• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Google Sued by Ex-Recruiter Alleging Anti-White, Asian Bias

Source

The critics of Google’s effort to promote workforce diversity now include one of its own former recruiters, who claims in a lawsuit he was fired because he didn’t toe the line on rejecting white and Asian male job candidates.

The Alphabet Inc. unit had “irrefutable policies, memorialized in writing and consistently implemented in practice, of systematically discriminating in favor job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men,” according to the complaint filed in state court in Redwood City, California.

....Insanity
 

Blood Borne

Member
These days, diversity > merit.

This is blatant racism and sexism, but the left will never see it that way. Diversity(of skin) and equality is the goal, therefore, any methods used to achieve it is justified.
 

Ragnaroz

Member
These days, diversity > merit.

This is blatant racism and sexism, but the left will never see it that way. Diversity(of skin) and equality is the goal, therefore, any methods used to achieve it is justified.

This is a quote from the other forum.
One thing is positive discrimination in the sense of having two candidates that are equally qualified in all regards and then giving the underrepresented one the job.

Another thing is outright saying "no you're white or asian, go away".

TIL that there's this thing called positive discrimination... That's exactly what it is, racism.
 
Last edited:

Moneal

Member
This is a quote from the other forum.


TIL that there's this thing called positive discrimination... That's exactly what it is, racism.

But that isn't even positive discrimination. Positive discrimination or stereotyping is stuff like asians are smart or black people are better athletes. Its just reverse discrimination.
 

Spheyr

Banned
It's just discrimination, period. There's no reverse to it. Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who's being targeted. Just like there's no such thing as "reverse racism." It's racist whether you're racist against a black person, a white person, or any other person.

That said, I doubt much will happen to Google, as Alphabet, Inc., their parent company, is very near the top in lobbying donations (If you think the NRA has money in lobbying, you ought to see the real big dogs like Alphabet, Inc.)
 

Fanthomas

Neo Member
But that isn't even positive discrimination. Positive discrimination or stereotyping is stuff like asians are smart or black people are better athletes. Its just reverse discrimination.
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination, either you discriminate or you don't. If you reverse discrimination, you're doing the opposite i.e. being nice / treating everybody equal.
 

Moneal

Member
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination, either you discriminate or you don't. If you reverse discrimination, you're doing the opposite i.e. being nice / treating everybody equal.

Right. I am not saying it isn't discrimination. Just using a term that has been used for years to describe these types of happenings.
 

llien

Member
The following is quite evident:

Wilberg said that in 2016 and 2017, he and his fellow recruiters were told on several occasions to approve or dismiss job candidates based solely on whether they were women, black or Latino. In March 2017, a YouTube staffing manager emailed recruiters and told them, "Please continue with L3 [level three] candidates in process and only accept new L3 candidates that are from historically underrepresented groups." In another email, the same manager wrote, "We should only consider L3s from our underrepresented groups."

I wonder if there is anything beyond "he says", that he could show in court:

Wilberg also alleged that late last year, management deleted emails and other digital records of diversity requirements.

Doesn't sound like it.




This lawsuit is going to be huge and Google will have to settle for millions just to keep it quiet.
Which is, not even pocket money for Alphabet Inc.

A possible positive outcome out of the story could be HRs being more nuanced at achieving diversity targets.
 

Spheyr

Banned
A positive outcome would be getting rid of "diversity targets." The only things you should be concerned about while hiring are ability to do the job, work ethic, and whether someone will get along in your work environment with your team. You pick the one who balances best on those criteria.
 

TheMikado

Banned
The following is quite evident:

I wonder if there is anything beyond "he says", that he could show in court:

Doesn't sound like it.

Which is, not even pocket money for Alphabet Inc.

A possible positive outcome out of the story could be HRs being more nuanced at achieving diversity targets.

Oh no, this is just if individuals decide to just take the straight cash rather than fight in court to prove a point. If it's someone who can't be bought off then you've got a real court battle on your hands.
 

nightfly

Member
This is a quote from the other forum.


TIL that there's this thing called positive discrimination... That's exactly what it is, racism.

Heh, there's this gem:

I would absolutely support a no whites allowed hiring policy if my company was that systemically racist in its hiring (shown by the diversity of that company).

Maybe from a legal point of view that diversity is shown to provide better returns and productivity? Or that they did not effectively serve large portions of the market because of their lack of diversity (see racist algos...)? Google is definitely at a point where under-representation is hurting their profit.
Really scary people think this way. What's funny is it's not just white people, Asians as well.
 

