Back To Career News

The Real Reason Why the ‘Anti-Diversity Manifesto’ Googler Is Wrong Will Change How You Think About Inclusion

Topics: Current Events
Anti-Diversity Manifesto

This weekend, Motherboard reported on an anti-diversity manifesto written by a software engineer at Google and distributed internally at the company. The 10-page document, which you can read in full at Gizmodo, took aim at Google’s diversity and inclusion programs, which the anonymous author claims are discriminatory and ineffective.

He posited another explanation for the lack of women in tech: biologically based gender differences. (In short, according to him: women like people and cooperating; men like things and status.)

“We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes.

The anonymous author claims to have received support from some of his coworkers — “Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues” — which I don’t doubt. In any forum or comment section attached to a discussion of discrimination, diversity and inclusion issues, you’ll find plenty of arguments about the non-existence of the pay gap.

The problem, of course, is that the data tell a different story.

The Gender Pay Gap Is Real, and Women Don’t ‘Choose’ to Perpetuate It

“Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons,” he writes. “For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men.”

This is untrue. PayScale’s report, Inside the Gender Pay Gap, offers two views of pay data: uncontrolled and controlled. The uncontrolled data show a gap of 24 percent — meaning that when we compare the earnings of all women to all men, regardless of job title, women earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by men.

But even when we control for factors like job title, job level, work experience, etc., men earn more than women. All other factors being equal, women earn 98 cents for every dollar earned by men. A 2 percent pay gap is still a gap.

Further, other studies have shown that:

  1. When women negotiate salary, they pay a social cost. Both men and women judge female negotiators more harshly than male ones.
  2. When women dominate a profession, pay declines. When men dominate a profession, pay increases.
  3. Although both men and women express the desire to balance career with family, women are more likely to suffer a pay penalty when they take time away from work to attend to domestic priorities.

Combine these facts with the lack of paid family leave in the U.S., and you have a situation in which even women who “choose” family over work can’t really be said to make a choice. But even for women who put work first, unconscious bias often impacts their pay and chances for promotion.

Successful Engineers Have ‘Female’ Traits

Even if we take his statements about gender as given — a big if — so-called female traits of empathy, cooperation, collaboration, etc. are not detrimental to engineering. In fact, they’re essential to creating a product that actually solves the user’s problems.

But don’t take my word for it — take a former Google engineer’s. At The Independent, Yonatan Zunger writes:

Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them?—?and since the whole purpose of the things we do is to fix problems in the outside world, problems involving people, that means that understanding people, and the ways in which they will interact with your system, is fundamental to every step of building a system.


And once you’ve understood the system, and worked out what has to be built, do you retreat to a cave and start writing code? If you’re a hobbyist, yes. If you’re a professional, especially one working on systems that can use terms like “planet-scale” and “carrier-class” without the slightest exaggeration, then you’ll quickly find that the large bulk of your job is about coordinating and cooperating with other groups.

(Take a few minutes and read the whole column. It’s worth it.)

Do You Know What You're Worth?

Why Promote Diversity? Because It’s Good for the Bottom Line

In her response memo to the staff, Google’s new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, said in part:

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.”

Google might also argue that it’s the smart thing to do. Ethnically diverse and gender-diverse companies outperform those with more homogeneous cultures, according to data from McKinsey. Other studies have shown that having women in leadership positions is associated with higher corporate earnings.

Bottom line, having a diverse workforce isn’t just good for individual workers. It’s good for companies, too.

Tell Us What You Think

Do you agree or disagree with the author of the original memo? We want to hear from you. Tell us your thoughts in the comments or join the conversation on Twitter.

Jen Hubley Luckwaldt
Read more from Jen

Leave a Reply

6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
AngierationalistobjctvstkashbmarydJohnathan Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sean Cook
Sean Cook

“A 2 percent pay gap is still a gap.”

a 2% difference is statistical random noise.


While I agree with your points, I feel you did not address the real point of the memo. It is about merit and the culture that oppresses anyone from questioning (or honestly discussing) their diversity initiatives. If someone is the most qualified and would do the best job, they deserve the position no matter what gender, age, or race they are. To quote his TLDR: “The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. ~Extreme:… Read more »


The memo, as it was written, NEVER SUGGESTED that women shouldn’t be engineers. If anything, that author made the argument that engineering should be changed to accommodate the way they approach things. It is unfortunate that he was fired for writing it because, from what I have read, everyone seems to have more in common than not. But silencing opposing views shuts off the ability to think critically and to question whether or not something we are doing is, in… Read more »


He wants people to be treated as people – not based on sex, color but as an individual…. What is most important about this case is that he wanted Google to start having an open and honest discussion about diversity. For example why should white men be prevented from joining a program or course?Would the same reasoning apply to exclude Asian men or women. As a woman I want to be treated equally. But the exclusion of others to some… Read more »


Imagine this debate taking place in the sports world. Why does no one ever complain of a lack of diversity in, say, basketball? Hmm…


One of the point of the memo is that : “In absence of environmental factors(social factors are included) the biological differences will manifest to the extreme”, and this is one of the justification why right now there are less men in tech(~20%) than in 1980(~30%). The same had happen in the Scandinavian countries, the most equilitarian societies in the world. And then some people say that in Malaysia the number of women in tech is around 50% and in other… Read more »

What Am I Worth?

What your skills are worth in the job market is constantly changing.