Stop Lying! The Truth About The Google Memo

It’s being called the ‘Google “anti-diversity” Manifesto’. A ten (10) page document penned and shared as an internal memo by a senior engineer at Google, James Damour, officially titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber- How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”.


It’s being called the ‘Google “anti-diversity” Manifesto’. A ten (10) page document penned and shared as an internal memo by a senior engineer at Google, James Damour, officially titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber- How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”.
It covered topics like, “Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech” and “Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap”. The whole document is available on James’ official site. I encourage you to read it yourself for context.

He begins by stating, “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”

James then goes on to give ways in which men and women differ. Such as women on average having more “Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).” That they have more “Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.” And “Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).”

In the section titled ‘Men’s higher drive for status’, he then goes on to say, “We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.”

He then gave ways in which he believed the differences in the distribution of traits between men and women that he outlined in the previous section could be used to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Saying:

  • Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
    • We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
  • Women on average are more cooperative
    • Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do.
    • This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education.
  • Women on average are more prone to anxiety
    • Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
  • Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
    • Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture)part time work though can keep more women in tech.
  • The male gender role is currently inflexible
    • Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally “feminine” roles.

It is important to note that he also wrote, “I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that 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…”

Continue reading “Stop Lying! The Truth About The Google Memo”

Google In A Corner

Google has painted themselves into a corner for their future legal battles.

If you to go solely on the media’s coverage of the memo you’d be thinking that it must be pretty bad. CNN, for example, made the claim that the memo said women are biologically unfit for the tech industry.

From her piece on fortune, Susan Wojcicki said:

For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author?

Basically saying that questions should never be raised if the answers do not provide the answers they want. Or as James wrote in his memo, “This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.”

(Strange that nobody ever asks why there aren’t more female garbage collectors or sanitation workers… Strange indeed.)

Now, here’s the kicker. At the moment, more than 60 current and former Google employees are seeking to bring a class-action lawsuit against Google claiming that they have discriminated against its female employees. The US Department of Labour (DoL), said it had evidence of “systemic compensation disparities”.

According to an article in ‘The Guardian’ in relation to the lawsuit that the US Department of Labour filed against the company early this year. Regional Solicitor, Janet Herold, said, “The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”

In response to the allegations, Eileen Naughton, Google’s Vice President of People Operations said, “It’s very important to us that men and women who join Google in the same role are compensated on a level playing field, when they start and throughout their careers here.” An assertion corroborated by Glassdoor’s data.

However, their data also found that women at Google are still paid 16% less than the men.

In our sample of Google salaries, men and women are definitely not equally represented among job titles. For example, about 52 percent of males in our data worked as highly paid software engineers, while just 21 percent of women worked in those roles. By contrast, 6 percent of women in the sample worked as product marketing managers, while just 2 percent of men worked in those roles…

said Glassdoor’s Chief Economist, Dr. Andrew Chamberlain. He went on to say,

Men and women for a variety of reasons tend to be sorted into different jobs — even within the same company — and those different roles pay differently,” he says. “This new research shows this same phenomenon likely explains much of any overall gender pay gap at companies like Google as well.

Google’s own employee demographic data illustrates that of Google’s tech jobs, 80% of the workforce is male.

Google Diversity Chart

A statistic which matches the US Department of Education (DoE) data on the gender breakdown of Americans earning bachelor’s degrees in computer science, at 82% male.

Logically we know that these observed differences are the product of trends on average. But, Google fired James Damour for proclaiming those very things. Even though, in a report by Quillette, four scientists deemed the ten-page document to be scientifically accurate.

“The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right,” acknowledged, Lee Jussim a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University.

“Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.” announced Debra W Soh, a science writer with a Ph.D. in sexual neuroscience from the University of York.

Because of this Google has painted themselves into a legal corner. On one side, by firing James they’ve proven that they disagree with the ideas that he brought forward. Thus, they can’t credibly use those points to explain the noticeable contrast between men and women within their company. So, if the inequality can’t be explained by natural distribution, then the only thing left to presume is that Google has purposefully promoted inequality costing them the lawsuit.

