This article, unlike the Google manifesto, is terribly written. On point 1… Mr. Zunger declares to Google author is not an expert on gender and then says “But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.” OK so he’s not an expert to speak on point one and is just being hyperbolic. But the Google author actually has a PhD in Biology. So, by this author’s own criteria is entitled to speak up on the subject, right?
Point 2, the Google author never says women can’t be engineers or aren’t good engineers, or anything like that. He simply says genetic differences may explain why men appear to be more interested in engineering… ie: why, after enormous amounts of effort, men are still disproportional represented in tech. Sexism alone cannot explain such a strong disparity anymore than it can explain disparity between men and women in teaching or nursing. The Google author is exploring alternate reasons why and wondering why no one asks the same questions in other professions that are nowhere near 50/50.
Point 3. Mr Zunger saiys: “What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful. You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs.” But that’s not what the Google author was saying at all.
The Google author is pro diversity, to the point of acknowledging unique differences, and was offering up to Google suggestions on how to make fields more accommodating for those differences.
I can imagine the Google author has been involved with endless discussions on diversity and sexism and unconscious bias and why more women aren’t in engineering. He attempts to bring a much more substantive angle to the discussion, namely scientific research. If anything, he’s ahead of his time and his thoughts were unworthy of a highly charged environment at Google.
I’m not saying the Google author’s suggestions are entirely correct but it is the most substantive article I have read on helping diversity in the workplace a conversation usually crowded with emotion and non sequitur. The fact that he was fired for this, and that people rush to write silly articles like the one above, only proves the Google author’s point as correct.
Articles like Mr. Zunger’s are safe and offer a harbor of protection but they do not help the very cause they claim to be protecting. It a world chasing likes and hit counts it will cause no harm and do little good. I’ll take a provocative, thoughtful conversation brought up at risk to lively hood any day. Google is a lesser company for shouting such conversations down.