Thanks a ton for the response!

Just to be clear to anyone stumbling along this: I don't necessarily agree with what the author of the memo wrote, and I think he should have anticipated backlash and hurt feelings that resulted; however, I am interested in sussing out what he wrote and what he meant by what he wrote, as there seems to be quite a difference in interpretation among those who have read it. I raise these questions because I want to better understand the position of those who believe what he wrote was intended to be anti-diversity and/or supremacist, and I want to challenge my own comprehension and interpretation of what he wrote, and what it entails.

Also, I don't know how Google HR conducts their business, and I presume we're all expressing our views under the premise (that is, something taken to be true for the sake of argument, regardless of whether we otherwise believe it to be true or false) that his remarks regarding discriminatory practices reflect what he knows to be true of the hiring and retention policies, unless someone explicitly states that they reject the premise as absurd (which, I should note, has not yet been communicated here or elsewhere). This leaves for discussion whether his conclusion follows from his premise.

However, as stated earlier, I have no interest in arguing for or against the validity of his argument: I merely want to better understand what his argument is in the first place, and why we all seem to have come to a different understanding thereof.

> The first thing I'll say is that this is a emotional, human event. When you introduce emotion and feelings of identity into a conversation, event, etc., any inclination that reference mathematical equations is probably off the mark from the outset.

Definitely. That's mostly me trying to understand post hoc why I'm not perturbed by analogous situations which do apparently offend others, with the presumption that my brain meat subconsciously works through the logic in a similar way and subsequently dismisses any emotional reaction. My thinking was that I might learn something by seeing how the other side of the coin views their internal workings; not that I could ask people to change the way they feel a given a particular stimulus.

> You would assume that, until persons like the memo writer explicitly claim that the bar is lowered for you. Suddenly it starts feeling like tokenism. And what's more insidious is that when you prime people to believe their achievements were given and not earned, their performance suffers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

From my interpretation of what the author wrote (I quote: "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."), it was my impression that he was explicitly addressing discrimination against the majority in favor of the minorities in the context of interviewing and performance review. If anyone felt subject to tokenism, I would think that would be a direct result of the (supposed, explicit) discriminatory policy (paraphrasing from the memo: pass on candidates from the majority, and in groups of similarly underperforming individuals, keep the minorities while firing those from the majority), not those who speak out against it and the implications thereof. Similarly, if I ever came to work for a place that, as it would later be revealed, was headed by a closeted white racist, I would feel like my being hired there was cheapened by the fact that I had been given preference over my non-white peers, just because I was born into this world with white skin; I wouldn't attribute my upset to the journalist who broke the story and pointed out, rightfully so, that this (hypothetical) employer gave me and the rest of the all white staff an advantage.

This is corroborated by accounts told by friends and others online, wherein they felt patronized when they discovered that -- say, the conference that invited them, or the employer that hired them -- might have done so due to their policy of imposing a strict representation quota (which was discovered not from hearsay and/or conjecture by a third party, but communicated directly to them by the organizers/hiring manager); their experience was spoiled because they felt reduced to their gender or skin color, rather than being there because they're acknowledged and respected as experts in their field (which they are).

With this topic being such a volatile one, I feel like I need to clarify: discriminatory hiring (and retention) practices and offering a leg up to the disenfranchised (say, by providing training, financial aid and any other supportive resources) are two totally different things, and its my understanding that the author was talking about the former. As just one example of the latter, seeing services like free daycare at tech conferences is incredibly refreshing, and I think that's just one small step among many, many more that should be taken to make tech more accessible.

Does my interpretation of the memo differ from yours in this respect? And, assuming a policy that, in writing, explicitly sets forth to give preferential treatment to those of a particular gender or ethnic background, wouldn't it:

1) be a logical (though certainly upsetting) inference from the policy alone that "if my gender/ethnicity matches what they're seeking, I might not have been hired solely due to my (perceived and/or real) fitness for the role"

2) and if so, wouldn't that inference be a fault of the policy makers, and not the person pointing out it out?

I should note that all of this is taking as a premise -- solely for taking the memo at its word so we may discuss its content and the implications thereof -- that Google has such a policy (I don't personally have a belief either way as I haven't seen their policies, but I don't dismiss this possibility because I do know hiring managers at other companies that have been in the position of outright rejecting non-minorities to meet hard quotas, strictly in accordance with company policy). What I don't hear is anyone suggesting that they take exception to the claim that Google has such a policy, and that the author is instead trying to put forward a damaging inference that isn't grounded in the letter of their hiring practices; if we take this alternative view as a premise instead, I would completely understand: it would be a dick move to imply that anyone was hired by their employer beyond reasons of fitness when the employer has no (known, explicit) policy for doing so. If this is key to why people are upset, though, no one is communicating it. If one disagrees with an argument because they believe it takes a falsehood as a premise (i.e. Google's supposed hiring policy), they must explicitly say so, otherwise people (like myself) will be confused at how we came to a different conclusion solely based on the rules of inference, and no constructive exchange of views can occur.

> The author explicitly claimed the bar has been lowered for diversity candidates. That is tantamount to challenging fitness for their roles for diversity incumbents. [...]

This takes us back to my last point: if (and this is a big if!) the policy, in writing, literally, explicitly states "lower the bar for <such and such> candidates", should we then fault the memo author for pointing out the demeaning, demoralizing consequences that you subsequently list, or the people responsible for patronizingly lowering the bar with respect to hiring and retention (again, this is a separate issue from providing assistance to the disenfranchised, as the latter implies nothing about the ability of the recipient of such assistance)? Or have I somehow got that backward: that setting lower expectations of performance isn't in itself demeaning, while suggesting that's the case is demeaning?

Now, if you're suggesting that you believe that the author is ascribing something to Google's hiring policies that isn't explicitly there, in ink, then I completely agree: that would be a seriously shitty thing to suggest that people are there just because they've had the bar lowered for them. That would be a deplorable notion to spread around. To say the least, I would be appalled if I ever heard a coworker suggest "Oh, Dan? Yeah, he's just here because of the color of his skin. Susan? She's just here because she's a woman". I would straight up lose my shit.

I don't know if my confusion stems from a difference in the premises held, a difference in my understanding of what those premises entail, or perhaps a difference in what I thought the author was arguing as a conclusion. Whichever it may be, I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions on what I might have gotten wrong!

> I think it unfair to expect topics of identity - for one's self and the groups that they culturally identify with - to not elicit emotional reactions.

I suppose what was causing a disconnect for me is the fact that I don't feel like part of any group, have no desire to do so, and I don't care how people acknowledge my identity (so long as their actions don't impede my pursuits; otherwise, let them think and say what they may). I totally get that other people are different, though, and out of respect, I try my best to acknowledge and respect their identity in accordance with their desires.

Thanks again for your input! And sorry for the lengthy response. This stuff is subtle, and with it being an emotionally charged topic, I feel a certain level of care must be taken in fear of accidentally being taken the wrong way, and/or offending many people -- neither of which I want to have happen.