TheContact

Member
just watched someone get banned on the other forum for repeating what black navy seal David Goggins said about black people's represenation in the Navy--that they have more bone density and therefore are less buoyant in water--therefore are less represented. User perma banned for being "racist"
what is happening to this society

(was related to this thread because google has a very small % of black and latino workers but it was suggested because there are just less black and latino workers in the tech workforce and why that would be the case)
 
Last edited:

Shamylov

Member
"In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.

Google’s overall workforce is 56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. On its report, Google groups the last two categories together under the heading “Other.”"

fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

This is from Google's 2017 report. How could they possibly not be discriminating in favor of white and Asian candidates? This lawsuit is nonsense because Google is trying to address the initial problem they have with hiring: they end up with mostly white and Asian male employees.

That hiring becomes an issue when it might only just appear to be disadvantageous to white men is really telling. Means that the plaintiffs believe the normal status is when whites dominate both the employee rolls and the hiring process at all times.
 

Moneal

Member
"In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.

Google’s overall workforce is 56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. On its report, Google groups the last two categories together under the heading “Other.”"

fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

This is from Google's 2017 report. How could they possibly not be discriminating in favor of white and Asian candidates? This lawsuit is nonsense because Google is trying to address the initial problem they have with hiring: they end up with mostly white and Asian male employees.

That hiring becomes an issue when it might only just appear to be disadvantageous to white men is really telling. Means that the plaintiffs believe the normal status is when whites dominate both the employee rolls and the hiring process at all times.

Its discrimination when the hiring process becomes disadvantageous for any racial group. Just because they hire more white and asian workers means nothing with this case.

If the recruiter was told to not move forward with candidates because they were white as the sole reason, that is discrimination based on race. If the recruiter was told to get out there and find more latino or black candidates that isn't discrimination. The plaintiffs in this case are saying its the former.
 

Ragnaroz

Member
"In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.

Google’s overall workforce is 56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. On its report, Google groups the last two categories together under the heading “Other.”"

fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

This is from Google's 2017 report. How could they possibly not be discriminating in favor of white and Asian candidates? This lawsuit is nonsense because Google is trying to address the initial problem they have with hiring: they end up with mostly white and Asian male employees.

That hiring becomes an issue when it might only just appear to be disadvantageous to white men is really telling. Means that the plaintiffs believe the normal status is when whites dominate both the employee rolls and the hiring process at all times.
The hiring becomes an issue when someone is hired based on their skin color or gender and not their qualifications. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
 

llien

Member
"In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.

Google’s overall workforce is 56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. On its report, Google groups the last two categories together under the heading “Other.”"

fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

This is from Google's 2017 report. How could they possibly not be discriminating in favor of white and Asian candidates?

If women represent 20% of CS students, which number would you expect as % of hires at google to declare it to be non-discriminating?

Where did the pro-Asian bias come from? (it's only 5.6% of the population) Share your thoughts please.

 
Last edited:

Zog

Banned
There's no such thing as reverse discrimination, either you discriminate or you don't. If you reverse discrimination, you're doing the opposite i.e. being nice / treating everybody equal.
The term is used to distinguish between the discrimination that everyone talks about and the discrimination everyone ignores.
 

Shamylov

Member
Its discrimination when the hiring process becomes disadvantageous for any racial group. Just because they hire more white and asian workers means nothing with this case.

If the recruiter was told to not move forward with candidates because they were white as the sole reason, that is discrimination based on race. If the recruiter was told to get out there and find more latino or black candidates that isn't discrimination. The plaintiffs in this case are saying its the former.

I don’t think that distinction makes much difference. The implicit understanding to “find me more Latinx or black candidates” is “don’t get me more white or Asian candidates and you’re doing it wrong if you do”. So both “get me more diverse people” and “get me less of the usual” are happening at the same time. I think what’s important is the context, which is that Google has so few minorities.

The hiring becomes an issue when someone is hired based on their skin color or gender and not their qualifications. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

Considering the fact that most employees are Asian and white then we have to assume the process was never colorblind. However, why is this a problem now that the focus is on more equal hiring? Why are we assuming hiring minorities doesn’t take into account merit?

If women represent 20% of CS students, which number would you expect as % of hires at google to declare it to be non-discriminating?

Where did the pro-Asian bias come from? (it's only 5.6% of the population) Share your thoughts please.


