As a Google employee, the reasons I hear is that we'd like the diversity of our workforce to more accurately reflect the diversity of our users, so we can serve them better.
Does this mean we should empose[sic] quotas to get Blacks out of the NFL and replace them with Whites
No to the quotas.
But yes, race in the NFL (and in many sports) is an issue that should be addressed. The old problem of the low proportion of black quarterbacks is slowly being addressed, and the Rooney Rule[1] has had some success with the underrepresentation of black coaches.
It sounds to me like you believe that some ethnic groups have intrinsic (genetic) advantages over others in some areas.
Like most things to do with race there is a tiny, tiny sliver of truth in this, but not enough to explain the outcomes.
sigh
Lets look at sports.
Sprints: The ACTN3 gene[1] is associated with the fast-twitch muscles, and is more prevalent in people of West African descent. Out of the last 7 Olympic 100m mens finals all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only 2 out of the top 500 100m race times are by people without African descent.
Case closed? No. The proportion of sprint wins by West Africans is much higher than the prevalence of the ACTN3 gene would explain, and other power sports (notably weight lifting) are dominated by other ethnic groups with a more average distribution of the gene.
Distance running: The Kalenjin tribe (mostly from Kenya) has dominated distance running since the late 1990s. Most of their competition has come from Ethiopian runners and the occasional North African (especially in the women's events)[2].
They do have a genetic advantage: they tend to be very skinny, with long legs and short torsos. But you can find these attributes in any population group. More surprising is that elite non-African runners performance has decreased over time: For example, of the top 10 Marathon times by British athletes only 1 (in 8th position) is since 2000, and 6 are pre 1990 (including the 2 fastest times).
This indicates something else is going on, that can't just be explained by genetics.
> Sprints: The ACTN3 gene[1] is associated with the fast-twitch muscles, and is more prevalent in people of West African descent. Out of the last 7 Olympic 100m mens finals all 56 finalists have been of West African descent. Only 2 out of the top 500 100m race times are by people without African descent.
> Case closed? No. The proportion of sprint wins by West Africans is much higher than the prevalence of the ACTN3 gene would explain, and other power sports (notably weight lifting) are dominated by other ethnic groups with a more average distribution of the gene.
It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting?
It's the only one I'm aware of that has been shown to have any statistically significant link with sprint performance. It's discovery is comparatively recent though (I think 2003?). It is extremely likely there are other genes that contribute too.
Sure, we know there are lots of things we don't know yet. But we do know generally in almost every case every ethnic group has individuals whose genetic makeup overlaps with those from other ethnic groups.
It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting?
My point is that there is a lot more involved in sprinting (and high-performance generally) than just genetics.
One of the best examples of this is the cross country skier Eero Mäntyranta[1]. His family carries a genetic mutation called Polycythemia[2] which means they produce a very high proportion of red blood cells (basically like the EPO doping Lance Armstrong did, but natural).
Juvonen described lab-testing samples of Eero’s bone marrow cells, which produce red blood cells. The plan was to add EPO to the cells and track the creation of red blood cells. A typical human’s bone marrow cells won’t start making blood cells in the lab until EPO is added. But Eero’s bone marrow cells began the process of creating red blood cells before Juvonen could even stimulate them with EPO. Whatever tiny speck of EPO that was already in the sample was enough to keep the red cell factories humming. Eero’s body was hypersensitive to even trifling traces of EPO.[3]
He was a very successful cross country skier (Olympics: 3 Gold, 2 Silver & 2 Bronze over 3 games), but he was still beatable, even with this unprecedented genetic advantage.
A quote from [3]:
This is why any sensible person, in response to the questions: “Is there a genetic test for performance? Is there a performance gene?”, can only ever answer “No, it’s too complex to reduce to a single gene, and tests cannot assess this level of complexity. Yet”.
Mäntyranta is about as close as it gets to that. However, despite that, I want to point out that even with this mutation, one which saw his hemoglobin levels increase by around 50% compared to the typical male, he still didn’t wipe the floor with everyone, every time. Yes, he dominated his events in unmatched fashion in 1964, but he still got beaten, and that single mutation did not confer invincibility, only advantage. That’s again an illustration that performance is multi-factorial, and it suggests that many other factors are responsible.
How is the low proportion of black quarterbacks a bigger problem than the ultra-low proportion of white non-quarterbacks?
It would be if there was any other indication of discrimination against whites than the numbers. In the case of coaches and quarterbacks there was.
When I wrote that I wasn't aware of any evidence showing discriminatory hiring practices affecting white players, but I have since found an allegation of one incident[1].
Given that, I'm changing my position[2]: Yes, the NFL should act on this. I'm not sure what an appropriate course of action is (given that quotas don't work well), though.
> It would be if there was any other indication of discrimination against whites than the numbers.
