Observing the Googler’s Manifesto from a Distance

This past week, an internal memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” made its way through Google and eventually into the hands of the media. Amidst intense diversity efforts at Google and across the tech industry, the author puts forth contrary ideas about gender and argues against diversity initiatives. The response from news outlets has been widespread outrage.

The controversy addresses the extremely contentious, political, and important topic of gender and to a lesser extent race. The science and research especially with gender is pretty inconclusive, so I’ll avoid the difficult discussion for now and instead focus on an uncovered topic. The incredibly blatant bigotry about this contentious topic on both sides of the arena.

Both sides of any argument, especially political, have their fair share of bigotry, the complete intolerance of differing opinions. Literally everyone falls prey to confirmation bias and its hundred children slyly luring you to false certainty in your beliefs. The bigotry of conservatives has been covered pretty extensively by mainstream media, so I’ll challenge the more beloved side, liberals in favor of diversity.

Try taking this perspective: Amidst an increased pressure for diversity, a young white Googler struggled with his beliefs surrounded by constant reminders actively supporting the opposite side and social stigma for opposition. The argument for diversity has become a moral issue with its support unmentioned, while the conclusions permeate policies and society. In spite of this adversity, the Googler gathered his thought recognizing “open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow” and acknowledged his manifesto “is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.”

In response to the Googler’s diversity manifesto, Yonatan Zunger wrote this article saying the “author does not appear to understand gender…engineering[or]the consequences of what he wrote.” And concluded “What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful.” Erica Baker, another former Google employee, said “[allowing this discussion] deems racism and sexism viable opinions, worthy of being freely exchanged, instead of the hatred and bigotry that they are”.

Obviously, these quotes are cherry-picked, but one must acknowledge the elements of bigotry in the response. Ms. Baker insinuates that his opinions are nonviable opinions unworthy of acknowledgment or engagement. That is literally the definition of bigotry and contradicts the open environment of freely exchanged ideas and equity liberals proclaim they are promoting.

Now, I’m not saying diversity programs are a problem or agreeing with the Googler’s diversity manifesto at all. Acknowledging liberals have problems and conservatives have some merit is not abandoning liberal ideals of equality and freedom. Someone can believe in these ideals while acknowledging elements of truth in the opposing argument and flaws in your own. It’s a fundamental problem that is standing in the way of a functioning democracy and ultimately the truth.

I just can’t stand how people ignore such blatant contradictions in their argumentation. You can’t call the other side bigoted if you similarly fail to consider other’s opinions. At the very least, use a different word. It’s bad form, unconvincing, and especially insults my sensibilities when people rally behind it. Be a little more critical of your master's sheeple god damn it!