By firing the writer of that memo, Google missed a golden opportunity for dialogue
So much ink has been spilt over that Google memo and the fate of its author that I don’t wish to reiterate points that many others have made well. Here are two well meaning and well reasoned posts that I particularly liked.
However, one thing I have not seen much is a discussion of Google’s direct reaction. Sure, a lot of people are split between justifying the memo writer’s firing and firmly being opposed to it. But in my opinion Google could have dealt with the situation in a third way, one which would have upheld the supposedly open culture of research and inquiry which they claim to have sustained, and whose reputation has now been dealt a serious blow.
What’s this third way? It is the way of the intellectual, the way of a research organization, the way of rational dialogue on opposing viewpoints. Google could have used this incident to organize a set of seminars focused on the latest research on biological and cultural diversity. Gender, racial and viewpoint diversity and their impact on company performance are important topics, not just conceptually but for a company’s bottom line. Google has always prided themselves on being at the forefront of blue-sky research and broad interests. Why not invite world class researchers in psychology, sociology, evolutionary biology, neuroscience and gender studies to present their thoughts on gender differences, social discrimination and their impact on intellectual activity? Why not use this opportunity to find out what the latest research on the subject says?
Google already has a terrific seminar series called “Authors at Google” which features well known writers and thinkers giving talks at the company, either on books they have written or on more general topics. These authors have spanned a remarkable cross-section of natural and social science. With Google’s budget, it would not have been hard at all to fly in a dozen such thinkers from across the world for a summit. They could have picked a variety of intellectuals and writers from a wide swathe of science and humanities disciplines and intellectual viewpoints to showcase their thoughts and findings. The memo had several references in it; perhaps the researchers whose work was cited could have been invited. The sessions could have been live- streamed for the world to ponder. The seminar series could have given people with all kinds of opinions on the issue an opportunity to listen to “the other side” and debate constructively.
Google was in a particularly good position to leverage this incident in a very positive manner. They are one of the few companies who have both the material and the intellectual background to do this. If they had turned their disapproval into intellectual exploration, everyone would have learnt and we would all have been better off. Ending the discussion by firing the writer is not only unproductive for everyone except those who see their existing beliefs validated, but it is also profoundly unscientific and unbecoming of an organization that prides itself on its research environment.
