The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google

I fail to understand the outrage but attribute that to the fact that few bothered to read the document before allowing themselves to be outraged by it - such is the shallow, feeling-fueled, hysteria-laden media cycle of today.<p>The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it&#x27;s not &quot;anti-diversity&quot;, but rather anti-discrimination - specifically &#x27;positive &#x27;discrimination which it discredits while presenting alternative policies that are more inclusive (according to the author) and reflective of inherent psychological differences.<p>Have I read it wrong? Somebody correct me if I missed the controversial bits.<p>Edit: OK, it comes off the rails a little at the &quot;Why we’re blind&quot; section but overall it&#x27;s food for thought (and no doubt a catharsis for many Right-leaning Googlers).<p>Since when is dialectics grounds for ostracism?

I notice a lot of misrepresentation of views on both sides, almost to the point of strawmanning. I think a charitable interpretation of the author&#x27;s best points can be summarized as follows:<p>- Racism &amp; sexism still exist, even at Google. This is bad. (On the bright side, the problem seems to be getting better over time.)<p>- It&#x27;s good (and good for business) to eliminate discrimination based on gender, race, sexual preference, etc.<p>- There are many benign reasons why a completely unbiased company can still have skewed demographics. One possible reason is that women &amp; men tend to differ in psychological makeup. (Unfortunately, it looks like links to some studies supporting this claim were removed from the post, along with some charts.)<p>- Therefore, Google should focus on eliminating bias &amp; discrimination, not on getting employee demographics to match the nation as a whole. In short: focus on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If sex-specific psychological differences exist, the only way to get equal outcomes would be to lower the hiring bar for women or raise the bar for men.<p>- If men &amp; women tend to be psychologically different, Google should be aware of that and change work practices to better accommodate women. For example: More pair programming, as (to use the language of the author) that allows more working with people rather than things. Though for competitive positions requiring long hours (usually management), such changes may not be possible.<p>These points seem to be put forth in good faith by a frustrated employee who lacks tact. Moreover, I don&#x27;t think these topics should lie outside the realm of debate. Either they&#x27;re not true, in which case they can be dismissed with counter-evidence. Or they are true, and Google is wasting tremendous resources trying to solve these problems in the wrong way.

It’s interesting that the author considers the conceptual framework of microaggressions spurious, while describing his negative experiences as a conservative Googler in terms of what a feminist might describe as microaggressions. To further undermine his own point, he asserts that several harms against conservatives have been caused by these microaggressions.<p>The difference between effective negative feedback and harassment&#x2F;microaggressions is the former encapsulates a desire for the person receiving the feedback to succeed. Or, in the feminist lexicon, empathy.

The intellectual contortion required to get from the premise to the conclusion is actually quite impressive.<p>&gt; On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:<p>&gt; They’re universal across human cultures<p>Except the gender ratio in science&#x2F;engineering is anything but universal across cultures. 70% of science&#x2F;engineering students in Iran are women: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;amyguttman&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;09&#x2F;set-to-take-over-tech-70-of-irans-science-and-engineering-students-are-women&#x2F;#44efca2e44de" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;amyguttman&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;09&#x2F;set-to-ta...</a>. Indeed, in many parts of the world that are not known for being &quot;liberal&quot; with regard to gender equality, women make up a significantly higher percentage of the scientific workforce than in the U.S.: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catalyst.org&#x2F;knowledge&#x2F;women-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.catalyst.org&#x2F;knowledge&#x2F;women-science-technology-e...</a> (44% in Latin America, 40% in Eastern Europe, 37% in the Arab states).<p>In the Soviet Union, a majority of engineers were women; after the fall that proportion went way down (from 60% to 40%): <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.asee.org&#x2F;public&#x2F;conferences&#x2F;20&#x2F;papers&#x2F;6985&#x2F;download" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.asee.org&#x2F;public&#x2F;conferences&#x2F;20&#x2F;papers&#x2F;6985&#x2F;downlo...</a>.<p>&gt; Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).<p>If this were true, shouldn&#x27;t women&#x27;s interest in CS be going up now that the web is all about feelings&#x2F;aesthetics&#x2F;social? Programming, in my view, is actually in the middle in the &quot;people versus things&quot; spectrum. It&#x27;s much more about people than, say, math. And of course, 45% of math majors are women, so I&#x27;m not sure how that fits into the author&#x27;s theory.<p>&gt; Women on average are more cooperative<p>Maybe, but does the degree of that effect explain the observed differences in representation? Tech is actually very cooperative. Compare, for example, litigation, which is all about confrontation and acrimony. But a third (and growing) of all litigators are women!

