Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"We’ve always been reluctant to publish numbers about the diversity of our workforce at Google. We now realize we were wrong, and that it’s time to be candid about the issues. Put simply, Google is not where we want to be when it comes to diversity, and it’s hard to address these kinds of challenges if you’re not prepared to discuss them openly, and with the facts. So, here are our numbers:"
Color me stunned at the incredibly small 2% black employment figure from a corporation that has always supported liberals and liberal politics. At a minimum, if Google is not racist (and/or sexist), something very hypocritical is afoot here, because they have always alleged that they support diversity.
A few things. First it's likely more due to demographics:
Black people are 12 percent of the U.S. population and 11 percent of all students beyond high school. In 2009, they received just 7 percent of all STEM bachelor's degrees, 4 percent of master's degrees, and 2 percent of PhDs, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
To work at Google, you are going up against countless other candidates who have at least a master's degree and since we know only 4% of advanced STEM degrees are held by Blacks, that is a serious set back that must be overcome first.
To instantly leap to the conclusion that there is a concerted effort to not hire Blacks or any other groups specifically because of their race, just doesn't jive with my 15+years of experience with Silicon Valley companies. I consulted for Google even before they went public and as a person of color(not Asian or Indian Asian) and in the time I was there, I didnt sense that I was treated differently at all because of my race.
Furthermore, today I work at a venture capital firm in Palo Alto and I have stacks of proposals from brilliant PhDs(of all colors) from all over the world that are rejected because I don't think their ideas are going to equate to a sufficient profit for us.
Ultimately the only color that matters is the color of money-green.
I'm a liberal and I don't think Google is in the wrong in this situation. Please don't generalize. There are rational liberals just like there are rational conservatives.
To be fair, I believe the reason there is quite the hubub over this with Google is that they have shown to be VERY left leaning and the left is on the attack with cry's for "diversity" when in fact, "they" are no more diverse (all the way to the administration) than the folks they are screaming "racist!" at.
It's the double standard that is drawing the attention on them. (and others)
No, it doesn't worry me at all. Blacks and Hispanics will increase their representation in certain talent pools when they obtain the education and skill sets required for those positions.
It is widely known that Google desires and makes every effort to hire the absolute best of breed; i.e, the cream of the crop. So with Google, it's not just a matter of having a certain degree or a certain skill. Rather, with Google, it's a matter of being perceived to be incredibly proficient in that skill.
Situations almost assuredly exist where African Americans or Hispanics have graduated with a degree in science of math or engineering but failed to receive a high ranking in their graduating class; e.g., students who did not graduate in the top 10% percent of their class or perhaps even the top 30% or 50% or 60%.
If you claim to support diversity, as Google has long claimed, why would you then not cut some slack for the minority groups you claim to support?
To work at Google, you are going up against countless other candidates who have at least a master's degree and since we know only 4% of advanced STEM degrees are held by Blacks, that is a serious set back that must be overcome first.
To instantly leap to the conclusion that there is a concerted effort to not hire Blacks or any other groups specifically because of their race, just doesn't jive with my 15+years of experience with Silicon Valley companies. I consulted for Google even before they went public and as a person of color(not Asian or Indian Asian) and in the time I was there, I didnt sense that I was treated differently at all because of my race.
Furthermore, today I work at a venture capital firm in Palo Alto and I have stacks of proposals from brilliant PhDs(of all colors) from all over the world that are rejected because I don't think their ideas are going to equate to a sufficient profit for us.
Ultimately the only color that matters is the color of money-green.
If the only thing that matters is, as you put it, is the "color of money", it does not makes sense (at least to me) for a company to claim they support diversity. Which we all understand is meant to encompass looking at colors that are other than the color of money.
Moreover, when a company is incredibly profitable and also claims to support diversity, as Google has always claimed, should they not look beyond profit optimization, as might be necessary, to support their diversity pledge?
Claiming under representation is stupid, unless you have numbers that represent the number of highly qualified candidates coming from each race. Google can not simply hire randomly from the population. They require a very specific education.
You know strip clubs disproportionately hire female dancers? It's sad, but most of the men there don't want a **** swung in their face.
Morale of the story: You have to hire someone that can provide what the customer wants. If they are not hiring minorities that fit into the role of "can provide what the customer wants", then there is discrimination. Otherwise, there is not.
If the only thing that matters is, as you put it, is the "color of money", it does not makes sense (at least to me) for a company to claim they support diversity. Which we all understand is meant to encompass looking at colors that are other than the color of money.
Moreover, when a company is incredibly profitable and also claims to support diversity, as Google has always claimed, should they not look beyond profit optimization, as might be necessary, to support their diversity pledge?
Right, but part of the reason that Google is extremely profitable is that they hire only the top students in the fields that pertain to their company, usually from the top schools.
