So far Yonatan Zunger’s essay is the most thoughtful critique I’ve read among those opposed to the manifesto. That, unfortunately, is not a compliment. Most negative responses eschew rational discussion entirely for emotive posturing and out of hand dismissal, and whereas this also comprises a large part of Zunger’s essay, he does at least attempt some rational counterarguments. As can sadly be expected, the news media are complicit in legitimizing this behavior, choosing to report emotive tweets over substantive discussion. Complex social and scientific questions like gender discrimination, workplace policy, and the causes of inequalities, deserve better than the intellectually lazy or overtly anti-intellectual reactions exhibited by some of our supposedly best and brightest.
That said, Zunger’s essay is far from impressive. As has already been pointed out, his comments purporting to summarise the manifesto fail basic reading comprehension:
“arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas”
“women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.”
“I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person’s satisfaction”
What the Google engineer actually proposed as a working hypothesis:
“the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.”
Note the last part. The Google engineer at the very least has a fundamental grasp of statistics, which is more than can be said of most of his detractors.
Moreover:
“I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.”
And:
“Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination.”
In light of the above statements, it is hard for me to view Zunger’s paraphrasing of the manifesto, “we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it”, as being anything other than a lie.
I’d like to also briefly address some HR aspects in Zunger’s conclusion.
“Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this”
This answer assumes that *all* women, by virtue of being women, are
a) mentally not strong enough to work with someone who holds the ideas expressed in the manifesto
b) would object to working with the Google engineer
c) are offended by the content of the manifesto
d) substantially disagree with the content of the manifesto
None of which are true.
Ironically, it is Zunger’s stereotyping of women (categorical logic) which exhibits gender discrimination, not the Google engineer’s careful emphasis on individuals and the differences between averages and individuals.
“a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face”
If that is actually true, then Google has a workplace problem far more serious than the bruhaha over this manifesto. But I’d rather believe that Zunger is indulging in hyperbole, perhaps as an expression of his animus toward the Google engineer. Relatedly:
“I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you.”
I find it interesting that Zunger, not content to merely state he would dismiss the Google engineer, chose to emphasize the most intimidating and personally humiliating aspects of the process. This indicates more vindictiveness than would be appopriate for someone in a management position.
The first step in a dispute like this should be to gather information. Why does the Google engineer believe and feel the way that he does. Because the chances are that others in the company will feel similarly, as has been seen following the publication of the manifesto. Especially given the Google engineer’s claim of adverse psychological effects of claimed Google discriminatory policies. As Zunger put it “our company is committed to maintaining a good environment for all of its people”. All means all. The Google engineer gives the impression of being cautious, thoughtful, and open to reason. If Zunger’s unsubstantiated claim that “nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades” is in fact true, there is a possibility of dialog leading to the Google engineer correcting his views. Thereby improving the world just a little bit, instead of pushing the problem onto someone else with potentially stoked resentment, which does nothing to help tackle gender discrimination. Summary dismissal, as well as being more costly for the company, is in this case potentially illegal. Which is why dismissal is the last resort under competent management.
It is unlikely that someone as capable as this Google engineer would tolerate reporting to someone with Zunger’s temperament and judgment.
That Zunger was in fact in a senior management role at Google is circumstantial evidence in support of the Google engineer’s claims about management culture at Google.