Oh dear, this seems like a bit of an unwise thing to have written. Whether or not it&#x27;s true, it&#x27;s something you&#x27;re Not Allowed to reason about, where &quot;Not Allowed&quot; is in the sense of PG&#x27;s <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;say.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;say.html</a> .

I agree that giving someone an unfair advantage because of their gender or race is a form of discrimination. Gender and race are just two of many factors that individuals might struggle with when it comes to their career and life.<p>If you&#x27;re an introvert, short, fat, nerdy-looking or you have a weak posture; there&#x27;s no support group to offset your shortcomings and all the insidious ways in which they will sabotage your career! It&#x27;s no coincidence that CEOs look like and talk like CEOs - We live in a superficial world and we are animals; there is no need to moralise things; it might just come across as hypocrisy.

I was talking to coworker who recently transferred from China to the US. He told me that China is will dominate the US because diversity is the greatest US weakness.<p>Kind of shocking because our company is about 1&#x2F;3 White, Indian and Chinese. But he doesn&#x27;t see that as diversity. I think that is the answer that he can&#x27;t see. Once groups accept each other as equals diversity becomes a non-issue. It does take work and there are lot of people who are not ready.<p>In addition, China is not one culture. It has many but maybe they are not as visible? I suspect secretly they are still very active behind closed doors.<p>In general, I feel that many immigrants have come from societies that are much more homogeneous. When they see US racial or gender problems some think that it&#x27;s a weakness. I think that these problems can (and will) be solved but I can understand that given their upbringing they see it as an unsolvable problem.<p>Unfortunately, I don&#x27;t think mandatory &quot;busting unconscious bias&quot; training will work for everyone. For some, their bias is just too deep. In time, I think many come around but some will never change. Unfortunately, they do hold a lot of power and when you report to one, you can find yourself setup to fail before you know it.<p>I&#x27;ve said this before: Women, please don&#x27;t put up with stuff and don&#x27;t give up. Please seek out a mentor who can help you become an executive in the company. The best way to fix this is to rise above it. It is not easy but please don&#x27;t give up.<p>And for the &quot;people against affirmative action&quot;, there are other ways to address your concerns. You can ask harvard to accept donations to increase class sizes. When some all-male colleges started accepting women, they doubled the class size. Please don&#x27;t make it a race war. Harvard really only cares about money (and reputation). Find out what they want in order to get what you want. You don&#x27;t have to take slots from people escaping a 300-year cycle of poverty. No it is not your fault, but it is your country (for better or for worse).

Can anybody explain to me why it is called &quot;anti-diversity&quot; or even &quot;sexist&quot;[1]? Never in the whole document the author argues against diversity.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.recode.net&#x2F;2017&#x2F;8&#x2F;5&#x2F;16102476&#x2F;google-diversity-vp-employee-memo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.recode.net&#x2F;2017&#x2F;8&#x2F;5&#x2F;16102476&#x2F;google-diversity-vp...</a>

Well, this is an issue that I would never have dared to tackle, myself, mainly because I do not have the political skill to do it safely. So, I offer a thank-you and a salute to the less inhibited guy who rose up and drew the first bullet. Now that I have had a chance to read this and observe the public reaction, my own views have developed further.<p>I was already of the opinion that the various -ism movements each represent a form of discrimination themselves, towards the inverse set of people that they represent. That starts to become a problem when there are people in the intersection of many inverse sets of -isms. This time, let&#x27;s not create another -ism; let&#x27;s not make &quot;counterminorityism&quot; just another thing to bash people over the head with.<p>Instead, it is time to design a continuous reintegration process for our network of distinctive identity groups, to ensure that they do not become incompatible over time. We need a social&#x2F;psychological framework for identifying and rectifying arbitrary imbalances of resources and social power, because that is a common theme in the root causes of all of the -isms. We need to acknowledge our culture&#x27;s memes [1] as an increasingly powerful force, worthy of serious study and possibly even regulation or open engineering; take a close look at the psychological manipulation of advertising, to see why this is needed.<p>This true unification, for lack of a more specific word, would likely be every bit as disruptive to current social and economic structures as the decline of slavery; most powerful organizations would prefer to play meaningless games with the -isms, perhaps even play one minority off of another [2] to prevent a unification. It is something that we will have to develop from the ground up, and develop over time, with collaboration from all fields and all identities. As you can see, at this point, my (our?) feelings and thoughts on the matter are still rough, unpolished, in a state of growth. We need to start seriously thinking about these things, lest we find ourselves on the losing side of a new -ism.<p>[1] Ideas, beliefs and themes that persist in our collective psyche, not animated gifs.<p>[2] We are all in a minority. If you aren&#x27;t, then that is your minority, and you get no love, no assistance, because of what you are. Welcome to the minorities.

