The response Google should have written
And how they missed the perfect opportunity to combat sexism with science
“I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority... I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group...”
Do you agree with this statement? I do.
I’ve read the infamous “anti-diversity” memo, start to finish, and it’s no question — James Damore has some sexist views. There is no way a Harvard grad in Systems Biology could have written something with so many logical fallacies and misconstrued scientific findings if it wasn’t for a lot of emotion and bias.
The thing is, Google’s decision to fire him is just going to push him to a more extreme place and harden his resolve. Perhaps if they had responded differently he would not have went to the alt-right YouTuber Stefan Molyneux for his first interview. Now, other Google employees who share some of his beliefs will closet themselves — perpetuating bias and discrimination even more.
Google’s decision was in all likelihood about public image, given the inopportune timing (read: Uber, Silicon Valley, sexual harassment epidemic, wage discrimination controversy). But it was the wrong decision none the less. We need to remember Damore didn’t organize a white supremacist rally, drive a car into innocent counter-protester or sexually harass a female colleague. He just wrote a memo about what he felt and thought — biases and all.
Before you jump on me for being a sympathizer, note that I’m a female Gender Studies major. I’ve just gotten to a point where I’m so sick of people yelling at each other for being awful, and not achieving anything, that I’ve reflected long and hard about how to create social change. And, I’m pretty sure firing a person who did not commit an act of violence or overt discrimination, but who tried to have a dialogue, is NOT the way to change them or the culture they represent.
So, what should have Google done? Released a public letter to Damore that went something like this…
“Dear James,
We appreciate your commitment to creating an open and inclusive environment at Google, and welcome your thoughts on the best way to foster one.
While we are surprised at some of the conclusions your memo draws about the “preferences and abilities” about women versus men, we realize that there are gaps in awareness and knowledge regarding Google’s approaches, and broader scientific evidence, that should be clarified or which warrant discussion.
In a nutshell, we firmly believe that if we promote the ability of all individuals to reveal their full potential, then we will be able to harness the talents everyone for the company’s benefit as a whole. Google thrives by leveraging diverse talents wherever they apply— whether that’s design, human resources, engineering, or management.
On this note, we wanted to thank you for some of the things you shared in your memo. It is absolutely true that gender roles for men are incredibly inflexible and limiting. Not every man wants a “high status” job, or poor work-life balance. No manager or colleague should treat any employee that way just because of their sex or gender. Our diversity department would love to work with you and other colleagues to design a program which would help men deconstruct and work against the pressures they face but do not want. Unfortunately, we need to be honest that this initiative would be exactly the type of “specific program & mentoring” which you spoke out against in your memo. If you feel that you or any of your male colleagues would benefit from existing programs targeted towards women and minorities please let us know — we can consider expanding this support as appropriate.
Our inclination to think of such an initiative arose because we empathized with your situation — the situation of so many men. Yet, you also spoke out against the power of empathy. While we agree that there is a risk in focusing too much on people who pull on our heart strings, we also know that empathy can be a powerful tool to identify systemic problems and solutions — as we are here.
In this vein, we find the assumption that only women are: open to feelings, interested in aesthetics, social, artistic, and gregarious, is isolating and unfair to men or individuals of any gender identity that feel this way about themselves. We have some amazing male designers who, thankfully, care a lot about aesthetics. The most effective way to empower all individuals to be their best is to avoid gender-based assumptions about their capability and interests.
We think that your idea to make software engineering more people oriented, and to allow cooperative behavior to thrive, are phenomenal ideas. These are things that we are actively trying to promote in our management. Our belief is that this will not only benefit one particular group — but everyone. It is something we would like to actively cultivate, and we welcome your suggestions on how to do so.
Lastly, the “left” and “right” biases you put forth are interesting and compelling. When we look at Google’s ultimate corporate goals and performance, if any of these biases lead us to take actions which are not based on evidence or to underachieve, that is a problem. Whenever there is proof that we are not building the best products and services because of such biases that should be addressed.
Now, we also want to take this opportunity to provide an unequivocal response to the assertions you make regarding the biological differences between “men and women” and their “preferences and abilities” for “tech and leadership”. We had members of our diversity team dive deep into the scientific literature so we could check the validity of our stance — and to provide you with rigorous evidence. Forgive us for the length of this letter, but we thought your memo justified a thorough and thoughtful response.
Here is what we what know.
No rational person can deny that scientific evidence proves that there are sex differences between the average male and average female. Without this difference human reproduction would not be possible. However, we don’t think these sex differences determine whether an individual, regardless of their sex or gender, will succeed in tech or leadership. Period.
The majority of biological differences between individuals have nothing to do with sex. When focusing on sex-related characteristics, the variation of biological sex-characteristics among males and among females reveals substantial overlap between the sexes. Central to understanding this overlap is that not all males and females are “average” . You mention treating people as individuals, based on statistics and biology — we agree.
