(CNN) This past weekend, a Google employee wrote exactly what has been described as a 10-page “manifesto against diversity. ” Boiling straight down 10 pages into a short line, and then commenting on it, is unattainable.
However the long and the short of their opinion seems to be that women are underrepresented in tech because of psychological variations between women and men, not because of prejudice, and women are underrepresented within the top tiers of leadership for their own preferences, not discrimination. Eventually, he believes that “diversity” endeavours should focus more on ideological variety, and less on immutable features like race and gender.
Cue the outrage and applause devices — depending on which political group you belong to. Of course , the outrage machine is calling for your pet to be tracked down and terminated. I take the opposite view, although not because I agree with him. Actually I mostly disagree with your pet, though I think he makes some great arguments — but that is inappropriate. I categorically oppose the notion that when you have an opinion that deviates too much from that which is considered to be “politically correct, ” then the appropriate abuse is that you should lose your job — plus preferably not be hired anywhere else, possibly.
A few are tempted to call this particular a “First Amendment” issue. Allow me to be clear, it is not. The government is just not involved, and thus this is not a breach of anyone’s constitutional rights. However one of the pillars that holds up the First Amendment is the “marketplace associated with ideas” theory — that tips should compete in the free marketplace, and that through wide-open and powerful debate, we will advance.
In ideology-driven severe regimes, locking someone out of the labour market because you don’t like their concepts is a common approach. Behind the particular Iron Curtain, for instance, if you were unable sufficiently Marxist, it didn’t indicate a trip to the gulag. You would simply find that you were out of a job. Naturally , the blowback against this Google worker is not top-down authoritarianism or orthodoxy enforced by the state. No, in the us when you violate the PC program code of conduct, a small cadre of individuals will dust off the outrage device — and millions of people will energy it.
The result of such a lynch-mob mindset fueled by intolerance for different factors of view is twofold. Very first, it winnows out those who may disagree, making the cone associated with tolerance and ideological pluralism ever-more narrow. Second, it drives cases of minority viewpoints or individuals with differing ideas underground, and leads to them to seek out and communicate just those who agree with them — which could push them to radicalization.
These results damage our marketplace of ideas — replacing it with a melee associated with venom.
Today, that melee is essentially a left-spinning gyre — yet let us not forget that the right really does this, too. During the Red Frighten and the McCarthy era, for example. Or even, even during the Bush years, whenever being anti-war meant being anti-American. Or, even recently when Trump supporters considered a particular production of the Shakespeare play to be too (supposedly) offensive
With regards to the substance of the manifesto, I see this as almost irrelevant. To me, in case you read it and are completely very angry or uniformly in favor, then you are usually part of the problem. If you can read anybody’s opinion, spread out over 10 web pages, and find nothing with which you concur, then you’re almost certainly not considering. Similarly, if you can read this mans entire memo and find yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren’t utilizing your brain either.
But , if we are in order to boil down his view, it really is this: that we do need variety but it should be focused on diversity associated with thought, not simply diversity that appears good to some in a group photograph. In that regard, I agree with your pet. Meanwhile, I find the claim doubtful that women are somehow genetically susceptible away from engineering. But I concur that it isn’t sexism that dissuades them from it, but more likely merely preferences they may have.
Nevertheless, I think it is completely valid for a company to think that adding more gender and cultural diversity to its pool associated with talent is better business. And if which is case, then in the marketplace they should be in a position to make that decision. I just also happen to believe that the company that looks for diversity associated with intellectual thought is, in the end, the company that has greater success.
Sign up for us on Twitter plus Fb
I will not call for anyone to be fired because he disagrees beside me on a social issue — and am implore you to join me within taking that position. Join myself in the marketplace of ideas.
Because the alternative is raising nastiness, and increasing division, plus increasing radicalization on both sides from the debate. The grownups are purchasing in the marketplace of ideas. Where have you been shopping?