I&#x27;m amazed that people are seriously upset by someone publishing that.<p>Somehow, most of the women I know don&#x27;t complain about harassment much. The one who does complain mostly gets it from her female boss. The one in SF tech says that Uber people tend to be jerks but the rest of the industry there isn&#x27;t bad. The one from France has more problems with age than with sex. The lawyer has had some annoyances, but finds it useful to be underestimated by the other side. The ocean lifeguard fought her way onto the L.A. County lifeguards (competitive with no special allowances for women, and few women make it; this is the real-world Baywatch) and is proud that some macho guys apologized to her.<p>This probably reflects that they&#x27;re all horse people. Once you&#x27;re used to dealing with somewhat pushy half-ton animals, microaggressions aren&#x27;t a big deal.

A 2011 Norwegian documentary series had an episode called &quot;The Gender Paradox&quot; that examined this very issue in depth with interviews with evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, psychologists and sociologists. It arrived at the conclusion that employment disparities increase in many professional fields due to natural divergent proclivities when socio-economic opportunities become equal for the sexes.<p>ON AVERAGE in Norway (one of the top 5 most equal countries), females prefer more people-oriented fields such as medicine and males will favor more systems-oriented fields such as engineering. Again, this is ON AVERAGE. There are major overlaps in many fields (e.g. arts and research sciences) - and in some fields there is virtually none (e.g. nursing vs sanitation). This is not controversial amongst scientists who do their best to suspend ideological or wishful thinking.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70</a>

He started out well, but about halfway through meandered into bullshit. Bad data, cherry picked data, incorrect incorrect understanding of the science, incorrect conclusions -- he even referenced the Cultural Marxism Conspiracy theory: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...</a><p>By the time we hit &quot;why we&#x27;re blind&quot; he&#x27;s gone fully off the rails.<p>I sympathize with him -- and even agree with several points, but he did himself a huge disservice here.

Google (and other tech employers) wants to discriminate in favor of hiring more female engineers, because teams with a little bit higher ratio of female engineers work better overall, even if individual female engineers are not the best individual contributors on their teams.<p>However, openly stating that Google wants to discriminate in favor of females - is illegal.<p>So Google uses double-speak and encourages hiring more females under &quot;affirmative action&quot; and &quot;diversity&quot; guidelines.<p>Not everyone understands double-speak, so there is disconnect between what Google is trying to do and opinions on the ground (&quot;why do we discriminate against males in favor of females?&quot;).<p>That disconnect results in internal popularity of &quot;Anti-Diversity&quot; papers like this.

TL;DR<p>Some guy not only speaks his mind, but has the balls to actually write his thoughts down.<p>The completely predictable response from &quot;forward thinking progressives&quot; follows.

I&#x27;m really wondering if those removed hyperlinks are pointing to sources for the stuff that&#x27;s stated as facts. I really miss any references of some of the claims he&#x27;s making and I find it hard to believe that the writer added none at all.

Good on him.<p>We should appreciate our differences and understand them rather than bury them under &quot;equality&quot;.<p>I hope some good comes of this.

We had this discussion years ago on my Harvard class list, back during the Larry Summers flap.<p>Obviously, no one would be&#x2F;could be against women choosing whatever field of study and work that fulfills them the most. (I say that with 6 daughters in mind!)<p>However, perhaps the lower representation of women in STEM is simply because they find other fields more interesting (law, medicine, what-have-you). STEM (at least the academic path) is a fairly single-minded grind, and that wouldn&#x27;t appeal to many people. Apparently it appeals to fewer women than men, and I don&#x27;t blame them! What&#x27;s so great about STEM, honestly? It&#x27;s just another field of human endeavor, with no particular reason to value it more highly than others. (Certainly, it&#x27;s clearly valued by the HN community, but we&#x27;re a tiny slice of the real world.)<p>(I did learn (sadly) from that discussion that women have been grossly discriminated against in certain scientific fields in academia--one of my classmates is the astronomy head at a midwestern university, and she had plenty of examples to share, getting there.)<p>Aside: Seems to me that the public outrage is at least partially just virtue-signaling.

I don&#x27;t really understand why this is getting so much attention. It&#x27;s just some guy&#x27;s opinion.

