In America, we often idolize the individual. The ideal of success is the “self-made man,” who, through his hard work and talents, pulls himself up by the bootstraps. My use of gendered language there is intentional. However, in practice, careers are usually anything but—teams work together to produce something greater and better than any one individual could produce. This is especially true in software, where coordination and communication are crucial to produce a product that is reliable, consistent, and maintainable. An utter failure to understand this is the core fallacy of the Google Manifesto.

When discussing the subject of diversity, whether in the context of recent events or not, often the focus goes back to the individual: “Shouldn’t you just hire the best person for the job?” The innuendo usually devolves into the notion that the whole process is discriminatory towards quality talent. However, research on the subject suggests that diverse teams lead to better outcomes, both along racial and gendered lines.

The reasons are straightforward. Diversity in talent leads to a greater diversity of ideas as well as criticisms of those ideas. So often the anti-diversity crowd frames the initiatives as a way to silence people and staunch discussion. In practice, the reverse happens: by having the diversity there, a far greater depth of discussion is possible in the first place.

Of course, when certain groups dominate, they are not used to having their ideas challenged. Diversity brings in that challenge—that further need to justify the merits of an idea or approach. While anti-diversity advocates try to frame the discussion around the supposed mediocrity of diversity hires, the entire act, whether subconscious or otherwise, is born out of a fear that their own mediocrity (or fears of mediocrity induced by impostor syndrome) might be elucidated.

The ways we judge merit professionally are also imprecise. The fact that someone has worked prestigious jobs in the past or went to a prestigious school does not necessarily mean that they are a “better” employee than someone who has not. The anti-diversity crowd often clings to these metrics of value and sees encroachment on them as proof of their fallacious arguments that diversity is a blind goal. However it is often by virtue of birth alone that a lot of these more straightforward pathways to success are even possible.

Those pathways themselves seem to be a significant source of the anti-diversity angst. Working at Google comes with prestige. When someone had to overcome even more to work there or to attain whatever significant goal, it is easy to feel as if that lessens the worth of your own success. However, it comes from a privileged fixation on the praise without an empathetic appreciation for the pain that preceded it. This is why so often “diversity hire” is almost used as if it were a slur—it’s a way to undercut the successes of others because they make you feel insecure about your own.

The sort of people who would back the Google Manifesto are nothing more than the adult equivalent of children who knock over someone else’s block tower out of jealousy. Rather than focusing on honing their talents and making sure that they can compete at their best with the people they feel are gunning for their jobs, they viciously attack others. The best individual talent in the world is worthless if they are the type of person to constantly undermine and devalue the work of their colleagues.

The best thing you can do is keep learning and challenging yourself—something that happens more readily in a diverse environment. This extends far beyond how many programming languages you know or how advanced an algorithm you can implement. Learn to be more emotionally aware. Learn how to more effectively communicate. Learn how to see someone’s success through more than a lens of jealousy. This growth and introspection supports not only the best outcome for you but also your company, this industry, and humanity.