What percentages the employee demographics should have is a good discussion but I think it’s not relevant at this point considering the current percentages are nowhere near the point where we can have such a nuanced debate. Put another way, asking what’s the right balance of diversity feels like it’s not the right question when there’s a dearth of minorities right now.

Also, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with that photo. I’m not lying about anything.
 
You guys ever get tired of going "here's what the other site said"?

Also this is coming from the same dude who sent out a memo about complaining women in the work place and pushing against women being hired which is why he was fired in the first place. It's laughable that he now complains about discrimination.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
You guys ever get tired of going "here's what the other site said"?

Also this is coming from the same dude who sent out a memo about complaining women in the work place and pushing against women being hired which is why he was fired in the first place. It's laughable that he now complains about discrimination.

That... isn't at all what Damore's memo was about. Did you even read it?
 

Ridcully

Member
Oh, another one? That's three now. This guy, Damore, and the "activist".

We'll find out how true this all is if his or Damore's case proceeds to discovery. If management culture is anything like what's already been revealed of Google's internal message boards, they will have a rough time of it.
 

Dunki

Member
You guys ever get tired of going "here's what the other site said"?

Also this is coming from the same dude who sent out a memo about complaining women in the work place and pushing against women being hired which is why he was fired in the first place. It's laughable that he now complains about discrimination.
He never pushed against women. He aid that hirings based on gender is bad because men and women have biological other interests which can be scientifically be proven. Also his memo went around a couple of months because some social media outrage took place and google had or else they would get bad publicity.

This here is further going on that google (youtube) discriminates against white and asian people in hiring processes. In my country that is against the law and they would really suffer from it here.
 

Discourse

Member
There's no issue with stating proved facts no matter what they might be. However, non of this claims a properly supported. So please re elaborate the post with the pertinent evidence..
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.

You're not being oppressed when another group gains right that you've always had.
 

llien

Member
What percentages the employee demographics should have is a good discussion but I think it’s not relevant at this point considering the current percentages are nowhere near the point where we can have such a nuanced debate.

The key here is that you can't tie it directly to population demographics, but rather to college demographic in particular fields, which is next to never representative of the population demographics.

Do you agree that 21% of hires being women, when women represent 20% of students in respective fields does NOT show that google's hiring process is discriminating against women?


You guys ever get tired of going "here's what the other site said"?
Agree with you on this.

Also this is coming from the same dude who sent out a memo about complaining women in the work place ...
It's not Damore, it's a former recruiter with 9 years of recruitment behind his back suing this time.
I skipped the other part of your post which is actually apparently wrong for those who actually read the memo.

You're not being oppressed when another group gains right that you've always had.
How does it work with Asians in this case? Asians are 5.6% of US population, but 35% of google's hires.
 

Dunki

Member
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.

You're not being oppressed when another group gains right that you've always had.

A: I want actual stastics for this.

B. If you think that discriminating against people based on race or gender than you can not even complain here if these were true. Since stas for example showing that blacks are showing less houses based on statistics of black being not as wealthy (are poor) Why would I rent a house(apartment to someone who has a statistically higher chance of not being able to afford the place in the first place?

I am sorry but there is no postive discrimination. And equallity does not mean to let other people suffer based on their race or gender. Its fucking bullshit.[/qUoTE][/QUOTE]
 
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.

You're not being oppressed when another group gains right that you've always had.

If I am the most qualified applicant for a position and don't get hired because of the color of my skin, that's discrimination. I'm sorry if they've hired too many whites or Asians prior to this, but giving someone less qualified the position because of the color of their skin isn't equality.
 

Shamylov

Member
The key here is that you can't tie it directly to population demographics, but rather to college demographic in particular fields, which is next to never representative of the population demographics.

Do you agree that 21% of hires being women, when women represent 20% of students in respective fields does NOT show that google's hiring process is discriminating against women?

We already had a discussion about google increasing it’s hiring efforts and trying to increase interest of tech to girls back in the Damore thread, so it might be best not to drag that here. Let’s focus instead on the black and Latinx hires that the lawsuit is about.
 

BANGS

Banned
Please let's try to give the best of ourselves for these type of serious discussions, doing with contributions that improve the debate.

Shamylov

Member
If I am the most qualified applicant for a position and don't get hired because of the color of my skin, that's discrimination. I'm sorry if they've hired too many whites or Asians prior to this, but giving someone less qualified the position because of the color of their skin isn't equality.