&gt; I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.<p>What are your opinions about this? Do you think biological differences leads to social differences (not only gender but race, height, etc)? Do our &quot;intelligences&quot; [1] differ based on our gender? [2]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Theory_of_multiple_intelligences" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Theory_of_multiple_intelligenc...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.elsevier.com&#x2F;connect&#x2F;can-brain-biology-explain-why-men-and-women-think-and-act-differently" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.elsevier.com&#x2F;connect&#x2F;can-brain-biology-explain-w...</a>

It is one thing to debated the veracity of a view, it is another to declare that that view should not be debated. For every point there is a counterpoint; every argument a counterargument. Arguing that the reasoning is flawed is not sufficient to ban it from discussion.

There&#x27;s already extensive discussion of this here, with the full text linked as the top comment:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14934581" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14934581</a>

My son was in the hospital recently and the head surgeon was a woman. Her primary assistant was a woman. The anesthesiologist and her assistant were women. There was a male nurse or two.<p>I&#x27;m pretty sure I wouldn&#x27;t have encountered this situation 25 years ago. I&#x27;m sure &quot;biological factors&quot; mean &quot;most women don&#x27;t go into medicine&quot; because of the years of hard work separated from their families, and they aren&#x27;t excited by the technical bits. Even if you wanted to hire women doctors, they don&#x27;t bother going to medical school.<p>I&#x27;m sure a thousand male doctors wrote a thousand letters just like this one as they saw their workplaces changing. And guess what, it happened anyway, and the state of medical care across the world is better than ever.<p>The field of software engineering is still crawling out of the stone age.

&gt; Microaggression training<p>wat? They now train people in microaggressions at work? Is the &quot;training&quot; mandatory?

He, and it is a &#x27;he&#x27; has missed the point entirely. It is not that we do not recognize that people are different, it is that we value that diversity and therefore endeavor to remove from our community such impediments to achieving a balanced social group. It is a classic dominant social group position that the incomers fit in rather than the group dynamic have to change to accommodate. It is surprising to have a Google thought-leader with such low-brow views. If you think you are in an echo-chamber or bubble perhaps it is simply because nobody agrees with you.

Well I&#x27;m fully on board with the notion that (workplace) diversity is overrated nonsense but this document could only be described as counter-productive at best. So things like this will only be used to justify the very thing he claims to be objecting to.

&quot;...(ignoring or being ashamed of its core business)...&quot;<p>This deserves its own &quot;manifesto&quot;.<p>In case of any misinterpretation, I interpret &quot;core business&quot; to mean the ever exciting business of selling online ads.

How is this not on the front page btw? It has almost 200 points an comments in 2 hours and it&#x27;s placed 37 at the moment. This seems like a failure of the HN ranking algorithm. @dang (or someone else) could you explain what&#x27;s up here?

I hear a lot of complaints about conservative ideas being shunned and bullied, but I disagree completely. Why haven&#x27;t I read a 10 page pro-diversity creed circulating at google?<p>I haven&#x27;t heard or read about progressive ideas in a long time, a long long time.<p>I&#x27;d be willing to bet a pro diversity creed would get much stronger bullying against it too.<p>Anyways, I&#x27;m tired of this issue, and people trying to pretend there&#x27;s an optimal truth. This is a human made field, if we wanted, we could change it. We just need to agree on what to optimize for, and there lies the problem, I don&#x27;t think we know or care what we ultimately optimize for. Too me, it seems we&#x27;re currently optimizing for the stock market. And until it&#x27;s clear that women make a big impact on that, people will be cautious to fray too far from what&#x27;s been tried and worked in the past.

I have one simple ask here. To those who agree with any of this article beyond &quot;we should be able to discuss this openly&quot;, please read this. People have all read this document, and if you agree with it, you value diversity of opinion. I&#x27;m not asking anyone to debate it - there&#x27;s plenty of that here which doesn&#x27;t seem to be going anywhere, as usual, which you can and should join into to try to reverse that. But read this first.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2017&#x2F;04&#x2F;why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women&#x2F;517788&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2017&#x2F;04&#x2F;why-is-...</a>

The author has a point. One suggestion to hire people without bias is to make the interview online for the most part and then conduct very few face to face interview with multiple rounds and getting an averaged feed back of the interviewees in text format and judge based upon it.

