Fair warning: this is not really a blog post about IT security, but about issues which pertain to our industry. You’ll find social sciences and humanities – “soft sciences” – referenced. I make no excuses (and I should declare previous form*).
Warning two: many of the examples I’m going to be citing are to do with gender discrimination and imbalances. These are areas that I know the most about, but I’m very aware of other areas of privilege and discrimination, and I’d specifically call out LGBTQ, ethnic minority, age, disability and non-neurotypical discrimination. I’m very happy to hear (privately or in comments) from people with expertise in other areas.
You’ve probably read the leaked internal document (a “manifesto”) from a Google staffer talking challenging affirmative action to try to address diversity, and complaining about a liberal/left-leaning monoculture at the company. If you haven’t, you should: take the time now. It’s well-written, with some interesting points, but I have some major problems with it that I think it’s worth addressing. (There’s a very good rebuttal of certain aspects available from an ex-Google staffer.) If you’re interested in where I’m coming from on this issue, please feel free to read my earlier post: Diversity in IT security: not just a canine issue**.
There are two issues that concern me specifically:
- no obvious attempt to acknowledge the existence of privilege and power imbalances;
- the attempt to advance the gender essentialism argument by alleging an overly leftist bias in the social sciences.
I’m not sure that these approaches are intentional or unconscious, but they’re both insidious, and if ignored, allow more weight to be given to the broader arguments put forward than I believe they merit. I’m not planning to address those broader issues: there are other people doing a good job of that (see the rebuttal I referenced above, for instance).
Before I go any further, I’d like to record that I know very little about Google, its employment practices or its corporate culture: pretty much everything I know has been gleaned from what I’ve read online***. I’m not, therefore, going to try to condone or condemn any particular practices. It may well be that some of the criticisms levelled in the article/letter are entirely fair: I just don’t know. What I’m interested in doing here is addressing those areas which seem to me not to be entirely open or fair.
Privilege and power imbalances
One of the recurring arguments against affirmative action from majority-represented groups is that it’s unfair that the under-represented group has comparatively special treatment. “Why is there no march for heterosexual pride?” “Why are there no men-only colleges in the UK?” The generally accepted argument is that until there is equality in the particular sphere in which a group is campaigning, then the power imbalance and privilege afforded to the majority-represented group means that there may be a need for action to help for members the under-represented group to achieve parity. That doesn’t mean that members of that group are necessarily unable to reach positions of power and influence within that sphere, just that, on average, the effort required will be greater than that for those in the majority-privileged group.
What does all of the above mean for women in tech, for example? That it’s generally harder for women to succeed than it is for men. Not always. But on average. So if we want to make it easier for women (in this example) to succeed in tech, we need to find ways to help.
The author of the Google piece doesn’t really address this issue. He (and I’m just assuming it’s a man who wrote it) suggests that women (who seem to be the key demographic with whom he’s concerned) don’t need to be better represented in all parts of Google, and therefore affirmative action is inappropriate. I’d say that even if the first part of that thesis is true (and I’m not sure it is: see below), then affirmative action may still be required for those who do.
The impact of “leftist bias”
Many of the arguments presented in the manifesto are predicated on the following thesis:
- the corporate culture at Google**** are generally leftist-leaning
- many social sciences are heavily populated by leftist-leaning theorists
- these social scientists don’t accept the theory of gender essentialism (that women and men are suited to different roles)
- THEREFORE corporate culture is overly inclined to reject gender essentialism
- HENCE if a truly diverse culture is to be encouraged within corporate culture, leftist theories such as gender essentialism should be rejected.
There are several flaws here, one of which is that diversity means accepting views which are anti-diverse. It’s a reflection of a similar right-leaning fallacy that in order to show true tolerance, the views of intolerant people should be afforded the same privilege of those who are aiming for greater tolerance.*****
Another flaw is the argument that just because a set of theories is espoused by a political movement to which one doesn’t subscribe that it’s therefore suspect.
As I’ve noted above, I’m far from happy with much of the so-called manifesto from what I’m assuming is a male Google staffer. This post hasn’t been an attempt to address all of the arguments, but to attack a couple of the underlying arguments, without which I believe the general thread of the document is extremely weak. As always, I welcome responses either in comments or privately.
*my degree is in English Literature and Theology. Yeah, I know.
**it’s the only post on which I’ve had some pretty negative comments, which appeared on the reddit board from which I linked it.
***and is probably therefore just as far off the mark as anything else that you or I read online.
****and many other tech firms, I’d suggest.
*****an appeal is sometimes made to the left’s perceived poster child of postmodernism: “but you say that all views are equally valid”. That’s not what postmodern (deconstructionist, post-structuralist) theory actually says. I’d characterise it more as:
- all views are worthy of consideration;
- BUT we should treat with suspicion those views held by those which privilege, or which privilege those with power.