Disproportionate amounts of white and Asian employees at Google, but trying to increase diversity means that they’re ignoring the most qualified people. The timing of these complaints is always suspect. Feels like the assumption is that when whites dominate it’s because that’s the natural (and most qualified) order of things, that hiring minorities upsets this.
 

Ridcully

Member
In California it is illegal to discriminate against job applicants on the basis of race, and if Google instructed him to do so (then fired him on refusal), then he is right to file suit. No number of sourceless infographics or pithy slogans about oppression can change that.
 

gradient

Resident Cheap Arse
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination.

Sorry, but it does seem that you're just trotting out a line rather than paying any attention to the topic.

There's nothing equal about dismissing job applicats purely based upon their generder or the colour of their skin which is what is being alleged here - that's discimination in the purest sense of the word. There is no equality in such a policy as you're completely foregoing consideration of the competence and suitability of the individual solely based upon sex/skin colour. It's wrong on any basis and would be opposed as such but you appear to be trying to dismiss it as being okay because it's against a particular group who you believe deserve it.

You're not being oppressed when another group gains right that you've always had.

Which right would that be? To deny someone fair consideration for a job based purely on skin colour or gender is not giving a right, it's taking one away. Purposely implementing a policy wherein a group is purposely denied opportunity based upon skin colour / gender is oppression.
 

Fanthomas

Neo Member
The term is used to distinguish between the discrimination that everyone talks about and the discrimination everyone ignores.
It doesn't make it any less stupid. Just call it what it is, pure discrimination. Don't let anti-white Marxists claim monopoly on words.
 

Discourse

Member
A: I want actual stastics for this.

B. If you think that discriminating against people based on race or gender than you can not even complain here if these were true. Since stas for example showing that blacks are showing less houses based on statistics of black being not as wealthy (are poor) Why would I rent a house(apartment to someone who has a statistically higher chance of not being able to afford the place in the first place?

I am sorry but there is no postive discrimination. And equallity does not mean to let other people suffer based on their race or gender. Its fucking bullshit.

When the American government sought to make mortgages more affordable back in the 1930s, thereby jumpstarting the epoch of suburban living, the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (and thereafter private banks) ranked neighborhoods all around the country, giving high marks to all-white neighborhoods and marking those with minorities in red as risky investments. Redlining, a form of Apartheid, which essentially barred blacks and other minorities from sharing in the American Dream and building wealth like their white counterparts, was officially outlawed in the ’60s, but the practice really never went away. In fact, during the Great Recession, banks routinely and purposely guided black home buyers toward subprime loans. A recent study demonstrated that people of color are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than whites. Black ownership is now at an all-time low (42%, compared to 72% for whites).
 

Discourse

Member
Sorry, but it does seem that you're just trotting out a line rather than paying any attention to the topic.

There's nothing equal about dismissing job applicats purely based upon their generder or the colour of their skin which is what is being alleged here - that's discimination in the purest sense of the word. There is no equality in such a policy as you're completely foregoing consideration of the competence and suitability of the individual solely based upon sex/skin colour. It's wrong on any basis and would be opposed as such but you appear to be trying to dismiss it as being okay because it's against a particular group who you believe deserve it.



Which right would that be? To deny someone fair consideration for a job based purely on skin colour or gender is not giving a right, it's taking one away. Purposely implementing a policy wherein a group is purposely denied opportunity based upon skin colour / gender is oppression.

The first rule of White Club is you do not talk about White Club...

According to the data, blacks with college degrees are twice as likely to be unemployed as all other graduates. That may be because, as one study found, job applicants with white-sounding names get called back about 50% more of the time than applicants with black-sounding names, even when they have identical resumes.
 

Dunki

Member
The first rule of White Club is you do not talk about White Club...

According to the data, blacks with college degrees are twice as likely to be unemployed as all other graduates. That may be because, as one study found, job applicants with white-sounding names get called back about 50% more of the time than applicants with black-sounding names, even when they have identical resumes.
Again you do not fight discrimination with discrimination......

As I said before any form of discrimination is bad but if you willingly accept this form of discrimination you should not talk about other cases (housing, this one) because it is absolute hypocrisy
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
"In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.

Google’s overall workforce is 56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. On its report, Google groups the last two categories together under the heading “Other.”"

fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

This is from Google's 2017 report. How could they possibly not be discriminating in favor of white and Asian candidates? This lawsuit is nonsense because Google is trying to address the initial problem they have with hiring: they end up with mostly white and Asian male employees.

