Google the hard stuff, too
Published in the Boulser Daily Camera, 8/15/17
Nineteen years ago, Google was just a couple of kids with a bag full of scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) tricks that they were using to help others navigate the rapidly growing sea of data on the internet. Today, I can learn how to string a ukulele with just a few keystrokes. In their spare time, they delivered free software that powers 85 percent of the world's smartphones and designed driverless cars.
On the road to revolutionizing our ability to access and use information, Google became a social warrior. Their corporate motto, "Don't be evil," has led to maybe the most worker/family-friendly corporate culture in the world and a sustained commitment to workplace diversity unsurpassed in America.
Knowing all of that, does anyone really want to make the case that the reason that less than a third of Google's workforce are women is an institutional sexist bias? Maybe that might sound better aimed at some other old boys' club like Ford or GM, but Google?
A funny thing happened last week on the way to a good civic debate about why women are so under-represented in America's lucrative STEM job market. That's when some geeky Googlite challenged Google's policies aimed at increasing women in their workforce. To be sure, he said things in ways that don't flow smoothly with today's currents of diversity theology, and those comments cost him his job.
But, the public debate that ensued has been almost entirely about his alleged free-speech right to make these arguments in a Google email blast. Hmm ... women are dramatically under-represented in the technology workforce and we choose to argue about how to talk about it in public.
Wouldn't our time be better spent trying to understand and change the underlying forces that are keeping women out of technology jobs?
Of course, that's a much harder topic to discuss, and probably uncomfortable in ways that our geeky Googlite now understands better than most. But, if you want to solve the problem of women in technology, you're not going to get anywhere debating the First Amendment.
I'll start by arguing that technology companies like Google have been bending over backwards to enlist more women into their workforces. Whether their motivation is to right the wrongs of past biases or because they believe that diverse talents and perspectives in a workforce are intrinsically valuable, technology companies have been doing their bit. If you think you're going to move the needle on women in the workforce by beating up the companies, you're looking for convenient and popular solutions, not ones that will work.
Plus, the evidence is compelling that the problem begins long before a woman enters the workforce when she chooses not to seek training in STEM skills. We can't fault technology companies for expecting job candidates to show up with STEM skills in hand. Fifty-seven percent of college graduates are women, yet STEM degrees are 72 percent male. So, if we want to get more women into technology jobs, we can expect that the greatest progress will be in finding ways to get more women trained in STEM. How?
I graduated from an all-male engineering class in 1975 and I've watched universities struggle to get more women into engineering programs ever since. Maybe our higher education system is doing something wrong, but, if so, it's not for lack of trying. Still, college is when you make these life decisions, so it's a great time to influence young women. Find a way.
The same could be said of K-12 education in America. We've been wringing misogyny out of that system for decades and the obvious biases in steering women into non-technical career paths are long gone. But, are girls' interests in math and science really being fully tended?
Are we moms and dads sending subliminal messages to our daughters encouraging them to go into "gender-appropriate" careers? Let's hope not.
The Googlite argued that women were genetically less equipped to thrive in a technology company, while acknowledging this was conjecture. True or not, some of the affective traits he cited — like less competitiveness and unwillingness to work endless hours — do not have to be part of many technology jobs. Furthermore, some of the other alleged female affective traits, like the ability to listen to others and negotiate, offer an upside to hiring women that companies will value. That was certainly my experience as a business owner here in Boulder.
Talking about diversity in the right way is just more words. If you care about women in technology, think harder about what needs to change and work to make it happen. Say it however you like.
Nineteen years ago, Google was just a couple of kids with a bag full of scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) tricks that they were using to help others navigate the rapidly growing sea of data on the internet. Today, I can learn how to string a ukulele with just a few keystrokes. In their spare time, they delivered free software that powers 85 percent of the world's smartphones and designed driverless cars.
On the road to revolutionizing our ability to access and use information, Google became a social warrior. Their corporate motto, "Don't be evil," has led to maybe the most worker/family-friendly corporate culture in the world and a sustained commitment to workplace diversity unsurpassed in America.
Knowing all of that, does anyone really want to make the case that the reason that less than a third of Google's workforce are women is an institutional sexist bias? Maybe that might sound better aimed at some other old boys' club like Ford or GM, but Google?
A funny thing happened last week on the way to a good civic debate about why women are so under-represented in America's lucrative STEM job market. That's when some geeky Googlite challenged Google's policies aimed at increasing women in their workforce. To be sure, he said things in ways that don't flow smoothly with today's currents of diversity theology, and those comments cost him his job.
But, the public debate that ensued has been almost entirely about his alleged free-speech right to make these arguments in a Google email blast. Hmm ... women are dramatically under-represented in the technology workforce and we choose to argue about how to talk about it in public.
Wouldn't our time be better spent trying to understand and change the underlying forces that are keeping women out of technology jobs?
Of course, that's a much harder topic to discuss, and probably uncomfortable in ways that our geeky Googlite now understands better than most. But, if you want to solve the problem of women in technology, you're not going to get anywhere debating the First Amendment.
I'll start by arguing that technology companies like Google have been bending over backwards to enlist more women into their workforces. Whether their motivation is to right the wrongs of past biases or because they believe that diverse talents and perspectives in a workforce are intrinsically valuable, technology companies have been doing their bit. If you think you're going to move the needle on women in the workforce by beating up the companies, you're looking for convenient and popular solutions, not ones that will work.
Plus, the evidence is compelling that the problem begins long before a woman enters the workforce when she chooses not to seek training in STEM skills. We can't fault technology companies for expecting job candidates to show up with STEM skills in hand. Fifty-seven percent of college graduates are women, yet STEM degrees are 72 percent male. So, if we want to get more women into technology jobs, we can expect that the greatest progress will be in finding ways to get more women trained in STEM. How?
I graduated from an all-male engineering class in 1975 and I've watched universities struggle to get more women into engineering programs ever since. Maybe our higher education system is doing something wrong, but, if so, it's not for lack of trying. Still, college is when you make these life decisions, so it's a great time to influence young women. Find a way.
The same could be said of K-12 education in America. We've been wringing misogyny out of that system for decades and the obvious biases in steering women into non-technical career paths are long gone. But, are girls' interests in math and science really being fully tended?
Are we moms and dads sending subliminal messages to our daughters encouraging them to go into "gender-appropriate" careers? Let's hope not.
The Googlite argued that women were genetically less equipped to thrive in a technology company, while acknowledging this was conjecture. True or not, some of the affective traits he cited — like less competitiveness and unwillingness to work endless hours — do not have to be part of many technology jobs. Furthermore, some of the other alleged female affective traits, like the ability to listen to others and negotiate, offer an upside to hiring women that companies will value. That was certainly my experience as a business owner here in Boulder.
Talking about diversity in the right way is just more words. If you care about women in technology, think harder about what needs to change and work to make it happen. Say it however you like.