I agree with you that I don't think the NFL is discriminating against white players. They just want the best, period.
What I have issues with is when a company's racial makeup shakes out to be majority white (funny how that can happen when you draw from a pool that's majority white) and the first instinct is to say "this _must_ be because of bias."
a) White males are better at software engineering and that's why the majority of software engineers are white males (there is no scientific evidence to support this whatsoever).
b) There are socio-economic factors that lead more white males into software engineering than anyone else (there is ample scientific evidence to support this theory).
Clearly there is a bias at work somewhere. It's not necessarily a hiring problem, but rather one that starts further up the "supply chain" (if you will). We're trying to fix that.
It's worth reflecting on why the makeup of the NFL is as it is. One could for example imagine that it has something to do with what the opportunities for people with different backgrounds are. To be more blunt, if being football players is one of the ways that people with disadvantaged backgrounds who went to poor schools have of succeeding in life, then one could view the makeup of the NFL as a symptom of a problem.
You're equating making it to the NFL with success, which given the number of players who end up out of football within 2-5 years, with serious physical or mental damage, without a viable career path because they have been forced to neglect their education, and in many cases bankrupt, seems like a not very strong argument.
I live in the rural south. While I agree with what you're saying, you'd be hard pressed to convince most people here of that.
Professional football is by far the most respected profession here. Top of the food chain. Of course, most teenagers recognize they aren't going to make the high school team, let alone make it into the professional realm. If you do make the team, well, try as hard as you can. And of course, most people still don't make it, there's just not enough demand for pro football players. But it's still a huge thing that people aspire to. If you do make it, everyone is going to speak of you with awe. There's a couple guys who grew up near where I did and every single person who knew them or knew of them (anyone you meet will eventually bring them up in conversation) speaks of them with total reverence - they _made it_.
Unless your parents are wealthy and/or well-educated, most people don't have a "career" as such in mind - just jobs. Football stands out - especially since the perception is that the only other professional careers boil down to things like "doctor" or "lawyer" which (so the thinking goes) require highly exceptional intelligence beyond the ken of most people, and anyway, they aren't nearly as glorious or high-paying. So it's all about aspiration - and in some places, pro sports is at the top, even if you or I think it constitutes a terrible or unrealistic career choice.
Now, in my experience, that aspiration is strongly correlated not so much with race but with your family's educational history, professions, and income. "Rich" kids (parents with income > 60k) grow up in an environment where they really understand there are other opportunities out there. They're more likely not just to go to college, but grow up believing that college is an inevitability and part of life. A ton of kids never even get that far. I think that's the kind of kid he's talking about.
I agree with you that there are serious questions whether an NFL career is success or exploitation. However, one needs to consider a) whether the demographic that aspires to join the NFL thinks that way, and b) what the alternatives are.
A quota implies there are limited spots. There are not. Google will hire as many qualified people as it can. These initiatives are about getting more diverse candidates in the recruiting pipeline. We are not turning away any qualified white dudes!
Perhaps "quota" is the wrong term. Yes Google doesn't have a limit on how many people they can hire in total, but in the interest of diversity they are likely to _limit_ the number of "X" people they hire (where "X" is some over-represented ethnic group).
As has been stated already in this thread the pool of qualified candidates forces Google to hire fewer people than they would prefer and their efforts on diversity include efforts to expand the pool of qualified candidates. They don't need to limit (or reduce) hiring (or retention) of any group to achieve diversity.
The biggest diversity win for them would be expanded hiring in all groups, but greatest in those currently underrepresented.
Not in the way you arrogantly and incorrectly keep suggesting.
Google is not going to in any way limit the intake of qualified candidates. It is mission critical for us to hire as many talented people as possible. Most teams at the company really need more people.
You are aware that companies set hiring goals every year/quarter, right? I get that Google is "special" and printing money at the moment but typically companies don't have the luxury of saying "we have no limits! Hire as many people as you want!!!" Google will be no exception. Now -- when Google finally _does_ have to cope with the fact that they can't just increase the number of people they hire every year AND they want to tilt the ratio of X to Y, then what?
Fortunately we don't have to deal with that issue.
But it's nice of you to assume the worst of us in that hypothetical situation.
I would assume that when that happens we would raise the hiring bar. And by that time there would be more diverse candidates in the pipeline, so we would naturally get a more diverse spread of new hires.
I strongly doubt we would sacrifice our long held policy of "hiring the best" for the sake of diversity. It flies in the face of our corporate culture.
My understanding of Google's diversity efforts is that they are centered around a) encouraging candidates from more diverse backgrounds to apply to Google (many, particularly women, do not believe they are as good as their male counterparts for social reasons), and b) encouraging people from diverse backgrounds to get into computer science. I have been involved in both these efforts at Google. And, to be quite honest, only a sociopath would see a problem with these initiatives.
