that’s causing all of this ruckus? Mr. Damore was an engineer at Google at the time he published it. In the memo, Damore discusses the gender gap in technology and attributes it to differences in psychology between the sexes rather than industry practices. The memo is long-winded. In it, Damore discusses a variety of reasons why this gap exists — reasons that range from biological, to societal, to psychological. Throughout the memo, he makes it clear over and over again that these are not his personal views; on the contrary, he values gender diversity — he is simply explaining the science to us.

Let’s talk science for a minute. You many know the name Just Lucas-Championnière. Championnière was a revered 19th century French surgeon. If you’ve heard of him it’s probably because you know that he discovered bronchitis. You may not know, however, that Dr. Championnière contributed to America’s oldest magazine, Scientific American. In 1895, Championnière addressed the question of women riding bikes in the publication, writing:

“’Even when she is perfectly at home on the wheel, she should remember her sex is not intended by nature for violent muscular exertion. . .’”

Championnière wasn’t some eccentric, fringe figure in the scientific and medical community. He was an internationally known and well-respected physician, and what he was writing reflected, not just the attitudes of the day, but the science of the day as well.

Science is dynamic — it changes. That’s the nature of the scientific method. It’s how we make progress and discover new things — by proving that old ideas are wrong and testing new hypotheses to explain natural phenomena. Let’s put the science aside for a second. Let’s assume for a moment that James Damore’s memo gets the science 100% correct. Does this make his arguments in his memo valid?

The Morality

Throughout our history, we as a species have changed how we view moral questions. We force ourselves to reassess our biggest moral questions over and over — sometimes despite the science. We have reached the point as a species where we define what’s right and wrong based on an understanding of science, a survey of history, and deep philosophical reflection. Even if Damore’s science is accurate, is the world that he proposes as a consequence of it one that we wish to live in? This is the question that we need to answer.

Furthermore, upon more thorough logical analysis, the arguments made in this memo do not hold water. In his manifesto, Mr. Damore makes several claims which sound on its surface as in support of his claims. With minimal effort and a bit of close reading, however, the fragility of his statements really show. While making the case for how men and women differ from each other biologically, he does his best to make the case that these differences cannot be explained from a social construct perspective because:

“They’re universal across human cultures”

What is universal across human cultures? What is ‘they’re’? This isn’t taken out of context, this is a direct quote from his list of his reasons why the gender gap exist. It’s akin to saying “Coke is different from Pepsi because people universally like Pepsi across human cultures.” My example is actually slightly more cogent than the original.

“They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone”

Again, what is they? The biases? That may be interesting if there was a link to behaviors and prenatal testosterone, but where is the evidence? On Thursdays, the sky is green. There — I made a statement. Forget the evidence, just believe me on this one. These are just two examples — the manifesto is full of statements of this nature.

The Science

Now that our thought exercise is complete, let’s address some of the scientific claims made in this piece. To begin with, Mr. Damore’s arguments are conflating gender and sex. While there are hormonal and biological differences between men and women that contribute to physical characteristics, the cognitive and social differences are insignificant to negligent. Research in fact shows there is little to no difference in a significant amount of psychological variables, such as cognitive abilities, verbal communication, mathematical ability, or moral reasoning. While men do indeed have a slight edge in mathematical and spatial abilities — it is minuscule and can be explained by the “chicken or the egg” phenomenon: did men perform better at math because they received socialized messages that “math is for boys” at an early age? Research suggests that may be the case — as children are often ushered into fields that coincide with their gender. This also explains why women have a slight edge in verbal abilities, as women typically receive messages that humanities and social sciences are more appropriate than math or natural science.

Individuals can also experience stereotype threat, which arises when individuals fear conforming to a stereotype, ultimately affecting their performance. Stereotype threat can drive men/women from pursuing opposite-gender related subjects. This phenomenon sounds suspiciously similar to what is being perpetuated in this memo.

Damore attempts to use evolutionary psychology to back up his claims, stating that,

“On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed. . .they’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective.”

Evolutionary speaking, women and men no longer live like they used to live thousands of years ago — men do not need to “hunt,” they grocery shop. It is similar to how slightly outdated our “fight or flight” response can be — we are not constantly being chased by a predator, therefore our response has evolved. So too have our social roles.

While there have been differences in personality — the arguments posed in the Google memo are also incorrect due to the social role theory. This theory explains why men and women go into specific fields. This drive is unrelated to personality and more related to how we are socialized. For instance, in society women are socialized to be nurturant and expressive. With these societal skills women, are socialized into “feminine” jobs, such as teaching, that align well with those personality traits.

Damore also discusses a drive for status, citing a lack of such drive in women. The lack of women, not just in tech, but in leadership, he claims, is attributed to this. There has been some research to suggest that, in fact, there is little to no difference in the strive for power between men/women. So, why is there such a significant difference in leadership? The stereotypes perpetuated against women and the systemic inequalities embedded in our legal and institutional systems prevent women from gaining leadership positions.

The Response

James Damore was fired from his position as an engineer. Google also responded by appointing Danielle Brown its new (and first) VP of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance. The company’s CEO also took a strong stand on the issue, emailing Google staff. In his email, CEO Sundar Pichai writes, “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive. . .” Mr. Damore is pursuing legal action against his former employer.

The Analysis

Say I had an employee named Jon Snow. Let’s pretend that Jon believed that women should be kept in cages. Mr. Snow comes to work at my office every day and does his work in a meticulous manner. He is respectful to his coworkers, both male and female. I know that Jon believes women should remain in their cages because every day after work, he stands on a public street corner and screams it along with his a-woman’s-place-is-in-a-cage-crew. I wave to him as I’m getting in my car every day and Jon Snow waves back. Should Jon lose his job?

Absolutely not. His reprehensible views run contrary to everything I and my company (and basic human decency) stand for; however, they are not affecting his work in any way. Mr. Snow would be terminated only if he used our company blog, or our Epochly app, to spread these views because they run contrary to our company philosophy and we do not wish to spread them. As long he is not actively trying to associate his reprehensible views with our company, he should be free to hold those views without fear of losing his job. The situation with James Demore is exactly like that of our hypothetical Jon Snow. He should not have been fired for his unscientific views; however, he was using a company application to spread them, and this warrants a firm response on Google’s part.

Mr. Pichai’s response, while well intentioned, was not sufficient. This memo and its author should not be attacked because they’re offensive. They should be attacked because they’re wrong — scientifically, morally, and otherwise. Pichai had an opportunity to explain to his company and the world exactly why women are indeed suited to tech work, and yet he missed this opportunity.

Further Reading

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12418325_Sex_Differences_and_Similarities_in_Job_Attribute_Preferences_A_Meta-Analysis

4Thought Studios

A collection of articles and musings of a small app development company.

)

Jenna Hage-Hassan

Written by

CEO of 4Thought Studios, Entrepreneur, Geologist, STEM Teacher and Communicator, Detroit Native

4Thought Studios

A collection of articles and musings of a small app development company.