On the other hand, if Google does decide to show that the distribution is natural, then Google would be confessing to the wrongful termination of James. Again, costing them the lawsuit.

Continue reading “Google In A Corner”

Google On The Left

A look into how “diverse” Google’s leadership truly is.

In the ten (10) page so-called ‘Google “anti-diversity” Manifesto’ penned and shared as an internal memo by a senior engineer at Google, James Damour, officially titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber- How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion”.

James lists several discriminatory practices he says Google is guilty of. Such as:

  • Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
  • A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
  • Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate and “restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races”, calling it “unfair and divisive”.

James also urged Google to reconsider making unconscious bias training mandatory for promo committee. Saying, “We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.” going on to say, “Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes.”

After stating that he believes Google has an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. He then explains why it feels like conservatives are alienated from the conversation, “In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility.”

If you actually look into how “diverse” Google’s leadership truly is, it’s not hard to see why James thought this… Place their names in a bag and pick one at random, anyone you choose would be a liberal far left activist. Such as:

  Sundar Pichai, a CEO at Google, Democrat donor.

  Chad Hurley, YouTube co-founder, and advisor, Democrat donor.

  Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, Democrat donor and promotes The Young Turks.

  John Giannandrea, a senior VP for search at Google, Democrat donor.

  David Drummond, senior VP at Google for corporate development, Democrat donor.

  Sridhar Ramaswamy, senior VP for ads and commerce at Google, Kamala Harris supporter and Hillary Clinton donor.

  John Doerr, Google board member, Democrat support PAC donor and held a Democratic fundraiser.

  Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, president of Google’s parent company, Democrat donor. Gave $800,000 to a PAC which offered free rides to polling stations just prior to the election.

  Omid Kordestani, the former senior VP at Google and now executive chairman at Twitter, Democrat donor and noted Trump hater on Twitter. (That’s right, chairman at Twitter using Twitter to lambaste the president. Because that’s not a conflict of interest…)

  Danielle Brown, Google head of diversity and worked directly for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

I’m not saying that they are wrong for having these opinions. I’m just pointing out the varied views of those running Google and YouTube. If you don’t believe me, you can always Google it.


My promise to you.

The reason mainstream media has failed isn’t a mystery.

There has been a slow, repeated and unacknowledged series of disappointments that have led us to now… Once serious news sources are now indistinguishable from ‘tabloid journalist’ who cover topics like Bigfoot, U.F.O.s and Elvis sightings. Reporting on the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars that are of no concern to anyone but them. It isn’t news, its entertainment and it shouldn’t be. They sacrificed their integrity for likes and the shares…

I hope to return to what’s important and recover journalism as a profession worthy of honour. The death of gossip and voyeurism. The birth of truth, logic, and reality. To successfully inform and educate to the best of my ability. To give the best possible version of the argument; defined by the source and by the number of relevant facts it contains. Not the most outrageous nor colourful version. I won’t hype up scares or manufacture controversy. I’ll give a factual account of our strengths, the dangers we actually face and if we’re prepared to meet them. I will try to expose the truth about things that are of importance.

I’ll post and present news that informs a debate worthy of intelligent people based on the simple inevitability that nothing is more paramount than a well-informed population. I’ll be the defender of facts and the nemesis of insinuation, rumour, hyperbole, and stupidity. I’m not in the business of offering you stories in a way to support your own personal worldview. I’ll call a lie a lie. I will treat this as a courtroom acting as attorney for all sides when possible. I won’t pretend that certain facts are arguable to give the appearance of fairness. Balance is irrelevant, there aren’t two sides to every story. Some have several, some only one.

I’m a human, not a machine capable of dispensing only the facts. Thus, I’ll make no effort to subdue my personal opinions, but I will address them. I will make every effort to expose you to informed opinions that differ from that of my own and to present the best possible versions of competing arguments.

Using this guideline of exceptional common-sense, I hope to gain your trust in this endeavour, because without credibility it doesn’t matter what else I have.