In case you don’t know the story yet, a software engineer at Google published an internal memo, really a manifesto, that was later leaked about diversity at Google’s Mountain View headquarters. In the memo, this employee posited that Google is doing too much to help women get engineering roles and promotions at the expense of more well-deserving men, and has created a culture that only accepts a liberal point of view on the subject. Google took immediate actions to squash most of the points raised in the memo, and promptly fired that employee.

I have some thoughts on the manifesto, Google’s response, and about tech culture in general, but first, a story that I promise will tie in later.

Strong girls do strong things

My two-year old daughter Liana is a little fireball; she has more energy than a bunny and a strong-willed personality, and drives her parents a little bit crazy. She loves building block towers, movies, princesses, “cooking” in her play kitchen, and “fighting” with pool noodles.

A couple of months ago we went to the playground, and Liana, amidst running around and playing, kept stopping to look at the ladder leading up to a big slide. She had seen an older kid get up there and reach the slide, and was clearly thinking of giving it a try. So I lead her over and placed her on the bottom rung, but she was scared and wanted to come down. So we went off and played elsewhere, but she kept coming back to look at the ladder. I squatted down, looked her in the eyes, and told her, “Liana, strong girls do strong things. You are a strong girl. Don’t be afraid, you can do it.” You know what happened? She made it all the way up the ladder. Now whenever she needs a little extra encouragement, I tell her “Strong girls do strong things.” It’s become an idea we share that I hope she’ll keep with her growing up.

I love Google

Rewinding a few years, I first fell in love with Google’s products (Search, Gmail) in high school, bought my first of many Android smartphones in college, and was absolutely thrilled when I got an offer to work at the company’s ad tech business in New York coming out of undergrad. From 2011 to 2013 I worked in a couple of different business roles, both internal and customer-facing, under four different managers. In those years I grew a lot as a person and an employee, and worked alongside some incredible people. My reasons for leaving Google were unrelated to company culture and had more to do with my own career ambitions.

On girls and boys

I hope my daughter grows up to be an engineer, and gets to work on products like Google’s. Tech talent in general is in high demand now, and will only increase as software continues to eat the world, and the internet expands across a greater swath of the global population. I’ll encourage her to pursue any area of employment that is her passion, and do my best to equip her as far as I’m able. I want to encourage her to do strong, smart, awesome things, show her what’s possible, and then let her pursue her dreams.

I’m also going to be real with her. Liana is not going to make it to the NFL, and it has nothing to do with social engineering, discrimination, or unconscious bias. She simply does not have the biology that’s necessary to get there. As soon as someone without a Y chromosome succeeds in the NFL you can come right back here and shove it in my face, but I’m betting against it. The correct gender distribution of current NFL players, as determined by skill, is 100% male, 0% female. That’s absolutely fine — the NFL Players Association doesn’t need to study the issue of female underrepresentation, or launch initiatives to seek gender balance. They should simply allow for the most skilled individuals to make it into the league, and if that leads to 100% male for the next 100 years, great.

Software engineering is not football. There’s no inherent trait that females are lacking from succeeding in that role. There are a ton of kick-ass software engineers out there who happen to be female. There’s a beautiful thing going on in Silicon Valley: programs encouraging women, minorities, and those of underprivileged backgrounds into typically male-dominated areas of employment, assuring them that they have a chance to go as far as their talents will take them. Once we accomplish that, we can allow people’s natural skills and interests to determine where they’ll end up, for their own and society’s benefit.

What I saw in James Damore’s memo

I haven’t heard anybody, including, James Damore, question whether we should allow women to go as far as their talent will take them in software engineering or other jobs in Silicon Valley.

James seemed to acknowledge a broad gender gap, and raised a valid question as to how much of that gap can be attributed to negative culture causes like social engineering, discrimination, and unconscious bias, vs natural, biological talent and preferences. Is the right balance between male and female engineers, in an ideal world with no primary or tangential effects of conscious and unconscious bias, truly 50/50? Is trying to make it 50/50 harmful to a company? Is Google even willing to ask those questions, or tolerate dissenting opinions on those topics? James stated multiple times that he doesn’t think that biological generalities can be applied directly to individuals, but that Google should have a discussion around all the factors that may be involved in the real, acknowledged lack of diversity in the technology sector.

Now, please listen, I think some aspects of James’ memo were immature, and others were stupid. I’m not going to run through them all here— there are multiple topics that should be unpacked in their own forum. However, a pretty good rule of thumb is to NEVER de-emphasize empathy. Empathy is a cure to so many problems we face not just in product development or business, but overall as a culture. I’m sick and tired of the “us vs. them” mentality in our political sphere that stems from a lack of empathy for each other.