That hiring becomes an issue when it might only just appear to be disadvantageous to white men is really telling. Means that the plaintiffs believe the normal status is when whites dominate both the employee rolls and the hiring process at all times.

If anything they are discriminating in favor of Asian candidates. Asians are the only over represented group on that list going by demographics.

Newsflash, a ~75% white (including the ridiculously labeled "Hispanic white" population - Italians, Slavs, Hungarians, Poles, and Greeks were considered not to be white as well just a few generations back) country is going to see a majority of employees being white.
 
Last edited:

Blood Borne

Member
"In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.

Google’s overall workforce is 56% White, 35% Asian, 4% two or more races, 4% Hispanic or Latinx, 2% Black and less than 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. On its report, Google groups the last two categories together under the heading “Other.”"

fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

This is from Google's 2017 report. How could they possibly not be discriminating in favor of white and Asian candidates? This lawsuit is nonsense because Google is trying to address the initial problem they have with hiring: they end up with mostly white and Asian male employees.

That hiring becomes an issue when it might only just appear to be disadvantageous to white men is really telling. Means that the plaintiffs believe the normal status is when whites dominate both the employee rolls and the hiring process at all times.
Seriously, I'm asking a genuine question.
80% of NBA players are black, I'd like to you to comment on this. Is NBA discriminating against other races?
 

Discourse

Member
Again you do not fight discrimination with discrimination......

As I said before any form of discrimination is bad but if you willingly accept this form of discrimination you should not talk about other cases (housing, this one) because it is absolute hypocrisy

No solution would be good enough for you because you don't offer a solution to the institutional bias against black people, you want things to remain as they are.
 

Discourse

Member
Seriously, I'm asking a genuine question.
80% of NBA players are black, I'd like to you to comment on this. Is NBA discriminating against other races?

There is no evidence to show that people of other races are being discriminated against in basketball or ice hockey or snowboarding. There is a mountain of evidence to prove racial bias against black people in job applications.
 

BANGS

Banned
No solution would be good enough for you because you don't offer a solution to the institutional bias against black people, you want things to remain as they are.
Gotta love how when you ask them a challenging question, they just call you a racist...
 

gradient

Resident Cheap Arse
The first rule of White Club is you do not talk about White Club...


Again, you're attempting to use irrelevant one liners and avoiding the issue of whether it is okay to discriminate against an individual based upon skin colour and/or gender. It's very disingenous and tbh that one just amounts to race baiting and thinly veiled bigotry.

According to the data, blacks with college degrees are twice as likely to be unemployed as all other graduates. That may be because, as one study found, job applicants with white-sounding names get called back about 50% more of the time than applicants with black-sounding names, even when they have identical resumes.

But that's not a POLICY. What we have here is a lawsuit based upon the allegation that there was an actual POLICY in place to dsicriminate specifically against a particular group based up on their skin colour / gender.

Your problem is you're trying to justify bigotry and discrimination against one group by posting what you believe are examples of discrimination and bigotry against another group but doing so only further supports that there is a case of discrimination here. Worse is highlights that you share the mindset held by many of those that have purposely discriminated against blacks/women etc. That being that you believe that an entire group of individuals somehow "deserve it" simply based upon their sex / colour of their skin.
 

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Googles work force is 91% white or Asian? Yeah, I’m not even going to bother to break out the worlds smallest violin for this alleged “discrimination”. If google feels they need a policy to combat institutionalized racism, good on them.
 

TheMikado

Banned
No solution would be good enough for you because you don't offer a solution to the institutional bias against black people, you want things to remain as they are.

1) I don't think that's true of everyone
2) There are means to work on inclusive measures without making making the hiring practices skewed.

Here is an example. My job actively went to recruit black candidates at HBCUs. The idea was that through sheer number of applicants they could help diversity as it would be more statistically likely to fill that position.
What was found was that there were less black applicants interested because many found the workplace lacked to diversity and either did not apply, if they did apply they noted the demographics and location during the interview and declined, or if hired left for other places of employment due to the lack of diversity.

Having gone through this process first hand at my company I can say 1) I considered not even applying because I knew they lacked diversity from the research I did before the applying 2) I considered not accepting the position because I was able to visually confirm the lack of diversity during the interview. 3) I still often consider leaving due to the consistent lack of diversity.

There is no magic or silver bullet to suddenly increasing workplace diversity and I would argue the best way would be flooding the applicant pool with qualified diverse applicants if your goal is diversity and recruitment.
 
Top Bottom