> I get that Google is "special" and printing money at the moment but typically companies don't have the luxury of saying "we have no limits! Hire as many people as you want!!!"
Yeah, but this is about Google, at the moment. Not about "typical companies" or "Google in some speculative future where they are money or task constrained, rather than employee-pool constrained".
You say that as if you believe Google will never have a hiring freeze. Are you really that naive to think Google will continue to expand indefinitely? They absolutely will hit a point when they can't just leave the number of new hires uncapped. That's where the rubber meets the road when it comes to corporate social engineering, though everyone seems to just hand-wave that away.
> You say that as if you believe Google will never have a hiring freeze.
No, I don't. The discussion is about Google's current state, and Google current plans to deal with diversity given that current state. A change in circumstances (and Google going from "hire every qualified person we can get our hands on" to "stop hiring anyone" would be a radical change in circumstances) would be an occasion for a different discussion.
> Are you really that naive to think Google will continue to expand indefinitely?
I think that Google's concerns about and options for approaching diversity would be different if Google was funding or task constrained rather than employee-pool- constrained, and that the proper focus of discussion is the real world that exists, not some speculative future that may or may not exist in the lifetime of anyone discussing it.
> They absolutely will hit a point when they can't just leave the number of new hires uncapped.
Its almost certain that sometime before the end of human civilization that that will happen for Google, but the time to discuss whether diversity should remain a concern and what steps are appropriate to address that concern in a funding-constrained firm will be appropriate with respect to Google when that occurs. However, it isn't the case now, so its just a distraction from the issue today.
Especially since I'm sure that -- as much as Google would hope to avoid that circumstance as long as possible -- Google would also prefer to acheive an acceptable demographic profile in its workforce before it becomes constrained in that way (and, insofar as there are business as well as humanitarian reasons for its diversity concerns, sees acheiving a good diversity profile as part of a strategy to continue growing in a way that does not result in them becoming resource- rather than employee-constrained.)
So you work at Google but you're having trouble grasping simple mathematics? OK then. Let's break it down:
X is an over-represented group of Googlers threatening their diversity. Let's say it's males.
Y is, let's say, women.
Z is the total number of current Googlers.
In this case, 0.7Z = X and 0.3Z = Y. (70% men, 30% women).
Still with me?
If Google were to continue hiring X at the current rate (i.e., 70% of all candidates hired), then the diversity of Z will not change with respect to X and Y.
Therefore, in order to achieve the desired balance, Y must be >> X, be that through hiring (i.e., hire more Y than X) or firing (fire more X than Y). Rinse and repeat for other over- and under-represented groups at Google. I'm not sure why this concept is lost on you.
Maybe you didn't read my earlier post where I said that Google will hire as many qualified people as it can. There is no upper limit. Nobody is excluded because of quotas or whatever.
If Google has 100 X's and 10 Y's and hires 10 X's and 1 Y every year, the ratio of X's to Y's stays the same. If Google increases the number of Y's they hire each year to 2, the ratio of X's to Y's decreases. Not sure what's so hard to comprehend about this.
Football is a monoculture - it doesn't matter what your race is when it comes to deciding whether to pass or rush. Services for the general public to use - from search to self-driven cars - does need to account for multicultural environments.
I think this is a very interesting response. If it's true, then their diversity goal will be reached when the makeup of Google workforce is representative of the world population (assuming world population correlates well with Google user population). Therefore, focusing on bringing more women in to tech is a very good goal since women may make up 50% of Google users. Secondary and third goals would be to hire more representatives from Asia and Africa
That's more of an ideal, not really an achievable goal. How does Google measure the diversity of its users? How does Google measure the quality of their service to each people group? Does this mean Google's ideal workforce would be a near 1:1 mapping of employees to the general user population?
As a Google employee, the reason I'd like to improve the diversity of my work place is so I can work with more than just a bunch of white dudes. I mean, white dudes are great and all, but I really value diversity of opinion and experience in my life.
If anything, you should be wanting to see less Asian faces overall (insanely, dramatically overrepresented, 30% of Googlers compared to 4.7% of Americans), and want to see more black faces and more white female faces.
Of all the places to force new perspective onto yourself the workplace just seems like an odd choice to me. If I want to experience different cultures a corporate office is probably the absolute worst place I can think of to do so.
Uhhh I don't want to "experience different cultures". People of other races and genders are not weird aliens that are going to challenge me. It's not like I'm asking to import some Ugandan field workers as colleagues. I just want to engage with more, different kinds of people from my own society. There are a lot of them out there.
I didn't mean "experience different cultures" in such a literal sense, but it's probably my own fault for wording it like I did.
Like you, I enjoy engaging with a lot of different sorts of people. I was mostly just commenting that I've found a lot more success doing so outside the workplace in my own personal life. Maybe it's the places I've worked? Hard to say.