Is this being downmodded? (230 points, 3 hours ago, 298 comments, and already on page 4)

I’m very sad to see this happening to a great company like google. I first encountered the new culture at Google I&#x2F;O extended event I attended a few months ago. It disturbed me very deeply but I couldn’t figure out exactly why since I didn’t actually disagree with anything that the diversity proponents wanted to achieve. I’ve had some time to process it though, and here’s the deeper issue that I find so disturbing about what seems to be happening at google ...<p>How we habitually respond to “uncomfortable situations” in life matters a great deal. As individuals, it strongly influences our trajectory in life. In companies, the predominant tendency strongly influences the trajectory of the company.<p>One option is to habitually respond by “getting curious” and by “identifying that part of our predictive model of the world which is weak and seeking to understand the situation more deeply with the intent of strengthening our predictive model.” When we choose this option we tend to want to listen intently to those who believe differently than us, to seek to understand the deeper needs that are driving them, and to strive to pursue win-win (or “positive sum”) solutions to problems. The option tends to leads to a strengthening of “moonshot thinking” because our confidence in our ability to solve problems grows in direct proportion to the strength of our predictive model of the world.<p>Another option is to habitually respond by “being offended”, ”to sink into victimhood, powerlessness, learned helplessness”, “dividing into us vs them”, “initiating conflict”, “appealing to authority to protect us from the threat of them”. When we choose this option, we tend to disconnect from those who believe differently than us, to be unaware of the deeper needs that are driving their behavior, and to sink into pursuing win-loss (or zero sum) solutions to our problems. This option tends to lead to a strengthening of a downward spiral of “victimhood thinking” which decreases our confidence in our ability to solve difficult problems by skillful means.<p>edited: What I find so tragic about this is ... we have 7.5 billion minds in this world growing ever more connected to each other and to vast sums of knowledge by the internet. From a first principles perspective these minds represent more than enough resources to solve the most challenging problems that affect us all. If we would only fight each other with win-loss intent LESS and instead direct our aggression towards solving the difficult important problems that affect us all, we could solve these difficult problems so much more quickly. Why would we choose waste time fighting each other, when we could, for example, be building a piece of the puzzle that helps researchers cure the leukemia that my friend’s young son was just diagnosed with? Why would we make that choice?<p>Presumably this was the hope of the google founders who established the mission of “organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible.”?<p>I propose that &gt;the tendency to “get offended” and “seek win-loss” solutions to problems should be targeted for extermination. We are better than this. &gt; the tendency to “get curious” and find “win-win” solutions should to take its place.

I believe the gap is more cultural-made than sex-made. Basically there are the same differences of capabilities between two random males and between a random male and a random female.

The first ever computer programmers were women.Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, etc did pioneering work in the field. Women can absolutely be great programmers.

Wow, refreshing. The truth will set you free.

It seems that my receiving my SWE Lifetime Member pin about a week ago is a bit fortuitous.

Wow, I didn&#x27;t know I could cringe that much in such a short time.

This guy claims that women are more neurotic and talkative than men; and that they prefer thinking about aesthetics; and that women are more &quot;cooperative.&quot;<p>The subtext is that this is the reason we shouldn&#x27;t support women becoming software engineers.<p>Uggghhh.

As a former Googler: dude is _so_ getting fired and blacklisted. I&#x27;ve seen people driven out just for saying someone else looks good in a bathing suit. Not a direct or indirect report, mind you, a person completely outside the chain of command, at a team event in (IIRC) Hawaii. A small minority of people takes victim mentality and makes it near religious internal dogma. The rest just go along with it due to fat paychecks and the lack of desire to get fired for not being PC enough.

&gt; internal meme network<p>i really want to believe that at Google there is a massive distributed cluster dedicated solely to facilitating meme throughput

How is it sexual?

&quot;Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.&quot;<p>As an experiment, I&#x27;d like to see if HN upvotes or downvotes this statement from the memo.<p>I&#x27;m willing to put my karma score on the line to find out what HNers believe (this will help me decide if HN is a community worth investing further time in).

Yonatan Zunger, a (recently departed) distinguished engineer at Google, wrote a very good response: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@yonatanzunger&#x2F;so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@yonatanzunger&#x2F;so-about-this-googlers-man...</a>

Wow, this paper is a textbook example of begging the question. The author makes a number of completely unfounded generalizations about women and men, then goes on to use those as a basis for protesting against Google&#x27;s corporate diversity programs.<p>I wonder if the author would like to keep walking out on his very weak limb, and claim that African-Americans are under-represented in tech because of their genetic characteristics.

Also ridiculously racist. Really!<p>Amidst his rambling &quot;evolutionary psychology&quot; argument concerning the gender gap he also protests racial diversity programs.[1] And his explanation for that? Are black people also bad at programming because of evolution? It&#x27;s buried here:<p>&quot;Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., <i>IQ</i> and sex differences).&quot; (emphasis mine)<p>So non-whites are doing worse in engineering because they&#x27;re dumber, according to science. Seriously, does dressing these views up in pseudo-academic prose make them any less racist?<p>[1] &quot;Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race&quot;