Humans classify biological sex through consideration of the following: sex chromosomes (XX, XY or some other combination of X’s and Y’s), gonads (testes vs. ovaries), reproductive anatomy (e.g., uterus vs. prostate), external genitalia (e.g., penis vs. clitoris) and hormone levels. Yet, if you look at these characteristics across all males or across all females we find immense variation — variation that is not perceivable just by looking at someone in an interview or office. Labeling someone “man” or “woman” just does not do them justice as an individual.
When we consider the link between biology and behavior, the most relevant, perhaps, has to do with sex hormones and the brain. The main sex hormones fall into three categories: androgens (including, but not limited to, testosterone), estrogens, and progestogens. The average male tends to have more androgens than estrogen and progesterone, and average female tends to have more estrogen and progesterone than androgens. However, the magnitude and direction of these differences depends on the individuals being compared at a specific point in time.
For example, 2014 study of just under 700 elite athletes revealed that 16.5% of male athletes fell below the minimum end of the male testosterone range, and 14% of female athletes fell above upper end of the female reference range. Physical performance may not be as relevant for us, but the point is — we can’t assume any individual man or woman is the archetype “average”, or that sex characteristics determine all differences in performance across roles.
When it comes to brain development, we do know that gonadal hormone levels in the neonatal period lead to subtle sex-related differences in brain structure. A breakthrough 2017 study of over 5,000 male and female study participants in the UK earlier this year found that, on average, males tend to have greater brain volume in subcortical regions (responsible for the same mammalian functions we share with other animals) but on average females tend to have thicker cortices (the part of the brain that makes us more uniquely human, or at least primate). However, the authors note that variation in thickness and volume across males and females was so wide that it would be difficult to categorize a randomly picked brain scan as being either female or male. They also could not make any clear conclusions about the implications of these differences.
All males and females have androgen, progesterone, and estrogen receptors throughout their brain — but we’re still learning about where they are and how they work. Unfortunately, a lot of the evidence we have is from animal studies. Humans, given the uniqueness of their sizable cerebral cortex, are just not the same. The connections we find between hormones and behavior in animals seem to be mediated by much more in humans. For example, research from animals and humans shows that exposure to testosterone in the neonatal period improves spatial skills, but the size of the gap found in animals wasn’t found in humans — perhaps because of how much humans can learn. All human brains include about 100 billion nerve cells each with an average of 7,000 connections to other cells. When we learn we create different configurations of these neurons. Our brains are fascinating, and neuroplasticity applies regardless of our sex or gender!
Research does show population level sex differences in the prevalence of certain neurological disorders, for both males and females. As evidence develops on this we look forward to seeing how we can leverage that evidence to provide quality support to all of our employees no matter what they are faced with.
Lastly, when it comes to evolutionary psychology, it is true that if we were all cavemen then the primary purpose of our sex differences would be for males and females to mate with each other. This would lead to a general emphasis on physical strength and power versus beauty and caring. But, if that is the world we all wanted to live in then there would be no Google. As humans we’ve decided the world is much more than that and we care about a plethora of capacities and skills. We could argue that the decision to move beyond reproduction comes from the dominance of our cerebral cortex. This gives us the capacity to try to understand ourselves and the world, and to mediate our biological impulses, in a way that most other animals cannot.
So why all this talk about focusing on women as a group when we’ve just argued that we should treat all people as individuals?
Because, while biological evidence emphasizes the variation and overlap within and between the sexes, society has overwhelmingly treated individuals based on broad social constructions of gender.
A randomized control trial showed that when randomly assigned Asian girls received a “primer” text that made either their Asian identity or gender identity salient, those that were primed with their Asian identity performed better on a math exam. Think about how powerful that is. The same population of girls performed differently based on societal stereotypes. They limited or exhibited their capabilities based on what other people convinced them. At Google we want to make sure we find the most talented people to fit our wide range of needs, and we’re not going to get there if people are not encouraged to reach their full potential.
Similarly, American Labor Bureau statistics show that in households with a working woman and a working man, woman spend more time on house chores and child rearing and men spend more time on travel and physical activity. We cannot expect woman to pursue more demanding professional positions if they are pulling extra weight in their personal life. In any case, saying women prefer not to take demanding roles seems a bit presumptuous — try asking, you may be surprised at what you find.
It is this reality that warrants targeted support, but support does not equate to lowering our qualification standards for any individual. In hiring, where we see that multiple individuals have an exceptional set of skills, we may consider who will contribute more to a diverse workplace. This is because we feel like a diversity of backgrounds, and the variety of experiences and viewpoints that brings, will help us be better. Should you ever see an illegal action made in the pursuit of an organizational OKR please come directly to us.
Thank you for your time and engagement, we look forward to working with you.
Here’s to achieving a fair and empowering workplace for everyone!”