Quote:
Black people are 12 percent of the U.S. population and 11 percent of all students beyond high school. In 2009, they received just 7 percent of all STEM bachelor's degrees, 4 percent of master's degrees, and 2 percent of PhDs, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
So they are technically only going to seek out diversity as much as they possibly can WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC HIRING POOL THEY DRAW TALENT FROM.
And that makes total sense. If there are 100 highly qualified candidates applying for 1 job and only 4 are Black, whose fault is that?
Right, but part of the reason that Google is extremely profitable is that they hire only the top students in the fields that pertain to their company, usually from the top schools.
So they are technically only going to seek out diversity as much as they possibly can WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC HIRING POOL THEY DRAW TALENT FROM.
And that makes total sense. If there are 100 highly qualified candidates applying for 1 job and only 4 are Black, whose fault is that?
Not Google's.
I've not criticized Google for wanting to hire only the best or attempting to do so. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, it is entirely maze bright to attempt to do so.
However, Google has forever claimed to support diversity while hiding its numbers all the while; i.e., until Jesse Jackson and his extortion brigade (my personal opinion) obviously convinced them -- threats can work -- to release its numbers. And the numbers point to a situation where Google was claiming one thing but doing something else.
At a minimum, I look at this situation as blatant hypocrisy. But I would not have a problem with a person who thought it was both duplicitous and hypocritical.
Moreover, there is nothing stopping Google from adding other universities to there favored sources list, such as Howard University perhaps.
Or maybe Google has never thought of this. After all, their expertise is in but STEM disciplines. Right?
Or maybe, they did not want to expand their university sourcing list, because they did not understand that they could probably improve their diversity numbers if they did so. But just maybe, they did understand that but still did not want to do it, because of people in power who prefer to hire certain groups and not others. Though some might look at that as bigotry, it could be but preference.
I've not criticized Google for wanting to hire only the best or attempting to do so. Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, it is entirely maze bright to attempt to do so.
However, Google has forever claimed to support diversity while hiding its numbers all the while; i.e., until Jesse Jackson and his extortion brigade (my personal opinion) obviously convinced them -- threats can work -- to release its numbers. And the numbers point to a situation where Google was claiming one thing but doing something else.
At a minimum, I look at this situation as blatant hypocrisy. But I would not have a problem with a person who thought it was both duplicitous and hypocritical.
Moreover, there is nothing stopping Google from adding other universities to there favored sources list, such as Howard University perhaps.
Or maybe Google has never thought of this. After all, their expertise is in but STEM disciplines. Right?
Or maybe, they did not want to expand their university sourcing list, because they did not understand that they could probably improve their diversity numbers if they did so. But just maybe, they did understand that but still did not want to do it, because of people in power who prefer to hire certain groups and not others. Though some might look at that as bigotry, it could be but preference.
Right?
Yes, and that is all juicy, unsubstantiated speculation that makes headlines. Trust me, Google will not bend their hiring standards to appease perceived lack of fairness by a specific group.
At the end of the day, it's a matter of probability. Google need only point to the fact that only 4% of advanced STEM degrees are held by Blacks and that doesn't really show a lack of commitment to Blacks by Google as much as it is a mandate on the lack of interest of Blacks in those fields. I think it's due to school systems not focusing enough time and energy in math and science when kids are young.
Racism doesn't have much to do with hiring any particular people BUT I will say Google took an entire newsgroup which talks about black people and deleted, erased, removed them from the newsgroups they carry! That COULD be a so called "RACIST" move.
Yes, and that is all juicy, unsubstantiated speculation that makes headlines. Trust me, Google will not bend their hiring standards to appease perceived lack of fairness by a specific group.
At the end of the day, it's a matter of probability. Google need only point to the fact that only 4% of advanced STEM degrees are held by Blacks and that doesn't really show a lack of commitment to Blacks by Google as much as it is a mandate on the lack of interest of Blacks in those fields. I think it's due to school systems not focusing enough time and energy in math and science when kids are young.
It will be interesting to see if Google improves their diversity numbers. And if they do, it will be interesting to see how they did it.
I'll tell you what I would like to see Google do, which is what I think they should have done all along; i,e., tell the world that they do not support this diversity for the sake of diversity nonsense. And tell their elite liberal counterparts that head the Democratic party to scratch that nonsense from the Liberal's platform. Then tell the world that they hire based on merit and solely merit. Oh, and that the powers to be in Google apologize for having been massive hypocrites all along.
Finally, when Jesse Jackson makes his next appearance in silicon valley, Google should tell him to go scratch a rubber duck and then give him a rubber duck with words on its side that read: From Cypress Semiconductors to Jesse, for your enjoyment, T.J. Rodgers.
Now, as regards your alleged "mandate on the lack of interest of Blacks in those fields". Who issued this alleged "mandate" to blacks that allegedly told them not to be interested in STEM disciplines?.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