But is it the right move to fire James for surfacing these questions, and voicing his own opinions?

Silicon Valley: check your petri dish

Most of my former coworkers at Google are politically liberal. I think there’s some natural inclination of a politically progressive mindset to also have more openness toward innovation in business and technology. Beyond that though, employers like Google do set up company programs that align with politically liberal ideals. Some of these things are obvious publicly, such as finding a big Google presence at pride parades, or supporting Planned Parenthood.

Other manifestations of Google’s progressive tilt are aimed inwardly. I’ve been through mandated diversity training, unconscious bias training, and other HR programs that are meant for both employees and hiring managers, and there are other programs I haven’t experienced because they’re only available to women or minorities. I think the motivation behind most of them, from women-only career groups to quotas for interviewing a certain amount of ethnic minorities before hiring, come from a genuine motivation, and are a systematic representation of the company reaching out, and reminding certain groups of employees that “you can do this”. However, it’s a valid question to ask “How far?” Will Google be satisfied by offering everyone a fair chance, giving a boost to groups who need one, and then seeing how it plays out? Or are they shooting for a preconceived notion of where the results should end up? Is this about equal opportunity, or equal results?

Besides looking at the type of things you encourage and attract from your company, you should also test your culture for what types of “diseases” you allow to grow. Think about it for your company or even your social group: what kind of jerks are tolerated? I think that, unfortunately, I’ve seen that at Google and similar Silicon Valley companies, liberal jerks may be chocked up to “sharing a valuable perspective”, while conservative jerks may be silenced and fired.

Let’s be clear, almost everyone I met and worked alongside at Google was smart, respectful, and could have an honest discussion, even about hard issues, as you earn your place in those conversations. But I do think it’s harder in general to feel safe speaking up with conservative viewpoints, and that is a culture issue worth noting.

Would I have fired James?

No.

At least, not for his screed. I would look to figure out his intention, and if it was to raise questions and a healthy discussion, then maybe it was worth listening to him. If in other dealings with coworkers he was disruptive, harassing people, or creating an unhealthy work environment, that’s another story. People should be fired for actions, not opinions.

If Google truly valued a culture of open discussion, this moment could have been seen as an opportunity, rather than a threat. But in silencing this employee, Google has firmly drawn the line on what is debatable, and what is sacred. Why not issue a statement that employees are allowed to have different viewpoints as long as they aren’t singling out coworkers, or creating a hostile work environment? Why not knock down the points themselves, rather than drive off the writer? Do you really think for a second that these viewpoints on gender diversity are James’ alone, or are there now hundreds of Google employees that hold similar views, that will be less likely to speak up now that they know they’ll be fired for it?

The truth is, sometimes Silicon Valley can act like an echo chamber. “There are no relevant biological differences between men and women” is a faith-based assertion, not science. Holding views like this, without allowing for debate, is called dogma. Ideas win when they are valid, tested, and proven. If it is proven that the ideal, composite ratio of tech employees based on skills and interests is 65% female, awesome! If it’s 65% male, fine. If it’s split perfectly 50/50, great.

I absolutely want more diversity in tech, especially gender diversity, and for nothing to infringe on the opportunities for my own daughter, whether that be hard discrimination or unconscious bias. I don’t think we’re there yet — it seems women are a minority in tech for more reasons than biology, and many of those insidious factors need to be weeded out; discrimination is unacceptable. But I won’t go as far to say that an employee can’t question the prevailing views of the company, voice wrong opinions, or ever offend someone else. Google should have thicker skin than this.

My commitment as a leader for my company

I’m a founder & CEO for an early-stage startup with just a few employees. But as we grow, here’s my commitment as a leader:

You can always bring your whole self to work, no matter your ethnicity, gender, orientation, political views, or religious beliefs. When you feel the need to voice an opinion, speak up. I want you to question our assumptions, conclusions, and logic when there is reason to do so. However, always speak up with respect for your customers, co-workers, and everyone else. I don’t expect or want homogeneity. I hope there are a lot of people that disagree with me about issues that should be debated, and that’s good. I reserve the right to discard your specific input if I think it’s wrong, distracting, or isn’t in the company’s best interest. But I won’t discard you for thinking differently. Diversity in thought is valuable, and decisions are decisions. These things co-exist in a healthy group. Our leadership team may support initiatives for some minority or disadvantaged groups that offer extra help and encouragement, playing our part to reach equilibrium in opportunity. However, we will not mandate quotas like 50/50 male/female representation. You can disagree with the methods and we’ll talk about it.

So, in that spirit, I’m leaving the comments open here if you agree with me, disagree, or have questions, and want to engage in healthy discussion. Personal attacks and trolls will be removed.

Tim Milazzo